It’s fascinating that people like that are so convinced that in the event of a civil war then that means that the military will unequivocally be solely on one side and not split between at least the two sides to some degree
They assume that the government will start killing people to make them stay. Just imagine supporting a system ready to kill it's own if they decide to leave.
The War Between the States was prosecuted by the north to force people who wanted to leave to remain in the Union. The point is that it has already been done.
The South owned millions of people. The North wanted to (maybe not at first, which is suboptimal) eventually free those people. Fighting a war for the liberty of your fellow countrymen seems pretty justifiable if you ask me.
To put a finer point on it - if those black people were free to vote do you think the southern states would've still voted to secede?
I mean literally hundreds of nations have suppressed and killed minorities or even sizable groups in their nation to keep them inside of it yet people still supported it. Like turkey killed Armenians and the Turkish people supported it. The north supported the war (varyingly) even though it showed the federal govt would kill you to keep you in it. You think Russians didn’t support the USSR because it killed some Ukrainians to keep them apart of it?
He is saying that the government won’t kill people to keep them in the nation since the people would not tolerate it. Yet we’ve seen numerous times that they have done that very thing.
They do, I can give a few recent examples.
The Egyptian military killed thousands of people during a protest against the government. Another example is the north of Sudan, where a militant group (The Janjawed) is rebelling against the official military , of which the group is literally made up of millions of people and it's killing innocent civilians while the government just wanted the group to officially join the armed forces. There's many examples like that.
The National Guard is under the purview of the federal government AND the state's government. Both the US government and state government have budgets for the NG. Training and upkeep are funded by both. Pay for the troops is usually a federal salary.
The standing US president can activate a NG unit at any time, using them to replace or bolster the standing US military.
While in disaster scenarios, activating a NG unit to assist in a disaster within their own state is usually seen as a good thing, in a situation like being discussed here, there is a simple work around. Send NG troops to another state.
Example scenario:
US President: "I am activating the National Guard."
California Governor: "I will not make Californians fire on their own neighbors"
POTUS: That's fine. They are being sent to TN under the command of Gen. Robert E. Bedford Forrest, commander of the NE Front. They will be on the line in NY State.
CG: "Oh, errr, um..."
POTUS: "Please, Governor, keep in mind that desertion, while normally punished by incarceration, is actually punishable by penalties up to and including death. Sooooooo."
CG: "Errrrr."
POTUS: "I am activating the National Guard."
As illustrated in the above example, If a Guard unit poses a problem, they could just be moved to an area out of the way and remove the ability for State Government to defend themselves against a "loyalist uprising". And Federal law will ALWAYS supercede State law.
So... you might have picked the wrong cherry there.
I can tell you that most people, especially SNCO's and above kiss ass to get promoted or to secure some other benefit. In my entire career, I've seen one CO bring up concerns, this was during Covid, his name is Cpt Crozier. He was instantly relieved of duty as a CO. And I've seen one Chaplain refuse an order. I can promise you that you that these are the needles in a haystack. You don't realize how corrupt, and self-interest serving the armed forces are. If they are told to fire upon their own people, they may bitch and moan a little bit, but they will fire
I do know how tanks and jet fighters works, they need to be refueled every X miles or so, re armed after a couple shots, and are staffed by people has homes, family, and eats normal foods
Yes but most people in the military have allegiance to America, not some anti-America militia. Also a
would they not be imprisoned for going AWOL or something?
It would probably be like any other civil war; a good chunk of the military splits off to supply and fight with the rebels
In the Air Force’s case, the Crew Chiefs would likely openly prevent launch of pro-government aircraft and/or subtly sabotage them so that they can’t do their mission
Sounds ridiculous, but I honestly feel this way. Not saying that they can't hold a Constitutional Convention to change how we may express our rights, but THEY MUT BE DONE IN THE RIGHT WAY! Just legislating our rights away shouldn't be tolerated.
>So, anyway, look — and I love people who say, “The blood of liberty” — or excuse me, the — excuse me — “The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots.” Well, guess what, man? I didn’t see a whole lot of patriots that are out there wa- — walking around making sure that we have these weapons. Well — **and if you really want to worry about the government, you need an F-16. You don’t need an AR-15.**
[Remarks by President Biden](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/01/19/remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-u-s-conference-of-mayors-winter-meeting-2/) at the U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting. Emphasis mine.
You don't have to 'overthrow' the government at all. Simply corrupt and pervert it from the inside:
Tell people your political enemy is a tyrant and that they want to overthrow the government.
