9 ms·

If you can think of a good way to stop it happening before the midterms, I'm all ears.

saubeidl 9mo ago
You could do as the Ukrainians did for a start : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
- cmxch 9mo ago
  Kind of hard to pull off in a country that helped orchestrate it and with a lot more people to defend the status quo.
JasonADrury 9mo ago
[flagged]
- boplicity 9mo ago
  NO. Just no.
  - JasonADrury 9mo ago
    Why not? We're presumably accepting the premise that the country is going to "go rogue internationally and risk going to war with Europe, Canada, or South America?". Would it similarly have been a horrible thing in your mind if someone had shot Vladimir Putin in January 2014?
    - hackable_sand 9mo ago
      Americans don't live in Russia. How does that comparison even make sense?
      - JasonADrury 9mo ago
        Is it all about American exceptionalism then?
    - JohnFen 9mo ago
      > Why not? Well, ignoring the moral questions around it, here's a good reason. Trump isn't really the problem. He's the figurehead. The problem is the people who are backing him and using him to further their agendas. If he were to suddenly stop being president, for whatever reason, it wouldn't solve any of the issues we're having. In fact, it might make them worse. If Trump vanished, Vance is president and Vance is, if anything, even worse than Trump if for no other reason than Vance is actually smart.
      - JasonADrury 9mo ago
        Vance would almost certainly not be interested in owning Greenland. In fact, it's very unlikely that anyone but Trump would be, owning Greenland simply isn't all that interesting. Of course Vance might be worse in other ways, but he doesn't seem all that into starting wars.
        JohnFen 9mo ago
        The push for Greenland is coming from factions other than Vance, and those factions would remain. I'd expect Vance to go along with their desire just as much as Trump is. Why wouldn't he?
        JasonADrury 9mo ago
        Which factions do you believe those to be? The US taking over Greenland is essentially an entirely new idea that hasn't really been broadcast before by anyone but Trump. This strongly suggests that the idea doesn't originate from any powerful "faction".
        JohnFen 9mo ago
        The major proponent appears to be Stephen Miller. There are a lot of reports that the tech bro contingent is eager for it as well. It's not at all true that this is an entirely new idea, though. Greenland's status has been a topic of discussion ever since (at least) World War 2. What's new is that the administration is signalling that they are willing to actually invade. In the past, that was only discussed in terms of war plans should the US mainland be attacked or there's another world war. Purchasing it, though, is a pretty old idea.
- messe 9mo ago
  I'm no fan of the US administration (I live in Denmark and am LGBT), but leave that inflammatory rhetoric off of HN.
  - JasonADrury 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - messe 9mo ago
      > It's absolutely ridiculous to read my comment as expressing any opinion with regards to the US administration. It's simply an accurate answer to the question presented. Either you're being obtuse or you need to seriously reconsider how you communicate and how you expect others to read it.
      - JasonADrury 9mo ago
        Go on, actually use words. Instead of saying "you're being obtuse", say "It seems that you're being obtuse here because ..." > reconsider how you communicate and how you expect others to read it. I think the problem is firmly on your side. If we're discussing potential approaches to dealing with political leadership that's on track to start a massive war and possibly get millions of people killed, violence is inherently going to feature in those conversations. Where would you even draw the line? If a hypothetical leader of a country came on the TV suggesting that we should build large camps where we will kill all the jews, would it be okay to shoot them then? What if we replace killing the jews with re-educating gay people?
        messe 9mo ago
        This conversation doesn't belong here and will devolve into a flame war. It's not my job to teach you how to communicate. > I think the problem is firmly on your side The fact that you're getting downvoted and flagged to death would lead me to disagree. It seems most people didn't interpret it as you intended, which is a failure of communication on your side.
ihsw 9mo ago
[dead]
linguae 9mo ago
Short of enough Republicans finally declaring enough is enough and deciding on impeachment or the fourth clause of the 25th Amendment, the only other option is for pro-impeachment senator candidates to run as Republicans in the primaries, which begin as early as March. Theoretically, if enough Republican senators up for reelection get primaried due to their refusal to rein in Trump, this may put pressure on the rest of the GOP’s senators to remove Trump this year, and this may also encourage the House (which only requires a majority to impeach). Of course, the challenge is convincing the electorate in red states that Trump’s antics regarding Greenland are catastrophic enough to warrant his removal, given the stranglehold MAGA has on the Republican electorate.
