Is there anything we can do?
I don’t mean to ask that and imply that there is nothing. I mean it as an honest question. Is there a process or organization to snap into right now to help?
I don’t mean to ask that and imply that there is nothing. I mean it as an honest question. Is there a process or organization to snap into right now to help?
Keep durable notes and share them with your electeds. Particularly at the state level. These kids won’t be prosecuted immediately, possibly never federally. But their actions will need to be systematically undone at the federal level and individually prosecuted at the state and/or local levels. This is going to be a massive bureaucratic and legal undertaking, and we’ll need record preservation to do it.
The crimes are on the federal level and pretty sure they'll receive pardons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_leading_to_...
I’m not. Short of a decapitation strike in which MAGA and Musk are taken out in a night of long knives, which would itself be more destabilising to our republic than anything they’ve done, there is little to play for a military conflict à la the Civil War in a nuclear state. If we’re going to see a civil war, it wouldn’t be states vs U.S. but some compartment of the U.S. claiming legitimate power while another denies it, e.g. the military deposing Trump or him refusing to step down after impeachment and conviction or an electoral loss.
The Russia-Ukraine war has convinced me that artificial intelligence driven drone warfare has rendered nuclear warfare obsolete. The drones act as a force multiplier which can mass target the enemy with little collateral damage.
Russia is constrained by India and China in its use of tactical nukes in Ukraine. That wouldn't apply in America.
> collateral damage from nuclear weapons makes their usage suicidal
The excess damage caused by tactical nukes when compared with conventional weapons, particularly the low-efficiency sort that tend to find their way into civil wars, is principally diplomatic. We're currently seeing a breakdown of the rules-based international order.
> in the case of the US, states breaking away from the Federal government would also inherit a nuclear arsenal
Why? The nukes are on U.S. land, legally and militarily. A state militia attempting to storm a nuclear silo is, if anything, the closest legitimate reason I can think of for why Washington might nuke its own homeland.
> Russia-Ukraine war has convinced me that artificial intelligence driven drone warfare has rendered nuclear warfare obsolete
There have been no AI drones in that war. Drones are reigning free because nobody established air superiority.
This hasn't been true since last year, when automated targeting systems began entering the battlefield. They still are not as widely deployed as personnel controlled drones, but over time it appears to be shifting towards battlefield autonomy. Nuclear weapons are a cudgel, automated human-free weapons are a scalpel.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/missiles-...
By this measure we’ve had hypersonic AI “drones” in air-to-air combat since the 70s.
Brexit would be the best case, although most objections to the federal government would be resolved with a reduced size and scope
Lots of state laws around privacy and tort that wouldn’t gain supremacy if a federal court found the DOGE bros didn’t act lawfully. Pardons prevent them from being punished for that lawlessness by the U.S. But it doesn’t stop state courts from finding adversely.
I agree, if you're not a fan of democracy, you might not want to be a dissident in the current American environment. If you are, then you most likely want to be a dissident, otherwise it'll slowly disappear before your eyes, and you'll be too late to be able to change it soon.
If you're in the latter camp, learn how to protect and hide yourself rather than becoming apathetic because you're afraid of the consequences.
The Federal American government looks like it's playing a dangerous game -- or at least makes the assumption that individual states within it will be unable to mount a concerted response. With inflation and unemployment rising, and hundreds of thousands of federal workers out of jobs, it's possible state governments may become radicalized.
Monolithic ruling classes are the political scientific equivalent of spherical cows. The richer model (still spherical, but maybe incorporating drag) is that of elite constituencies.
> being a dissident may not be in one's best interest
If we’re going imperial, dissident status is less risky than being poor. Practically every autocratic transition in history has involved a massive wealth transfer up, together with the dismantling of expensive social safety nets.
Larry is the 4th richest person, worth more than the GDP of Ukraine.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/16/oracle-ceo-larry-ellison-s...
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
However, considering SCOTUS has largely decided POTUS is largely immune from most anything, I don't see why he can't just ignore the courts when the time comes...
At least, my hope is that they don't push the limits with ignoring laws because they're afraid that would happen...
Gotta do what you can where you are. Even as someone in the US I've disliked how passive other free countries have been...
The good playbook consists of rebooting the D party. (Which lost the election because it did not understand what the majority wants, and how to authentically offer something that is close enough.)
Losing only by 1.5% in an election where globally nearly every _incumbent_ lost is pretty good.
In the UK, the incumbents lost 20% of their seats [1]. The democrats lost 2 seats in the senate [2] and _gained_ 2 seats in the house [3].
Making drastic changes to a party because you narrowly lost an election with a candidate that never won a primary is dumb.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_el...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_Senate_elec...
[3]: (idk how it's 2 since 215-214 = 1). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_House_of_Re...
That depends on who you lose to.
Like if Democrats decided to run Ron DeSantis how huge do you think Trump's lead would've been?
If you're a marathon runner, and you lose to a toddler, that's probably not.
The Dems fought an eminently beatable candidate and lost, and they continue to struggle with messaging now (stop putting Schumer up there to deliver it!). They flubbed the response to Dobbs, the consultant class nixed the Harris campaign parts that were working (weird etc.) in favor of things that don't (Cheney endorsements). etc.
You understand that in this analogy, the toddler won the NYC marathon 2 years ago and then beat somebody that lost their local 5k?
The party that keeps losing to the toddler in varied fashion needs to do some soul searching and make changes instead of spending a bunch of political capital keeping AOC out of roles.
I went over many assumptions after the elections, to understand what I had missed. But things changed when I asked a different question.
Its not a question of how Harris lost. Its a question of how Trump ran in the first place.
With that change, things clicked into place.
Unfriendly labor rulings like the time you spend in mandatory employer required security screenings doesn't count as paid time?
Do share with the class what you think is special about Trump running consider he's done it for 4 elections [1] and considered it against Obama (you may remember the whole birther movement).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_camp...
Lets work with what you said, what caused those issues in turn? If we get stuck at congress being deadlocked, or bad democrat leadership - please see "dems are always wrong". Where the converastion comes to whoever we blame (always the Dems), and then we sit on our hands.
You raised the question of trump running 4 times. I found that instructive, since the first time was in 2000, and it went no where. the other 3 times were the current 3 presedential races.
He was not a political force that decimated the anointed ones of the Republican inner circle. Nor was social tolerance for his behavior this high. What changed.
How did someone, an American who instigated an insurrection, A felon, A person who said he will grab women by the pussy - not only unsinkable in politics, but was able to tell everyone what Harris' campaign was?
Trump wanted to build a wall across a border. This wasn't a president in some banana republic.
This was in America. And this was tolerable, if not welcome.
Over an over again, we use normal measures (other candidate should message better), as if Trump is NORMAL.
That if someone else did a better job he would lose.
Its the other way round - America had a problem when he got to the ballot box, and did that twice.
365 -> 121
https://theshovel.com.au/2020/06/04/nra-accidentally-forgets...