Trumpists Are Suffering the Free Market Consequences Of Being Deplorable

[Loren Pechtel]

Look. If things go that far, you and your. 38 or. 45 or shotgun, etc. will mean little. A hell fire missile from a drone will blow you up as a declared terrorist from 30 km away. The idea that the people will keep the government in check with their personal firearms is silly.

It depends on how many people are opposing the government. If it's the majority they're going to have a very hard time dealing with all the people with hunting rifles. Take one shot and depart.

 

[Angry Floof]

I didn't say that those things were happening. I'm saying that if things went off the rails that badly the rednecks with the firearms are not going to save Democracy "Red Dawn" style.

I see a lot of posts on facebook from trump cultists laughing at libtards because in the case of foreign invasion, we'd be unarmed. It's like they forgot that we have a MILITARY, and even if we didn't, it's not like an invasion could be stopped by a bunch of ammosexuals waddling out of their moms' basements with AR-15s.

 

[bilby]

Look. If things go that far, you and your. 38 or. 45 or shotgun, etc. will mean little. A hell fire missile from a drone will blow you up as a declared terrorist from 30 km away. The idea that the people will keep the government in check with their personal firearms is silly.

It depends on how many people are opposing the government. If it's the majority they're going to have a very hard time dealing with all the people with hunting rifles. Take one shot and depart.

Sure. They rolled straight over the military forces of Iraq, which were a cohesive force armed with military weapons, including artillery and tanks, and with a command and control structure, internal discipline, and logistical support. But a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles will stop them in their tracks.

 

[bilby]

Look. If things go that far, you and your. 38 or. 45 or shotgun, etc. will mean little. A hell fire missile from a drone will blow you up as a declared terrorist from 30 km away. The idea that the people will keep the government in check with their personal firearms is silly.

Goddamn. This is where the CT goes off the rails. Do you understand what needs to happen for your scenario to occur?

For Trump to assume dictatorial power within the US... he needs no resistance from Congress,

Not no resistance; Just no effective resistance. As long as the majority party in Congress supports him , he will be fine.

and no resistance from the Judicial branch,

Again, just no effective resistance. As long as he has the support of a majority of the Supreme Court, he will be fine.

and no resistance from the military.

That's the missing piece right now; But how likely is it that the military (or even a large fraction of it) will oppose the Commander in Chief?

Somehow, he needs to get a supermajority of a congress that he does not entirely control to side with him and support his usurpation of power.

Which he can do using 'salami tactics'. He isn't going to declare himself Führer all of a sudden and expect people to go along.

He needs to convince the Judicial branch, whose duty is the interpretation of the constitution, to support him in directly violating that constitution.

If he can persuade 30% of the people to support him, and that he isn't violating the constitution (or that his violation of it is unimportant) then he shouldn't have any trouble finding judges to appoint who agree with that position

And he needs the support of the US military, whose duty is to uphold the OFFICE of the President (not the acting president) and to act in accord with the constitution, to violate their sworn oaths and the UCMJ and turn their arms against the citizens of the US who are acting in accord with their constitutional rights in protecting themselves from a violation of the constitution.

Except that it's salami tactics. They won't be "turn[ing] their arms against the citizens of the US who are acting in accord with their constitutional rights"; They will be protecting the US against domestic terrorists.

What on earth makes you think that will happen? Why do you think that the entire military apparatus will meekly go along with the desires of a self-proclaimed dictator in direct violation of their duty?

Why not? It's happened many times before in many places. What's so special about the USA? He's not going to proclaim himself dictator until the last stage. It's easy to decide not to do something as serious as revolution, while the dictator leaves you with room to doubt that he is really staging a coup. All he has to do is not proclaim anything other than that he is defending you against terrorists and illegals.

What makes you think that law enforcement would kow-tow to orders that directly violate their role and responsibility to the people of the united states?

