Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 10 2026 06:54 LightSpectra wrote: We killed the Supreme Leader that was publicly hesitant about developing nuclear weapons for theological reasons and let him get replaced by the most hardline "bathe in the blood of the infidels" guy that's been clamoring for nukes for over thirty years.
Mission accomplished 😎
no, as i posted earlier along with sources. the Supreme Leader's son had already taken over the day to day operations of the country weeks or months before his death. The USA and/or Donald Trump did not "allow him to get replaced".
On March 10 2026 00:03 Doublemint wrote: getting close to 2€/L for Diesel/Super over here. an increase of ~25% so far...
yeah putting a 86 year old up as an amazing trophy and incredible kill is quintessential Trump.
as is telling those tankers to just yolo through the Strait. "it's totally safe guys, they only got a couple drones and rockets left. what's the worst that can happen to a vessel filled to the brim with a highly combustible liquid?"
Kilmeade revealed on Fox & Friends Monday that the president had urged oil transportation companies that use the route to “get to it” as he argued Iranian regime’s capability to attack the ships had been weakened.
He explained that during the call, he’d asked the president how he planned to “get the prices down,” then relayed Trump’s words:
He says, ‘Tell these tankers to get themselves, get to it, we have wiped out most of their launchers.’ Here is exactly what he said: ‘These ships should go through the Strait of Hormuz and show some guts, there’s nothing to be afraid of. [The Iranians] have no navy, we sunk all their ships.’
He went on to say: ‘Look, there is risk in the region, the region is volatile, their launchers, there’s just about 150 left, that’s just about 20% of totals, they can’t regenerate, they can’t make any more. We are in the region and need to act quickly on all these type of attacks.’
I wonder if Trump is willing to basically insure those tankers when crossing through there? Guarantee to pay for any damages by those Iranian missiles?
Because if he wants them to get going again, that is what it would take.
I seriously wonder, because on one hand, he tends to just bullshit all day, but rarely actually commits to doing stuff if it would be costly.
But on the other hand, it would just be US taxpayer money and not his own, so it would be basically free since he doesn't value that in the slightest.
The administration already put the DFC in as insurer of last resort when Lloyd's of London and everyone else left.
Tankers are going through by just turning their transponders off, because Iran has no radars or naval assets left so as long as you don't scream "I AM AN OIL TANKER RIGHT HERE" there's no way for the "regime" to make good on threats that "If you can afford oil at $200 a barrel watch and see what happens." Because they have no targeting capabilities left for any missiles that they would happen to have operational still.
Radar? You can literally stand on one side and see all the way to the other side. It's a strait.
You cannot launch and give a firing solution to a ballistic or cruise missile with your eyes, regardless of whether you personally can see a certain ship from a beach or not.
It’s a giant metal box at sea level surrounded by water on all sides moving very slowly within sight range. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say they’re probably pretty easy to hit, even without radar tracking. But I guess we’ll see over the next few weeks.
Amazingly people have been sinking big floating boxes with ballistics for roughly 2500 years now. Radar has existed for about 90. And if we're talking missiles specifically, V1 rockets hit London just fine without radar.
While this is true, and i am actually pretty confident that hitting tankers in a straight right next to their country is probably not something beyond the capabilities of Iran, your last argument isn't that good.
While very big, oil tankers are still a lot smaller than London. And i honestly doubt that you could ever hit an oil tanker with a V1 or V2. Those things had an accuracy radius of 10-30km. Meaning that you could somewhat reliably hit the Greater London area, but it wasn't that unreasonable to miss Inner London.
Of course, missile technology has made some slight advances since 1944.
The accuracy doesn’t really matter, people in oil tankers and companies operating oil tanks don’t really have a desire to be shot at with lethal explosive projectiles.
On March 07 2026 19:19 baal wrote: It's wild how powerless a country is against a dictator who controls the army and is willing to mass kill his own citizens to remain in power.