- saubeidl 9mo ago
  You're completely dismissing all extraparliamentary means of opposition. Protests. Riots. Strikes. Y'know, the sort of thing that toppled Yanukovych in Ukraine, lotsa Middle Eastern dictators during the Arab Spring, British rule in India, Soviet control over the Baltics, etc etc etc. Your politicians are use- and spineless. It's time for your people to step up.
  - yodsanklai 9mo ago
    Last time I checked, only 56% of Americans disapproved Trump's actions. Not enough to trigger big riots... https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
    - nemomarx 9mo ago
      Only 4% or so approve of going to war to conquer Greenland, so if it gets that bad you might expect sentiment to keep turning. but his approval floor has been pretty steady at no lower than ~30 percent through every controversy so far.
      - yodsanklai 9mo ago
        I hope I'm wrong but I don't see American citizens rioting over international affairs unfortunately. Hopefully he'll be unpopular enough to lose senate, and his successor won't be as insane. That would be the best outcome.
yodsanklai 9mo ago
Protest every weekend? build momentum until this can't be ignored? perhaps write to congressmen? attend townhall meetings and ask questions to your representatives? try to raise awareness to your friends who don't vote? I have an American friend who keeps complaining about Trump. There was a protest in his city, but he didn't go because he had a BBQ to attend that weekend. Seriously, this isn't fun anymore and Americans should be extremely concerned and start acting one way or another. It may be symbolic but it's better than nothing, if only for peace of mind.
- nemomarx 9mo ago
  Representatives already either agree it's bad (and can't do much about it) or will not listen to the public (because they're Republicans and indented to trump for their careers. I don't have any friends who don't vote, really, and the midterms might not come soon enough to do anything here. My senator had a head injury and reversed all his opinions for some reason, so I've called his office a lot but he's very pro Invading Greenland now, and pro criminalizing his voters. Unhelpful guy. I would start preparing for all of this to happen, and tell your friend to get his passport up to date.
  - throw0101c 9mo ago
    > Representatives already either agree it's bad (and can't do much about it) Representatives can draft articles of impeached for the President. Senators can start impeaching various Secretaries like Defence ("War") and Homeland Security. Or all of the Secretaries really, since they're not upholding the Constitution themselves by not invoking the 25A to get rid of a mentally unstable President. Where are all these much-vaunted "checks and balances" that I've been hearing about for so long?
    - nemomarx 9mo ago
      Did you pay attention to his last impeachment? The much vaunted checks and balances rely on Congress and the supreme Court checking the executives power. Since the presidents party controls both, this doesn't happen. The Imperial Presidency has been absorbing power from the other branches since the 90s, and we are pretty close to the end of that process right now.
drcongo 9mo ago
Personally, I'm hoping Danish special forces are currently building a replica of Trump's house.
anigbrowl 9mo ago
General strikes. Technically these are illegal when called by unions under the Taft-HArtley act, but if done at the popular level they can grind the country to a halt. But mass protest is the most effective way to bring down a corrupt government, and doesn't require waiting for an election and being disappointed by another round of political scams. oh that isn't possible to organize No with that attitude authorities will brutalize the protestors freedom isn't free Americans are too comfortable/lazy to do mass political protest Well we'll see whether that's true I guess. what if this leads to civil war If the alternative is corruption and tyranny, maybe that's a fight worth having. Authoritarian governments do not historically reach a point where they say 'well that's enough tyranny, let's not get carried away lest history think ill of us.'
- swagmoney69 9mo ago
  [dead]
- NoGravitas 9mo ago
  General strikes require a large and powerful labor movement to organize them, and to provide people with material support for as long as the strike takes to achieve its goals. One day of symbolic absenteeism by the most politically involved 5% of the workforce is not going to cut it.
  - anigbrowl 9mo ago
    Strong labor movements help a lot, obviously, but general strikes are very often not labor disputes and not dependent on union infrastructure.
insane_dreamer 9mo ago
I think the only thing that would generate enough public momentum to stop Trump would be a US stock market crash.
baby 9mo ago
Protest

You could do as the Ukrainians did for a start : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

cmxch 9mo ago
Kind of hard to pull off in a country that helped orchestrate it and with a lot more people to defend the status quo.

