This is setting things up for a real conflict. Protesters, National Guard called by Walz, Troops coming in. I am absolutely certain the 1500 soldiers going in are hand-selected MAGA morons. Checkmate ... martial law declared!
As a veteran, I have optimism these active duty military troops will recognize their duty. "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". ICE is the best example of a domestic enemy I have seen.
Law of war training for new troops was eliminated back in April.[1] The core concept that members of the US military have a duty to resist illegal orders is no longer taught to troops.
Recall Trump's comments after several US members of Congress made a video along the lines of "you must refuse illegal orders." Trump called this "seditious behavior, punishable by DEATH!"[2]
Illegal immigrants brought in to give the Democrat party a CCP style one party state. Suppressing wages while being granted vast amounts of scarce societal resources. ICE doing their legal job as instructed to them by the democratically elected POTUS. But you classify them as the domestic enemy.
""I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". by ignoring the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. What a twisted view you have.
Can two things not be true at once? There are indeed "illegal immigrants", AND the current methods of enforcement are some straight up gestapo-BS in which themselves also illegal and warrant non-compliance. Why is this an either-or?
The America I grew up in is fervently against kings, as a defining principle, and put the lawmaking powers purposefully in the hands of not the president, but in the representatives of the people. Unless you straight-up buy Nixon's view that "[...] when the president does it… that means that it is not illegal.", and maybe you do, this view doesn't pass any kind of scrutiny what-so-ever...
This and and the previous comment really highlights the true political divide between the Americans. I wonder if it is a flaw of such 2-party system (both that lean to the right-, and thus are inflexible to other political views) where others can't find space for less-extreme political views and ideas, and thus exacerbating the situation as people are forced to bracket themselves to only these two parties?
I certainly feel the two party system has really hampered us and largely contributed to where we are today. I never feel actually represented, yet nearly every candidate has to align themselves officially with one party or the other and tow that party line. Sure there is individual variance between representatives, but it's still mostly within a set of boundaries the party is more or less okay with. It sucks, and is often why the "just go vote" ethos feels about as inept as any other action or non-action I can take...
Both parties had this view even up to a decade ago. It was actually right-wing libertarian fanatics that advocated mass unchecked immigration with a view to cheap labor. The Koch brothers(now singular) and the vast amount of billionaires wanted a complete amnesty. Ronald Reagan did give a complete amnesty to Californians. Even Bernie Sanders warned about this years ago.
I encourage you to read the oath I'm referring to: It's notable compared to other historic officer oaths in that it deliberately does not mention the President. The word constitution is the key distinction.
Can't find evidence! They become eligible to vote after a single election cycle. And the farcical thing is, dotards like you will be hardest hit. You'll be the first to complain about lack of housing, never mind affordable housing, real wages falling, and the crime level skyrocketing per capita(Jesus even Denmark and the Netherlands released reports matching this.) Don't you find it at all odd, why the billionaires are all for this mass immigration? Why Musk, while claiming to not want mass immigration, threw a strop when his cheap labor was threatened? Because they will not be affected while gaining from cheap labor. It's you, buddy, and the rest of the working and middle class that gets pummelled by anarchic immigration.
The militias are cosplaying cowards, the actual people of Minnesota are ramping up and succeeding in resisting ICE. There is a nonzero chance there will be a standoff between the national guard and the army in Minneapolis.
Trump is trying to incite an insurrection so he politically gets a free hand to do whatever he wants. If Congress and the courts are too slow or too cowardly to get anything done, he might get what he wants.
Many Americans don't value the 2nd amendment very much. Public opinion in Minnesota in particular, is largely in favour of strict gun laws. Many anti-gun advocates claim that developing a militia against the government is futile and even counterproductive.
regulation of a militia. the apocrypha is that "the people" have uninfringed rights to arms, as a counter to a militia that is conveying tyranny.
i have read, in various places, that the last straw initiating foment of open revolution was when the kings militia began "taking liberties" with the wives and daughters of the colonists. piecemeal resistance, consolidated to a social movement, and the "shot heard around the world" was loosed.