I used to be anti-gun ownership but now I'm very pro because I've realized that there only two mechanism to get rid of this kind of dictators, well armed citizens or foreign intervention, and the 2nd usually gets very ugly quick.
Folks aren’t powerless, they just have to be willing to potentially die.
I don’t know how much having guns changes this calculus really. Perhaps a little.
If folks aren’t willing to potentially die, it’s largely moot whether they’re armed or not. If the relevant institutions aren’t willing to crush such a movement, same thing.
like the 20k who died in Iran and accomplished nothing?
I mean scenarios exist where having guns is rather handy. A failed state and complete collapse, foreign occupation, where people are willing to fight for prolonged periods, or indeed have to in order to merely survive.
People have pointed this out about fascists/Trump supporters before, but they are actually mostly cowards. Whether the population they are attempting to subjugate is armed or not makes a pretty huge difference.
Every major war/conflict since Vietnam has demonstrated that the way to beat the US military hasn't been to outgun them though. The "they have tanks?!.." type rhetoric are just thoughtless clichés.
If it comes down to it, I'd bet on Balkanization before the federal government can successfully beat a west coast resistance (especially if it has logistical support from China).
As I’ve said prior when the battleground was electoral and cultural, but also stands when it’s literal. Those folks also have guns.
Your analyses seem to frequently skip over that a big chunk of the population is either outright enthusiastic about the Fascism, or willing to hold their nose while other things they like are being done. Then various graduations of those opposed, some of whom wouldn’t countenance direct action, some who would.
I don’t consider it a matter of cowardice, but one of morale, as you alluded to earlier.
Is the threat bad enough for me to risk life and limb, personal bravery is part of it. But the bigger impediment is that of realistically making a difference. Who’s manning the battlements with me?
It’s a small cohort of people indeed who go from relative comfort to bat on behalf of others, with few folks beside them and little chance of success.
In a crude sense you need a pretty egregious big bad, and you need a society that is 60, 70 or whatever+ who are all on the same page vaguely, at least united in wanting the regime gone.
This is just generally how populations operate, in reality most people in the US have pretty tolerable lives, certainly not passing the threshold into armed insurrection.
Americans aren’t even engaging in many of the direct action steps before that threshold, so it’s just not realistically on the table.
Frankly, while I’m sympathetic to the politics,
I think average Americans would be far more likely to take up arms against a socialist revolution than encroaching Fascism.
I've frequently made this point about ostensible "allies" that dominate/lead Democrat supporters' party.
What I'm talking about there isn't a socialist revolution (though that'd obviously be my preference generally). What I'm talking about there is just plain anti-authoritarianism of various stripes, geography, logistics, etc. making it much more likely for the West coast to resist indefinitely. Cannabis (particularly in the early legalization years) is a bit of a microcosm of how that works.
Probably won't start with secession. More informal ignoring of the federal government and no practical way for them to enforce it (without pushing the populace toward secession by making it increasingly rational).
I mean this splintered off from discussing the merits of an armed populace, so I was addressing that specifically.
Part of my point was that it’s basically irrelevant if Dave or Janette are armed, if there’s not a wider anti-authoritarian movement. + Show Spoiler +
If there is, you can accomplish a lot without picking up a pea shooter, but you’ll do nout without
And I mean wasn’t cannabis legislation largely accomplished through gradual pressure and electoral shifts as well? In a wider sense I mean sure, I’d imagine secessionism into smaller states is probably liable to deliver more realistic results than a US-scale civil war, although I wouldn’t consider either especially likely
We agree that you need to have people that are actually willing to do what it takes to oppose fascism (armed or not) and Democrats (the only ostensible opposition party Democrats will allow) aren't that. The status quo provides "pretty tolerable lives" for them à la Niemöller.
That is bad news for humanity (including their own).
The lack of mass resignations after Musk's emphatic double Nazi salute sealed my impression that American liberals aren't even willing to take a pay cut for their principles.
