People keep talking about "Federalizing the National Guard" and now you've got other States pledging their NG to Texas in defiance of the Supreme Court (see image).
So is this what CW2 looks like?
P.S. I'm a Brit
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
918 points (93.3% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26753 readers
1483 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
At current, this is all posturing. If Biden does engage the military to stop them. Perhaps lock up the governors for treason, maybe it could escalate somewhat. If something did happen that was in the line of being more serious, it wouldn't be a long incursion as long as the military obeyed the commander in chief. The national guard is absolutely no match for even a small slice of the might of the US military.
If something does happen, hopefully they'll shut it down quickly and bloodlessly, maybe finally gather enough strength to enable some Germany type of anti-fascism laws.
We need to fix gerrymandering, we need to fix people screwing with elections. We need to put some strong protections against the propaganda and opinion pieces flowing out of all the news outlets. We need to force free non-political basic education to the entire f****** country so people can make some informed decisions about s***.
I'm tired of everybody looking at politics like it's a f****** football game.
And if Trump gets in again? All the people not crazy going to along with him, or will he be to deploying the army? At what point does the apparatus of state start to split as people within it don't all go with crazy orders?
If I was Putin, or CCP, helping the crazies is the best money spent.
What are the chances of China attacking us during the civil war? Or taking Taiwan (we NEED Taiwan for our silicon production)
Us, never. Just like with China you can't win a land war over here, and a home attack has a greater risk of uniting is against a common enemy.
Taiwan possibly. Though I don't think so. Taiwan is much more useful as a political chess piece that China can beat their chests about. They can invoke the island and be offended about support for it whenever they need leverage right now.
Not to mention it isn't just the US alone that needs Taiwan and movement there risks a global response.
IDK if any other foreign entity actually supports Taiwan other than US
Define support.
They're not devoid of allies beyond the US and in general have vocal support of most of the western world.
But only 13 countries recognize them as a country, but not even the US is on that list of 13. Interestingly however, the Vatican does recognize them.
Which is why, they're remain a nice political chess price for China.
Something tells me this one is a non-starter, as any new laws will slam up against the Constitution, over and over again.
Having said that, I would love to at least seen a real-time label, in a large font size, on any monitor/tv that specifies that what's being shown is an opinion piece, and not a factual article/show.
If we go into a civil war, the Constitution's going to slam up against a lot of changes.
GOP is ignoring the shit out of the Constitution already why should it protect them? They already tried to dismantle the executive branch and turn the presidency into a dictatorship. Now they're going after the judicial branch. Nah, they're going to game the Constitution until the US is forced to change it. It's either going to happen slowly over time, or quickly after a pretty substantial bloodbath.
We can't just sit here and go oh look It's Hitler incarnate, but you know first amendment, oh damn, they ignored some laws and found some loopholes I guess we had just better conform to oppression by the minority. We better all get some swastikas.
This country isn't going to go quietly into dictatorship for fear of failing to make everyone happy. The Democrats are weak because they try to follow the rules, They try to give breaks to the people that f*** them over because they don't want to hurt the other people, but like everything else there's a line. When Americans are shooting each other over propaganda, The propaganda's going to have to f****** go.
The first amendment states that congress shall not abridge freedom of the press. In reality it needs to be strengthened because speech and press isn't free anymore, it's overwhelmingly controlled by interest with huge amounts of economic power. The reason for freedom fo speech and press is that dissenting ideas and thoughts are heard in order to have accountability. Which the current interpretation is doing the opposite of.
For example you could pass laws that any journalist has the right to voice his own opinion and not be fired or discriminated against by his employer (as long as he doesn't discriminate himself or uses hate speech). That would not abridge the freedom of the press. Basically give the journalists more freedom from their owners.
Or you could make a law that forces owners to sell their media empires into trusts that are democratically controlled by the journalists / workers, and finance it through a bank. This would not abridge the freedom of the press (which is not the same as the owner).
Of course this is unthinkable and the current supreme court would never allow it. But we shouldn't accept the degenerate view that freedom of the press is the same as turning speech and news into a commodity that is owned by the elite. And especially in a plutocracy that basically is state owned media.
You could appoint a 100 young people as new supreme court judges and then pass these modern laws and election reform also limiting the future excesses of the supreme court. There isn't really anything stopping the Democrats from doing that.