People keep talking about “Federalizing the National Guard” and now you’ve got other States pledging their NG to Texas in defiance of the Supreme Court (see image).
Can we just have a normal, boring year for once, please? I’m so tired…
I’m right there with you.
But at least you can think of this to console you: You’re not actually fighting in a world/civil war, down in some troops trench somewhere, reading this (at least that’s my hope for you).
Other generations have had to go through major wars, but so far we’ve been dodging that bullet, for the most part.
What is curious to me is these are state departments disagreeing, though the previous civil war was fought between federal and state governments with raised armies.
This time I was expecting the police vs. militants. Uncontrolled civil unrest. Portland and Minneapolis but spread across the nation, cranked to eleven.
In Minneapolis at least one police station was burned down, as well as some commercial buildings. But what is interesting to me is the degree of lethality law enforcement tends to resort to during even peaceful protests.
What I thought was interesting in Portland were the DHS Stormtroopers / LGMs abducting protestors without identifying themselves or their purpose, which figured into to escalation of the protests around the ICE building.
So yes, I’m expecting either white power militant groups or law enforcement, masked up and without identifying marks to conduct raids on minority neighborhoods and community buildings associated with left-aligned organizations like BLM.
That or law enforcement accelerates its usual overpolicing of non-white neighborhoods and covers larger regions until the people can’t stand it anymore and start organizing resistance efforts. In Nazi-occupied Paris, it was the brutality of the German occupation that compelled Parisians to fight back. La Résistance evolved from independent mischief-makers to a formidable fighting force across three years.
But you’re right, if it’s just protests and OWS style campouts, and the police don’t misbehave too much, it’s not going to be much of a civil war. But so far, we can count on the police getting their murder on when they feel the civil unrest doesn’t respect their authority enough. And unlike Ferguson (or the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s) smartphones with cameras are ubiquitous, so they can’t deny when they pull a hit like Tamir Rice.
“take over texas” as if the federal govt wasn’t already in control of the states. the states pay federal taxes, and they receive various federal benefits. texas isn’t some separate nation. it’s just one of the regular 50 states.
They will refuse to hear this, Texans do believe they are unique little butterflies. They don’t understand that after the Civil War the Federal Government solidified its hold on the states. Probably for the better.
He claims this legislation will give him the authority he needs to do something. Do you really believe the president of the United States doesn’t have the authority to take action in securing our borders?
I’d like to see the text of this bill, because I don’t believe the White House is incapable of taking action and actually needs additional powers.
No this is all Republican division. It’s their only playbook to rally their base. The take home message for everyone is VOTE, VOTE, VOTE. Before the election started up we had a nice quiet 2-1/2 years. This kind of shit only appeals to those that love the chaos that Trump will bring back.
It’s very tiresome. This also feels a lot more agro than interrogating a president about getting a BJ.
Why are your lunatics so energetic, crazy and numerous? They seem to be getting worse. Some BJ obsessions in the 90s. Then tea parties in the 00s. Now it’s full-blown inssurection with Texas wanting to secede.
Now that all the crazies have joined their “god army” and trundled down to the border would it be a good time to nuke them? Just wipe out all the lunatics in one go. Problem solved.
Why are your lunatics so energetic, crazy and numerous?
Simple, Russian and Chinese bots on social media designed to foment division, anger, and the destruction of western democracy. It’s the exact same thing that led to Brexit and the election of Trump. And it will get worse until we get a handle on blocking bad actors on social media.
Most Americans aren’t interested or even capable of fighting in a civil war. When you live paycheck-to-paycheck, you’re not going to abandon your family to fight on the front lines.
And a huge percentage of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck.
Bingo. If Texas tried to leave, a HUGE chunk of the population would revolt against the State of Texas. Many more would just leave. Very little good would remain.
You’re wrong though. The general public is more likely to engage in civil unrest when they’re struggling. The reality though is that while many Americans might be living paycheck to paycheck, they’re not poor and not struggling. They are just bad at managing their finances and they have a lot to lose.
If you have more to lose than to gain, you won’t participate in a civil war. But when you’re a slave working in a cotton field, you have nothing to lose, only something to gain.
The idea that your average American is so poor is just laughable.
over half a million live on the streets. flat out homeless. and then, the working poor, which you are if you live paycheck to paycheck. also, if you can’t live unless you work, you’re the working class.
Either you’re being purposefully deceitful, or you have a horrible understanding of macroeconomics. But please, let’s just continue to ignore the elephants named record-inflation, rent records and housing crisis in the room.