Your president double-tapping an elementary school in Iran to knock down his pedo scandal from the news cycle is the grotesque conclusion of this failed hyper-individualist culture.
On March 07 2026 23:02 WombaT wrote: [quote] Folks aren’t powerless, they just have to be willing to potentially die.
I don’t know how much having guns changes this calculus really. Perhaps a little.
If folks aren’t willing to potentially die, it’s largely moot whether they’re armed or not. If the relevant institutions aren’t willing to crush such a movement, same thing.
like the 20k who died in Iran and accomplished nothing?
I mean scenarios exist where having guns is rather handy. A failed state and complete collapse, foreign occupation, where people are willing to fight for prolonged periods, or indeed have to in order to merely survive.
People have pointed this out about fascists/Trump supporters before, but they are actually mostly cowards. Whether the population they are attempting to subjugate is armed or not makes a pretty huge difference.
Every major war/conflict since Vietnam has demonstrated that the way to beat the US military hasn't been to outgun them though. The "they have tanks?!.." type rhetoric are just thoughtless clichés.
If it comes down to it, I'd bet on Balkanization before the federal government can successfully beat a west coast resistance (especially if it has logistical support from China).
As I’ve said prior when the battleground was electoral and cultural, but also stands when it’s literal. Those folks also have guns.
Your analyses seem to frequently skip over that a big chunk of the population is either outright enthusiastic about the Fascism, or willing to hold their nose while other things they like are being done. Then various graduations of those opposed, some of whom wouldn’t countenance direct action, some who would.
I don’t consider it a matter of cowardice, but one of morale, as you alluded to earlier.
Is the threat bad enough for me to risk life and limb, personal bravery is part of it. But the bigger impediment is that of realistically making a difference. Who’s manning the battlements with me?
It’s a small cohort of people indeed who go from relative comfort to bat on behalf of others, with few folks beside them and little chance of success.
In a crude sense you need a pretty egregious big bad, and you need a society that is 60, 70 or whatever+ who are all on the same page vaguely, at least united in wanting the regime gone.
This is just generally how populations operate, in reality most people in the US have pretty tolerable lives, certainly not passing the threshold into armed insurrection.
Americans aren’t even engaging in many of the direct action steps before that threshold, so it’s just not realistically on the table.
Frankly, while I’m sympathetic to the politics,
I think average Americans would be far more likely to take up arms against a socialist revolution than encroaching Fascism.
I've frequently made this point about ostensible "allies" that dominate/lead Democrat supporters' party.
What I'm talking about there isn't a socialist revolution (though that'd obviously be my preference generally). What I'm talking about there is just plain anti-authoritarianism of various stripes, geography, logistics, etc. making it much more likely for the West coast to resist indefinitely. Cannabis (particularly in the early legalization years) is a bit of a microcosm of how that works.
Probably won't start with secession. More informal ignoring of the federal government and no practical way for them to enforce it (without pushing the populace toward secession by making it increasingly rational).
I mean this splintered off from discussing the merits of an armed populace, so I was addressing that specifically.
Part of my point was that it’s basically irrelevant if Dave or Janette are armed, if there’s not a wider anti-authoritarian movement. + Show Spoiler +
If there is, you can accomplish a lot without picking up a pea shooter, but you’ll do nout without
And I mean wasn’t cannabis legislation largely accomplished through gradual pressure and electoral shifts as well? In a wider sense I mean sure, I’d imagine secessionism into smaller states is probably liable to deliver more realistic results than a US-scale civil war, although I wouldn’t consider either especially likely
We agree that you need to have people that are actually willing to do what it takes to oppose fascism (armed or not) and Democrats (the only ostensible opposition party Democrats will allow) aren't that. The status quo provides "pretty tolerable lives" for them à la Niemöller.
That is bad news for humanity (including their own).
