Violent overthrow is very popular these days but I don't think people realize how dangerous it is, not just in the conflict itself, but how easily things can go wrong and how easily you can end up with a new government that is worse than before. I haven't heard anyone suggest how such an uprising could be done properly to avoid these pitfalls.
Before a violent overthrow can have legitimacy, there are several things that need to be done first:
There needs to be a listing and public declaration/release of specific grievances against the current government. This should include examples and evidence backing up these claims.
There needs to be a re-affirming of the principles, values and rights of those who are publishing the grievances. It needs to be clear who this movement consists of, what their values are, and why they believe these grievances to be legitimate.
There needs to be a clear statement of intentions and a path forward in order to remedy the situation. This should always be a non-violent solution to begin with, but make it clear that justified violence will be used if there is insufficient relief given.
Only once remedy of grievances is denied by government should the next step be taken, namely violence to overthrow the oppressive government and bring relief to those oppressed.
Not that I'm aware of... not in any clear and substantive way with sufficient support behind it. If that support doesn't exist then this effort is dead in the water.
Just paint targets on our back.
No.
I'm not talking about doxing specific individuals. I'm talking about making sure everyone involved understands who this movement consists of and what they believe. Remember, many other people are watching and trying to decide which side to support.
You've never read our founding documents, apparently. Restoring the US Constitution to the highest law of the land should be the obvious resolution. We don't have anything better.
Restoring the U.S. Constitution is the destination, not the path to reach the destination.
Fuck it. America is a gigantic country. Nobody is ever doing a successful ground invasion on the US. It'd be them vs a half a billion heavily armed lunatics who will think the world is ending.
I say let's balkanize and then sort it out. I propose the Midwest secedes and leave the coasts to starve.
Unfortunately, ground invasions in the modern world will follow bombardment, most likely by a nuclear strike. A ground invasion may fail, but only after they've nuked half the country. I'd say that's the worst-case scenario but it's not improbable if the USA continues down the current path.
Nobody's nuking half the country. Why would you irradiate the land you're trying to conquer? Also, that would have to be a LOT of nuclear bombs and would lead to global nuclear annihilation.
Are you American? Have you been to America? This country is mind-bendingly huge with literally every type of climate and geography. Frankly it takes like 5+ hours to fly across the country with a lot of lateral space. You would need thousands and thousands of planes and pilots to even attempt an air invasion. Not to mention the thousands of miles of ocean between us and the rest of the world.
We also have a gigantic -- maybe the biggest -- stockpile of weapons on the planet. If things get as loose as we're suggesting, I'd estimate it would be giant blocs of militias holding ground.
Yeah, I'm not too worried about the US. Any army that would stretch their supply line 5000 miles and across an ocean onto incredibly hostile territory -- including a type of urban and suburban warfare that has never been approached before -- is going to die before the tail makes it to land.
We'd probably want to add something that keeps the executive from being controlled by the House. Not sure what that would be.
Also need an amendment that addresses medical tyranny
It's already illegal for the government to not have a budget surplus lol.
Also need an anem
Declare the second amendment to be absolute with the only exceptions targeting mental cases, sex offenders, terrorist threats, and criminals.
The first amendment should be similar.
Violent overthrow is very popular these days but I don't think people realize how dangerous it is, not just in the conflict itself, but how easily things can go wrong and how easily you can end up with a new government that is worse than before. I haven't heard anyone suggest how such an uprising could be done properly to avoid these pitfalls.
Before a violent overthrow can have legitimacy, there are several things that need to be done first:
There needs to be a listing and public declaration/release of specific grievances against the current government. This should include examples and evidence backing up these claims.
There needs to be a re-affirming of the principles, values and rights of those who are publishing the grievances. It needs to be clear who this movement consists of, what their values are, and why they believe these grievances to be legitimate.
There needs to be a clear statement of intentions and a path forward in order to remedy the situation. This should always be a non-violent solution to begin with, but make it clear that justified violence will be used if there is insufficient relief given.
Only once remedy of grievances is denied by government should the next step be taken, namely violence to overthrow the oppressive government and bring relief to those oppressed.
Not that I'm aware of... not in any clear and substantive way with sufficient support behind it. If that support doesn't exist then this effort is dead in the water.
I'm not talking about doxing specific individuals. I'm talking about making sure everyone involved understands who this movement consists of and what they believe. Remember, many other people are watching and trying to decide which side to support.
Restoring the U.S. Constitution is the destination, not the path to reach the destination.
Fuck it. America is a gigantic country. Nobody is ever doing a successful ground invasion on the US. It'd be them vs a half a billion heavily armed lunatics who will think the world is ending.
I say let's balkanize and then sort it out. I propose the Midwest secedes and leave the coasts to starve.
Unfortunately, ground invasions in the modern world will follow bombardment, most likely by a nuclear strike. A ground invasion may fail, but only after they've nuked half the country. I'd say that's the worst-case scenario but it's not improbable if the USA continues down the current path.
Nobody's nuking half the country. Why would you irradiate the land you're trying to conquer? Also, that would have to be a LOT of nuclear bombs and would lead to global nuclear annihilation.
Are you American? Have you been to America? This country is mind-bendingly huge with literally every type of climate and geography. Frankly it takes like 5+ hours to fly across the country with a lot of lateral space. You would need thousands and thousands of planes and pilots to even attempt an air invasion. Not to mention the thousands of miles of ocean between us and the rest of the world.
We also have a gigantic -- maybe the biggest -- stockpile of weapons on the planet. If things get as loose as we're suggesting, I'd estimate it would be giant blocs of militias holding ground.
Yeah, I'm not too worried about the US. Any army that would stretch their supply line 5000 miles and across an ocean onto incredibly hostile territory -- including a type of urban and suburban warfare that has never been approached before -- is going to die before the tail makes it to land.
Biden is actually pretty based. Literally paying half a mil per immigrant and shipping them to red state shitholes.
Yea, but Biden is trying to replace hicks. He's pretty based for accelerating like mad. Respect the game.