this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
973 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19120 readers
3234 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Factually, that's what he did during his time in office as well. I'm not sure what they thought had changed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 69 points 3 months ago (6 children)

A. Win it. (Looking increasingly unlikely)

B. Steal it. Most of the fake electors are still in place, they've had four years to hire a new sleepers

C. Coup 2.0 historically the Democrats haven't been very smart about things and it'll totally blindside when you pull it again only this time with more people. All those people that got locked up in serious consequences we'll just tell them that we'll pardon them again

D. Civil War 2.0. if he doesn't win it, and can't steal it, and if there's actually military protection around the Capital for 2.0. he'll just openly call for the south to rise again. Only this time it's not the south, it's the rural areas, hell plan a Vietnam style offensive where the rural armed people lay siege everywhere.

My real actual best guess is he's tired. He's old, he's out of shape, he's stressed to the nines and he's just trying to blow off the stress, he probably does have a plan b in a plan c. His actual plan d is probably two take a flight to Russia.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 26 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Even the recent movie "Civil War" didn't touch on how and why such a thing started, because it just doesn't make sense. There may be regional conflicts and riots, I don't doubt that, but there's no single organization to pull off a new Confederacy or whatever it would be. People watching the film even laughed at the union of Texas and California...what? Maybe that was a subtle message by the writers to not take the overall thing seriously, the movie wasn't about the background events but about the characters in a hypothetical situation.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It was a real dogshit film. Just gratuitous violence. No real point. No story.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The movie is a counter point to the romanticism of political conflict. It intentionally doesn't go into the specifics of politics that lead to the war as that would be saying "this political side is bad" which wasn't the point. The far right romanticizes a civil war, the far left romanticizes a revolution. What you see in the movie is what it would look like if there was a wide spread political conflict. It shows the gory details to ask people on both extremes "is this what you really want?"

For a lot of people the best case scenario is to end up in that refugee camp in the football field. Worst case is to end up in a mass grave because some psychopath decided you're from the "wrong America". Does the politics matter to people that wind up in those outcomes? Does it even matter to the soldiers storming the Whitehouse? Just seemed like they had a mission to accomplish, the politics aren't all that relevant anymore at that point.

People sometimes feel like using violence may achieve a better political outcome. But the reality is everyone is just worse off because of it. That was the point.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

IMO, “war bad” is just so fucking pedestrian as to be a complete waste of the capital that goes into a film.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

Methinks you have a romanticized notion of a civil war (or revolution) and don't like having that bubble burst.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

C and D might be slipping away from him, and possibly even B. They require a base that's fired up to support him. He's starting to lose that. They'll still vote for him, and his best chance is to take a straight electoral college victory without the popular vote, but nothing extraordinary to subvert the system. If he doesn't make that, though, he's probably done.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

He wouldn't be able to succeed at C without military backing. In fact I don't think he has much of a chance of any of it succeeding. But go ahead and put it on your bingo card for trying. I suspect he's going to take a good shot at each one of those before it's over.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 months ago

I don’t think he ever wanted to be president, but now he has no choice.

Russia is probably plan B or C.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Look at the age of the AVERAGE US farmer.
I am not worried about a civil war lead by the gravy seals.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not too worried either. But The average age of the rural Texan is not 60. The guys that own the farms might be 60.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeah this is more just an indicator of the boomer monopolies that heavily exist.

They don't pass on their wealth or business they hold onto it until they die and look at how big some of those parcels of land are.

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 months ago

What about the average age of a meth head ?

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think the civil war one is actually the best case scenario.

Imagine a tired con man, not ready to fight, barely any energy. Calls for his die hard supporters to show up en masses and then a very tiny group show up and get arrested by the army (assuming the army doesn’t side with them).

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

For D the winning strategy for the United States needs to be to treat them as harshly as we treat eco terrorists. The viet cong had experienced Japanese and French occupation and so were more willing to engage in prolonged conflict. The confederacy had a lot of build up to prepare the common rabble for war. Martyrless crackdowns with a propaganda campaign can remove the will to fight.