The lack of mass resignations after Musk's emphatic double Nazi salute sealed my impression that American liberals aren't even willing to take a pay cut for their principles.
Your president double-tapping an elementary school in Iran to knock down his pedo scandal from the news cycle is the grotesque conclusion of this failed hyper-individualist culture.
I mean scenarios exist where having guns is rather handy. A failed state and complete collapse, foreign occupation, where people are willing to fight for prolonged periods, or indeed have to in order to merely survive.
People have pointed this out about fascists/Trump supporters before, but they are actually mostly cowards. Whether the population they are attempting to subjugate is armed or not makes a pretty huge difference.
Every major war/conflict since Vietnam has demonstrated that the way to beat the US military hasn't been to outgun them though. The "they have tanks?!.." type rhetoric are just thoughtless clichés.
If it comes down to it, I'd bet on Balkanization before the federal government can successfully beat a west coast resistance (especially if it has logistical support from China).
As I’ve said prior when the battleground was electoral and cultural, but also stands when it’s literal. Those folks also have guns.
Your analyses seem to frequently skip over that a big chunk of the population is either outright enthusiastic about the Fascism, or willing to hold their nose while other things they like are being done. Then various graduations of those opposed, some of whom wouldn’t countenance direct action, some who would.
I don’t consider it a matter of cowardice, but one of morale, as you alluded to earlier.
Is the threat bad enough for me to risk life and limb, personal bravery is part of it. But the bigger impediment is that of realistically making a difference. Who’s manning the battlements with me?
It’s a small cohort of people indeed who go from relative comfort to bat on behalf of others, with few folks beside them and little chance of success.
In a crude sense you need a pretty egregious big bad, and you need a society that is 60, 70 or whatever+ who are all on the same page vaguely, at least united in wanting the regime gone.
This is just generally how populations operate, in reality most people in the US have pretty tolerable lives, certainly not passing the threshold into armed insurrection.
Americans aren’t even engaging in many of the direct action steps before that threshold, so it’s just not realistically on the table.
Frankly, while I’m sympathetic to the politics,
I think average Americans would be far more likely to take up arms against a socialist revolution than encroaching Fascism.
I've frequently made this point about ostensible "allies" that dominate/lead Democrat supporters' party.
What I'm talking about there isn't a socialist revolution (though that'd obviously be my preference generally). What I'm talking about there is just plain anti-authoritarianism of various stripes, geography, logistics, etc. making it much more likely for the West coast to resist indefinitely. Cannabis (particularly in the early legalization years) is a bit of a microcosm of how that works.
Probably won't start with secession. More informal ignoring of the federal government and no practical way for them to enforce it (without pushing the populace toward secession by making it increasingly rational).
I mean this splintered off from discussing the merits of an armed populace, so I was addressing that specifically.
Part of my point was that it’s basically irrelevant if Dave or Janette are armed, if there’s not a wider anti-authoritarian movement. + Show Spoiler +
If there is, you can accomplish a lot without picking up a pea shooter, but you’ll do nout without
And I mean wasn’t cannabis legislation largely accomplished through gradual pressure and electoral shifts as well? In a wider sense I mean sure, I’d imagine secessionism into smaller states is probably liable to deliver more realistic results than a US-scale civil war, although I wouldn’t consider either especially likely
We agree that you need to have people that are actually willing to do what it takes to oppose fascism (armed or not) and Democrats (the only ostensible opposition party Democrats will allow) aren't that. The status quo provides "pretty tolerable lives" for them à la Niemöller.
That is bad news for humanity (including their own).
The lack of mass resignations after Musk's emphatic double Nazi salute sealed my impression that American liberals aren't even willing to take a pay cut for their principles.
Your president double-tapping an elementary school in Iran to knock down his pedo scandal from the news cycle is the grotesque conclusion of this failed hyper-individualist culture.
I mean scenarios exist where having guns is rather handy. A failed state and complete collapse, foreign occupation, where people are willing to fight for prolonged periods, or indeed have to in order to merely survive.
