The solution is to absolutely police your own rallies.
Jan 6th, people were yelling "These people are Antifa!", but even though the Antifa were surrounded 20-to-1, they were allowed to go ahead and break through the doors/windows and lead the charge inside to get the weak-minded mob to follow them...then they backed off and let the non-Antifa lead the way into the waiting arms of the camera and cops.
The solution is to call them out and pin them down. Surround the violent people and physically restrain them. Film them all on camera and prevent them from breaking in or committing crimes.
Then, if the media tries to call it sedition again, you FLOOD the internet with the videos of the MAGA people stopping and surrounding and sitting on them to prevent their actions. Then you flood the internet with their maskless faces and out them for whichever BLM/Antifa groups they're affiliated with. Turn them over to police, sure, but make sure to get their faces/identities first - the feds won't prosecute them and the evidence that Antifa/BLM was there will go away as soon as you let the police take them.
.
THAT is how you fight this kind of propaganda war.
This is just a new front for cancel culture at this point.
They want to use the threat of dishonorable discharges - which makes it where you have great difficulty getting a job (even at McDonald's - ANY place with a government contract cannot hire you) - to try and control people who disagree with the leftist ideology.
The currently used definition doesn't allow for it, which is why they want to "better define" it - because the definition in use right now does not include all the things they want to be able to cancel people for.
It's insidious, and people don't yet realize HOW insidious.
Any of you right now thinking about joining the military: Don't.
Any of you right now close to getting out: Do.
I'm getting out, and you probably should, too. Unless you're a spineless sort who's ready to bow down and "keep your head down". instead.
I mean, most of this is true when the USSR fell. The larger states like Texas and Cali would be a lot like Russia and Ukraine. Granted, Russia was the biggest dog of the USSR and held a larger percentage than any single US state, but Ukraine was not exactly small, either.
It would depend on the fallout, but as noted, the USSR simply realized it could not maintain the nation militarily, and essentially gave up. They couldn't pay soldiers, and so knew that they could not use the military to maintain that force. This is the same thing that would happen in the US if it became insolvent.
The power vacuum is the big difference. Sorta.
When the USSR fell, the USA was still there as a Superpower. The axis shift to the West happened, but there was no total gap as the US (at great expense) moved in to fill the entire power vacuum, filling both its own half of the world AND the other half. Today, it's highly doubtful that the EU could fill in if the US created such a gap, and China, despite their ambitions, are still not capable of global power projection.
The problem is you're attempting to compare the whole of the USA to Russia.
A better comparison would be comparing California to Russia, Texas to Ukraine, the South to Eastern Europe, and so on.
And note that WHILE smaller states are easier to pressure and invade:
-
Who's going to invade them? The smallest population states are deep in the interior, meaning an invasion would have to cross in from the coasts or Canada (and Canada itself isn't likely to invade Wyoming)
-
You assume no coalitions will form, for example, the entire South would likely form at least a lose confederation for mutual aid. This is a poor assumption as many subregions of the US share culture and outlook. The entire West Coast would likely form a shared defense, if not a single nation, as would the South, with the Midwest, Mountain West, and Northeast/Mid-Atlantic all being potential confederations as well. The EU is a confederation, and even before that, the breakaway USSR states in Eastern Europe kind of banded together. Even within the EU, the Visegard Group exists today.
-
Who COULD invade them? If the USA were to cease to be on the Federal level, then much of the world would be in chaos. The US Navy provides security of the seas for convoys the world over. Along the East African coast, absent the US Navy, piracy would likely explode. It's FAR more likely that most nations would be more concerned with their local/regional interests and securing their own assets, not attacking minor former-states of a fallen nation. China would be more concerned with making a bunch of power moves in the South China Sea without the US there to stop it and with the EU being both unwilling (it won't even condemn China's concentration camps NOW) and unable (militarily) to contest it. Russia would likewise cement its holdings and be more interested in rattling Eastern Europe than invading Montana.
The only nation likely both willing AND able to invade any of the US would be Mexico, and that would be pretty limited to southwest New Mexico, as California and Texas would both easily be able to repel any likely invasion that Mexico could muster, Texas (at least) would likely have nukes, and Arizona likely have a massive militia as well (Texas has a lot of people and permissive gun laws, Arizona has EVEN MORE permissive gun laws). And given the global shakeup that the fall of the USA would cause, it's not all that likely Mexico would want to make such a move. And, again, Canada would not, so the north and central US would also be safe.
.