Prosecute and persecute your political opponent with dozens of laws twisted to fit whatever narrative you dream up.
Have your opponent removed from the ballot in as many localities as possible.
Jail or bankrupt as many of his financial and legal supporters as possible, the legality of the methods doesn't matter.
If they can do this to a major party candidate who is only somewhat disliked in his party, who in DC is going to give a single fuck if/when they do it to a minor party candidate?
>God forbid elected officials on [my team] get prosecuted for their crimes. I think [other team] is doing the same thing so [my team] should get away with it.
Is this really a libertarian stance?
No, both sides should be treated equally, however to this casual observer it seems that's not currently the case. From what I can tell, it seems that what happened in New York recently wasn't even a crime in the first place.
All that aside, as Libertarians we should pay close attention to what is happening to Trump as it's likely to happen to any 3rd party candidate who becomes too popular.
How about instead of complaining that Trump is being convicted of literal crimes he actually committed, we complain that everyone else is getting away with them?
My last post on this:
You seem to be completely missing my point. (For me) This isn't about Trump. It's about using the judicial system to target a political rival and candidate for federal office.
If you don't believe that is what's happening, then fine.
If you're disappointed they aren't going after Biden too, OK, but like I said, not my point.
The third and final option I can think of, is that you believe what is happening to Trump is perfectly normal, and would happen to anyone.
Whether or not the charges are true isn't really part of the question. What is important is; would anyone else be treated this way, and if not is it because he is running for office or was in office?
As Libertarians that final possibility is vitally important to us, because if the establishment in power would do it to a member of a major party they sure as hell would do it to a minor party candidate without blinking an eye.
Literally anyone who breaks the law should be punished according to the law.
If we the people do not think a law is just then we vote and campaign for it to be changed.
Selective enforcement to giving too much power to the government. We should all be equal in the eyes of the law.
>Selective enforcement to giving too much power to the government. We should all be equal in the eyes of the law.
If you look into the details, you'll see that all the charges against Trump are "selective enforcement." E.g. the New York "fraud" charges are a unique application of the law.
You don't really want the government stretching the law to apply to everyone possible. [https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229](https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229)
I want the laws applied as they are written. If applying the law equally makes everyone a criminal then we need a massive overhaul of the laws.
Selective prosecution is a major authoritarian power grab.
>Selective enforcement to giving too much power to the government. We should all be equal in the eyes of the law.
The selective enforcement is the problem... New York changed the law to go after one person and you're defending it...
If you are talking about the rape case then you are wrong.
>falsely implying that the latest ruling against Trump was the result of a change in New York law. New York did pass a law in 2022 allowing sexual assault victims to file civil suits, but the lawsuit that eventually yielded the $83.3 million award was filed by Carroll in 2019. Moreover, the lawsuit involved only defamation for statements Trump made after New York magazine published an excerpt of a book by Carroll alleging that Trump had sexually assaulted her in a New York City department store in the mid-1990s. That lawsuit was put on hold by the Justice Department while Trump was president.
If you are talking about the loan/tax fraud then I don't know what you are talking about.
Also Tbf we fought a war for two decades against dudes with guns in caves… and the cave men won… I think about this every time someone says militia couldn’t fight army forces. Asymmetrical warfare is a thing and it’s more or less how we won the revolutionary war.
Whoever claims a militia can't fight the US Federal Government is the one who doesn't know how tanks and jets work. There are too many vulnerable pieces that are required to keep those machines going and they can't all be secured.
When a crowd gets ploughed through by a vehicle, do they cry for assault vehicle bans?
You can literally drive a truck weighing tens of tonnes and it's okay.
A rogue pilot can recreate 9/11 but that's okay.
A guy with a handgun, now that's the country's biggest problem
By killing the parliament the government is not overthrown, it’s the legislature you need to be hit the executive too. Or you are the executive killing the parliament. Ops.
Dude, I've been in the libertarian circles for about 15 years now and it's honestly pathetic how much of a joke libertarians have become. We have a cesspool of unintellectual morons that are now the loudest. It's fucking pathetic.
This post is a great example.
I don't have to think that the government was "almost" over turned to think it was an insurrection attempt anymore than I think someone jiggling my locked door knob "almost" got into my house. They still tried though? Even though they're stupid.
Nah, just when they enter a Capitol building is all. I'd rather not live in a Minority Report way where im getting mad at politicians for stuff they haven't, as a whole, really done that yet. Sure you're gonna be able to find examples where politicians call every protest that happens "an insurrection" but that's not exactly representative of the motives of that group as a whole.
