• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    it won’t be a one-time “fight back” moment

    Jan 6 was stopped with a single bullet, ICE is also emboldened due to lack of immediate consequences and would likely back off when met with resistance. Again, I’m saying the presence of guns and the implication of violence is enough

    I’m saying that they have the advantage in violence. They have the literal state monopoly on violence.

    The state’s mo only on violence is part of the social construct and only exists when people have the belief the system is relatively fair. The majority no longer believe that.

    But no, it’s not necessarily martial law.

    They’re literally using ICE killing peaceful protestors as justification. Like, right now, today they’re doing it:

    President Trump has threatened to impose martial law on Minnesota just hours after ICE goons shot a man during an enforcement operation.

    “If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump declared on Truth Social on Thursday morning, ending with his trademark sign-off, “Thank you for you attention to this matter! President DJT.”

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-threatens-martial-law-in-blue-state-in-wild-morning-rage-post/ar-AA1UhmfO

    it makes no sense to help them build their preferred narrative.

    Again, they’re building it regardless, preventing local/state from investigating, and now saying they won’t either.

    but the win condition here is to not have martial law

    Once again, it’s been just a few hours since Trump said if anymore people get killed by ICE, he’s doing martial law.

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Jan. 6th was stopped because they were a violent mob who didn’t think far enough ahead to expect to be shot. ICE is not that - at least Noem and Miller know and want there to be violence against ICE. It’s fundamentally a different situation.

      Otherwise, I’ll just address the martial law point: Trump threatening it only gives away the game and is seeking to normalize it. It shows how much they palpably want to invoke it. If he could, he would. Him saying this is to test the waters, see if republicans will let him do it, sure, but also an admission he cannot yet do it.

      Trump is effectively an id in a body suit. That means even when he is manipulating, he is revealing his motivations and admitting to his weaknesses.

      • CainTheLongshot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        There’s is so much politicing that’s happening behind the scenes, it’s hard to explain how this system actually works.

        Trump “threatening” martial law and “enacting” martial law are 2 very different things. And providing them the justifications to enact would be a very stupid thing. Like you said, him throwing that out there is him testing the waters. It means that behind closed doors, there’s a non zero, X number of Republicans who have made it known they will not stand for it. If that number was zero and he had the full backing of Congress AND supreme Court, he would have done it by now and cancelled the midterms, etc…

        Now, what we don’t know are if there were any conditions tied to that, for example “i will not stand for martial law being declared without full on violence in the streets” or “i will not stand for martial law being declared without one of ‘our guys’ being punched in the face first”. We don’t know how many lines there are or where the lines are being drawn, but they are there, and the administration is currently doing the calculus to get to their end result.

        “He’s going to do it regardless” then he’ll face backlash in his own party. Watching the last few years unfold had proved that Republicans were once willing to forgive a lot to reach their end goals, but recently many have been breaking off since reaching some of those goals. Not to mention, the people’s reaction if he just does it regardless. There’s certainly people behind the scenes calculating not just the public’s reactions but our allies too, and trying to apply pressure where they can.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        Jan. 6th was stopped because they were a violent mob who didn’t think far enough ahead to expect to be shot. ICE is not that

        Eh…

        I’d argue not only do they act the same, a high percentage of recent ICE were likely at 1/6 in the mob.

        but also an admission he cannot yet do it.

        I think the only reason he hasn’t done it yet, is he needs to hold it thru midterms to fuck with or outright cancel elections in blue states via puppet appointees.

        Do it now, he has to hold it 10 months. Do it 9 months from now, you only got to hold it a couple days.

        We just gonna wait till they think it’s the perfect moment?

        That means even when he is manipulating, he is revealing his motivations and admitting to his weaknesses.

        It ain’t 5d chess, he wants to take over immediately, he wanted to do it in 2017. It’s just about how much the people around him can convince him it’s better to wait. First term.people were just bullshitting him. But one day Stephen Miller is going to say “today” and shit will get really fucking bad regardless of how much or how little weve been reacting.

        If we don’t pick the day, they’ll pick the exact day they’re most likely to succeed.

        Thats just relaity