Trump Lambasting Diverse Congress People

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Who is this he?

I did a bit of scrolling and I deduced that you may have been referring to my post where I said "he" a little out of line or context. I was referring to you at the top of the page, but if I mischaracterized you then I hope you'll excuse me.

[clearspira]

Because despite the trolling, the 2nd Amendment is a laughable defense against true government overreach in the 21st century. A bit like using bows and arrows against Spanish armor and muskets.

No they are using very similar kind of guns and there is a limited amount of aircrafts, drones and tanks.

And you know someone who has a defence against those limited amount of aircrafts, drones and tanks? I'll clue you in: unless you know someone packing some $50,000 dollar a shot missiles then no you don't.

They have infinite bombs?
How are they gonna track down everyone to make sure they behave?

They won't need infinite bombs.

1) One bomb can kill multiple people. So can a gun.

2) There are three types of civilians in every war: fighters, collaborators and ostriches i.e. those that will stick their head in the sand and wait for everything to blow over. At best, you'll have a third of all civilians in the US in your side, but the best case scenario is almost never the one that happens especially as this is unlikely to be a 3/3/3 split.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think this video is relevant for those concerned about war within the United States by the government.


youtu.be/ImTi03FPBr8

[Yukaphile]

The idea of an internal rebellion succeeding assumes most people will be on their side. Most Americans are fat, lazy, comfortable, and despite depression being on the rise, mostly well off. Even if Fascism comes to America, those big-name politicians citing a "revolution with millions of kids marching" with a misty glimmer to their gaze, like Sanders, are failing to consider in such a state, they'd be locked up for treason, and most people won't side with them. They'll do what they can to help out and be kind from a distance, but actively go on the front lines, whether underground or in an open battlefield, won't matter. We're just not going to risk that. Take myself as an example. Even if the US became full-blown dictator police state, I'm not gonna fight to change that. The only way it'd impact me would be if they shut down the Internet, and they probably would, but even then, I wouldn't get involved. I'd just conform to what they want and carefully monitor my responses online. I am NOT risking my life for a country and a species I don't believe in when history keeps repeating and human cruelty and death is inevitable. Nothing changes, just the players do. And I get tired of it.

[LittleRaven]

The victory condition in the “it’s 1943 Germany oh fuck” scenario is an overthrow of the government. With that in mind, if conventional weapons don’t work... why wouldn’t they blow up Dallas to intimidate the population?

Because historically, that kind of thing doesn't work very well. People all over the country have loved ones in Dallas. For every insurgent you kill, you end up spawning 3 more. And frankly...the insurgents have a much, MUCH easier win condition. For the government to win, they need to create and enforce a stable system with a functional economy. For the insurgents to win, all they need is chaos. And chaos is way easier to manage.

This is what we came up against in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not like we couldn't beat the insurgents - hell, we absolutely pantsed them every time we actually brought them to battle. But they didn't have to win any battles...all they had to do was make sure the society was non-functional, and then revel in constant bombing, militia-forming, revenge killing cycle that inevitably ensues. Unless you're one of those people that think the reason we couldn't set up a functional government in Iraq is that we just weren't brutal enough.

The modern capacity to scorch the earth rises to the level of extinction event. And men like that would do it.

Yup. I'm dubious that we could actually end the human race, but I'm quite confident we could end civilization as we know it. And there are certainly men who rather end the world in a bang than relinquish power.

But I suspect that there aren't as many of those men as we sometimes fear. We have seen nuclear powers crumble before - none of them have ever unleashed their arsenals. I suspect even General Groves would balk at unleashing nuclear fire on Los Angeles, no matter how unruly the population. Though I would certainly prefer to avoid putting that suspicion to the test.

[Yukaphile]

Americans and our dreams of every citizen rising up protesting what's wrong, like those big-name politicians cite with a wistful glimmer in their eyes. It's the cowboy mindset. It's never gonna happen.

[clearspira]

The victory condition in the “it’s 1943 Germany oh fuck” scenario is an overthrow of the government. With that in mind, if conventional weapons don’t work... why wouldn’t they blow up Dallas to intimidate the population?

Because historically, that kind of thing doesn't work very well. People all over the country have loved ones in Dallas. For every insurgent you kill, you end up spawning 3 more. And frankly...the insurgents have a much, MUCH easier win condition. For the government to win, they need to create and enforce a stable system with a functional economy. For the insurgents to win, all they need is chaos. And chaos is way easier to manage.

This is what we came up against in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not like we couldn't beat the insurgents - hell, we absolutely pantsed them every time we actually brought them to battle. But they didn't have to win any battles...all they had to do was make sure the society was non-functional, and then revel in constant bombing, militia-forming, revenge killing cycle that inevitably ensues. Unless you're one of those people that think the reason we couldn't set up a functional government in Iraq is that we just weren't brutal enough.

The modern capacity to scorch the earth rises to the level of extinction event. And men like that would do it.

Yup. I'm dubious that we could actually end the human race, but I'm quite confident we could end civilization as we know it. And there are certainly men who rather end the world in a bang than relinquish power.

But I suspect that there aren't as many of those men as we sometimes fear. We have seen nuclear powers crumble before - none of them have ever unleashed their arsenals. I suspect even General Groves would balk at unleashing nuclear fire on Los Angeles, no matter how unruly the population. Though I would certainly prefer to avoid putting that suspicion to the test.

And sometimes you run into men like Assad who is happy to let his whole country burn as long as he remains in power. How many years of rebels ripping up his country has it been now? You only need one Assad or one Saddam or one Kim Jong with America's arsenal and they would end the world for just one more day in office.

[clearspira]

Americans and our dreams of every citizen rising up protesting what's wrong, like those big-name politicians cite with a wistful glimmer in their eyes. It's the cowboy mindset. It's never gonna happen.

Absolutely. Like I said, fighters, collaborators and ostriches. You'll find them in every war throughout history.

[LittleRaven]

The idea of an internal rebellion succeeding assumes most people will be on their side.

Depends on what you mean by "succeeding."

If you want the Hollywood version, where the evil authoritarian government falls and is immediately replaced by a highly functional civilian government, then yeah, you need an overwhelming percentage of the population behind you. So overwhelming, in fact, that it's difficult to imagine how the previous government functioned at all. This is probably why the Hollywood version is so rare in real life.

But if you're willing to settle for the Somali version, where the evil authoritarian government falls and is replaced by a series of weak, dysfunctional governments that barely rise above the level of anarchy...well, you can make do with a whole lot less. Exactly how much less is debatable...people like to throw the 3% figure around a lot, but I suspect it's complicated, and trying to narrow it down to an exact percentage is a losing game. Regardless, modern technology puts a terrifying amount of killing power into an individual's hands, so it doesn't take all that many dedicated individuals to start causing real problems for a society at large.

[Yukaphile]

There's also a big problem in that a lot of citizens have differing ideas on what is and is not "fighting against what's wrong." For some, simply to go against established authority is wrong. We blast and demonize the Germans for being collectively guilty, but honestly, I think many of them had this mindset, and the same one I listed. Even those who could see the truth were powerless to change it. Those few who tried, like assassinating Hitler, deserve mention, but I really shudder to think how badly they'd suffer if they'd been caught. And short of those guilty like in the party leadership, nobody deserves that... plus it's way too get easy to think the way the state wants you in a dictatorship where the majority of the news is being manipulated to TELL the people how to think based on the biases and prejudices of those in charge.