this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024

315 points (86.2% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26778 readers

1317 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 [email protected]

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

[email protected]

315

What's your plan if Trump wins in November? (lemm.ee)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

477 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm feeling so uneasy with everything I've been seeing. I keep thinking about what we will be this time next year, and if shit hits the fan, what is your plan? I'm queer and was politically active in 2020, so I would potentially be considered a political enemy.

The only blueprint I can think of is what you do in an active shooter situation; Flee, Hide, Fight.

I know there's that romantic notion of "don't be a coward, get out and protest", but I remember the brutality of the 2020 protests firsthand, and even then I thought "thank god I'm going toe to toe with the CPD and not the CCP". Next time is going to be different. The president now has authority to send drone strikes. Protests and riots don't stand a chance agains missiles and live rounds.

Flee- I have an Uncle in Montreal who my family could potentially use as a way to at least temporarily escape the chaos. The hope I'd have is that Canada and other countries would accept American refugees, however that's not a guarantee.

Hide- If borders are closed, lay low and move away from major cities if possible. If civil war breaks out, try to get away from the violence even if you think your side will win. Todays losers may be tomorrows victors.

Fight- If cellular data/ social media algorithms can keep track of you, and surveillance can make sure there's no movement, this would be the last resort of desperation. I guess if possible try to either find a group for safety in numbers, or conversely go guerrilla as groups of resistance would make easy targets.

Sorry my mind is running and I'm getting scared.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago (52 children)

I'd like to try to assuage your fears regarding a protest meeting missiles or drone strikes. Yes, the President can order drone strikes with impunity. It's been that way since the first use of drones, early as the Obama era (maybe earlier, but I was a bit young then).

However, this does not apply to US soil. One of the benefits of state sovereignty is that federal armed forces can't operate on US soil. National guard gets involved, at the governor's request, but they don't have missiles or drones. Police are barbaric, but they also don't have missiles or drones.

So I don't think we'd see much of an escalation in terms of weapons of violence with regards to protests when compared to 2020.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (8 children)

However, this does not apply to US soil. One of the benefits of state sovereignty is that federal armed forces can't operate on US soil

From the Project 2025 wiki page:

In November 2023, The Washington Post reported that deploying the military for domestic law enforcement under the Insurrection Act of 1807 would be an "immediate priority" upon a second Trump inauguration in 2025. That aspect of the plan was being led by Jeffrey Clark, a contributor to the project and a former official in the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ). Clark is a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America, a Project 2025 partner. The plan reportedly includes directing the DOJ to pursue those considered by Trump as disloyal or a political adversary

[+] [email protected] -14 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I was unaware of "Project 2025", interesting read! While that does contain multiple concerning ideas, this is far from a reliable manifesto. Additionally, ties have been drawn to the Trump campaign, but these are loose ties and appear primarily to be op-eds. Trump has also disavowed ties to this "publication". Lastly, that "Washington Post report" is another one of those vague articles featuring "according to sources familiar".

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Whether that manifesto's "reliable", well, we'll have to see. That recent immunity move by the SC is already a big step in the direction that Project 2025 wants to take the US in with their "unitary executive theory" bullshit – everything doesn't hinge on Trump.

Far as Trump's disavowals go, I'll believe it when I see it – that man lies as easily as he breathes. I'll be happily surprised if it does turn out he wasn't lying, but that's not going to be my default assumption. And it's not like Project 2025 hinges on his enthusiastic support of the Project, just its goals – if Trump gets elected he is the one choosing which recommendations he'll follow, and I don't find it very believable that he wouldn't be interested in eg. expanding executive power.

Lastly, that "Washington Post report" is another one of those vague articles featuring "according to sources familiar".

That's going to be what they publish every time the sources don't want anyone to know it was them, but it's not like the reporters don't know their sources or don't vet them –this "anonymous source bad" trope frankly reeks of the classic populist Lying press / Lügenpresse rhetoric. I really don't understand how people think things should work if anonymous sources are bad

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

I've seen multiples of you anti-american accounts pushing the lie that the traitor campaign isn't all in on this authoritarian dictatorship bullshit.

We're not buying your smurf campaign.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (48 replies)