Big Picture American Politics

[Trollheart]

Ah yes, but how many guns will blow up in people's faces before you get it right? I bet enough people will say, "Screw this! I'm tired of having my eyebrows burned off! Where's that stick with the nail in it? I'm off down the club. With my club." Sorry.

[SGR]

As I said, I guess I'd be more onboard with applying pressure if it felt like it was actually going to accomplish its goal. Because right now I think it's fair to predict that Biden will continue to support Israel, November will come and the protest voters will be back at square one: Biden or Trump.

But I agree that it's all probably futile at this point. I can't hang any hope on a Biden victory anymore. It's getting hard to muster up hope at all honestly.

Unfortunately, as it's been throughout human history, if you want to make real change, sometimes you have to take risks that may or may not backfire.

[SGR]

Ah yes, but how many guns will blow up in people's faces before you get it right? I bet enough people will say, "Screw this! I'm tired of having my eyebrows burned off! Where's that stick with the nail in it? I'm off down the club. With my club." Sorry.

Again Trollheart, we're America, do you think a few (hundred) people getting their faces blown off is going to stop us from making and perfecting homemade ammunition? 

We'll do our usual 'thoughts and prayers' and get back to work loading shells.

[Trollheart]

[Jwb]

Trollheart, that won't work. We're Americans. If you ban ammo, we'll just make our own and whoever can do it best and most efficiently will make the most money on the black market.

lets be real. That's all cosplay. Americans don't use their guns to overthrow the government anymore. They use them to kill rioters who are protesting against the police or to shoot up random schools.

We still have the guns yes but I think the backbone required to turn those guns against the state has long since left us.

[SGR]

lets be real. That's all cosplay. Americans don't use their guns to overthrow the government anymore. They use them to kill rioters who are protesting against the police or to shoot up random schools.

We still have the guns yes but I think the backbone required to turn those guns against the state has long since left us.

I suppose it all depends on how far we got pushed. As long as we're bitterly divided against each other (D's v. R's) over rather trivial culture war issues, the guns will never get aimed at the state. And even if we weren't bitterly divided, it would take a serious crisis to push us to that point. I'm not sure where or what that point is, but I do believe it exists. Though we've been fat, dumb and happy for a long time, enough prolonged suffering would be enough to change things, as long as peoples' ability to communicate and organize isn't quashed.

Still, the fact that we could reach that point does pose a threat against the government. After all, they couldn't even win a war against a bunch of guerillas in the jungles of Vietnam.

[Jwb]

Those guerrillas were fighting an occupying force. This is common mistake people make. You can't compare a government vs rebel groups in its own country with a situation where rebel groups are up against a foreign occupying force. There are very different stakes at hand when you are fighting on your home turf, and governments will go a lot further when it is their own regimes on the line vs just losing our hand in some foreign intervention we were involved in.
It's worth noting that our own revolutionary war was yet another example of ousting a foreign occupying force.

In reality, I actually don't rule out  that we could see some type of armed civil conflict within the United States in the future if things become destabilized enough, but I just don't buy into the myth of our guns somehow keeping us safe from tyranny. Any serious attempt to overthrow the government would require much more than your AR. And typically there would presumably be an armed force out there that was willing to arm said militants with the aim of destabilizing the United States, as we have so often done in other countries. So I think that's mostly something we tell ourselves as a sort of national myth. But the reality is if any armed conflict did emerge I think people would abruptly come back down to the grim reality of what that actually looks like.

[SGR]

Those guerrillas were fighting an occupying force. This is common mistake people make. You can't compare a government vs rebel groups in its own country with a situation where rebel groups are up against a foreign occupying force. There are very different stakes at hand when you are fighting on your home turf, and governments will go a lot further when it is their own regimes on the line vs just losing our hand in some foreign intervention we were involved in.
It's worth noting that our own revolutionary war was yet another example of ousting a foreign occupying force.

That's very true, it was a poor analogy in regards to what the US military would be capable of, and what lengths it would go to if protecting against a real threat to the US government from its own citizens on its own soil.

In reality, I actually don't rule out  that we could see some type of armed civil conflict within the United States in the future if things become destabilized enough, but I just don't buy into the myth of our guns somehow keeping us safe from tyranny. Any serious attempt to overthrow the government would require much more than your AR. And typically there would presumably be an armed force out there that was willing to arm said militants with the aim of destabilizing the United States, as we have so often done in other countries. So I think that's mostly something we tell ourselves as a sort of national myth. But the reality is if any armed conflict did emerge I think people would abruptly come back down to the grim reality of what that actually looks like.