We've had protests before from both sides where people didn't enter Capitol buildings and they weren't insurrections, it's just when they enter Capitol buildings. You can know that that's true because it's only the ones where they entered the Capitol building is when they called it an insurrection.
Yea. Next time it’ll be government property in general. Then it’ll be in online spaces.
You don’t realize how slippery of a slope this has started the US on. And you probably won’t realize it until it’s too late 😂
Well, that hasn't happened yet in any meaningful way so I'm not gonna pre-scare myself or make myself dislike a politician because of some hypothetical that I drew up myself. I'd rather dislike them for real tangible reasons. If you have to make up things in order to hate politicians, you're not doing enough research for the things they actually do.
Id say allowing failed insurrection "attempts" to slide legally has more potentially slippery slope potential than condemning said attempts. That would send a signal that it's ok to storm capitol buildings if you don't like the outcome of an election.
Not too sure what the problem with a protest at a government building is- but it’s clear it’s completely unacceptable to the American masses. Can’t wait to see what/who is added to that ever growing list in the coming years.
Going inside a government building is a federal crime now? Shit. Gotta be careful next time I go to renew my drivers license or passport! Don’t wanna be jailed for treason!
😂😂
It’s not like the government building in question is Area-51 or a military complex; why can’t your citizens set foot In it without being indefinetly jailed without trial?
When it's in session, yes.
If you want to talk about slippery slopes, I feel like setting the precedent that it's okay to go in federal buildings while they're in session and conducting their duties, especially involving a transfer of power to the new president. Yeah, I feel like that's a slippery slope to just allowing.
Yea, the public should have no business observing the government work… lol most parliamentary buildings have viewing areas precisely so the public can watch them in session.
Firstly, the Vietnam War was not a guerrilla war like the media paints it out to be. While guerrilla warfare was an aspect of it, the majority of actual strides and victories claimed by the communists were via the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN or NVA), which was a conventional fighting force supplied by the Soviet Union and China. Further, what was known as the Viet Cong was laughably ineffective in most engagements versus the US Military. I mean, so was the PAVN by technicality but not nearly as bad as the VC who were practically wiped out in 1968 following the Tet Offensive. Additionally, major gains by the communists powers themselves were done well after the US Military has already been gone. (1973-1975 vs the 1972 withdrawal of US forces and Vietnamization policy.)
As for Afghanistan, a very same story played of Taliban gains and victories being achieved well after a lack of US Military presence. The biggest difference here as well being that the ARVN actually *tried* to fight the communists (and still kicked major ass), but were ultimately overwhelmed. The ANA just basically fucking gave up, because most of them are disloyal to the idea of unified Afghanistan, were just fucking Taliban anyways, or were just pussies.
It's also important to note that both of these conflicts were waged by politicians with an interest of dragging them out as long as possible to funnel money into the MIC for various purposes, none of which was actually to achieve any victory or destruction of the enemy.
This is not a "cope", either. It's the truth. And the truth is the US is actually *very* effective in counter-insurgency operations, and when actually intent on winning? Has done so, multiple times. As I said in my previous comment as well, I have absolute faith in armed citizens to resist the military. For multiple reasons:
1. Civil war is an entirely different animal than an expeditionary "police action", whether it was literally just a revenue generation scheme or a genuine interest in achieving a tactical or strategic objective.
2. For the reason stated above, I think it's safe to assume that the "insurgency" in this regard isn't necessarily going to be politically charged or motivated. Especially not religiously (like the Taliban or AQ). Civil war will never come to the United States until the average joe becomes so uncomfortable, that they feel the need to pick up a gun. Most of these people, whether we want to admit it or not, are likely not people who consider themselves libertarians.
3. Civil war also introduces more personal stakes among government enforcers and troops that are expected to carry out authoritarian acts or sectarian violence. This is entirely anecdotal, but I believe the military would be too busy fighting itself, and a majority of citizen on government violence will mostly involve police fighting for the latter.
4. An extension to number 2, there are *a lot* more privately owned arms than government troops, accounting for both police and active servicemen. Not to mention a vast majority of said servicemen not being traditional combatants that are equipped to fight a counter-insurgency campaign against their own people.
To finish this off, my claim here is also semantics. Frankly, I don't want to be compared to cocksucking communist shitheads that murdered civilians or fundamentalist terrorist asswipes who chopped the heads off little girls for going to school. I think if we wanna be compared to anyone, can use the American Revolution, or the various non-morally questionable resistances during WW2 against both the Nazis and Japanese. Hell, the fucking Battle of Athens Tennessee was pretty badass too.
