The Democrats so rarely have full control of the executive and legislative branches, and when they do it is by such slim margins that the most right-leaning Democrat has the whole thing by the balls.
Looks at Obama’s Presidency: Democrats had a single vote margin in the House for only 41 days. That single vote was an Independent (Joe Lieberman). We would have had single payer health care if not for him. What we got disappointing but it was a lot better than nothing. Outside of those 41 days everything had to be a compromise with the Republicans.
I think we need to stop the “both sides are the same” stuff until we’ve actually given the Democrats a big margin in both houses for an extended period so that we give the left leaning members an opportunity to get some things moving.
You aren’t the only one, this has been the rhetoric from the far right for over a decade now. The “Boogaloo Boys” were named for what they forsaw as “Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo”. They gained notoriety during Trump’s first term, and later rebranded/forked into the Proud Boys. Now you don’t hear about any of them as much because they’re all hired as ICE agents, military, or working for Hegseth at the Pentagon.
The thing to recognize is, while we’re all flirting with the idea that maybe, if we’re not careful, we might see a civil war in the US’ future, the Trump administration is talking and behaving like we’re already in phase 1: determining allegiances and positioning forces.
The trump administration has a lot of factions involved with a lot of different long-term goals, but right now their common goal is to dismantle the US, and they are currently on track. If at some point one or more states decide the only way to put a stop to unconstitutional federal action is through force, they’ll use the military to “keep the peace”. But that will be the tipping point, and they’ve been preparing for a while…
What leads you to the belief that the elite have a common goal of dismantling the US?
First off, I’m not a fan of the fuzzy term “elite”, but I’ll assume we both know what that refers to.
People think the rich just like to get richer, that Musk and Bezos are competing to have the biggest number in their bank account. But no, they have no interest in “USD”, they don’t care about being crowned “richest person on the playground”, they want to own the playground. They don’t want to be confined by some government’s laws. After a certain point, the only reason to keep accruing wealth is to one day become the government and write your own laws. To me, that goal IS what makes someone “elite”. Conversely, a wealthy person who welcomes high taxes on the rich because it makes the society around them better is still wealthy, but not “elite”.
The elite are always looking for a route to absolute power, and they all see the Trump administration as an opening and are all jumping at it. The only thing they have in common is they want the US govt to be weakened beyond repair, but where they differ is they all want to be the one to take its place (or retain a position of influence like Little Finger).
At this rate, yeah.
I mean, that’s how America was originally founded. We got sick of Imperial Britain’s shit, fought them to get the fuck away from us. Then, when critical ideals came ahead about slavery, we had our civil war. We definitely need another, but the problem is, with how the world has changed.
Because, it’ll be very bloody simply because one side will have all of the guns and ammunition (Government, police, military .etc) and the opposing side would only have numbers. In either case, it would send a very impactful and long-standing message about what happens when things are left unchecked for too long.
I don’t think Democrats are that interested in fixing or helping things anymore, they have their own agendas, disguised in the form of progressive measures. They helped fund ICE earlier this year. They didn’t fight hard enough to prevent any measures Trump and Republicans have taken that has undone what progress we have done.
So, if shedding blood has to be the answer to make anyone see or realize what really needs to be done, then that’s what it is going to take.
You should really rethink the American Revolution. The crown was a restraining force on the colonists’ genocidal drive Westward, and legal cases were proceeding that were lying the groundwork to end chattel slavery. Both of these things, coupled with the massive economic potential of North America that was being subordinated to London’s financiers and the crowns taxation all led to the American Revolution. It was first and foremost a drive for unfettered greed and unfettered dominance.
The Civil War was not about ideals. It was about economics. The North saw much larger profits in industrializing compared the cash cropping of the South. Cash cropping meant remaining subordinated to London, primarily. The cotton from the plantations were raw materials. It was London that turned them into high fashion. Essentially, what we see today in overexploited nations where the people are employed in the lowest rung of the value chain like cobalt mines and what not, that’s what the American South was economically. The Northern financiers wanted to move to industrializatoon and that would require a different labor configuration. You can’t use illiterate chattel slaves in factories, you need a different mode of labor. That would inevitably mean changing the nature of ownership of human beings from private property to wage slaves. And that meant the South would lose their investments both in cash cropping and in humans. So the South seceded in order to create a separate nation with a separate economy from the industrializing North. And the war was fought under the command of Lincoln who not only didn’t care whether slavery persisted or not but believed that black people should leave the US and go back to Africa. His Emancipation Proclamation only offered emancipation to enslaved people in the rebelling states and only if they took up arms against the rebels. It was a recruitment gambit, not an expression of ideals.
