Nato 'might have to get involved' in US takeover of Greenland, says Trump
During a meeting with the Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, Trump said he was 'sitting with a man who could be very instrumental'
You're viewing a single thread.
This is wholly out of control.
Fix your country, you absolute selfish idiots.
No. You don't understand. Imagine 1930s Germany. Imagine what those German citizens must have been like. That's America, but possibly more stupider.
I don't disagree, but... how?
If we put in the work, we can resist this and we can win. Join up with allies while we still can easily!
A simple bang is all that's needed.
I don't actually think that is all that's needed. Trump is a symptom. He didn't write Project 2025. He's not the one with these ideas.
Correct. Killing Hitler would not have stopped WW2, and killing Trump doesn't solve America's problems.
I would party for a week solid if that fucker caught a bullet, but it's not a solution in itself.
Taking away a valuable tool that he is would be a start, though.
He didn't write Project 2025. He's not the one with these ideas.
True, but his cult of personality is integral to the power to keep everyone in line.
Insufficiently deferential Republican congresscritters won't be successfully primaried because of a mean tweet from Jericho Johnson, John Thune or the couch fucker.
Ever seen that show Designated Survivor? I think the first season was pretty good
I enjoyed it. I think it's great inspiration for a "do over".
Which section of Project 2025 is about acquiring Greenland?
Simple to think about... extremely difficult to accomplish.
You'd really want it to be a series of smaller bangs on lower-level state figures. Less important, less protected, but still mission critical.
I’m not normally a Sondheim fan, but his musical ‘Assassins’ is pretty good. Just a random thought
Democrats for the past sixty years have fought tooth and nail to ban guns and succeeded in their own states to demonize ownership of them.
Not only are they pathetically unable to leverage threats of violence against fascists using Second Amendment rights, they are also unwilling. So fuck them.
Cops and fascists don't respect unarmed protestors peacefully waggling their fingers at them, they will resume disrespectfully destroying the nation and laugh gleefully while they do this.
To those who rebuke me saying they are a Democrat that owns a gun and doesn't make it their identity, you are outnumbered by dipshit inbred armed MAGA Republicans 20:1, so no you are useless as fuck and continue to be useless as fuck unable to protect LGBTQ and vulnerable people from this Orange Shithead.
Yah, that's your problem. He has declared war on canada, and we have guns. A large amount of them, and mostly undocumented. I'd say he better not step foot on our soil, but he's a felon and can't.
Cops and fascists don't respect unarmed protestors peacefully waggling their fingers at them, they will resume disrespectfully destroying the nation and laugh gleefully while they do this.
My 3 year old thinks disobeying me and his mom is the funniest thing ever. It's maddening. He doesn't give a shit how frustrated we are, he'll just run away once I put him down after hauling him upstairs, grabbing anything he can get his hands on just to throw it down the stairs.
Wait, we're taking about toddler behavior, right?
Fuckin' hard work, my friend. As Joe Hill said, "Don't mourn, organize!"
Second amendment... Your founding fathers already wrote the instructions for you. Just do it.
The problem is that no matter how right you are, the Second Amendment does not provide any guarantees for your safety after the fact. Someone has to be prepared to die to go through with it, because they're not taking a 2A invoker alive. There would never be a trial.
Mario's brother showed you the way.
Seriously. Fucking do something.
Yes, but all the people who could and should have prevented this did nothing. What would you suggest a normal person do?
"Normal people" brought the British Empire to its knees and founded the very country you're afraid to fight for.
You have the power to protest, strike, disobey. Organize and use it.
There are a lot of illegal things you can do, and a lot of things republican supporters openly do that involve violence. I’m not going to openly implicate myself but use your imagination.
There have been some successful non-violent revolutions in history, and there's a strong case to be made that not exhausting those options could be a huge mistake.
We still have, right now, completely un-used tools at our disposal, such as unionizing en masse and deploying a general strike, which is insanely powerful (capable of bringing a nation to its knees if done widely enough), while being far less dangerous and more appealing to the general populace than any other means.
There have been some successful non-violent revolutions in history
I'm pretty sure that if you dig into the details of a lot of those, you'll find that the purported success of the non-violent movement strongly correlated with the existence of a not-so-non-violent movement as the alternative.
For example, your article lists the Salt Satyagraha and the Quit India Movement as being non-violent revolutions responsible for the decolonization of lndia. But if you look at what actually ended up happening, such as the partition of India and establishment of Pakistan, it's pretty clear that the not-non-violent All-India Muslim League had a pretty big influence in achieving that result.
Folks like Gandhi and MLK may tend to end up getting the credit for these sorts of societal changes, mainly because The Powers That Be have a vested interest in "the absence of tension" and thus engage in a bit of revisionist history, but it's the presence of folks like AMIL and Malcolm X sitting in the background threateningly waving a stick that enabled them to be effective.