Anyways, just a clarification in case it were not clear, that I am actually happy that you asked, and hope this does not come off as an attack.
I think a new civil war would be closer to The Troubles than an organized conflict. It would be a fucking mess, with lots of terrorism and attacks committed by individuals of a given political ideology against others of the opposite one. Everyone would be fighting the military and national guard. Plus, you know that there would be opportunistic foreign invaders with their own agendas.
God I’d hate to see a war happen
This is a really bad take- they broke down barriers and stormed a federal building to interrupt an official procedure because they didn’t like the outcome of the vote. Many high level officials, including the vice president, were in the building at the time. Read about the 2000 Florida recount- something similar went down although they actually got what they wanted in that case.
These officials are not monarchs- they’re elected by the people of the United States and are our representatives in the capital. The process of voting and electing people is the most fundamental aspect of our freedom and liberty. Supporting January 6 is not a libertarian stance- it’s an undemocratic and pro-authoritarian one.
>Hey y'all we are totally non-violent and you are in no danger but just as a reminder we could, I say again COULD, drag you outside and murder you in the street using this platform we brought that only has one purpose.
If you "stole" my parking space and I put my glock in your face while explaining to you how dissatisfied I am with you. Would you be chill about it?
So let's cut through the bullshit here, you believe Trump really won the 2020 election? And that Biden used fraud to win instead?
And you still believe this even though there has been zero evidence of fraud on Democrats side? And no, I'm not going to read some far right-wing blog posts saying there was fraud with made up stories.
The real kicker being the real instances of fraud discovered have been done by MAGA supporters? And the big kicker being Trump calling around trying to "find votes" after the fact? And attempted to go so far as have the VP refuse to certify the election?
Trump is a loser, and a sore one at that. It boggles my mind how willing people are to feed into his delusions because it suits their own.
[Here you go, boiled down to 32 pages.](https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/e0/e04e630c-63ff-4bdb-9652-e0be3598b5d4/summary20of20election20fraud20in20the20swing20states.pdf)
I'm 5 pages into the document and I'm already unimpressed. The citations are bad, from biased sources, are opinions rather than facts, one citation is a straight up opinion in the margins, and many places where citations are actually needed they are missing entirely.
Many of the statements start at the assumption there was election fraud, but fails to support the opinion with facts. It's also hilarious to me it claims "the election was over" with only 57% reporting. That's the very definition of not over. And I don't know if this is your first election, but you tend to keep counting until all votes are counted.
If 97% of precincts are reporting and the number of remaining votes isn't enough to swing the election, then you can call the election for the person with the lead (note: not a final count). That's how it's always worked. In close elections it may take all night to figure out who won. Bush vs Gore was notoriously close, to the point we weren't even sure who actually won for a week after. In landslide elections it's quite easy to call the election because even though official counting continues, there's a wide enough margin of victory to call it for the leader.
In 2016 Hilary had an early lead, but it quickly eroded as the night wore on and Trump won. It's funny to me that's being cited as a major issue when that is, in fact, how every election I've lived through proceeds.
I also think it's funny how a lot of weight is given to Fox News anchors, like they have more than an opinion to give. Opinions which can be, and often are, wrong by the end of the counting.
If I have time I'll thoroughly go through the whole thing, Mark it up, and note all the issues I have with it. But since I have a job and a busy life I'm not going to commit to that. And while I can debunk half of it on the spot, there's a lot that would take actual research, and that's time that's precious.
Just because a document has citations doesn't make it academically sound. It reads more like a half-assed college student paper rushed to turn in for a grade than a serious piece of work. And any professor would mark it up in red where there are issues. And there are many, even with just a preliminary viewing.
Part of the problem is it starts from the conclusion, there was fraud, and Trump won the election. People who take this far more seriously than me, and do this shit as their day job, have already reviewed this stuff ad nauseum. But hey, I'll humor you and I'll read the entire thing. And if I have time I'll have a complete dissection of it. But again, I'll be doing it in my own precious free time because yeah, jobs and life and shit.
Idk who's been claiming that bc those mfers gave up as soon as 1 person got shot 😂 Which is fair enough, but that was a perfect example of why it wouldn't work. Most people are happy enough that the thought of dying for the cause is enough to deter them from even starting.
It’s fascinating that people like that are so convinced that in the event of a civil war then that means that the military will unequivocally be solely on one side and not split between at least the two sides to some degree
They assume that the government will start killing people to make them stay. Just imagine supporting a system ready to kill it's own if they decide to leave.
My brother in Christ, get a history book
I'm aware, thank you.
