Donald Trump suggested he would enact a similar federalization of law enforcement in major cities including New York, LA and Chicago if they didn’t “self-clean-up” problems of crime and homelessness.
“We’re going to have a tremendous success of what we’re doing,” he said.
“Other cities are hopefully watching this. They’re all watching just like everyone’s watching here, they’re all watching, and maybe they’ll self clean up.”
“We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital,” he posted. “The Criminals, you don’t have to move out. We’re going to put you in jail where you belong.”
It has also been reported that the president is sending in 120 FBI agents on overnight shifts to help local law enforcement battle crime in the district.
Hey, FBI Agents. You swore to support and defend the Constitution. This isn’t it.
FBI Agents: It was more of a piece of paper I signed than an oath
Cute of you believe in something like…
FBI is the federal police aka occupation force to that will enforce the laws against peasants at a gun point while protecting the parasite class.
Police is the enemy of the people. Always has been.
How dare I express optimism, and appeal to people’s better nature. On the internet, no less.
Try appealing to their butter nature.
Toxic Positivity with a dash of naive
Toxic positivity doesn’t mean “somebody’s being positive and I don’t like it”.
“crime and homelessness” as a reason to deploy the military in those cities is the same as “fentanyl” for imposing tariffs on Canada.
Don’t waste your time on trying to make sense of the pretext. He just wants to deploy the military in those cities and will do it even if crime and homelessness magically went down to zero overnight.
He did also say he’s going to round up all the homeless people and put them in camps. So there’s that.
They already put the executive order through to allow them to round up anyone unhoused and put them in concentration camps. We’re nearing the end game now.
This is how a republic becomes a dictatorship.
Republic just means a country isn’t a monarchy. Lots and lots of dictatorships are republics.
It is more like this is how a (nominal) democracy becomes a dictatorship.
Not really true.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government
You could probably argue that the ever elusive “benevolent dictator” would still qualify but tyrannies, which actually has a relatively specific definition that basically means dictatorships, are usually excluded.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/tyranny
Tl;Dr
Republics have some form of representative rule, though how democratic that actually is varies.
Tyrannies are ruled by a single absolute power. Absolute in the political sense means has the power to make (or ignore) laws as they see fit.
No, that is a misrepresentation of the source you provided. Back in the time when (early) modern political science was invented, republic was indeed a catch-all term which did mean that some kind of representative government was involved, because the role of head of state was not heritable, ie. it was not a monarchy. So the role of head of state must necessarily be through some form of representation, usually election (although the group of electors was mostly not very representative of the general populace).
That is why in the 17th and 18th centuries republic was used as a slogan of opposition to monarchy (and oppression in general). Because having a system where the role of head of state wasn’t heritable was the opposite of what was the majority type of political system at the time, regardless of what the rest of the political system of that country was.
But throughout the 19th century and especially 20th century, monarchies lost their majority position, and a host of other political systems appeared. Not least the appearance of representative democracies in the Western world.
At that point republic does symbolically still mean some kind of representation, the republics of Saddam’s Iraq, or China, or even North Korea, still involves voting, even though they are dictatorships in practice. On the other hand several Western democracies are not republics, but constituional monarchies. That is because the juxtaposition of republic/monarchy is virtually meaningless for most countries now, it defines nothing at all about the actual political system of the country.
The US is indeed a republic, because the role of head of state isn’t heritable. But that is all that the term means in connection to the American constitution. Back in the 18th century republic was the term they used, because of the aformentioned reasons, most of the founding fathers did not set out to create a democracy, and the radical democratic faction was also pushed aside when it came to writing a constitution. However through the following centuries, the American political system was slowly changed towards democratic institutions, lastly in 1964 with the Civil Rights act which finally introduced universal suffrage. Of course a lot of the democratic development has since been undermined again, especially this last decade, and of course mostly this last year.
But in modern political scientific terms, the US is a republic and a representative democracy still (even though the constitution is meaningless with the current govermnent), and the most defining part of it is the representative democracy part.
Also you seem to have missed this part in the link you provided:
Despite its democratic implications, the term was claimed in the 20th century by states whose leadership enjoyed more power than most traditional monarchs, including military dictatorships such as the Republic of Chile under Augusto Pinochet and totalitarian regimes such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Or you’re just wrong and don’t want to admit it.
If it wasn’t clear, this is not a response to crime levels.
He is dismissing reality to create his own narrative in order to create a show of force in DC. There is nothing that can be done, in the cities he is threatening, that will stop him from doing the same, and probably worse, there.
Speculation time:
Worse being, potentially accusing city leadership of corruption, with no evidence, in order to install loyalists or politicans who bend the knee.
Any backlash can be combatted by the occupying force he brings in and broadcast as evidence of a “crime wave”.
FYI - He tried this in Portland last time:
Bonus: The guy in charge of it, Chad Wolf (not making that up) had been illegally appointed and had no authority:
https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/dont-shoot-portland-v-wolf/
This is an actual takeover guys, we’re in it now.
Wait, he doesn’t have nearly enough people to enforce this.
Does he have the slightest clue how big these cities are?
He plans on deploying the military
Sure. Does he plan on rolling jets and attack helicopters through these cities? Tanks aren’t exactly useful when it’s crammed to all hell with buildings.
All he can do effectively is intimidate. There is not enough personnel in the police, national guard, ICE, or federal law enforcement to take these cities should the people decide against it.
If they decide it’s fine, well, then, not much I can do.
if they want to they can put enough boots on the ground to create check points everywhere, using the normal military + national guard. They then can hold martial law over these places, using any escalation of resistance to bring in the heavy weapons.
Set up checkpoints in LA, Chicago, or NYC?
I guess he does want chaos, and that will get him plenty of chaos.
General strikes. That’s the only way this is going to end.
First of all…he has no authority to “federalize” cities in other States. DC is different, in that it actually belongs to the Federal government already. Any attempt by the Federal government to take over State territory by force, would constitute the engagement of civil war. This is literally what the 2nd amendment was intended for.
The Handmaid’s Tale is coming true.
I’m starting to think maybe putting a demented rapist in charge was a bad thing.
He’s gonna need a lot more gestapo than he’s got now if he wants to do that.
They’re hiring any neo Nazi with a pulse
I agree let’s start fighting crime by arresting the felon pedo in chief
That can’t happen until after he serves his term.
But yeah, he along with the rest of them should be investigated and prosecuted for their role in the pedophile operation.
Bs we should citizens arrest him under the 2nd amendment
Secret service will shoot you like a dog… Pipe down
You mean like they didn’t do on January 6th? Remember when the president of South Korea tried this and was arrested and removed from office?
the president of South Korea tried this and was arrested and removed from office?
Military and Parliament did their jobs.
US Congress completely abdicated their Constitution duties and DoD is too busy making money for defense and tech companies
Conservatives love it when felon rapist pedophiles threaten American citizens.
It’s almost like they’re traitors. All of them.
Is this the metaphorical Fort Sumter that kicks off the hard declaration of sides, leading to civil war? Kinda feels like it’s going that direction, one spark away from igniting.
I would have thought invading LA was it but I was wrong so 🫠