After the Civil War, nearly all states gave up on maintaining their own independent militia and they became the National Guard (a few states maintain poorly provisioned state guards). Ostensibly the Guard is run by the states but can be federalized at any time. Previous presidents only used that to deploy the Guard overseas, with a few exceptions (notably Eisenhower, to enforce the early civil rights legislation and court decisions). Unfortunately those powers were never reformed, so Trump has already deployed them domestically (though there have been court decisions against that), but it effectively means states can't use the Guard to protect against federal aggression (it would simply be immediately federalized). Any attempt to actually deploy state troops against federal law enforcement, even when they're aren't justly enforcing laws, would be met with the Insurrection Act, allowing the deployment of active duty troops against the states, not just the Guard. Trump has been eagerly awaiting that moment, as it would allow him to completely cut the state off from the rest of the country, including Congress (you're in rebellion, you have no representation), and lock their elections in legal limbo.
Nowadays, the 2A is used simply to guarantee gun access to individuals, a movement underway since the early civil rights movement in the late '50s and largely confirmed with the Heller decision in '08. Unfortunately, that movement didn't bring any right to actually resist government overreach, which is why we haven't seen citizen militias form to violently resist ICE's own violence. They'd simply be killed and imprisoned and used to justify an increase in violence.
Personally, these events have really exposed the moral bankruptcy of the modern 2A movement. They want guns, and the attendant increase in shootings that accompany that, but have brought no real ability to resist government violence along with it. So we have the negative without the purported positive.
Obviously the next Congress and President will need to reform how the Guard works and how it can be deployed, otherwise we'll see this again.
Just the possibility of an armed population resisting still gives them pause. But we're not at the level of the theoretical threat becoming realized.
If the people too eagerly exercise it they'll be used as justification for further oppression. Resistance is political. Unfortunately most of our politicians are spineless cowards on both sides.
But it is not at all a mystery about how things got to be the way they were in the 1930s. I've heard people I know advocate for atrocities.
They found a weakness to justify an increase in violence to their base: the day care corruption. Despite the fact that most of that was found and prosecuted years ago, right-wing influencers were successfully able to bring it back to the forefront, and the administration jumped on it to justify an increased ICE presence, naturally leading to the violence we see. They didn't get the same thing in Chicago, where ICE avoided most of the areas likely to see violence in the first place. And they didn't leave Chicago, they just aren't publicizing it like they were.
Might have to do with the size of the city - I've heard through the grapevine that even Minneapolis is too big and they're thinking of shifting to some city in Maine or New Hampshire.
"Too big" supposedly meaning orchestrating something that allows them to have the optics without the potential for fallout. This is really speculation though.
I'm not especially in the know about such things. Is there a Chicago politician that crossed Trump such that revenge against Chicago would be in the cards? I assume this is about Walz running against him. It would be California (due to Harris) but they're probably in a better position to fight back than Michigan is.
This presidency reminds me a lot this speech from Knives Out: Onion Ring:
“ If you want to shake things up, you start with something small. You break a norm or an idea or a convention, some little business model, but you go with things that people are kind of tired of anyway. Everybody gets excited because you're busting up something that everyone wanted broken in the first place. That's the infraction point. That's the place where you have to look within yourself, and ask: Am I the kind of person who will keep going? Will you break more things? Break bigger things? Be willing to break the thing that nobody wants you to break? Because at that point, people are not going to be on your side. They're going to call you crazy. They're gonna say you're a bully. They're gonna tell you to stop. Even your partner will say you need to stop. Because as it turns out, nobody wants you to break the system itself. But that is what true disruption is, and that is what unites all of us. We all got to that line, and crossed it.‘
It’s like the following this recipe to break the system
It's amazing and sad to watch Republicans so quickly forget what 'Republic' means as they trash State Sovereignty and lick the Federal Boot...MAGA means RINO.