I agree the entire scenario is crazy to even contemplate. But that's also why I point to the dissolution of the USSR as the next nearest counterpart. Mix that with some of the fall of Rome and you've got the most likely scenario of a fall of the USA:
A global dark age, withdraw of most major powers to their own local regions/spheres of influence, and lots of turtling up and sheltering in place.
I mean...I hardly used Amazon to begin with.
Yeah, there are limits, but most of what I buy is from Dollar General or local shops near where I live in the country. Walmart if I have to. And the last time I had to go to a Walmart was...well, I think it's been more than a year, honestly.
It's hard to pull away from all that, but hardly impossible if you're determined. People just refuse to suffer hardship of any kind until it becomes too much, but by then, it's too late.
The Germans learned that the hard way. So did the Russians in the Bolshevik Revolution.
...at this rate, so will we.
The Founding Fathers even wrote this, that people are predisposed to suffer evil while it's suffer-able, and that they are not going to do the right thing and fight it until it gets so far that it's almost too late.
The American Revolution happened before it was too late. I wonder if we will.
But why? What's the point of even having a court at that point? Moreover, they're all serving for life, so it's not like they'd lose out on getting paid or being "important".
What's the point of resisting stacking the court if you're going to vote the same way that a stacked court would?
Nullification.
All the people jumping to secession, nullification comes first. The States claim the 9th and 10th Amendments. The Federal government has to back down then. If it does not, they've already abandoned the Constitution and become illegitimate, in which case secession can't even be a thing because the Constitution and government no longer exist.
Oklahoma has impressed me. As a Texan, I think our two states should be bros in all this.
Is this true, though?
Then why aren't major world powers invading Britain and France every other week?
Sure, they're "invading" via immigration, but not militarily. The US remnant nations - the non-liberal/progressive ones, at least - would still retain nuclear power just as Russia did. Notice that Russia has not been invaded since the fall of the USSR, and Ukraine was not invaded until after they had given up their Nukes...and by Russia, which the rest of the world neither invaded nor declared war on...because Russia still has nukes.
The lesson from this:
If the US comes apart like the USSR did (every American should go and read the Wikipedia page on "The Dissolution of the USSR", it's actually a good read to see how a world superpower can fall apart when it's long overextended its military, finances, debt, and has Balkanized their own people where their member states just start saying they're independent and the central government can't really do anything about it), then many parts of it would likely end up with control of the nuclear weapons in their jurisdiction. As long as they don't give that away, they wouldn't be invaded.
somethingsomething uphill in the snow both ways somethingsomething freedom isn't free...?
That is to say: What is right is not always what is easy. The road to hell is easy and broad. I get that it sucks, but that's part of how you know it's the better option. It wouldn't be under siege in that way were it not so.
Here's my question: How does this happen?
How do people just say "Yeah, no, we're not going to obey court orders"?
Like, if normal people did that, wouldn't they be arrested and stuff? Wouldn't their decisions/actions be invalidated and overturned?
Yet here these people are, just flaunting it with no consequences. Sure, the GOP is talking their game - they always do - but where are the arrests? Where are the decertifications? Where are the actual CONSEQUENCES? As long as there are none, they keep doing it. Like a kid that gets a "stern talking to" but is never punished for misbehaving. They know the steps to the dance, they get the talking to, they pretend to care, they say a pretend apology, and then do it again.
...except here, we're not even having the pretend to care or pretend apology anymore!
Agreed. Basically, this would make it invalid on two fronts - first because Trump is no longer a government official and cannot be impeached, and second by violating the clearly laid out rules for impeachment.
And that's ASSUMING they could get 67 votes to convict, which I'm still dubious about.
Maybe they've decided it's a sham AND they don't have the votes anyway, so just fork it for the PR with their fawning media to say "Trump's impeached AGAIN but the bad ol' GOP wouldn't convict AGAIN!!" or the like.
Basically this. It's for leftist keyboard warriors and liberal media to use to say "THERE WAS NO FRAUD!! BIDEN IS LEGITIMATE!!!!"
DOJ couldn't get its thumb out of its ass long enough to investigate anything of meaning for 4 years under Trump, and they couldn't do it for two months after the election before Biden became "official"...but SUDDENLY, they're able to look into the issue - but only after the fact and with the framing of trying to see who wanted to "change" the outcome (meaning after Biden had been decided), as opposed to looking into the election itself?
If anyone thinks this is anything OTHER THAN cover for the lefties, you're insane.
Again, the ILLUSION is important to them. The normies need to see (and think) that there are two parties. The reality is we have Democrat and Democrat-lite, because when the GOP wins, they put Romnies and Ryans at the helm and basically get nothing done other than give some money to billionares to piss off the left so the Democrats can win again.