The War on Terror. And the prevention of an invasion by 'Illegals'. Terrorists and illegals are, by definition, unworthy of the protection of law. That's how the police and military will see this.

Trump doesn't have nearly enough support to pull this off. Not even remotely close.

Oh, it's definitely remotely close. It's perhaps even frighteningly close. And it keeps getting closer.

Salami tactics. Nobody takes over a country by simply declaring themselves Führer and expecting everyone to fall into line; That's the LAST step of the takeover, not the FIRST.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKbDKsNsjac[/YOUTUBE]

Watch the above video, and consider that a popular revolution to oust the dictator is the nuclear option - starting a revolution is a huge commitment from a fragmented populace. When do the people rise up to overthrow Trump?

When he bans Muslims from coming to the US? When he locks up children to deter immigrants from Mexico? When he appoints one, or two, or three religious and conservative justices to the Supreme Court? When he postpones the Presidential elections pending an investigation of illegal voting? When that postponement drags on, and he appoints an 'emergency congress' to pass budgets and legislation until fair elections can be resumed? When he arrests journalists who speak out against this, and suggest that the people exercise their second amendment rights, on the basis that they are inciting terrorism?

People with far less than 30% support have taken over countries in the past. It's difficult to persuade the army to revolt against someone who can show at least the pretense of legitimacy. As long as Trump was elected once, and the prospect of elections 'soon' can be dangled in front of the powers that be until they can be replaced by hand-picked cronies and 'reliable' supporters of the regime, it's really not that hard to make it happen.

Your people didn't rise up and defend democracy when Al Gore won the presidency and was overthrown by the Bush family in Florida. Why the fuck do you think they will do so under any foreseeable circumstances?

Tyranny doesn't declare itself and invite you to fight it. It sneaks in and erodes any possible organization against it, getting a bit more power and a bit more difficult to oust day by day, month by month, until suddenly people are saying 'If only we had acted sooner; But now it is too late'.

 

[Arctish]

Agree 100% with this^ and will add one more thing.

Trump won't have to declare himself dictator if he can get Congress to simply give him more power and eliminate Constitutional constraints in a rah-rah, freedom-fries and flag waving show of 'patriotism', like it did for W. when it passed the Patriot Act.

Indefinite detentions, warrantless searches, and torture, anyone?

 

[ZiprHead]

Which he can do using 'salami tactics'. He isn't going to declare himself Führer all of a sudden and expect people to go along.

 

[whollygoats]

I grew up with these signs posted in most retail businesses where I took my custom. Does it really mean anything?

If I sincerely hold a belief that Republicans (or, Evangelicals) are morally repugnant, child-snatching, lying perverts, and thus a threat to my customers, can I not unilaterally ban them from my outlets?

 

[Angry Floof]

I grew up with these signs posted in most retail businesses where I took my custom. Does it really mean anything?

If I sincerely hold a belief that Republicans (or, Evangelicals) are morally repugnant, child-snatching, lying perverts, and thus a threat to my customers, can I not unilaterally ban them from my outlets?

This is a red herring in regard to the Red Hen incident. They don't ban Republicans. Lexington, VA is not a liberal haven. That restaurant is full of Republicans every day. There is zero evidence that anyone at the restaurant intends to discriminate against conservatives among their neighbors and fellow citizens.

Again, this is a case of ordinary citizens standing up to a person in power who uses her powerful position to excuse, defend, and lie about immoral acts on the part of the current administration and party in power, acts that affect millions of human beings.

It's speaking truth to power, something that right wing authoritarian followers can't handle. They have to mischaracterize it as some kind of bad behavior and lack of politeness. If they acknowledge what it really is, they might be forced to reflect honestly on the inhumanity of their own behavior and world view, and that's a mortal sin to end times zealots like the Huckabees.

 

[Emily Lake]

Sure. They rolled straight over the military forces of Iraq, which were a cohesive force armed with military weapons, including artillery and tanks, and with a command and control structure, internal discipline, and logistical support. But a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles will stop them in their tracks.