As for war, we have consistently seen how guerilla warfare always beats the empire. Hell, the American Revolution was won primarily as a guerilla war and not a direct confrontation. Vietnam. Korea. Afghanistan. It’s imminently plausible for the US military to lose to a domestic uprising. And even more important, war is primarily a destruction of economies first, people second. The US is struggling desperately to manage its own economic output and can barely produce war machines and munitions at this point. A civil war would further destroy the economy here, cementing China permanently and the UD elites would have nowhere to go except back to Europe which is also floundering.
I looked it up a while back so forgive me if I didn’t get it right but I believe there have been two cases in history of a peaceful transition from fascism to democracy. Anyway, I’m hoping for that.
Portugal and Spain in the 1970s?
There are several other examples of a more or less peaceful transition from autocracy to democracy.
I hope there is. War is never the answer but these two parties are really pushing everyone to extremes
Revolution is necessary, because the bourgeois state cannot be dismantled and a proletarian state put in place via peaceful means.
If they thought we could vote our way into socialism, they wouldn’t let us vote.
Definitely true!
☭ 🫡
As things stand, unfortunately, the far-right is significantly better armed and better prepared for a breakdown in government.
While I would prefer to peacefully reform the system, it’s increasingly clear that there’s validity to the saying, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” The fact that the right is better positioned for a breakdown in order allows them to push further and further without fear. Civil war or revolution isn’t going to be something the left chooses, rather, if current trends continue (and it seems like they will) we may end up in a situation where it’s forced upon us and we are left but no choice to defend ourselves.
It’s not necessarily an all-or-nothing deal. There are methods of fighting back that are more effective than relying on the Democrats but don’t constitute full-on revolution, such as strikes. While strikes are non-violent, history has shown that they have potential to become violent, for example, if a boss hires mercenaries to force people back to work at gunpoint.
Likewise, if masked gunmen started showing up to people’s workplaces, demanding some of the workers to be handed over to be taken as hostages, workers need to be prepared to deal with that emergency.
Practically speaking, even if you wanted a revolution, there’s now way that would even be viable while practical steps for community defense have not been made. I’m not sure it’s rhetorically necessary to go further than that, particularly on a public forum.
I’m only quibbling with the right is better prepared.
The core issue for them is they are building their preparedness around “rugged individualism” and we prepare with resilient communities.
Great point I don’t see made enough. The right in the US is better armed, but preparedness involves more than just arms. Obviously creating communities and networks is incredibly important as well.
Are you willing to due first? There’s a big problem that the last few generations of people don’t know war and are to willing to get into it.
Nope. I am not prescribing a solution here. I am asking if people believe there is any other solution, and if there is hope to avoid it.
“I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land can never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed, it might be done.”
- John Brown
Only 1/3 of the voting age population voted against MAGA after having a 10 year preview. The US is unsalvageable. Live your life while you can. There are too few patriots to fight back against this hoard of loyalists.
No.
No.
Elections were meant to be bloodless revolution. What about “You are forced to vote for someone who doesn’t represent you” screams bloodless revolution?
Usually this is where I would make a long winded comment about replacing First-past-the-post voting with a voting system that allows more then two parties to exist without a spoiler effect… but that time has long since passed us by.
Democrats refused to implement the change Obama promised, Republicans eventually won. GG no RE. Good luck out there yall.
I would like to see the “United States of America” burn to the ground and cease to exist entirely as a political and military entity.
If the petrodollar fails that’s exactly what’s going to happen. The rest of the world won’t miss the opportunity to hamstring the US during their moment of weakness and ensure they turn into an insular, regional isolationist power. It’ll be well deserved too…
The petrodollar will fail. It’s a certainty now that it will happen soon, historically speaking.
Yeah I agree with you there. It’s going to be a free for all once that happens…
when*
Anything else on your wish list? Just curious.
I guess that you have to live outside the US to see what a scary man-baby it is. If a country has all the power in the world, and then decides that rules don’t apply to them, it quite a short step to wishing that they would fail and leave the rest of us alone. The delusion is that they have adopted the world cop role. The reality is that they are the world bully.
The degree of the chaos between current governmental state and a better government is the concern i always wonder about. One thing we know is that the rich dont want it to fundamentally change. Even the dems. When biden was comforting a group of megawealthy donors and assuring them that ‘nothing would fundamentally change’ with him in charge, he was speaking for the party. And they havent budged from there. They are not friends of the common people but they are somewhat closer to us than the gop.