It wouldn't just take your AR, that's true, it would also take your neighborhood's AR's, your town's AR's, your county's AR's, and probably your states' AR's in coordination with other states AR's.

It's definitely something worth pondering. Like you, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility, even if it seems like an impossibility now. Back in the day, people would be willing to defy and fight the government over a tax they viewed as unfair. That would never happen today. The other thing that's vastly different is the security state, specifically after the PATRIOT act (thanks Bush). If you actually got to the point where you were planning some kind of attack or uprising against the government, more than likely, the government would already know about the plan - and if they knew about the plan, they would find some reason to arrest the ringleader and any other participants if they needed to, even if they couldn't nail them for planning an insurrection.

Things would literally need to spiral out of control, in my view, with multiple groups of people organizing against the government all at once for any armed uprising to be successful. And those groups, importantly, would need to organize and coordinate with each other. And even at that point, if we look back to history, the armed uprising would need to establish relations and cooperation with some foreign power to provide them arms, aid, and backup (like we did with France in the Revolutionary War). If an armed uprising could not prove itself out as being legitimate to the point that a foreign power had faith that it would work, it would be a hard sell that it could be successful.

Recently, election seasons have had people proclaiming the dangers of a coming civil war. I don't see exactly how that'd happen or play out - but given how polarized we are as a country, it's hard to see an armed uprising against the government playing out either. Again though, it's hard to predict such country-defining events when we, by nature, are usually prisoners of the moment.

[Jwb]

It's funny you juxtaposed the probability of an armed rebellion against the govt vs a civil war happening when the way I conceptualize it, the scenario I would think is most plausible is one which could fit both of those categories. Like, would you describe what happened in Syria as an armed rebellion against the government or a civil war? I'd say it's both.

But you seem to be hung up on the idea of us being united. I don't think that's necessary either. We can just as easily be divided and have a multi vector conflict  with multiple armed parties with mutual animosities towards each other, or a complicated web of alliances and hostilities. Any number of scenarios.

Look at Weimar Germany for example. The communists and the social democrats and the fascists all hated each other and the country was in a state of constant political instability. Attempted rebellions, political assassinations, etc.

The only recipe for revolution isn't a united populace against a tyrannical government.  It's also internal political instability and tension. And that's exactly the road we are on. That doesn't mean I think it's the most likely scenario. But I definitely think it seems more plausible now than it did 10 years ago. And it just seems like with each passing year that it only continues to move in one direction.

[SGR]

It's funny you juxtaposed the probability of an armed rebellion against the govt vs a civil war happening when the way I conceptualize it, the scenario I would think is most plausible is one which could fit both of those categories. Like, would you describe what happened in Syria as an armed rebellion against the government or a civil war? I'd say it's both.

But you seem to be hung up on the idea of us being united. I don't think that's necessary either. We can just as easily be divided and have a multi vector conflict  with multiple armed parties with mutual animosities towards each other, or a complicated web of alliances and hostilities. Any number of scenarios.

Look at Weimar Germany for example. The communists and the social democrats and the fascists all hated each other and the country was in a state of constant political instability. Attempted rebellions, political assassinations, etc.

The only recipe for revolution isn't a united populace against a tyrannical government.  It's also internal political instability and tension. And that's exactly the road we are on. That doesn't mean I think it's the most likely scenario. But I definitely think it seems more plausible now than it did 10 years ago. And it just seems like with each passing year that it only continues to move in one direction.

I wouldn't say I'm 'hung up' on us being united, but I do think some level of coalition and cooperation between our ideological factions, putting aside certain ideological differences, would obviously be beneficial to resist/overthrow the most powerful military in the world. It's a far stretch from Syria. Us splitting into some kind of anti-government Republican faction and anti-government Democrat faction, both of which oppose and fight against each other and the broader established US govt seems fantastical (but not necessarily impossible), but in that scenario, I doubt anyone other than the US govt wins.

As I've said, there are obviously lessons we can learn from history, Weimar Germany included, but that was nearly 100 years ago, and they went through the great depression and hyperinflation, and of course, the technological ways the government can keep tabs on and control/manipulate us is much different than it was then. Plus, much of the anger and fervor of Weimar Germany was due to the overriding feeling from many Germans that their government sold them out with Versailles Treat aftter they suffered a great loss and international humiliation in WW1. Hitler had been banging on for years about the imminent economic collapse and doom that would be caused by capitalism, and when the Great Depression happened, people in Germany started to pay more attention to him. So yeah, different time and place with different reasons for social/political unrest, not sure it would be a good comparison to how something similar would play out in the US.