Case in point here being Vietnam and Korea.

 

[Emily Lake]

and no resistance from the military.

That's the missing piece right now; But how likely is it that the military (or even a large fraction of it) will oppose the Commander in Chief?

Extremely likely. Honestly, do you even know any military personnel?

 

[laughing dog]

and no resistance from the military.

That's the missing piece right now; But how likely is it that the military (or even a large fraction of it) will oppose the Commander in Chief?

Extremely likely. Honestly, do you even know any military personnel?

I do. And I find bilby's concern reasonable.

To be frank, what stops him is a whoooooole lot of americans with firearms who aren't going to meekly surrender their (or their neighbor's) constitutional rights, despite how many times not-republicans argue for removal of the second amendment. For all of the arguments against firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens, and for all of the risks that attend that right... that right, and the high level of exercise of that right in the US is exactly what curtails him from being a tyrant.

Despite however much he might want to be one.

Your forget that a significant portion of those gunowners agree with Trump, his views and his methods. Why would you think they would view him as a tyrant as long as he was on the road to "MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN"?

Here's the thing: we remember that. And so does the Jewish community. Do you know how many firearms my spouse has sold to older Jews during the last couple of years? Do you know how many firearms he has sold to minorities, and to gay people?

My guess is these people are not buying guns to protect themselves from the government but from racists, bigots and homophobes.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's speaking truth to power, something that right wing authoritarian followers can't handle. They have to mischaracterize it as some kind of bad behavior and lack of politeness. If they acknowledge what it really is, they might be forced to reflect honestly on the inhumanity of their own behavior and world view, and that's a mortal sin to end times zealots like the Huckabees.

Precisely. It’s those damn “uppity lib’rals”

 

[braces_for_impact]

Sure. They rolled straight over the military forces of Iraq, which were a cohesive force armed with military weapons, including artillery and tanks, and with a command and control structure, internal discipline, and logistical support. But a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles will stop them in their tracks.

Case in point here being Vietnam and Korea.

I think not. The face of war has changed quite a bit since those two conflicts because of technology and the techniques used in a conflict. There's quite a few very important differences between those and a scenario where the government, with support of the military, attacks citizens of it's own country in violation of the constitution. Again, I don't think this scenario likely. I think that in time it's very possible we could slide in fascism without a shot being fired.

I see loss of freedom now, taking place before our eyes, which was accelerated with legislation like The Patriot Act. I see minorities and protected classes being targeted, and with the recent shift in the Supreme Court, I believe there will be significant rollback of freedom for women and especially LBGTQ communities, as well as religions other than Christianity and non-believers. Corporate power will be enhanced. Various protections for the citizens will be reduced or eliminated. Environmental protection will be a joke, and when these things take place, there will be no court to get justice from.

The needle will have moved on the spectrum, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could deny this, unless they think certain peoples don't deserve those freedoms in the first place. The good Christians of the U.S. will be able to put up their "no gays" signs, gays will most likely lose their right to marry, and the states will decide whether their female citizens are entitled to the right to decide whether or not they will carry a pregnancy to full term. I shudder to think what may happen to any women or health providers that break that law. I could easily imagine a federal court deciding that crossing state lines for an abortion would be a chargeable offense as well.

So minorities will be first. What is to stop this form continuing there? Ever watch FOX news? Trumpers HATE Black Lives Matter. It is not a stretch to think that eventually we could move to people of color. What's happening at the border now will be commonplace, and we will yearn for these days with regards to our cruelty. The United States is already a paramilitary state with certain abuses of it's power commonplace. This will be aggravated.

We had better hope that at least the Dems take control of the Legislative and Executive branches to prevent the full execution of this loss of rights, since there will be now addressing it through the courts. Frankly, I don't think there will be a huge blue wave. We might win the House, the Senate looks very unlikely. We might get the Presidency. We will see, I suggest we come back in 20 years to see if I'm right.

