this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2025
202 points (98.1% liked)

politics

26418 readers
2388 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As the Trump-GOP scheme to gerrymander the midterms suddenly faces big new setbacks, a Democratic operative who’s leading in these fights explains why the battle isn’t over—and what must happen now.

A panel of judges just blocked the GOP gerrymander in Texas, which had added five seats. In Indiana, Republicans currently lack the votes to redraw their congressional map.

Trump is angry about all this. He lashed out at Indiana Republicans, threatening primaries and calling one opponent “weak” and “pathetic.”

So is the scheme dead? No. Several aspects of it still remain unresolved. The Texas seats are in doubt, but that’s being appealed, and Republicans have added four other seats. Meanwhile, Democrats are adding five in California and one in Utah.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tornavish@lemmy.cafe 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

lol, that video.

Trump would start by declaring a sweeping national emergency, framing it as a crisis that demands fast, centralized action. Then he’d invoke the Insurrection Act and send federal troops along with National Guard units into key areas around the country. (Half way there already!)

After that, he’d announce that the military is temporarily taking over certain functions, calling it a necessary form of “martial law.” The Court, already in his favor, would agree saying the executive has broad authority in emergencies, la la.

With that, federal agencies and military commanders would begin controlling local governments and police forces, asserting control over movement, infrastructure, public order, etc.

Congress might protest, but with the Court consistently siding with the president in this situation, the national and military administrators run things with very little pushback.

Wham, bam, thank you non-voter.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

And then it would all far apart. You're making the same mistake they do, which is thinking they can steamroll reality.

Listen to the people with actual military experience. It does not work that way.

[–] tornavish@lemmy.cafe 0 points 1 hour ago

Falling apart has nothing to do with making it happen. They can make it happen, but the following apart will not be because of military or civilian intervention in the form of a revolt or a coup. It will fall apart naturally because of incompetence.

And, regarding military experience: I have found that the majority of people who have entered the military have very limited education. And even if they do go to college afterwards, that college doesn’t cover martial law. So it’s quite silly to suggest that I should take a veteran’s word for it, because chances are they’d know even less than I do.

Everyone in the military will fall in line like a little bitch, how they always do. Anyone who fights back will be court-martialed.