I was unaware of “Project 2025”, interesting read! While that does contain multiple concerning ideas, this is far from a reliable manifesto. Additionally, ties have been drawn to the Trump campaign, but these are loose ties and appear primarily to be op-eds. Trump has also disavowed ties to this “publication”. Lastly, that “Washington Post report” is another one of those vague articles featuring “according to sources familiar”.

While this may be true, and a drone strike may be ordered on US soil, the President will not be the one controlling the drone, not directly in command of that person. The UCMJ supercedes in the case.

I’d like to try to assuage your fears regarding a protest meeting missiles or drone strikes. Yes, the President can order drone strikes with impunity. It’s been that way since the first use of drones, early as the Obama era (maybe earlier, but I was a bit young then).

However, this does not apply to US soil. One of the benefits of state sovereignty is that federal armed forces can’t operate on US soil. National guard gets involved, at the governor’s request, but they don’t have missiles or drones. Police are barbaric, but they also don’t have missiles or drones.

So I don’t think we’d see much of an escalation in terms of weapons of violence with regards to protests when compared to 2020.

That actually shows it, thank you!

Am I the only one who can’t actually see the injury in the video? Whoever edited the original footage removed the most relevant part of the video and made a 2 minute video out of a 5 second clip and didn’t even include the useful part of the 5 seconds. Not sure how everyone is able to state with confidence the malicious nature from this poorly edited video.