A post that Mr. Trump circulated on Sunday called for Liz Cheney to be prosecuted by a military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals.
A post that Mr. Trump circulated on Sunday called for Liz Cheney to be prosecuted by a military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals.
Included in the list of people to be brought up for war crimes against the United States were Current President Joe Biden, Current VP Kamala Harris, former VP Mike Pence, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger and Representatives Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Pete Aguilar, Zoe Lofgren and Bennie Thompson.
It was never ridiculous, people just weren't able or willing to look into the future far enough. If someone said this would happen back in 2016 you'd be ridiculed.
If you're worried what will happen if Trump wins the election, then you should consider buying "Trump insurance" by betting online that he'll win.
When enough people bet that Trump will win, then it creates an incentive for someone who can influence the outcome to make a short term leveraged bet that Trump will lose.
You'll gain utility from the trade even if you lose the bet.
Would be a reaaaal shame if someone interpreted this as a threat to the rule of law that necessitated some kind of presidential act. There's gotta be plenty of realistic ways to fuck with him in an official capacity.
The more I think about trump saying that he could shoot someone in broad daylight in front of millions, and not lose a single supporter…..
the more I think he was right.
Doubtful that the military would actually do that.
Trump while President was reportedly annoyed at basically being told 'no' that General Kelly said that:
The President’s loud complaint to [then-White House chief of staff] John Kelly one day was typical: “You [f------] generals, why can’t you be like the German generals?”
“Which generals?” Kelly asked.
“The German generals in World War II,” Trump responded.
“You do know that they tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off?” Kelly said.
But, of course, Trump did not know that. “No, no, no, they were totally loyal to him,” the President replied.
The President may be Commander-in-Chief but the oath is to the Constitution. Obeying the President and officers are also a part of the oath but with the caveat that it is according to the regulations and UCMJ. You not only don't have to but you're taught to explicitly not follow an illegal order in the US military.
Not that US military members have given illegal orders that were followed but it is a little different to basically order the military to essentially start enforcing essentially a government coup for a politician against the US' own citizens.
I mean, I agree with you that most military leaders and soldiers would not do this.
But your own example kind of shows the likely strategy:
What did Hitler do? What did Stalin do?
Fire or banish or kill enough leaders until you get ones that will listen to you, and re orient your troop pools so that you have a decent number of whole units that are ideologically aligned and thus likely to comply.
Trump's entire modus operandi, now crystalized in extreme detail with Project 2025, has been figure out a way to replace everyone who is not an ideologically aligned stooge willing to literally break existing laws to carry out the whims of the God Emperor, at literally every level of government.
I obviously cannot know that this would be successful or in what timeframe.
I can only look to history for many examples of similar things occuring, and see more and more checked boxes making this more likely.
I'm sure the militaries of many other coup'd countries are told not to follow illegal orders, and I'm also sure that many in our modern military and time would resist, perhaps even violently as Stauffenberg did.
Surely, surely, a significant portion of conservative voters can see that this isn't what democracy should look like, even if they're ardent republican supporters.
republican allegiance is to the bible, not the constitution. they say a lot of things about the constitution, but in the end, they just want christo-fascism. some of them are true believers in the make believe, others just use to justify their own cruelty.
either way, their motives don't matter. it's all about what we're going to do about it.
Whether or not it's "what democracy should look like" is an opinion often based on whether you're on (or think you're on) the giving or receiving end of the oppression.
I get that, but I suppose I'm trying to say that there's a point at which even if you're not on the receiving end of the oppression you have to recognise that something's not right.
When your neighbor waves a loaded gun in your face, do you whine about how no neighbors should be behaving like that? Is that effective? That's basically begging for morality.
Stop preaching morality to your foes. The servatives are too far gone. The billionaires are too far gone.
No more hopium and copium.
We need to wake up to what IS, as opposed to what we wish it were.
If morality could solve any socioeconomic imbalance, billionaires would ban and outlaw morality.
The fact that morality is always promoted and no one went to prison or was assassinated for promoting morality means one of two things: either a) morality doesn't exist and can't work even in principle, and instead we have a bullshit narrative to make people more timid and more self-doubting to make from them more manageable subjects, or b) real actual morality does exist, and when taught WOULD threaten the billionaires and other exploiters, and thus WOULD effectively produce societies centered on broad wellbeing, but we were never exposed to it in religion or in any university level class.
If it's b) then such morality isn't based on begging and pleading with the unwilling and uninterested parties. And also if it's b) then preaching such morality would be viewed as a threat to today's trash status quo and a threat to the morbidly wealthy billionaires.
This country went from undecided on the death penalty to openly embracing presidential hit squads seemingly over night. The right is saying who is on their list while the left is saying they should make one. Good times ahead.
Military tribunals? Sounds like some of his article 2 powers with absolute immunity now, their use cannot be questioned. Go to town Trump, say the conservatives on the supreme court.
Liz Cheney is not an enemy combatant. If this is Trump's definition of one, that as an authoritarian any dissent to his will is considered treason, then he'll still need to change the rules of military tribunals to allow prosecution of non-combatant civilians. In case anyone hasn't read it, Wikipedia has a page on Military tribunals in the United States - Wikipedia
It's curious Trump seems to believe that mere political dissent equates to enemy combat and physical violence. Imagine what he must think about Jan 6 that he has been keeping to himself. Can anyone say "project"?
He's saying he must be given a military tribunal as an enemy combatant?