There is a term for this called the “Valley of revolt” basically a people need enough empowerment to revolt but not enough to feel heard.
Also it’s not necessarily just “bad with finances” it’s that our expected standard of living doesn’t match our actual standard of living. Rising cost and stagnant wages and all that.
I don’t see how the national guard isn’t already federal, it’s the national guard, not the state guard. They get called up just like regular military for wars.
Cut off their money, court martial them, dishonorable discharge, take away their guns and vehicles. These belong to the military, not Texas.
The national guard is part of the military, so funded and supported by the feds. Unlike normal army units though, each state or territory has its own national guard unit under the command of the governor. The intention is to give each state the power to quickly respond to emergency situations without needing federal approval. They’re the successors to the old state militias, but have much stronger federal ties now.
They swear allegiance to the federal constitution, the governor, and the president. With the president being CIC and having power over the governor and the constitution having power overall. So in theory, the governor cannot give you orders that defy the president, and not even the president can give force you to comply with an unlawful order. It would take some serious stones to defy orders though
National Guard listens to the state by default, as each state has its own National Guard. However, the federal government can intervene at any time and give them new orders.
I guess they’re just choosing not to do anything? IDK.
That same separation is what prevented Trump from sending in the national guard to Detroit and Oregon just because he disagreed with the protests there.
The intent to give the peoples of the state further say in the use of force in the state.
From what I’ve heard, the supreme court decision was mostly about the feds having access to the border, and the ability to cut down the razor wire, rather than any specific opposition to the razor wire existing in and of itself. I would wager this whole deal is mostly just a kind of political play, to try and egg biden into doing something stupid, while simultaneously keeping up the appearance that everyone at the head of these states is doing something dangerous, anti-institutional, and counter-cultural, even though they’re all kind of inherently unable to do anything along those lines just as a matter of their positions.
Everybody’s correct when they say that the political divides in this country are less clear-cut, but I also don’t think that the radicalization that we’ve seen, as a matter of perspective from being in online space, necessarily reflects reality. I think if you look at most people, most people want social security of some kind, and want healthcare of some kind, and want drug legalization of some kind, and want us to stop fighting wars in some form. Those are all kind of generalities, because the specific mechanism by which people want those things achieved differs from person to person. It’s very fractured as a matter of course, as a matter of how our political system and society is set up, and the ruling class has taken advantage of this to enact a divide and conquer strategy, where they can selectively promote whatever ideological positions benefit them the most, and cordon everyone off into a relatively small set of solutions over which they have a high amount of control. Rather than, you know, what a good democracy might do, which is come to a compromise solution, that everyone but the most extreme propagandized radicals might be kind of okay with. There is a reason why lots of conservatives like communism, as long as you use the right words. Both parties attempt to be mostly “populist” parties. This is all kind of obvious, right, but people understate the degree to which it’s a deliberate thing, and the overstate the degree to which it’s been successful, you know, which isn’t surprising, because, again, serves the interests of the powerful. People aren’t, broadly, morons, people have realized that this is all the case. That’s mostly what the “radicalization” that you’ve seen online has been, people just realizing that they hate these shitass solutions that aren’t really compromise solutions. See how everyone is cripplingly disappointed with the democratic party, and also how, likewise, conservatives are consistently disappointed with their own party, as well, and for many of the same reasons, barring the extreme radicals.
Most people are focused on how the internet divides people into radicalized swaths and conspiracy theorists, which is true, but even the mainstream monopolized internet is kind of a good tool for mass mobilization. See the occupy movement and the arab spring for older examples, for more recent examples, maybe the george floyd protests, or the french retirement protests. The only risk of these is kind of that they more easily get co-opted as a result of their visibility, i.e. “defund the police” gets turned into an argument for “fund the police”. If you were an asshole, you could cite charlottesville, or jan 6th, for examples of internet mobilization, but those are relatively smaller scales of things, compared to the others, which were more popular, they just got disproportionate media attention relative to their size, and had disproportionate political effects.
I think if we’re looking at the true, extreme political radicals, we’re seeing them come about as a result of a kind of well-oiled engine. I’m not gonna say that this is an institutional kind of thing, and it’s maybe more of a third level effect of active decisions, but it’s still something that, nonetheless, has been deliberately constructed. 4chan is funded by a japanese toy company and a hands off japanese internet techbro, and is administrated by some former american military freak who’s deliberately organized the site. The more radical offshoots, that use the same source code, tend to be funded by oil money, and political action committees, but through second-level effects, where they fund some small level conservative actor, and then they prop up the space. Which churns out some radical terrorists that are capable of your more fucked up bombings, and shootings, and controlled and coordinated protests. And then you kind of get military people at almost every level of this, in lower numbers, who act to control the space.