JasonADrury 9mo ago

[flagged]

boplicity 9mo ago
NO. Just no.
- JasonADrury 9mo ago
  Why not? We're presumably accepting the premise that the country is going to "go rogue internationally and risk going to war with Europe, Canada, or South America?". Would it similarly have been a horrible thing in your mind if someone had shot Vladimir Putin in January 2014?
  - hackable_sand 9mo ago
    Americans don't live in Russia. How does that comparison even make sense?
    - JasonADrury 9mo ago
      Is it all about American exceptionalism then?
  - JohnFen 9mo ago
    > Why not? Well, ignoring the moral questions around it, here's a good reason. Trump isn't really the problem. He's the figurehead. The problem is the people who are backing him and using him to further their agendas. If he were to suddenly stop being president, for whatever reason, it wouldn't solve any of the issues we're having. In fact, it might make them worse. If Trump vanished, Vance is president and Vance is, if anything, even worse than Trump if for no other reason than Vance is actually smart.
    - JasonADrury 9mo ago
      Vance would almost certainly not be interested in owning Greenland. In fact, it's very unlikely that anyone but Trump would be, owning Greenland simply isn't all that interesting. Of course Vance might be worse in other ways, but he doesn't seem all that into starting wars.
      - JohnFen 9mo ago
        The push for Greenland is coming from factions other than Vance, and those factions would remain. I'd expect Vance to go along with their desire just as much as Trump is. Why wouldn't he?
        JasonADrury 9mo ago
        Which factions do you believe those to be? The US taking over Greenland is essentially an entirely new idea that hasn't really been broadcast before by anyone but Trump. This strongly suggests that the idea doesn't originate from any powerful "faction".
        JohnFen 9mo ago
        The major proponent appears to be Stephen Miller. There are a lot of reports that the tech bro contingent is eager for it as well. It's not at all true that this is an entirely new idea, though. Greenland's status has been a topic of discussion ever since (at least) World War 2. What's new is that the administration is signalling that they are willing to actually invade. In the past, that was only discussed in terms of war plans should the US mainland be attacked or there's another world war. Purchasing it, though, is a pretty old idea.
messe 9mo ago
I'm no fan of the US administration (I live in Denmark and am LGBT), but leave that inflammatory rhetoric off of HN.
- JasonADrury 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - messe 9mo ago
    > It's absolutely ridiculous to read my comment as expressing any opinion with regards to the US administration. It's simply an accurate answer to the question presented. Either you're being obtuse or you need to seriously reconsider how you communicate and how you expect others to read it.
    - JasonADrury 9mo ago
      Go on, actually use words. Instead of saying "you're being obtuse", say "It seems that you're being obtuse here because ..." > reconsider how you communicate and how you expect others to read it. I think the problem is firmly on your side. If we're discussing potential approaches to dealing with political leadership that's on track to start a massive war and possibly get millions of people killed, violence is inherently going to feature in those conversations. Where would you even draw the line? If a hypothetical leader of a country came on the TV suggesting that we should build large camps where we will kill all the jews, would it be okay to shoot them then? What if we replace killing the jews with re-educating gay people?
      - messe 9mo ago
        This conversation doesn't belong here and will devolve into a flame war. It's not my job to teach you how to communicate. > I think the problem is firmly on your side The fact that you're getting downvoted and flagged to death would lead me to disagree. It seems most people didn't interpret it as you intended, which is a failure of communication on your side.

ihsw 9mo ago

[dead]

linguae 9mo ago

Short of enough Republicans finally declaring enough is enough and deciding on impeachment or the fourth clause of the 25th Amendment, the only other option is for pro-impeachment senator candidates to run as Republicans in the primaries, which begin as early as March. Theoretically, if enough Republican senators up for reelection get primaried due to their refusal to rein in Trump, this may put pressure on the rest of the GOP’s senators to remove Trump this year, and this may also encourage the House (which only requires a majority to impeach). Of course, the challenge is convincing the electorate in red states that Trump’s antics regarding Greenland are catastrophic enough to warrant his removal, given the stranglehold MAGA has on the Republican electorate.