(That said, the collapse and liberalization of the Warsaw Pact are probably legitimate examples where the presence of a violent radical flank really wasn't much of a factor... but I'm pretty sure that's because Gorbachev's heart wasn't really in stopping them to begin with.)
Unionization en mass and a general strike are just simply not realistic goals in the current political and social climate in the US. And that half assed attempt at organization at that level is now going to get my country invaded.
It seems like a leap that people don't have the motivation to unionize and strike, but would eagerly hop into a full on violent revolution?
Realistically, unless the military fractures or fully refuses to engage against this revolution, the best you'll get are The Troubles.
Abbie Hoffman Is rolling in his grave from that limp arm suggestion.
I don't see why he would?
Abbie Hoffman was not a guy to suggest non violent Revolution. Because he was not an idiot.
Let’s take a look at what it would take to stop Trump.
The United States cannot vote a president out of office. There’s literally nothing in the constitution to allow it. You cannot do a recall vote on the president. You can on other offices such as senator and representative, but you can’t on the president. So voting him out is not an option there you have to wait 3+ years and hope we’re allowed to vote at that point.
A direct assault in the White House. This isn’t a movie. First, most liberals don’t own guns. Second most of them have never shot a gun.So you would somehow have to train a sizable force arm them, equip them and do it anyway where the FBI and CIA and the DOD don’t figure out what you’re doing.
Trust me, that’s not even a possibility they will come after you because they will figure it out.
But let’s say somehow, you did organize that level. By the time you started to move on the White House, the president would be alerted. Then the president will get on national TV and say everybody who believes in democracy should form a ring around the White House with as many guns that they can bring.
Now you’re not just fighting the Secret Service but you’re also fighting Secret Service police and a bunch of MAGA.
He’d also tell the American people he can’t order military to operate on American grounds, but they can definitely volunteer also show up. Now you have what half United States military in that area showing up to also defend the White House.
Like I said, this isn’t a movie you’re not getting anywhere near the White House if you’re an armed force.
So let’s look at Lonewolf shooters. You’d have to get two people trained up to be professional level snipers. And you’d have to take out both presidentand the vice president within seconds of each other. That isn’t even a real possibility. You might get one, but you won’t get the other. And the one is just as bad as the other. Because the moment you get the one the other one just goes into hiding and you’ll never get near.
Let’s look what it actually take to do that. You’d have to catch them both in the open at the same time. Plus you’d have to catch them in an area where a sniper could get to them. Do you know what the odds against that are.? You might as well just go to Vegas and start playing the roulette wheel and expect to win Several times in a row.
So that’s not an option.
The presidency Congress, and a number of judges are basically just allowing this to happen. So the legal avenues are basically gone.
So you say to do something. What options do you have?
For the record of anybody reading this or listening to this. I am not advocating taking out the president that is not what I’m doing. I’m simply trying to explain to this individual what he says do something. The founding fathers put into place the protections that we needed, which were forthe tricameral government to keep each other in check sadly though the system has failed. There really is nothing we can do. We can stand outside the White House and protest from now until election day 3+ years from now it isn’t going to change a damn thing.
First, everybody who stands out there that long would lose their jobs their houses their income and the businesses won’t be hurt at all because they just hire somebody new on. Second even if we did stand out there in protest that long do you think the president is going to listen? No he isn’t. He’s gonna do whatever he wants anyways.
So standing out there in protesting for 3+ years and losing your home when there’s no actual benefit in terms of having the president removed. What would be the actual benefit there?. Have your voice heard? Great your voice has been heard. Did it solve anything no.
Might make feel good as you’re yelling at the White House. But it didn’t actually change anything.
Organize a union? OK great how did that union force the president to do something at all? You have a lot of tech bros telling the president stop what he’s doing and he still doing it. You think he’s gonna listen to a bunch of peons out here?
There is really nothing that we can do. A large chunk of the US voted him in the office. Now everybody pays the consequences. I’m sorry, but there really is nothing that we can’t do. Hopefully the judges put a stop to this. But I don’t have any faith in it.
This right here... This is the problem.
You and your defeatism are Trump's biggest ally. Not MAGA, people like you.
As others in this thread have pointed out, there is, in fact, a lot that can be done.
It is literally impossible to govern a populace against their will. No amount of tearing down democracy can change that fact. With or without the ballot box, Trump still governs by consent. What you have to do is find every way way possible to revoke that consent.
Remember, every act of resistance, no matter how small, inspires others to act. A few sparks are all it takes to make a forest fire.
Any dictator who was stopped, there were very similar problems or even worse since they shot resistors or tortured them. The resistance in WW2 had their whole countries overrun by Nazis and they were fighting still. There have been so many worse situations in the history of the world, where people still resisted and fought back however they could. America now is nothing in comparison to that.