I find it telling that the flag says "Don't tread on ME": not "us", not "the people", not "America", but "Don't tread on ME." Tread on all these other people, actually you know what, let's just stomp on their faces together, but don't you dare tread on ME.
Every accusation is a confession, rules for me not for thee, it's been like that for many years. Hell, 'member Clinton and the blowjob? The problem wasn't the blowjob, the problem was that Clinton let himself get caught and exposed.
Or, specifically to the situation at hand, there's yet another famous quote applicable: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
It's completely obvious what ICE and the ordinary citizens of all blue regions are, respectively.
You may not have meant to excuse the sad state we are in by presenting the "both sides are bad" argument. But it does have a strong whiff of it.
Both sides are bad. No doubt about it. It has always been that way. But, one side takes being bad to a whole new level.
Our choice has always been between bad and less bad. The voters decided to pull the lever for "massively bad" during the last presidential election because they could not tell the difference.
The politics of fear stoked by two sets of extremists egging eachother on is the core reason we're in this mess, the failure to reject both simultaneously and the desire to rule with feelings instead of facts caused it all.
I'm not a "whatabout" guy, I'm actively opposed to both extremes. The far left is just as capable of ruling with violence as the far right, they just haven't got the opportunity in this country yet.
The politics of emotion and absolutism is the cause, which flavor of extremism you pick isn't the core issue.
> From an outsider’s viewpoint, current approach of letting almost anyone in does not seem to work that well.
By what metric do you make this determination?
From a crime perspective, legal immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens, and illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes still.
From an economic perspective, immigrants of all stripes tend to work harder than native-born citizens so they can establish themselves here. They contribute to society, pay their taxes, and in the case of illegal immigrants, aren't even afforded its protections and services.
The only metric by which I could see an argument that immigration has backfired is in political unrest, but that's mostly due to the fact that the right-wing media has been stoking panic over immigration for decades - anything to distract from how easily we're being fleeced by the wealthy and powerful.
The US is a huge country with a massive economy and large borders. There are many jobs for migrants to do. It's why at times Trump has appeared to backtrack on hardline deportation stance, saying undocumented farm and hotel workers are hard working and needed. Likely because businesses called him worried they would lose too many workers.
So how did Biden's open borders work out? 11 millions crossing but "there's no crisis". Per NY Times:
"Biden's record found that he and his closest advisers repeatedly rebuffed recommendations that could have addressed the border crisis faster. "
Also, during his two terms in office (2009–2017), the administration of President Barack Obama deported more than 3.1 million people, a higher number of formal removals than any other U.S. president.
They blame immigrants (something the Nazis also did) and liberals (Nazis were very anti-left and killed lots of communists, homosexuals, etc…in addition to Jews).
This is setting things up for a real conflict. Protesters, National Guard called by Walz, Troops coming in. I am absolutely certain the 1500 soldiers going in are hand-selected MAGA morons. Checkmate ... martial law declared!
As a veteran, I have optimism these active duty military troops will recognize their duty. "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". ICE is the best example of a domestic enemy I have seen.
I'm suspecting they'd stay neutral, but even that would be better than ICE alone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46666605
Law of war training for new troops was eliminated back in April.[1] The core concept that members of the US military have a duty to resist illegal orders is no longer taught to troops.
Recall Trump's comments after several US members of Congress made a video along the lines of "you must refuse illegal orders." Trump called this "seditious behavior, punishable by DEATH!"[2]
[1] https://www.veterannews.org/veteran-news/army-eliminates-sev...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2025/11/20/nx-s1-5615190/trump-democrats...
Illegal immigrants brought in to give the Democrat party a CCP style one party state. Suppressing wages while being granted vast amounts of scarce societal resources. ICE doing their legal job as instructed to them by the democratically elected POTUS. But you classify them as the domestic enemy.
""I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". by ignoring the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. What a twisted view you have.