I give Trump props for doing something, but look at the Congress. What did we get from 2 years uncontested Republican power? Tax cuts - a lot went to the middle-class, sure, but the wealthy got a lot - and criminal justice reform, which is long overdue.
...and that's it. The Republicans drug their feet on EVERYTHING ELSE, and even defeated an Obamacare repeal. People can blame McCain for that all they want, but they were able to put something like 100 times various repeal bills under Obama, and even from 2014-2016 when the GOP had the House and Senate...but they COULDN'T BE BOTHERED to try more than A SINGLE ONE under Trump when they had a President to sign them?
But the illusion makes the normies think we have a choice, and gives the left carte blanche to say to the right "Your side wins half the time, you can't say 'taxation without representation' or say you're oppressed!" even though we ARE unrepresented other than a few cases like Cruz or Trump.
Right, but they need the ILLUSION that there are two. It's why when the GOP wins, we get Ryans and Romnies that are Democrat-lite instead of actually being conservative. To the low info normies, this means that both sides win so our elections MUST be fair, and the right can't complain to be oppressed when they're running things at least some of the time.
If we went full uni-party, the illusion would break.
Eh, they still want power, and they can't just switch to D, as that would destroy the illusion. With a two party system, they can say "See, you aren't being oppressed, you win half the time", even though when we win, get the likes of Ryan or Romney that just do Democrat-lite.
They NEED that, though, as it keeps the normies in line.
It's not "can't be bothered" it's "not stupid".
I'm from Texas. I'm not going to travel to DC for a day trip to take part in a protest that doesn't do anything, and certainly not to storm the Capitol and hold it for all of 3 hours before it goes back to how it was before with hundreds of potential warriors needed for later battles being jailed.
"He will triumph who knows when to fight and when not to fight."
When you have a battle worth fighting where there's a possible victory condition, that'll be different. And even then, going to DC is stupid. I'm going to avoid that hell hole for the rest of my life if I'm able. In fact, I don't plan to go anywhere that doesn't allow me to carry, and DC is included in that.
It's one city in one part of the country that is invested to the point a mere protest has no impact on them, no matter how big, and an armed conflict there is pointless since there's no way in hell it would succeed.
There's simply no logic to it. It's a good way to throw your troops away on a figurative killing field, which is how you lose wars.
Not everyone will.
Don't assume everyone will go willingly, no matter what they promise. If your first requirement is "It's only for a little while...oh, and you can't bring guns or knives with you", that's a hard nope for me. If it's pushed to force? Then force will be answered with force, because at that point, I'm already dead, may as well make it count for something.
That won't work very well. The actual numerical power of combat troops in the military is relatively low. Maybe 500,000 to 750,000 possible boots on the ground.
Carpet bombing, cruise missile strikes, or nuclear weapons used against American cities won't work. It'd be more like Fallujah, which nearly broke the US military's back and was a slog that saw the highest casualties of the War on Terror.
Door to door, house to house, apartment to apartment fighting on the ground.
Tanks, planes (/drones), nukes? They don't help there. Body armor is the only usable protection, and it won't protect you well if you bust into the wrong house.
There literally aren't enough US troops in the military to take - not destroy, but TAKE - a single major US city, much less several dozen across a score of states. The very notion of being able to rule the US as a military dictatorship that DOESN'T commit rampant warcrimes is absurd.
Not to mention half the military - under conservative estimates - would revolt, and the US military has already decided it would release from service anyone from states in rebellion (if actual states seceded) because having moles/plants is far more dangerous than losing the bodies/boots.
That won't work very well. The actual numerical power of combat troops in the military is relatively low. Maybe 500,000 to 750,000 possible boots on the ground.
Carpet bombing, cruise missile strikes, or nuclear weapons used against American cities won't work. It'd be more like Fallujah, which nearly broke the US military's back and was a slog that saw the highest casualties of the War on Terror.
Door to door, house to house, apartment to apartment fighting on the ground.
Tanks, planes, nukes? They don't help there. Body armor is the only usable protection, and it won't protect you well if you bust into the wrong house.
There literally aren't enough US troops in the military to take - not destroy, but TAKE - a single major US city, much less several dozen across a score of states. The very notion of being able to rule the US as a military dictatorship that DOESN'T commit rampant warcrimes is absurd.
Yet.
We're...on the border of it. We have within 5 states to do it before we're on the back half of the states (20 already have it)