this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2025
222 points (97.8% liked)

politics

26336 readers
4376 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

And he is now saying, I am going to acclimate the American public to the use of military force anywhere I deem it. Appropriate under any circumstances, and I may well, the president may be thinking, I may well have us in a war by the time the elections roll around, which will enable me to say any opposition to me and my party is basically treason and unpatriotic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 42 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think they mean full-on attacks instead of just national guard police action. Small distinction, I know.

[–] iridebikes@lemmy.world 41 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Sure. He means live fire, urban combat, and a descent into outright revolution. But they want to act like the frog isn't in the pot already.

I wonder how the red states are going to survive when they can't get anything into or out of the ports.

[–] lettruthout@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

…and tax money from the richer blue states.

[–] iridebikes@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

True. But I doubt it will be state vs state. That's not where the loyalties are. It will be urban vs rural.

[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not when the Blue state governments use their inherent wealth to provide for their rural constituents, because we all need to eat, while rural areas of red states wither and die, transforming into vast tracts of corporate owned agribusiness

[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It just fully hit that New England is more than likely to wind up being the last holdout of the independent, family owned farm. The region with the worst soil, terrible growing season, and heaviest industrialization, will likely remain the last place where independent farms try to scratch enough out of the dirt to feed their neighbors and turn a meager profit. Because it's a labor of love. Nobody farms up here for the money, because there basically isn't any. But there is generational wealth built into the land and it's ability to provide enough. And a healthy dose of Yankee "fuck you this is my land" attitude against selling out to big business.

[–] iridebikes@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There's always the option of antitrust as well. The government could, if it had a backbone, bust up corporate land aggregates. But very heartening to hear that take about New England, something I hadn't considered. I know livestock are big out there so had assumed most land was either grazing or feed farming.

[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

I would consider livestock less than half, maybe even a third of the farming effort up here. Vermont does the dairy thing but that's about it. It's generally very mixed, some livestock, but mostly agriculture.

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

A nationwide class war gladiator-style event for the ruling class to munch popcorn to. Wheee.

[–] EditsHisComments@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Depends on if there would be enough Generals and Admirals who sided with blue states.

But red states would repeat the mistakes of the confederacy and rely on Southern ports, and the rest of the US would once again blockade the Gulf and destroy their supply lines.

Only difference now is red states can get supplies via air.

[–] iridebikes@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's true. And air freight is much more limited in its capacity too so it's usually only considered for critical goods.

[–] EditsHisComments@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Good point, plus any sufficient naval blockade would also have some AA capabilities, at least for the Gulf. So they would have to be creative about getting supplies that way