3 ms·

i don’t think we should lull ourselves into complacency with projected certainties. if you listen to right-wing discourse, you’d know there is an not insignific

i don’t think we should lull ourselves into complacency with projected certainties. if you listen to right-wing discourse, you’d know there is an not insignificant contingent of folks that are very okay with that path

UltraSane 1y ago
Which is why it would trigger a civil war. Republicans will destroy democracy in the US before accepting defeat but the rest of us are not going to lie down and let them.
- jm4 1y ago
  Who is going to lead? It's not as if we can all spontaneously take to the streets and start fighting the bad guys. It requires leadership, logistics, weapons, planning, and about a thousand other things. A would be leader would be taken out immediately. Realistically, the most feasible way a two-sided civil war happens is if a number of generals revolt. That's a big if. Soldiers need to eat and get paid. Who's going to do that? Otherwise, it's just the government - aka the orange lunatic with all the guns and money - running roughshod over everyone. The most optimistic scenario would be an open and overwhelming revolt at all levels of government and forcing him to leave simply because there's nobody left who will obey. After that, we would need to return to some semblance of sanity and amend the constitution to prevent anything like this from happening again. It requires a competent Congress with principles and conviction. Furthermore, it requires massive public support. Unfortunately, about 30% of the population is eager to support the orange bastard and watch the world burn. The country will be dealing with the fallout of this POS for the next 150 years, assuming the country even lasts that long.
  - UltraSane 1y ago
    The military would NOT support a third term for Trump. They swear to uphold the constitution and the constitution clearly says no president can serve for more than two terms. Same with any other tricks they try to pull that would let Trump still be president in 2029.
    - jm4 1y ago
      That’s the assumption and I hope it’s correct. We are in uncharted territory though. He’s been actively purging non-loyalists and punishing his foes. This is the dictator playbook and my fear is that he will be completely entrenched by the time anyone realizes he needs to be forced out.
      - UltraSane 1y ago
        The dictator playbook can't work with the way the US military is structured around loyalty to the constitution and not a person and Trump can't change that. I would estimate 90% of all officers despise him and basically none of them will support him in blatantly violating the constitution.
        jm4 1y ago
        That was always my belief too. Now I'm less sure than I used to be. I hope you're right.
        UltraSane 1y ago
        Do you actually envision the military accepting a third Trump term when it directly violates the constitution? It would be a violation of their oath.
        boston_clone 1y ago
        touching back on this - United States senators are openly admitting that they are determining ways to "work around" the constitutionality [0]. Pair that with continued purges of non-loyalists by SecDef, and yeah - this is a potential reality we cannot afford to dismiss offhandedly. 0. https://packaged-media.redd.it/57z4o0bjr1yf1/pb/m2-res_480p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1761771600&s=6bb081327dbac64167ad4122b7ba03c3cc75bcfa https://packaged-media.redd.it/57z4o0bjr1yf1/pb/m2-res_480p....

UltraSane 1y ago

Which is why it would trigger a civil war. Republicans will destroy democracy in the US before accepting defeat but the rest of us are not going to lie down and let them.

jm4 1y ago
Who is going to lead? It's not as if we can all spontaneously take to the streets and start fighting the bad guys. It requires leadership, logistics, weapons, planning, and about a thousand other things. A would be leader would be taken out immediately. Realistically, the most feasible way a two-sided civil war happens is if a number of generals revolt. That's a big if. Soldiers need to eat and get paid. Who's going to do that? Otherwise, it's just the government - aka the orange lunatic with all the guns and money - running roughshod over everyone. The most optimistic scenario would be an open and overwhelming revolt at all levels of government and forcing him to leave simply because there's nobody left who will obey. After that, we would need to return to some semblance of sanity and amend the constitution to prevent anything like this from happening again. It requires a competent Congress with principles and conviction. Furthermore, it requires massive public support. Unfortunately, about 30% of the population is eager to support the orange bastard and watch the world burn. The country will be dealing with the fallout of this POS for the next 150 years, assuming the country even lasts that long.
- UltraSane 1y ago
  The military would NOT support a third term for Trump. They swear to uphold the constitution and the constitution clearly says no president can serve for more than two terms. Same with any other tricks they try to pull that would let Trump still be president in 2029.
  - jm4 1y ago
    That’s the assumption and I hope it’s correct. We are in uncharted territory though. He’s been actively purging non-loyalists and punishing his foes. This is the dictator playbook and my fear is that he will be completely entrenched by the time anyone realizes he needs to be forced out.
    - UltraSane 1y ago
      The dictator playbook can't work with the way the US military is structured around loyalty to the constitution and not a person and Trump can't change that. I would estimate 90% of all officers despise him and basically none of them will support him in blatantly violating the constitution.
      - jm4 1y ago
        That was always my belief too. Now I'm less sure than I used to be. I hope you're right.
        UltraSane 1y ago
        Do you actually envision the military accepting a third Trump term when it directly violates the constitution? It would be a violation of their oath.
        boston_clone 1y ago
        touching back on this - United States senators are openly admitting that they are determining ways to "work around" the constitutionality [0]. Pair that with continued purges of non-loyalists by SecDef, and yeah - this is a potential reality we cannot afford to dismiss offhandedly. 0. https://packaged-media.redd.it/57z4o0bjr1yf1/pb/m2-res_480p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1761771600&s=6bb081327dbac64167ad4122b7ba03c3cc75bcfa https://packaged-media.redd.it/57z4o0bjr1yf1/pb/m2-res_480p....