I dunno what I mean to extrapolate from all of this, but yeah. There’s probably not going to be a civil war.
Apologies, but too verbose and meandering to gain insight/understanding from (and I tried). Also, its murder trying to read that on a phone (vs PC monitor) to boot.
Appreciate the attempt though, thank you for that.
I don’t even come to a conclusion in the thing itself, but the tl;dr is basically just that this is all political farce, political theater, and the nature of the opposition’s control is too like. granular, too atomized, to be able to co-ordinate a large scale war. What we see instead are discrete “events”, discrete attacks, civil unrest which is corralled and channeled towards political ends by political powers. That’s what we see, we don’t see like, large scale organized institutional conflict, because the institutions are (mostly) all on the same side.
If you read the popular opinions around 1860, we have the same “we are right and we’ll show them” attitude building up in the new poor-people-and-women slave states.
The US Regular Army (RA) was founded in 1775. State militias supported the RA through the various wars fought on what is now US soil (including the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812). In the Civil War, the RA was supported by volunteers and fought on the side that ultimately won. The Confederate Army was similar to the RA at the time. Currently, the RA has been absorbed into the US Army (including Army Reserve and National Guard).
So… yes there was a federal military, but it was a different thing than the US Army is now. How that would play out if things went bonkers in 2025… who knows. There are a LOT of people around the world watching VERY closely though… and really hoping (not that confidently though) that sanity will prevail.
As far as I can tell, it’s a purple state. The right republican would have to come along to pull moderates/libertarians in the state and Trump will only lose the state again - he talked a lot of shit about John McCain; that’s not going to go well. Don’t get me wrong, every state has it’s Trump cultists, but there’s just not enough.
“Fuck yeah, secession!” Says the Texan from the comfort of their lounge chair, beer in hand.
These people are too comfortable to ever be willing to die for their stupid ideals. All it took was one MAGA idiot to get blasted on Jan 6th and then they all scattered like roaches. As soon as their lives were on the line, it was no longer a matter of grave importance. They all firmly believed that democracy was at stake, but were unwilling to fight for it to the death because they somehow must have known that it was bullshit, somewhere in the back of their pea-sized brains, they knew.
By the time Texas starts asking people to show up to mustering fields, rifle in hand, the facade will fall apart. Biden doesn’t need to do anything. This sideshow of bluster and saber-rattling will fall apart on it’s own.
And the economic powerhouses of the state (Dallas, Houston, Austin) all lean democratic. This will just make skilled, educated people leave the state and accelerate the brain drain that’s been happening since the 40s.
You’re thinking first civil war. This civil war is going to be about bombing and terror. And it will be MAGA idiots bombing govt facilities. But they’ll start first with places like gay bars and libraries.
THEN the federal govt will get involved and it will devolve into a shit show from there.
The federal government is already involved. The FBI has been a thing for decades. Are we really going to compare the pathetic levels we have now to the 1950s with the KKK?
Here is the truth to any wannabe terrorist: none of you have gotten smarter but the federal government has. You are one guy, the government is a whole mess of guys spending decades studying ways to stop you. No company has any incentive to help you and has a big incentive to report you. Everyone is tracked now, every transaction recorded, every internet post, heck our very movements.
Random acts are going to happen and it is awful but any kinda coordinated resistance will fail.
Plus you know we are all fat now. Successful resistance movements are led by poor people who can live off the land. That Bundy Ranch ordering takeout thing really illustrated it well. Who do you know in your life that is capable of living in the woods as a revolutionary? Do you really see someone like Hannity or Ted Cruz sitting in a cave somewhere to lead his forces?
At current, this is all posturing. If Biden does engage the military to stop them. Perhaps lock up the governors for treason, maybe it could escalate somewhat. If something did happen that was in the line of being more serious, it wouldn’t be a long incursion as long as the military obeyed the commander in chief. The national guard is absolutely no match for even a small slice of the might of the US military.
If something does happen, hopefully they’ll shut it down quickly and bloodlessly, maybe finally gather enough strength to enable some Germany type of anti-fascism laws.
We need to fix gerrymandering, we need to fix people screwing with elections. We need to put some strong protections against the propaganda and opinion pieces flowing out of all the news outlets. We need to force free non-political basic education to the entire f****** country so people can make some informed decisions about s***.
I’m tired of everybody looking at politics like it’s a f****** football game.
