402

Trump Begs Supreme Court to Let Him Go to War With Chicago (www.thedailybeast.com)

submitted 3 days ago by Redditsux@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archive article:https://archive.is/4SYyk

In an attempt to argue that ICE protestors are radically out of control, the emergency appeal argues, “The federal agents’ efforts are met with prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance that threatens their lives and safety and systematically interferes with their ability to enforce federal law.” The Daily Beast has reached out to the White House for comment.

The White House was caught trying to pass off footage of violence in red states as footage from the “chaos” in Chicago last week.

top 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] davidagain@lemmy.world 66 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This is it, supreme court. This is the moment where you choose to press the self destruct button on the republic. On "we, the people".

This is the moment in history where you choose the new Klu Klux King of Chaos and Concentration Camps for profit, where you choose the fat orange faced man who is embodiment of stupidity and stupid hatred over the Constitution and the promise of a nation where the people choose their leaders.

You're mistaken if you think there's a constitution left for you to interpret. No, there's just a vehicle in the night and some guns with masks.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 41 points 3 days ago

lol welp let’s just say I’m not optimistic

Even if the Supreme Court rules against Trump in the case, there’s no guarantee that Trump will abide by the decision. In a Thursday interview with The New York Times, Justice Amy Coney Barrett admitted that the Supreme Court has no power to ensure the president obeys its decisions.

[-] 0tan0d@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Generals are allowed to disobey an illegal order. It's not very comforting but it is something.

[-] davidagain@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

lol welp let’s just say I’m not optimistic

Me neither. Me neither.

[-] slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org 6 points 2 days ago

I'm pretty sure he can just go if he wants to

[-] xyzzy@lemmy.today 98 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

At its most basic level, society is just a mutual non-aggression pact with the enforcement mechanism of the state monopoly on violence. The condition of that monopoly is that state violence must be used in an unbiased and dispassionate way. Any violations of this condition are only tolerated to the extent that open war is mutually assured destruction, a decidedly worse outcome.

The politicians inciting violence and the oligarchs supporting them should realize that if state violence leads to open war, the pact is broken and there are no more rules.

[-] MiikCheque@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

I wonder if this is partly why Zuckerberg keeps building bunkers

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 47 points 3 days ago

It's absolutely wild that our society is being repeatedly tested at the civilian level right now... I cannot fucking believe we've been able to resist violence as much as we have without returning it.

Just goes to prove most people aren't like Trump, and they certainly aren't even remotely resembling what Trump paints us as. He's genuinely confused and frustrated by the lack of response.

[-] youngGoku@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

These are the kinds of discussions you will never see on reddit, anything implying that the masses could turn violent against a tyrant is deleted and banned.

[-] Aeao@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago

That’s another sad part of this. A war would be disastrous for everyone involved and even if the good guys win America would never regain its place on the world stage like it is now.

If we get weaker (because of internal war) every other world power would do everything in thier power to make sure we never got the influence we had back.

[-] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 6 points 2 days ago

I am not sure about America losing power long-term, if Antifa took the reins after a civil war. A great deal of America's current strength comes from inertia, but the institutions, egalitarianism, and education to power the future was already dwindling before Trump. A refreshed America might unlock a great deal of potential that was stalled by bad politics and an unfair economy.

For example, universal healthcare. A post-war America might be able to readily heal everybody within its borders, which frees up time for those people to do other things - inventing, creating, raising family, going to 3rd places, and so forth. The mental and physical wellbeings of every individual, in turn, affects the mindset of a nation as a whole.

[-] stringere@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago

Good.

The loss of influence, that is. The US's outsized influence on the world stage has not exactly been a boon.

[-] Aeao@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Im not going to say America being this powerful is good for the world. It certainly makes life easier for Americans being this powerhouse.

[-] stringere@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago

Too easy. The populace got soft and complacent, allowing this.

[-] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

So you? You are to soft and complacent and would like a more difficult life?

[-] daannii@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Let's all be honest for a moment. We have all became way more invested in politics right now due to trump. A lot of us (myself) paid attention, sure, but not like i do now. I am way more vigilant about finding out who is paying who, what companies I need to boycott, questioning every Dems loyalty to the people. Scrutinizing everything from both sides.

Being a little uncomfortable has made me a more invested citizen.

I really just couldn't be bothered to put this much time into politics before. I never thought it was going to go backwards. I incorrectly assumed things would continue progressing. I kept an eye on things. Always voted dem. Never checked for apac apaic money.

Now I do. And I check what they voted for in the past. I go through all their history before I endorse.

[-] Aeao@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That’s a good answer.

I wasn’t trying to back you into a corner or anything but I wasn’t expecting an answer I would nod along too.

[-] webdox@lemmy.world 47 points 3 days ago

These rich think they can hide deep enough to ride out the war they are waging on us all. LOL

[-] daannii@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

They get all their money from us. So how's that supposed to work for them. Just goes to show how stupid many of them are.

[-] Today@lemmy.world 22 points 3 days ago

Someone here posted months ago a thing that stuck with me. The next big war will be between the rich and the poor. The rich will win before the poor realize they're in battle.

[-] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 28 points 3 days ago

There are more of us then them, we are more self sufficient than them, we are more resilient than them, we are more desperate than them. The real world is our natural environment, the rich are the arrogant invaders. Vietnam comes to mind when I think what a war of rich vs poor might look like. It won't be near misses and broken escalators for long, when a sufficiently large number of people become sufficiently mad, their ivory towers will become prisons.

[-] athairmor@lemmy.world 22 points 3 days ago

Yeah, the rich win right up to the point that the people they pay to fight for them switch sides.

[-] treesapx@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

Yeah, but the really shitty thing is that there are a lot of poor people who will fight and die for the rich side because they think it's right.

[-] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 12 points 3 days ago

This is generally the compact. If you kill all the cattle, you're fucked. We're the cattle. The con is supposed to be that they feed and water us and we enable their lifestyle. But they are forgetting their job due to unchecked greed/avarice.

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 43 points 3 days ago

States rights, huh?

Well, see ya later.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 days ago

Even if the Supreme Court rules against Trump in the case, there’s no guarantee that Trump will abide by the decision. In a Thursday interview with The New York Times, Justice Amy Coney Barrett admitted that the Supreme Court has no power to ensure the president obeys its decisions.

Jesus fucking christ 🫠

[-] fodor@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 days ago

That is possible but remember that Trump Always Chickens Out. For a good reason, too. If he fucks up too much, the military could turn on him, and he knows it.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 points 2 days ago

Trump's literal favorite president is Andrew Jackson, Mr. "Let him enforce it" himself.

[-] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 days ago

Play them pianos Chicago.

[-] FerretyFever0@fedia.io 8 points 3 days ago

Holden Bloodfeast.

this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2025

402 points (100.0% liked)

politics

26109 readers

2416 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News