politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I upvoted your reply, I get it and feel the frustration. Sorry for the long response (this is effectively therapy for me at this point):
Right, but to be clear, my point for this first bullet is that people should understand that by acting with violence, it won't be a one-time "fight back" moment, they are voting with action to permanently increase the violence of future confrontations for both protestors and bystanders.
This isn't quite what I'm saying. Obviously the fascists are the ones causing the violence. I'm saying that they have the advantage in violence. They have the literal state monopoly on violence. It's like someone issuing a challenge to "beat Michael Phelps," and you agree to a 200 meter butterfly swim rather than a chess match. Violence is an uneven playing field that favors the fascists.
Yes, they're going to do something even if we don't react. But no, it's not necessarily martial law. I feel like people aren't understanding what "plausible" martial law and the Insurrection Act invocation will really mean. It can and will get unimaginably worse, for not just those who choose it, but for millions of innocent people. It's possible we can't avoid that, eventually, but the rational choice is certainly to do what we can to avoid it.
It's hard to see it, but there is in fact a limit to how much they can lie effectively. Their base, 30% of the population, will believe whatever Fox News says is real, those oligarch-backed networks will stoke the fire or enlarge the wound. But they need something to burn or bleed first. They can't pull the Overton window too far too fast to become unplausible, and either way, it makes no sense to help them build their preferred narrative. That changes of course once we have martial law. At that point, we're Russia - hypernormalization, no tie to reality. It's vital to avoid that.
Again, need more imagination here. We have in order of effect-to-cause: actions (e.g., murdering Renee Good) built on principles (state violence against left-leaning opposition is always justified) built on theory (fascism) built on motives (Stephen Miller views non-white people as inhuman and wants to remove them by any means necessary) built on foundational reality (Trump is a demented narcissist who is easily manipulated).
A response to an action, or at best a competing principle some advocate (that responding to state violence with violence is justified), won't change any of the lower causal steps in this chain. A change to foundational reality (Trump dying of Cheeseburger 4,205,243) upsets every link in that chain. It's not a bet, but it's one way which the game board can clearly change for the better. Putin knows this, for example, and it's why when he's losing he will be the one calling for peace talks through back channels. "Wait it out" is a valid and sometimes superior strategic choice.
I know that word would be easily misunderstood, but the win condition here is to not have martial law and a suspension of rule of law, at which point fascism becomes nearly impossible to dislodge without a world war and millions of deaths. You may say it's already effectively suspended. Again, I think they are trying, they are test-casing, but we are not there yet. We must not give that to them.
Thanks for the clarification. After all that is said, I agree, if people want to open carry, that may dissuade ICE violence, sure. I support people doing that. But without very clear training and better-than-ICE escalation policy, I suspect it will just be more dry kindling waiting for a match. A match to a pile of dry brush is much easier for Miller to work with, versus building the entire fire from scratch.
No, it's not necessarily the rational choice. Not if, for example, delaying to act causes us to lose in the long run, e.g. by giving the fascists more time to shift that Overton window slowly enough. In fact, you yourself acknowledge that in another part of your comment: that we have a limited window of opportunity before hypernormalization kicks in, and we'd better not squander it.
Jan 6 was stopped with a single bullet, ICE is also emboldened due to lack of immediate consequences and would likely back off when met with resistance. Again, I'm saying the presence of guns and the implication of violence is enough
The state's mo only on violence is part of the social construct and only exists when people have the belief the system is relatively fair. The majority no longer believe that.
They're literally using ICE killing peaceful protestors as justification. Like, right now, today they're doing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-threatens-martial-law-in-blue-state-in-wild-morning-rage-post/ar-AA1UhmfO
Again, they're building it regardless, preventing local/state from investigating, and now saying they won't either.
Once again, it's been just a few hours since Trump said if anymore people get killed by ICE, he's doing martial law.
Jan. 6th was stopped because they were a violent mob who didn't think far enough ahead to expect to be shot. ICE is not that - at least Noem and Miller know and want there to be violence against ICE. It's fundamentally a different situation.
Otherwise, I'll just address the martial law point: Trump threatening it only gives away the game and is seeking to normalize it. It shows how much they palpably want to invoke it. If he could, he would. Him saying this is to test the waters, see if republicans will let him do it, sure, but also an admission he cannot yet do it.
Trump is effectively an id in a body suit. That means even when he is manipulating, he is revealing his motivations and admitting to his weaknesses.
There's is so much politicing that's happening behind the scenes, it's hard to explain how this system actually works.
Trump "threatening" martial law and "enacting" martial law are 2 very different things. And providing them the justifications to enact would be a very stupid thing. Like you said, him throwing that out there is him testing the waters. It means that behind closed doors, there's a non zero, X number of Republicans who have made it known they will not stand for it. If that number was zero and he had the full backing of Congress AND supreme Court, he would have done it by now and cancelled the midterms, etc...
Now, what we don't know are if there were any conditions tied to that, for example "i will not stand for martial law being declared without full on violence in the streets" or "i will not stand for martial law being declared without one of 'our guys' being punched in the face first". We don't know how many lines there are or where the lines are being drawn, but they are there, and the administration is currently doing the calculus to get to their end result.
"He's going to do it regardless" then he'll face backlash in his own party. Watching the last few years unfold had proved that Republicans were once willing to forgive a lot to reach their end goals, but recently many have been breaking off since reaching some of those goals. Not to mention, the people's reaction if he just does it regardless. There's certainly people behind the scenes calculating not just the public's reactions but our allies too, and trying to apply pressure where they can.
Eh...
I'd argue not only do they act the same, a high percentage of recent ICE were likely at 1/6 in the mob.
I think the only reason he hasn't done it yet, is he needs to hold it thru midterms to fuck with or outright cancel elections in blue states via puppet appointees.
Do it now, he has to hold it 10 months. Do it 9 months from now, you only got to hold it a couple days.
We just gonna wait till they think it's the perfect moment?
It ain't 5d chess, he wants to take over immediately, he wanted to do it in 2017. It's just about how much the people around him can convince him it's better to wait. First term.people were just bullshitting him. But one day Stephen Miller is going to say "today" and shit will get really fucking bad regardless of how much or how little weve been reacting.
If we don't pick the day, they'll pick the exact day they're most likely to succeed.
Thats just relaity