Nearly a third of Americans – 30% – say people may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track, according to the latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll.
It’s a sharp rise from 18 months ago, when 19% of Americans said the same.
Nearly a third of Americans – 30% – say people may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track, according to the latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll.
It’s a sharp rise from 18 months ago, when 19% of Americans said the same.
Gee, almost as if Russian propaganda is working.
Before the Civil War one politician opined that if a war started you’d be able to mop up all the blood spilled with one handkerchief.
Anyone who thinks a new fight will be any easier has probably never been in a real fight.
I don’t think people realize that if a new US civil war kicked off the lines wouldn’t be as clear as north vs south. this would be state vs state, city vs city, neighbor vs neighbor. you could draw lines in your god damn sub division/street.
And if it were alliances between states it would be a god damn logistical nightmare. Imagine California being allied with New York for example. or Hell Minnesota being allied with like Arizona or whatever. how do you move supplies, troops, and what have you between allied states when you got a shit ton of hostiles between the two.
Add to the fact that unlike the first civil war you now have US military bases all over the world. what happens when you got folks within the SAME base in the middle of Germany that suddenly don’t “agree” with each other?
Cluster fuck is an understatement.
It’s also why we need to avoid violence and make the regime stumble into itself.
Which is why Chinese and Russia propaganda is attempting to stoke the fire (remember, they eliminated their opposition, so they don’t have the same experience inciting violence and they think they do).
implying there has ever not been violence or that the current amount of violence by right wingers and the US government isn’t already, currently, right this fucking second even worse than before Trump’s first term
nonviolent resistance is an important front but it alone won’t be enough, I fear.
Here’s the thing: It’s not going to fucking do that; it’s going to stumble into fascism. Fascism is stupid and incompetent, but it absolutely does not and will not fizzle out without a resistance as committed as the fascists themselves. I mean, which fascist movement in history “stumbled into itself?”
I saw one dream map where Canada drops two tentacles; one reaches down through the West all the way to San Diego, and the Eastern one reaches just north of Washington.
Humor aside, I agree with your take. A war of assassins and terrorists on both sides.
I’ll add one more note. Back in the day, the Irish Republican Army was the most feared underground in the world. They only had a handful of soldiers, but a superb organization. If a shooter was supposed to kill someone in Geneva, he’d have three or four cars waiting when he got to the airport, and each driver would know five places the shooter could stay. He’d have a choice of getaway drivers and extra safe houses and docotrs on tap.
Everything is Russia’s fault, got it.
So which hashtag would you use to end slavery?
Let’s turn it around.
I say violence won’t work.
Please explain in detail how you see the conflict going. I mean, I’m certain that the same people who couldn’t get past the DNC to get Bernie nominated will have no problem facing off against “military contractors” hired by the billionaire class.
Details, please.
So what did Occupy Wall Street accomplish? What about the March for our Lives protests? What about the BLM riots? What did Bernie Sanders winning every single county in the 2016 WV Democrat Primary accomplish?
I mean, I dread whatever violence is upcoming. But the reality is liberation has never happened with solely nonviolent means. Even King and Ghandi were buttressed by groups that used a variety of tactics, including violence, to force the state to come to the table with them.
This isn’t to advocate indiscriminate or senseless violence, but if your resistance group is nonviolent, and condemn any violence by other resistance groups, they have severely limited the range of tactics acceptable for use, and cede the power of justified violence to those in power only.
There’s a good book called “How Nonviolence Protects the State” that goes into depth on this, you should check it out.
Give up and let them kill us, got it.
Still not seeing an actual plan.
I’m pretty sure we all agree that violence is a bad solution. The problem is we’re all out of good ones. What are the alternatives at this point?
Violence works, otherwise there wouldn’t be any. We’ve put up a whole system of laws and police and investigators and courts and prisons in order to provide an alternative to violence. And even then, that system is itself backed up with a real threat of violence as well as its occasional localized deployment.
Yesterday’s “pep rally” where none of the military leaders dragged in had anything good to say about it suggests that there is not the overwhelming military support that Trump wants there to be. There are plenty of examples of far less powerful local forces successfully standing up to superpowers. Afghanistan is one. Wallachia is another.
When the entire federal government and many state governments have wholly abandoned the systems put together to avoid violence, and are in fact using the husks of those systems to apply violence to their opponents, we’ve already crossed the Rubicon.
Violence fails 50% of the time, if not more. Every fight has a losing side.
Yup, and the side that loses is the side that wasn’t violent enough.
Read up on your history.
The US dropped something like five Hiroshimas a day on North Viet-Nam for years.
Germany killed many more enemy soldiers than Russia did.
Quality over quantity.
Which is literally the opposite of your previous comment.
Your apology is poorly worded, but I accept it.
I would like to throw in that Vietnam managed to not only win a war against the US/French/Australians… but to also win a war against China, after the US left Vietnam.
Basically, after the US and allies left Vietnam, Vietnam invaded Cambodia to put a stop to Pol Pot’s monstrous Khmer Rouge regime… and then China invaded Vietnam in response.
Vietnam repulsed them.
Despite being somewhere between considerably to vastly outnumbered, and fighting on multiple fronts.
The lesson of this story is do not fuck with the Viet Cong.
Say what you will about their version of ‘communism’ as a societal model, but holy shit does modern Vietnam have an insane military track record, with basically all its roots in guerilla warfare.