If Trump wins the election, US cities are at risk of military takeovers and mass deportations
If Trump wins the election, US cities are at risk of military takeovers and mass deportations
Trump has repeatedly threatened to deploy the military inside major cities run by Democrats. Senior officials nationwide are preparing to defend their communities from his threats
Senior Democrats in US cities are preparing to defend their communities in the event of Donald Trump’s return to the White House after the former president has repeated threats that he would use presidential powers to seize control of major urban centers.
Trump has proposed deploying the military inside major cities largely run by Democrats to deal with protesters or to crush criminal gangs. He has threatened to dispatch large numbers of federal immigration agents to carry out mass deportations of undocumented people in so-called “sanctuary” cities.
He also aims to obliterate the progressive criminal justice policies of left-leaning prosecutors.
“In cities where there has been a complete breakdown of law and order … I will not hesitate to send in federal assets including the national guard until safety is restored,” Trump says in the campaign platform for his bid to become the 47th US president, Agenda47.
Trump provoked uproar earlier this week when he called for US armed forces to be deployed against his political rivals – “the enemy within” – on election day next month. But his plans to use national guard troops and military personnel as a means to attack those he sees as his opponents go much wider than that, spanning entire cities with Democratic leadership.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Strawman argument. My counter-point as a whole was not that everyone wants to keep the 2nd Amendment, but that Democrats do not want to repeal the 2nd amendment. It has less than 50% support in the party. To further express why you are attacking a strawman..
That's not what a strawman argument is, the original user stated that no dems want to ban the 2nd, I have clearly provided sources that state this is bullshit.
So those %8 aren't really Republicans? Got it...
This is a strawman, as it's not part of the original argument.
I think the only people who find it straight-forward believe that any number of mass shootings, school shootings and random shootings is acceptable, as long as there are no more restrictions of any kind on their ability to purchase, sell, and use any weapon.
Hey... another strawman....
Also, most constitutional law scholars who had fucking doctorates in this shit find it vague.
Yea no they don't, unless they're antigun, then it magically becomes vague.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Here there is an entire section dor scholarly comments.
Still <50%... Lol?
Lol yea cause 1/3rd is a tiny amount.....also straw man.
Are you acting like you do know the history of 2A movents in the US? Don't make me laugh.
Lol sure thing, I don't know what I'm talking about.
Anymore bullshit opinions pieces and Amazon links you want to spam here as "evidence"?
Ah left leaning sources that disagree with you are now ...bullshit...damn
Woooo boy. I really don't need to say anything here. Your previous comment pretty much cements you as a conservative troll, and anyone that makes it this far down is clearly going to see it.
Yea...not a conservative or a troll....but I guess that's what I get from arguing with people who can't back their shit up...you going to call me a nazi fascist next as well?
that’s what I get from arguing with people who can’t back their shit up…
Says the guy posting Amazon links and duplicates of the same old failed bill from 30 years ago as evidence for their claims that the current Democratic party wants to eliminate the second amendment.
that's what I get from arguing with people who can’t back their shit up…
Says the guy who thinks that 39% of a group holds more sway over policy than the remaining 61%
that’s what I get from arguing with people who can’t back their shit up…
Says the guy who literally tried to build a no-true-scotsman strawman 2 posts ago, and then just did DARVO shit when they got called on it.
There's only 2 options here. Either you're a conservative troll...Or, you are using conservative troll fallacies to "back up" conservative troll propaganda, and you just can't recognize it.
So what's it gonna be?
Says the guy posting Amazon links and duplicates of the same old failed bill from 30 years ago as evidence for their claims that the current Democratic party wants to eliminate the second amendment.
Yea a book and bills from Democrats...but it doesnt count.
Says the guy who thinks that 39% of a group holds more sway over policy than the remaining 61%
Lol head in sand
Says the guy who literally tried to build a no-true-scotsman strawman 2 posts ago, and then just did DARVO shit when they got called on it.
Rofl yea sure thing, it's sad that any criticism of the left, is met by the same "nuh uh" response as the right wing idiots. Also you're the one doing the no-true-scotsman by suggesting all of my links are not democrats...
There's only 2 options here. Either you're a conservative troll...Or, you are using conservative troll fallacies to "back up" conservative troll propaganda, and you just can't recognize it.
I'm not either, but you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your rebuttal is literally the same shit the idiots on the red team do.
So what's it gonna be?
It's gonna be, I'm getting tired of the deflection and you putting fingers in your ears... you're boring me now.
Also you’re the one doing the no-true-scotsman by suggesting all of my links are not democrats…
Quote me, jackass.
https://lemmy.world/comment/12954770
Lol literally you saying none of my links count, and that 39% doesn't count...fuck outta here with your double speak bullshit.
Also find it hilarious you're at the name calling rebuttal lol
Look at that, you can't quote me, because I didn't fucking say it.
As for the name calling, you're the one lobbing false accusations at me, an insult beyond me calling you out for the stubborn donkey that you're acting like.
Lol sure thing kid. You're entire rebuttal was basically "those don't count"....so yes you absolutely did say it. Stop acting like you didn't.
No, my rebuttal was that you posted a bunch of bullshit opinions pieces, 30 year old theater bills and a fucking Amazon link as "evidence" that the Democratic party's platform wants to repeal the second amendment.
Your whole argument that I think those people don't count as Democrats (a no-true-scotsman) you invented in your 2nd comment to me. In case you fucking forgot, here it is.
So those %39 aren’t really Democrats? Got it…
This is literally you, building your own argument and attacking it instead of countering the argument that I put forward. Literally that is the definition of a strawman.
From Wikipedia :
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
Enough of this though, here is the DNC's platform for 2024
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/
Feel free to look through it, and see what Democrats actually want to do, instead of believing bullshit republican propaganda about the Democrat platform.
Learn some shit, and then get lost. You're done here.