239
Is Trump preparing to invoke the Insurrection Act? Signs are pointing that way
(www.sfchronicle.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
239 points (98.4% liked)
politics
20700 readers
5377 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Trump just moved an entire Stryker brigade, vehicles and all, to the Mexican border.
I think the clearest way to declare himself President for Life, or at least grab a third term, is to invade ~~Iraq~~ Mexico for ~~WMDs~~ fentanyl, provoke a war, and bend everything in his favor in a system he's already fixed.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but this approach feels familiar 🤔
I think it's what the Emperor did in Star Wars
The foolish orangutan wants to have Iraq on America’s doorstep.
As Critical Magazine states
“Invading Mexico to wipe out the cartels would effectively jettison everything America learned from our mistakes in the War on Terror. It would be costly, both in lives and treasure. It would be deeply unpopular — and it would fail.”
“For starters, the cartels are not mere gangs. The cartels effectively control chunks of Mexico and are in many ways ingrained into society there. They are not a separate external growth which can be lasered off with a well-aimed cruise missile: the infection has spread throughout the body. Wiping out the cartels would require our soldiers going door to door, house to house, waging war. This is not to even mention the massive cost of such an attack. A Harvard study found that the total cost of the Iraq War was about $3 trillion; we have no reason to think Mexico would be cheaper.”
As some guy on the internet stated:
“There are mountains in Mexico as tough as Afghanistan. Mexicans taking to the hills, like the Afghans, would give the US a constant headache until the Americans are thrown out. Remember, like the US, Mexico started as an insurgency. Every. Single. Mexican conflict has been asymmetrical guerilla warfare (heck, that’s what the drug war is in the first place, that’s why it’s so hard - now we’ve just multiplied the problem by sending the entire Mexican Army packing to the forests and mountains). That’s what Mexico knows best. And that’s a nightmare scenario for the US.”
The Mexican military has RPG-29s and the RPG-29 was considered so dangerous that the US refused to give M1 tanks to Iraqi security forces until years later and when they did, Iraqi M1s started to drop like flies.
To him it doesn't matter how foolish it is, how much money it would cost, or how many lives, Mexican or American, it would grind up. If it's a viable vehicle for him to consolidate emergency powers, rile up a fervent base, and become an American Emperor, he will take it.
It may start out relatively focused as a counterterror/counterinsurgency op...but once he pisses off the Mexicans enough for them to fight back, he'll have his casus belli (to his base) for open war. The unrestrained conservative order of battle will make the invasion of Iraq look positively pleasant. It was very common for war hawks back then to pine for the day we could just wipe Iraqi cities off the map and "let god sort them out". It'll be less Fallujah, more Gaza.
If he can get away with launching a Special Military Operation against the cartels and then Mexico as a whole, then Greenland and Panama are next. Then Canada. Then god knows who else. Maybe our war chest will bottom out by then, but that chest runs very deep.
Worked for George W Bush.
Did you happen to notice that GWB is not currently president or dictator? Like, yeah he was shitty, but he didn't participate in a violent attack on the nation's capitol. He didn't illegally try to get other states to "find him votes". He didn't participate in a fake elector scheme. He didn't say the 1st Amendment wasn't legal anymore. He didn't consider imposing martial law...
Not in DC, but in Miami many of his staffers were involved in a violent riot. The threat of violence was enough for them to suspend the counting of votes, and after a deadline passed, Bush won with a supreme court decision.
Bonus points for similarity, Roger Stone organized a violent protest (riot) with the explicit goal of stopping the counting of votes, for the benefit of republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
Yeah, he just killed a million Iraqis, nbd
Hanging chad supreme court determined victory says what?
You clearly didn't pay a single fraction of a thing that guy has done, obviously. He was more subtle with his crookedness.
Yes, W and his cronies were more subtle and worked more within the system. That's the criticism.
At the end of the day, even though W was a bad President, he still participated in the transition of power that this country has done previously. Trump tried to attempt a coup.
We still had elections in those years and Iraq started during his first term. Parallels yes, but a brand new level of fucked up.
What has 9/11 to do with Iraq??
That was the lie they tried.
That Iraq was storing weapons of mass destruction and coordinating with Al-Queda. It didn't make a lot of sense to anyone, but dissenting opinions were immediately called treasonous so people went with it. Or maybe not went with it- more like they didn't know what the crap to do and shrugged.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was just something Bush wanted to finish fucking up something his dad started and a bunch of rich people made a lot of money because of Cheney's influence on it.