saubeidl 9mo ago
You're completely dismissing all extraparliamentary means of opposition. Protests. Riots. Strikes. Y'know, the sort of thing that toppled Yanukovych in Ukraine, lotsa Middle Eastern dictators during the Arab Spring, British rule in India, Soviet control over the Baltics, etc etc etc. Your politicians are use- and spineless. It's time for your people to step up.
- yodsanklai 9mo ago
  Last time I checked, only 56% of Americans disapproved Trump's actions. Not enough to trigger big riots... https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
  - nemomarx 9mo ago
    Only 4% or so approve of going to war to conquer Greenland, so if it gets that bad you might expect sentiment to keep turning. but his approval floor has been pretty steady at no lower than ~30 percent through every controversy so far.
    - yodsanklai 9mo ago
      I hope I'm wrong but I don't see American citizens rioting over international affairs unfortunately. Hopefully he'll be unpopular enough to lose senate, and his successor won't be as insane. That would be the best outcome.

yodsanklai 9mo ago

Protest every weekend? build momentum until this can't be ignored? perhaps write to congressmen? attend townhall meetings and ask questions to your representatives? try to raise awareness to your friends who don't vote? I have an American friend who keeps complaining about Trump. There was a protest in his city, but he didn't go because he had a BBQ to attend that weekend. Seriously, this isn't fun anymore and Americans should be extremely concerned and start acting one way or another. It may be symbolic but it's better than nothing, if only for peace of mind.

nemomarx 9mo ago
Representatives already either agree it's bad (and can't do much about it) or will not listen to the public (because they're Republicans and indented to trump for their careers. I don't have any friends who don't vote, really, and the midterms might not come soon enough to do anything here. My senator had a head injury and reversed all his opinions for some reason, so I've called his office a lot but he's very pro Invading Greenland now, and pro criminalizing his voters. Unhelpful guy. I would start preparing for all of this to happen, and tell your friend to get his passport up to date.
- throw0101c 9mo ago
  > Representatives already either agree it's bad (and can't do much about it) Representatives can draft articles of impeached for the President. Senators can start impeaching various Secretaries like Defence ("War") and Homeland Security. Or all of the Secretaries really, since they're not upholding the Constitution themselves by not invoking the 25A to get rid of a mentally unstable President. Where are all these much-vaunted "checks and balances" that I've been hearing about for so long?
  - nemomarx 9mo ago
    Did you pay attention to his last impeachment? The much vaunted checks and balances rely on Congress and the supreme Court checking the executives power. Since the presidents party controls both, this doesn't happen. The Imperial Presidency has been absorbing power from the other branches since the 90s, and we are pretty close to the end of that process right now.

drcongo 9mo ago

Personally, I'm hoping Danish special forces are currently building a replica of Trump's house.

anigbrowl 9mo ago

General strikes. Technically these are illegal when called by unions under the Taft-HArtley act, but if done at the popular level they can grind the country to a halt. But mass protest is the most effective way to bring down a corrupt government, and doesn't require waiting for an election and being disappointed by another round of political scams. oh that isn't possible to organize No with that attitude authorities will brutalize the protestors freedom isn't free Americans are too comfortable/lazy to do mass political protest Well we'll see whether that's true I guess. what if this leads to civil war If the alternative is corruption and tyranny, maybe that's a fight worth having. Authoritarian governments do not historically reach a point where they say 'well that's enough tyranny, let's not get carried away lest history think ill of us.'

swagmoney69 9mo ago
[dead]
NoGravitas 9mo ago
General strikes require a large and powerful labor movement to organize them, and to provide people with material support for as long as the strike takes to achieve its goals. One day of symbolic absenteeism by the most politically involved 5% of the workforce is not going to cut it.
- anigbrowl 9mo ago
  Strong labor movements help a lot, obviously, but general strikes are very often not labor disputes and not dependent on union infrastructure.

insane_dreamer 9mo ago

I think the only thing that would generate enough public momentum to stop Trump would be a US stock market crash.

baby 9mo ago

Protest