Can two things not be true at once? There are indeed "illegal immigrants", AND the current methods of enforcement are some straight up gestapo-BS in which themselves also illegal and warrant non-compliance. Why is this an either-or?
The America I grew up in is fervently against kings, as a defining principle, and put the lawmaking powers purposefully in the hands of not the president, but in the representatives of the people. Unless you straight-up buy Nixon's view that "[...] when the president does it… that means that it is not illegal.", and maybe you do, this view doesn't pass any kind of scrutiny what-so-ever...
This and and the previous comment really highlights the true political divide between the Americans. I wonder if it is a flaw of such 2-party system (both that lean to the right-, and thus are inflexible to other political views) where others can't find space for less-extreme political views and ideas, and thus exacerbating the situation as people are forced to bracket themselves to only these two parties?
I certainly feel the two party system has really hampered us and largely contributed to where we are today. I never feel actually represented, yet nearly every candidate has to align themselves officially with one party or the other and tow that party line. Sure there is individual variance between representatives, but it's still mostly within a set of boundaries the party is more or less okay with. It sucks, and is often why the "just go vote" ethos feels about as inept as any other action or non-action I can take...
Both parties had this view even up to a decade ago. It was actually right-wing libertarian fanatics that advocated mass unchecked immigration with a view to cheap labor. The Koch brothers(now singular) and the vast amount of billionaires wanted a complete amnesty. Ronald Reagan did give a complete amnesty to Californians. Even Bernie Sanders warned about this years ago.
I encourage you to read the oath I'm referring to: It's notable compared to other historic officer oaths in that it deliberately does not mention the President. The word constitution is the key distinction.
They can’t vote you absolute idiot
They do, and they will which is the whole point, you relative idiot.
I’m even confused about your use of relative? Relative to what?
Even the trump administration can’t find evidence
Can't find evidence! They become eligible to vote after a single election cycle. And the farcical thing is, dotards like you will be hardest hit. You'll be the first to complain about lack of housing, never mind affordable housing, real wages falling, and the crime level skyrocketing per capita(Jesus even Denmark and the Netherlands released reports matching this.) Don't you find it at all odd, why the billionaires are all for this mass immigration? Why Musk, while claiming to not want mass immigration, threw a strop when his cheap labor was threatened? Because they will not be affected while gaining from cheap labor. It's you, buddy, and the rest of the working and middle class that gets pummelled by anarchic immigration.
Relative to the kind of imbecile that uses the adjective absolute outside of math.
Infowars has been warning for decades this would happen, clearly just projection, where are all the militias vowing they would oppose this?
They all joined ICE.
The militias are cosplaying cowards, the actual people of Minnesota are ramping up and succeeding in resisting ICE. There is a nonzero chance there will be a standoff between the national guard and the army in Minneapolis.
Trump is trying to incite an insurrection so he politically gets a free hand to do whatever he wants. If Congress and the courts are too slow or too cowardly to get anything done, he might get what he wants.
What militias? I always thought the state nat guard were the modern militias not the fat old man LARPers you hear talking in gun stores.
civilians vs persons enlisted as government forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
They only show up when another kid shot their parents in the face.
French here, what was the the 2nd Amendment already?
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A yes, "necessary to the security of a free State", so, what about it?
Many Americans don't value the 2nd amendment very much. Public opinion in Minnesota in particular, is largely in favour of strict gun laws. Many anti-gun advocates claim that developing a militia against the government is futile and even counterproductive.
regulation of a militia. the apocrypha is that "the people" have uninfringed rights to arms, as a counter to a militia that is conveying tyranny.
i have read, in various places, that the last straw initiating foment of open revolution was when the kings militia began "taking liberties" with the wives and daughters of the colonists. piecemeal resistance, consolidated to a social movement, and the "shot heard around the world" was loosed.