People have pointed this out about fascists/Trump supporters before, but they are actually mostly cowards. Whether the population they are attempting to subjugate is armed or not makes a pretty huge difference.
Every major war/conflict since Vietnam has demonstrated that the way to beat the US military hasn't been to outgun them though. The "they have tanks?!.." type rhetoric are just thoughtless clichés.
If it comes down to it, I'd bet on Balkanization before the federal government can successfully beat a west coast resistance (especially if it has logistical support from China).
As I’ve said prior when the battleground was electoral and cultural, but also stands when it’s literal. Those folks also have guns.
Your analyses seem to frequently skip over that a big chunk of the population is either outright enthusiastic about the Fascism, or willing to hold their nose while other things they like are being done. Then various graduations of those opposed, some of whom wouldn’t countenance direct action, some who would.
I don’t consider it a matter of cowardice, but one of morale, as you alluded to earlier.
Is the threat bad enough for me to risk life and limb, personal bravery is part of it. But the bigger impediment is that of realistically making a difference. Who’s manning the battlements with me?
It’s a small cohort of people indeed who go from relative comfort to bat on behalf of others, with few folks beside them and little chance of success.
In a crude sense you need a pretty egregious big bad, and you need a society that is 60, 70 or whatever+ who are all on the same page vaguely, at least united in wanting the regime gone.
This is just generally how populations operate, in reality most people in the US have pretty tolerable lives, certainly not passing the threshold into armed insurrection.
Americans aren’t even engaging in many of the direct action steps before that threshold, so it’s just not realistically on the table.
Frankly, while I’m sympathetic to the politics,
I think average Americans would be far more likely to take up arms against a socialist revolution than encroaching Fascism.
I've frequently made this point about ostensible "allies" that dominate/lead Democrat supporters' party.
What I'm talking about there isn't a socialist revolution (though that'd obviously be my preference generally). What I'm talking about there is just plain anti-authoritarianism of various stripes, geography, logistics, etc. making it much more likely for the West coast to resist indefinitely. Cannabis (particularly in the early legalization years) is a bit of a microcosm of how that works.
Probably won't start with secession. More informal ignoring of the federal government and no practical way for them to enforce it (without pushing the populace toward secession by making it increasingly rational).
I mean this splintered off from discussing the merits of an armed populace, so I was addressing that specifically.
Part of my point was that it’s basically irrelevant if Dave or Janette are armed, if there’s not a wider anti-authoritarian movement. + Show Spoiler +
If there is, you can accomplish a lot without picking up a pea shooter, but you’ll do nout without
And I mean wasn’t cannabis legislation largely accomplished through gradual pressure and electoral shifts as well? In a wider sense I mean sure, I’d imagine secessionism into smaller states is probably liable to deliver more realistic results than a US-scale civil war, although I wouldn’t consider either especially likely
We agree that you need to have people that are actually willing to do what it takes to oppose fascism (armed or not) and Democrats (the only ostensible opposition party Democrats will allow) aren't that. The status quo provides "pretty tolerable lives" for them à la Niemöller.
That is bad news for humanity (including their own).
The lack of mass resignations after Musk's emphatic double Nazi salute sealed my impression that American liberals aren't even willing to take a pay cut for their principles.
Your president double-tapping an elementary school in Iran to knock down his pedo scandal from the news cycle is the grotesque conclusion of this failed hyper-individualist culture.
On March 10 2026 03:58 WombaT wrote: Also how did the Republic die with Kennedy? What does that even mean?
Your posting is akin to the mailboy channeling his best Shoei Otani and risking his rotator cuffs to fuck a rolled up newspaper at my door. I’ll hear the thump, run to the door, I’ll get my newspaper, I can read it, but there’s zero interaction whatsoever.