While I agree a completely united populace against the government isn't the only answer against a tyrannical government, it's probably the best one (we're talking ideals, majority support). The fact that we do have guns for example provides a bulwark against the government in beginning attempts at repression. How many Ruby Ridges would it take before Americans lost faith in their government? Before the US government lost the consent of the tax-paying masses and people started to revolt? These incidents would be borne out of the fact that some Americans had guns and weren't afraid to use them. The more these stories spread (again, assuming the US govt does not censor/quash independent news media), the more pissed Americans would become.

[DJChameleon]

Thanks for that explanation, DJ: it's crystal clear to me now.
In the UK, there is a smaller group of people who are politically active for each party, and yes, they do some door-to-door petitioning for voters - but they have no idea in advance about the politics of the person whose door they are knocking on. They ask things like "Can we count on your vote in the election? Would you like to put this sticker/poster up in your window/ car to show support for our party?"
It must be a pretty thankless job, I imagine: like being a Jehovah's Witness.

See, I have done door knocking for candidates. When you know the political affiliation of the person you are going to, you avoid having to have unpleasant interactions. You are basically going to safe bets and just to inform the person that a candidate is running in the party that they are aligned to and that they need your help to win. We do ask "can we count on your vote?" It's part of getting a general consensus to apply to election math. I hate election math because people do and will change their minds when it comes time to vote. Sometimes they will either not show up to vote at all or they go to vote but who knows who they vote for since it's all private information. We also coordinate to have people driven to the polls if they don't have vehicles and need a ride. It is a super thankless job that's why I don't like doing it for free anymore. I make sure that I'm being paid at the least 20 bucks an hour to do it but that's really under selling my experience doing door knocking since I have 10 years under my belt doing it.

And for the record I think the Democratic establishment and the mainstream media are being irresponsible by not talking more about the shit in that Project 2025 document and I think they are complicit in all of this too.

The reason why no is talking about Project 2025 is because no one takes it seriously. It's way too outlandish and most of the things proposed in it wouldn't be able to get passed or enforced.

I honestly think you are a little too worried about a pipe dream that won't come true.

[Lexi Darling]

The reason why no is talking about Project 2025 is because no one takes it seriously. It's way too outlandish and most of the things proposed in it wouldn't be able to get passed or enforced.

I honestly think you are a little too worried about a pipe dream that won't come true.

I certainly hope you're right. But I think about stuff like how they killed Roe vs. Wade, and that thought turns to the dread of having a Supreme Court that can do that plus Trump plus a republican majority and I can easily imagine things getting worse.

[DJChameleon]

I suppose it all depends on how far we got pushed. As long as we're bitterly divided against each other (D's v. R's) over rather trivial culture war issues, the guns will never get aimed at the state. And even if we weren't bitterly divided, it would take a serious crisis to push us to that point. I'm not sure where or what that point is, but I do believe it exists. Though we've been fat, dumb and happy for a long time, enough prolonged suffering would be enough to change things, as long as peoples' ability to communicate and organize isn't quashed.

This scenario of Dems vs Republicans reminds me of this movie coming out.

Also there is a mobile game where you fight other states in a war like scenario.

I certainly hope you're right. But I think about stuff like how they killed Roe vs. Wade, and that thought turns to the dread of having a Supreme Court that can do that plus Trump plus a republican majority and I can easily imagine things getting worse.

Democrats control the house and senate at this moment though.

[SGR]

This scenario of Dems vs Republicans reminds me of this movie coming out.

Also there is a mobile game where you fight other states in a war like scenario.

Yeah, I've heard of that movie, which kind of worries me because media 'priming' is a thing. We become more accepting of certain ideas because of movies/media that shape our collective understanding of them. Similar to how, if you brought up the idea of simulation theory to 95% of the American public they'd respond with: "Wait, like The Matrix?!"

It might however just be an entertaining popcorn flick, but the idea that all of us could have 'Civil War' at the top of our mind as we enter into what will likely be one of the most bitter, ugly and divisive elections in American history is concerning to say the least.

[Lexi Darling]

Democrats control the house and senate at this moment though.

My mistake, though from what I'm seeing it looks like Democrats have the Senate but Republicans have the house. Either way I think it's better to be safe than sorry. So far I've been able to get a small stockpile of medication in case of things going south, and if things really go to pot it might be possible to get a work visa to move to Canada or somewhere else since I have a partner with qualifications and we're legally married now. Probably a good topic for a household meeting in the near future.