After the Civil War, nearly all states gave up on maintaining their own independent militia and they became the National Guard (a few states maintain poorly provisioned state guards). Ostensibly the Guard is run by the states but can be federalized at any time. Previous presidents only used that to deploy the Guard overseas, with a few exceptions (notably Eisenhower, to enforce the early civil rights legislation and court decisions). Unfortunately those powers were never reformed, so Trump has already deployed them domestically (though there have been court decisions against that), but it effectively means states can't use the Guard to protect against federal aggression (it would simply be immediately federalized). Any attempt to actually deploy state troops against federal law enforcement, even when they're aren't justly enforcing laws, would be met with the Insurrection Act, allowing the deployment of active duty troops against the states, not just the Guard. Trump has been eagerly awaiting that moment, as it would allow him to completely cut the state off from the rest of the country, including Congress (you're in rebellion, you have no representation), and lock their elections in legal limbo.
Nowadays, the 2A is used simply to guarantee gun access to individuals, a movement underway since the early civil rights movement in the late '50s and largely confirmed with the Heller decision in '08. Unfortunately, that movement didn't bring any right to actually resist government overreach, which is why we haven't seen citizen militias form to violently resist ICE's own violence. They'd simply be killed and imprisoned and used to justify an increase in violence.
Personally, these events have really exposed the moral bankruptcy of the modern 2A movement. They want guns, and the attendant increase in shootings that accompany that, but have brought no real ability to resist government violence along with it. So we have the negative without the purported positive.
Obviously the next Congress and President will need to reform how the Guard works and how it can be deployed, otherwise we'll see this again.
We're not yet at the level yet.
Just the possibility of an armed population resisting still gives them pause. But we're not at the level of the theoretical threat becoming realized.
If the people too eagerly exercise it they'll be used as justification for further oppression. Resistance is political. Unfortunately most of our politicians are spineless cowards on both sides.
But it is not at all a mystery about how things got to be the way they were in the 1930s. I've heard people I know advocate for atrocities.
Why did Minneapolis end up getting more ire than Chicago? I thought it was Chicago that Trump wouldn't shut up about this whole time
They found a weakness to justify an increase in violence to their base: the day care corruption. Despite the fact that most of that was found and prosecuted years ago, right-wing influencers were successfully able to bring it back to the forefront, and the administration jumped on it to justify an increased ICE presence, naturally leading to the violence we see. They didn't get the same thing in Chicago, where ICE avoided most of the areas likely to see violence in the first place. And they didn't leave Chicago, they just aren't publicizing it like they were.
Might have to do with the size of the city - I've heard through the grapevine that even Minneapolis is too big and they're thinking of shifting to some city in Maine or New Hampshire.
"Too big" supposedly meaning orchestrating something that allows them to have the optics without the potential for fallout. This is really speculation though.
I'm not especially in the know about such things. Is there a Chicago politician that crossed Trump such that revenge against Chicago would be in the cards? I assume this is about Walz running against him. It would be California (due to Harris) but they're probably in a better position to fight back than Michigan is.
Fortunately they have the second amendment to protect themselves from an oppressive government.
This presidency reminds me a lot this speech from Knives Out: Onion Ring:
“ If you want to shake things up, you start with something small. You break a norm or an idea or a convention, some little business model, but you go with things that people are kind of tired of anyway. Everybody gets excited because you're busting up something that everyone wanted broken in the first place. That's the infraction point. That's the place where you have to look within yourself, and ask: Am I the kind of person who will keep going? Will you break more things? Break bigger things? Be willing to break the thing that nobody wants you to break? Because at that point, people are not going to be on your side. They're going to call you crazy. They're gonna say you're a bully. They're gonna tell you to stop. Even your partner will say you need to stop. Because as it turns out, nobody wants you to break the system itself. But that is what true disruption is, and that is what unites all of us. We all got to that line, and crossed it.‘
It’s like the following this recipe to break the system
It's Knives Out: Glass Onion, but I'll take Onion Ring because it's Monday morning and I need a laugh before signing on.
As the saying goes, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of the weak and the marginalized.
It's amazing and sad to watch Republicans so quickly forget what 'Republic' means as they trash State Sovereignty and lick the Federal Boot...MAGA means RINO.