You just like, say stuff and barely interact with anyone until it’s time for the next mic drop, it’s bizarre
The Republic did not "die with Kennedy". Did you read what I wrote? I will restate it again. Hopefully, it sinks in. The series of events occurring in the early 60s are an indicator the US is no longer a republic. The way military action is initiated in the USA since 1945 is another sign of a weakening of the US as a Republic. Trump 50,000 "emergencies" are another sign of a non-existent republic. In the Republic designed by Madison et al. The Prez does not make laws. The Prez is supposed to veto laws that are attempting to pass. Tariffs are the purview of Congress. Tariffs are not set via unilateral declaration of the President. Trump is running things closer to the way an Emporor rules an Empire than how a President is supposed to work within the Republic of the USA.
On top of all of that, the Presidents' decision making is compromised by Israeli influence since about 1965. Trump is just one in a long line of Presidents in that area.
Fair enough, apologies for misreading your post sir
On March 09 2026 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] People have pointed this out about fascists/Trump supporters before, but they are actually mostly cowards. Whether the population they are attempting to subjugate is armed or not makes a pretty huge difference.
Every major war/conflict since Vietnam has demonstrated that the way to beat the US military hasn't been to outgun them though. The "they have tanks?!.." type rhetoric are just thoughtless clichés.
If it comes down to it, I'd bet on Balkanization before the federal government can successfully beat a west coast resistance (especially if it has logistical support from China).
As I’ve said prior when the battleground was electoral and cultural, but also stands when it’s literal. Those folks also have guns.
Your analyses seem to frequently skip over that a big chunk of the population is either outright enthusiastic about the Fascism, or willing to hold their nose while other things they like are being done. Then various graduations of those opposed, some of whom wouldn’t countenance direct action, some who would.
I don’t consider it a matter of cowardice, but one of morale, as you alluded to earlier.
Is the threat bad enough for me to risk life and limb, personal bravery is part of it. But the bigger impediment is that of realistically making a difference. Who’s manning the battlements with me?
It’s a small cohort of people indeed who go from relative comfort to bat on behalf of others, with few folks beside them and little chance of success.
In a crude sense you need a pretty egregious big bad, and you need a society that is 60, 70 or whatever+ who are all on the same page vaguely, at least united in wanting the regime gone.
This is just generally how populations operate, in reality most people in the US have pretty tolerable lives, certainly not passing the threshold into armed insurrection.
Americans aren’t even engaging in many of the direct action steps before that threshold, so it’s just not realistically on the table.
Frankly, while I’m sympathetic to the politics,
I think average Americans would be far more likely to take up arms against a socialist revolution than encroaching Fascism.
I've frequently made this point about ostensible "allies" that dominate/lead Democrat supporters' party.
What I'm talking about there isn't a socialist revolution (though that'd obviously be my preference generally). What I'm talking about there is just plain anti-authoritarianism of various stripes, geography, logistics, etc. making it much more likely for the West coast to resist indefinitely. Cannabis (particularly in the early legalization years) is a bit of a microcosm of how that works.
Probably won't start with secession. More informal ignoring of the federal government and no practical way for them to enforce it (without pushing the populace toward secession by making it increasingly rational).
I mean this splintered off from discussing the merits of an armed populace, so I was addressing that specifically.
Part of my point was that it’s basically irrelevant if Dave or Janette are armed, if there’s not a wider anti-authoritarian movement. + Show Spoiler +
If there is, you can accomplish a lot without picking up a pea shooter, but you’ll do nout without
And I mean wasn’t cannabis legislation largely accomplished through gradual pressure and electoral shifts as well? In a wider sense I mean sure, I’d imagine secessionism into smaller states is probably liable to deliver more realistic results than a US-scale civil war, although I wouldn’t consider either especially likely
We agree that you need to have people that are actually willing to do what it takes to oppose fascism (armed or not) and Democrats (the only ostensible opposition party Democrats will allow) aren't that. The status quo provides "pretty tolerable lives" for them à la Niemöller.