 

[bilby]

Sure. They rolled straight over the military forces of Iraq, which were a cohesive force armed with military weapons, including artillery and tanks, and with a command and control structure, internal discipline, and logistical support. But a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles will stop them in their tracks.

Case in point here being Vietnam and Korea.

What, you plan to tolerate massive losses on the basis that there are plenty more Chinese soldiers who can replace them?

I'm not sure that's a winning strategy for the American people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look. If things go that far, you and your. 38 or. 45 or shotgun, etc. will mean little. A hell fire missile from a drone will blow you up as a declared terrorist from 30 km away. The idea that the people will keep the government in check with their personal firearms is silly.

It depends on how many people are opposing the government. If it's the majority they're going to have a very hard time dealing with all the people with hunting rifles. Take one shot and depart.

Sure. They rolled straight over the military forces of Iraq, which were a cohesive force armed with military weapons, including artillery and tanks, and with a command and control structure, internal discipline, and logistical support. But a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles will stop them in their tracks.

Look at the difference in casualties between the invasion and the occupation.

 

[jab]

You must not have a facebook account.

You are correct.

- - - Updated - - -

I said in aid of a fascist state.

Okay, fine. Which "fascist state" is it in aid of?

Russia?
The Repugs' donors' Utopia?
Trumpdearleaderforlfestan?

 

[jab]

View attachment 16300

Yes, republicans are being incredibly hypocritical here. However, sad that democrats are stooping to Trump's level. We're following Trump into the gutter...

You gotta fight 'em where they are sometimes.

 

[jab]

Hyperbolic CT much?

In less than 18 months, the President settled a fraud case involving his fake University, fired an acting AG, the FBI Director, has intimidated multiple witnesses, gone on a tirade live on television, admitted to obstructing justice, handed over critical Israeli based intel to the Russians, attempted to give the Russians back their spy HQ, couldn't speak out against the KKK, engaging in an aimless tariff war with friends and foes alike, and is engaging in reckless retorts with our allies... among other things!

And the GOP has done almost nothing about any of it. In fact, the House GOP is in bed with him, helping with the obstruction. This is a time to worry.

Didn't he also proclaim the free press as an enemy of the American people?

- - - Updated - - -

Hyperbolic CT much?

A bit hyperbolic perhaps. But the vacuity of that response speaks to its accuracy.

No, it doesn't.

Nobody has kidnapped refugee children. They haven't been sequestered in "secret dark sites", whether at night or during the day. The amount of hyperbolic conflation of fact and fictional appeals to emotion in your post is... well... enlightening.

denial much? well. . . nauseating

 

[ZiprHead]

View attachment 16300

Yes, republicans are being incredibly hypocritical here. However, sad that democrats are stooping to Trump's level. We're following Trump into the gutter...

You gotta fight 'em where they are sometimes.

Republicans kick down. Democrats kick up.

 

[jab]

To be frank, what stops him is a whoooooole lot of americans with firearms who aren't going to meekly surrender their (or their neighbor's) constitutional rights, despite how many times not-republicans argue for removal of the second amendment. For all of the arguments against firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens, and for all of the risks that attend that right... that right, and the high level of exercise of that right in the US is exactly what curtails him from being a tyrant.

Despite however much he might want to be one.

This is a short excerpt from a book called On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Here if anyone is interested.

Here's the thing: we remember that. And so does the Jewish community. Do you know how many firearms my spouse has sold to older Jews during the last couple of years? Do you know how many firearms he has sold to minorities, and to gay people?

cheap rhetorical questions? So-tell us how many, or consider your point here moot.
And, of course, many right wing gun owners support Trump, and could use their guns in support of Trump if he were impeached, or voted out of office, or declared martial law. They would declare themselves properly armed militia under your guys' Second Amendment.