And if Trump gets in again? All the people not crazy going to along with him, or will he be to deploying the army? At what point does the apparatus of state start to split as people within it don’t all go with crazy orders?
If I was Putin, or CCP, helping the crazies is the best money spent.
Us, never. Just like with China you can’t win a land war over here, and a home attack has a greater risk of uniting is against a common enemy.
Taiwan possibly. Though I don’t think so. Taiwan is much more useful as a political chess piece that China can beat their chests about. They can invoke the island and be offended about support for it whenever they need leverage right now.
Not to mention it isn’t just the US alone that needs Taiwan and movement there risks a global response.
We need to put some strong protections against the propaganda and opinion pieces flowing out of all the news outlets.
Something tells me this one is a non-starter, as any new laws will slam up against the Constitution, over and over again.
Having said that, I would love to at least seen a real-time label, in a large font size, on any monitor/tv that specifies that what’s being shown is an opinion piece, and not a factual article/show.
If we go into a civil war, the Constitution’s going to slam up against a lot of changes.
GOP is ignoring the shit out of the Constitution already why should it protect them? They already tried to dismantle the executive branch and turn the presidency into a dictatorship. Now they’re going after the judicial branch. Nah, they’re going to game the Constitution until the US is forced to change it. It’s either going to happen slowly over time, or quickly after a pretty substantial bloodbath.
We can’t just sit here and go oh look It’s Hitler incarnate, but you know first amendment, oh damn, they ignored some laws and found some loopholes I guess we had just better conform to oppression by the minority. We better all get some swastikas.
This country isn’t going to go quietly into dictatorship for fear of failing to make everyone happy. The Democrats are weak because they try to follow the rules, They try to give breaks to the people that f*** them over because they don’t want to hurt the other people, but like everything else there’s a line. When Americans are shooting each other over propaganda, The propaganda’s going to have to f****** go.
Something tells me this one is a non-starter, as any new laws will slam up against the Constitution, over and over again.
The first amendment states that congress shall not abridge freedom of the press. In reality it needs to be strengthened because speech and press isn’t free anymore, it’s overwhelmingly controlled by interest with huge amounts of economic power. The reason for freedom fo speech and press is that dissenting ideas and thoughts are heard in order to have accountability. Which the current interpretation is doing the opposite of.
For example you could pass laws that any journalist has the right to voice his own opinion and not be fired or discriminated against by his employer (as long as he doesn’t discriminate himself or uses hate speech). That would not abridge the freedom of the press. Basically give the journalists more freedom from their owners.
Or you could make a law that forces owners to sell their media empires into trusts that are democratically controlled by the journalists / workers, and finance it through a bank. This would not abridge the freedom of the press (which is not the same as the owner).
Of course this is unthinkable and the current supreme court would never allow it. But we shouldn’t accept the degenerate view that freedom of the press is the same as turning speech and news into a commodity that is owned by the elite. And especially in a plutocracy that basically is state owned media.
You could appoint a 100 young people as new supreme court judges and then pass these modern laws and election reform also limiting the future excesses of the supreme court. There isn’t really anything stopping the Democrats from doing that.
It all seems quite a bit overblown to me. There’s legal precedent for the President to take over a state’s national guard and use federal troops to enforce a court order (see Brown v Board of Education):
“In September 1957, Arkansas governor Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas Army National Guard to block the entry of nine black students, later known as the “Little Rock Nine”, after the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School. President Dwight D. Eisenhower responded by asserting federal control over the Arkansas National Guard and deploying troops from the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division stationed at Fort Campbell to ensure the black students could safely register for and attend classes. […]” (Source: en.wikipedia.org/…/Brown_v._Board_of_Education)
The current wording of the Insurrection Act provision (which has been amended a few times since initial adoption), according to Wikipedia:
<span style="color:#323232;">"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
</span>
Just my $.02 but I’d guess either the feds back down or Texas does. Hopefully nobody gets trigger happy.
The aftermath of racial desegregation court victories are some of the most interesting things in recent US history. A law would be struck down and sort of left like that… and people would take it upon themselves to organize and challenge the new law, often in the face of violent opposition. Freedom Riders taking busses down to the south to challenge desegregation of public transit being met with mobs and put in jail.
The reference to Little Rock Nine suddenly made me realize that Forest Gump was 38 at the time of Forest Gump.
I’m 38 now. As tired as I am of Hollywood reimagining films from the nineties, I would appreciate a Forest Gump born in the 80s. The whole concept could really be repeated every 30 years or so.
Add comment