That is bad news for humanity (including their own).
The lack of mass resignations after Musk's emphatic double Nazi salute sealed my impression that American liberals aren't even willing to take a pay cut for their principles.
Your president double-tapping an elementary school in Iran to knock down his pedo scandal from the news cycle is the grotesque conclusion of this failed hyper-individualist culture.
Trying to find an illegal order in the midst of an illegal war must be like trying to find your glasses when you are wearing them.
That’s rather too moderate for me, but you always have been very opposed to direct action.
In all seriousness, why haven't you left yet?
Who says I haven't? In all seriousness, why aren't you on strike?
You say you haven't.
Striking is typically a collective action. I've repeatedly attempted to get people to work on anything from an electoral plan to a general strike they would support/join.
But yeah, I happily support/work with people trying to organize strikes and join strikes when the times come. People with "pretty tolerable lives" shit on those efforts in a futile attempt to protect themselves à la Niemöller. Maybe try doing the former unironically instead of the latter enthusiastically for a while and let me know how you feel?
On March 09 2026 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] People have pointed this out about fascists/Trump supporters before, but they are actually mostly cowards. Whether the population they are attempting to subjugate is armed or not makes a pretty huge difference.
Every major war/conflict since Vietnam has demonstrated that the way to beat the US military hasn't been to outgun them though. The "they have tanks?!.." type rhetoric are just thoughtless clichés.
If it comes down to it, I'd bet on Balkanization before the federal government can successfully beat a west coast resistance (especially if it has logistical support from China).
As I’ve said prior when the battleground was electoral and cultural, but also stands when it’s literal. Those folks also have guns.
Your analyses seem to frequently skip over that a big chunk of the population is either outright enthusiastic about the Fascism, or willing to hold their nose while other things they like are being done. Then various graduations of those opposed, some of whom wouldn’t countenance direct action, some who would.
I don’t consider it a matter of cowardice, but one of morale, as you alluded to earlier.
Is the threat bad enough for me to risk life and limb, personal bravery is part of it. But the bigger impediment is that of realistically making a difference. Who’s manning the battlements with me?
It’s a small cohort of people indeed who go from relative comfort to bat on behalf of others, with few folks beside them and little chance of success.
In a crude sense you need a pretty egregious big bad, and you need a society that is 60, 70 or whatever+ who are all on the same page vaguely, at least united in wanting the regime gone.
This is just generally how populations operate, in reality most people in the US have pretty tolerable lives, certainly not passing the threshold into armed insurrection.
Americans aren’t even engaging in many of the direct action steps before that threshold, so it’s just not realistically on the table.
Frankly, while I’m sympathetic to the politics,
I think average Americans would be far more likely to take up arms against a socialist revolution than encroaching Fascism.
I've frequently made this point about ostensible "allies" that dominate/lead Democrat supporters' party.
What I'm talking about there isn't a socialist revolution (though that'd obviously be my preference generally). What I'm talking about there is just plain anti-authoritarianism of various stripes, geography, logistics, etc. making it much more likely for the West coast to resist indefinitely. Cannabis (particularly in the early legalization years) is a bit of a microcosm of how that works.
Probably won't start with secession. More informal ignoring of the federal government and no practical way for them to enforce it (without pushing the populace toward secession by making it increasingly rational).
I mean this splintered off from discussing the merits of an armed populace, so I was addressing that specifically.
Part of my point was that it’s basically irrelevant if Dave or Janette are armed, if there’s not a wider anti-authoritarian movement. + Show Spoiler +
If there is, you can accomplish a lot without picking up a pea shooter, but you’ll do nout without
And I mean wasn’t cannabis legislation largely accomplished through gradual pressure and electoral shifts as well? In a wider sense I mean sure, I’d imagine secessionism into smaller states is probably liable to deliver more realistic results than a US-scale civil war, although I wouldn’t consider either especially likely
We agree that you need to have people that are actually willing to do what it takes to oppose fascism (armed or not) and Democrats (the only ostensible opposition party Democrats will allow) aren't that. The status quo provides "pretty tolerable lives" for them à la Niemöller.