I guess "Don't Tread on Me" and states rights are just for red states. It's shameful watching all the hypocrisy.
I find it telling that the flag says "Don't tread on ME": not "us", not "the people", not "America", but "Don't tread on ME." Tread on all these other people, actually you know what, let's just stomp on their faces together, but don't you dare tread on ME.
Any time the red states brought up "States Rights", the response from the other side was "States rights to what? Oh...you mean slavery."
So what States Rights are we supporting now?
Both sides are very good at developing and using tactics against the other then acting surprised Pikachu when it is turned back on them.
Look at journalists and "Learn to Code"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19358725
Every accusation is a confession, rules for me not for thee, it's been like that for many years. Hell, 'member Clinton and the blowjob? The problem wasn't the blowjob, the problem was that Clinton let himself get caught and exposed.
Or, specifically to the situation at hand, there's yet another famous quote applicable: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
It's completely obvious what ICE and the ordinary citizens of all blue regions are, respectively.
So many people are like this. Their ideals only apply when they benefit people they like.
You may not have meant to excuse the sad state we are in by presenting the "both sides are bad" argument. But it does have a strong whiff of it.
Both sides are bad. No doubt about it. It has always been that way. But, one side takes being bad to a whole new level.
Our choice has always been between bad and less bad. The voters decided to pull the lever for "massively bad" during the last presidential election because they could not tell the difference.
In agreement with sibling colechristensen but wanted to add.
>The voters decided to pull the lever for "massively bad" during the last presidential election because they could not tell the difference.
That is being intellectually dishonest, we had already had 4 years of Trump and similarly had 4 years of Kahmala with Biden.
Saying they were ignorant or didn't understand is to ignore the electorate and their issues.
The politics of fear stoked by two sets of extremists egging eachother on is the core reason we're in this mess, the failure to reject both simultaneously and the desire to rule with feelings instead of facts caused it all.
I'm not a "whatabout" guy, I'm actively opposed to both extremes. The far left is just as capable of ruling with violence as the far right, they just haven't got the opportunity in this country yet.
The politics of emotion and absolutism is the cause, which flavor of extremism you pick isn't the core issue.
> The far left is just as capable of ruling with violence as the far right, they just haven't got the opportunity in this country yet.
So why are you pointing at far-left then? In US there are only two parties. Center-right and far-right.
[flagged]
> From an outsider’s viewpoint, current approach of letting almost anyone in does not seem to work that well.
By what metric do you make this determination?
From a crime perspective, legal immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens, and illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes still.
From an economic perspective, immigrants of all stripes tend to work harder than native-born citizens so they can establish themselves here. They contribute to society, pay their taxes, and in the case of illegal immigrants, aren't even afforded its protections and services.
The only metric by which I could see an argument that immigration has backfired is in political unrest, but that's mostly due to the fact that the right-wing media has been stoking panic over immigration for decades - anything to distract from how easily we're being fleeced by the wealthy and powerful.
The US is a huge country with a massive economy and large borders. There are many jobs for migrants to do. It's why at times Trump has appeared to backtrack on hardline deportation stance, saying undocumented farm and hotel workers are hard working and needed. Likely because businesses called him worried they would lose too many workers.
So how did Biden's open borders work out? 11 millions crossing but "there's no crisis". Per NY Times: "Biden's record found that he and his closest advisers repeatedly rebuffed recommendations that could have addressed the border crisis faster. "
Also, during his two terms in office (2009–2017), the administration of President Barack Obama deported more than 3.1 million people, a higher number of formal removals than any other U.S. president.
How is Obama relevant here? Were there mass kidnappings on the streets?
Trump is on the cusp of inciting a civil war and it's Biden's fault!
As Nazis blamed Jews for everything, Magas blame Biden.
They blame immigrants (something the Nazis also did) and liberals (Nazis were very anti-left and killed lots of communists, homosexuals, etc…in addition to Jews).