That is bad news for humanity (including their own).
The lack of mass resignations after Musk's emphatic double Nazi salute sealed my impression that American liberals aren't even willing to take a pay cut for their principles.
Your president double-tapping an elementary school in Iran to knock down his pedo scandal from the news cycle is the grotesque conclusion of this failed hyper-individualist culture.
Trying to find an illegal order in the midst of an illegal war must be like trying to find your glasses when you are wearing them.
That’s rather too moderate for me, but you always have been very opposed to direct action.
In all seriousness, why haven't you left yet?
Who says I haven't? In all seriousness, why aren't you on strike?
Even worse, he knows about the on going genocides and supports them with his tax dollars, contributing to the machine with every purchase through a capitalist business, even posting here and going online he is feeding their economy. And on other fronts the inaction is as bad as the support.
Before opening the video, my bet would be that there has been (I believe I posted about this) a lot of betting of very large sums of money ahead of the start of strikes on Iran.
The timing and specificity of the bets imply that someone with inside knowledge that this is going down made a lot of money.
This happened with Maduro, Greenland threats, a few time with TACO tariffs, a few times with Crypto announcements.
I'll report back after I watch the video.
EDIT:
Yup, that was it, with a little caveat that the bets, at least to me, bar one huge $ 87 K with a payout of more then $ 500 K seem smaller, like something that actual soldiers participating in execution or planing made them.
So basically, when I want to know what will be happening next in the world I just have to check betting sites to see what POTUS and his associates are planning? Good to know
Ayatollah could have saved his life if he just had his folks monitor the Polymarket betting trends, would have gotten a nice heads up.
Also, if he had a TMZ podcast notification one of their hosts reported on the war starting before the bombs started dropping because WH staffers were bragging about it in a bar in Washington DC.
So Polymarket and random bar patrons in DC knew about this before the Congress.
Don't worry the grift runs deep, Donald and family are directly benefiting even if they are not the ones making the bets. (Also, who ever is betting on this shit without insider knowledge is an absolute pigeon)
And then why is the leader of the Department of War called the "secretary of defense?" The two main words are for ladies and he is the alpha manist of all alpha's???
MGT as major Trump critic was also not on my bingo card. Wild times.
At this point, the responsible thing for China, as the new world hegemon would be to leak everything they have on Trump and his cronies, if that doesn't work do a special military operation in the same style as Maduro raid and fly the orange fucker to a prison in China. I'm sure no one would expect a helicopter raid on Mara Lago.
According to the Trump regime interpretation of international law, that would be perfectly legal.
If I was Xi, and I was looking at this malignant narcissist getting more and more comfortable with doing increasingly escalatory shit, I'd consider it if an opportunity was presented.
He is trying to do crazier and crazier shit, he is losing touch with reality (just yesterday claimed Iran might have stolen a tomahawk and blown up their own school) and he wants to be "historic", I heard a clip from Nick Fuentes, someone who obviously shares many character traits and thinking with Trump, saying that he's afraid he might drop a bomb on Iran just so he can say he's the first one after WW2 to do it, a month ago, I'd say that's insane, now, well, not so sure, especially if he gets frustrated by the lack of progress in Iran.
On March 10 2026 21:28 Billyboy wrote: Don't worry the grift runs deep, Donald and family are directly benefiting even if they are not the ones making the bets. (Also, who ever is betting on this shit without insider knowledge is an absolute pigeon)
And then why is the leader of the Department of War called the "secretary of defense?" The two main words are for ladies and he is the alpha manist of all alpha's???
I think we should change the title to something big and manly so everyone knows they are the one in charge of war.
I think Warboss would be ideal. Then he can tell all the Boyz that they need to pain their tanks red so they go faster.
EPT