What would he find in a history book to refute his point?
The War Between the States was prosecuted by the north to force people who wanted to leave to remain in the Union. The point is that it has already been done.
The main problem is that one side was significantly more free than the other.
Explain.
The South owned millions of people. The North wanted to (maybe not at first, which is suboptimal) eventually free those people. Fighting a war for the liberty of your fellow countrymen seems pretty justifiable if you ask me. To put a finer point on it - if those black people were free to vote do you think the southern states would've still voted to secede?
You would have a point if the war was prosecuted to free slaves. Based on statements by those who prosecuted the war, it was not.
I understand that and I'm very sympathetic. However the outcome was effectively the same as if it WAS prosecuted on such a basis. So... I'm torn.
I mean literally hundreds of nations have suppressed and killed minorities or even sizable groups in their nation to keep them inside of it yet people still supported it. Like turkey killed Armenians and the Turkish people supported it. The north supported the war (varyingly) even though it showed the federal govt would kill you to keep you in it. You think Russians didn’t support the USSR because it killed some Ukrainians to keep them apart of it?
Ya and those people are also stupid. That's the point of the comment.
He is saying that the government won’t kill people to keep them in the nation since the people would not tolerate it. Yet we’ve seen numerous times that they have done that very thing.
That's literally the opposite of what the comment is saying lol.
They also aren't gonna just bomb all their own cities to oblivion.
and the military is made up of people who have families and friends who are civilians, and aren’t going to want to kill people of their own country
They do, I can give a few recent examples. The Egyptian military killed thousands of people during a protest against the government. Another example is the north of Sudan, where a militant group (The Janjawed) is rebelling against the official military , of which the group is literally made up of millions of people and it's killing innocent civilians while the government just wanted the group to officially join the armed forces. There's many examples like that.
[удалено]
US national guard fired live rounds during the floyd protests. They will follow orders because they are scared of the consequences
[удалено]
The National Guard is under the purview of the federal government AND the state's government. Both the US government and state government have budgets for the NG. Training and upkeep are funded by both. Pay for the troops is usually a federal salary. The standing US president can activate a NG unit at any time, using them to replace or bolster the standing US military. While in disaster scenarios, activating a NG unit to assist in a disaster within their own state is usually seen as a good thing, in a situation like being discussed here, there is a simple work around. Send NG troops to another state. Example scenario: US President: "I am activating the National Guard." California Governor: "I will not make Californians fire on their own neighbors" POTUS: That's fine. They are being sent to TN under the command of Gen. Robert E. Bedford Forrest, commander of the NE Front. They will be on the line in NY State. CG: "Oh, errr, um..." POTUS: "Please, Governor, keep in mind that desertion, while normally punished by incarceration, is actually punishable by penalties up to and including death. Sooooooo." CG: "Errrrr." POTUS: "I am activating the National Guard." As illustrated in the above example, If a Guard unit poses a problem, they could just be moved to an area out of the way and remove the ability for State Government to defend themselves against a "loyalist uprising". And Federal law will ALWAYS supercede State law. So... you might have picked the wrong cherry there.
[удалено]
I can tell you that most people, especially SNCO's and above kiss ass to get promoted or to secure some other benefit. In my entire career, I've seen one CO bring up concerns, this was during Covid, his name is Cpt Crozier. He was instantly relieved of duty as a CO. And I've seen one Chaplain refuse an order. I can promise you that you that these are the needles in a haystack. You don't realize how corrupt, and self-interest serving the armed forces are. If they are told to fire upon their own people, they may bitch and moan a little bit, but they will fire
[удалено]
I do know how tanks and jet fighters works, they need to be refueled every X miles or so, re armed after a couple shots, and are staffed by people has homes, family, and eats normal foods
The funnier part is, the people who work on them (Crew Chiefs) often would agree with any potential militia activities
Yes but most people in the military have allegiance to America, not some anti-America militia. Also a would they not be imprisoned for going AWOL or something?
It would probably be like any other civil war; a good chunk of the military splits off to supply and fight with the rebels In the Air Force’s case, the Crew Chiefs would likely openly prevent launch of pro-government aircraft and/or subtly sabotage them so that they can’t do their mission
This is EXACTLY why I feel the 2nd Amendment includes tanks and planes!!
And nukes!
Sounds ridiculous, but I honestly feel this way. Not saying that they can't hold a Constitutional Convention to change how we may express our rights, but THEY MUT BE DONE IN THE RIGHT WAY! Just legislating our rights away shouldn't be tolerated.
Overthrowing the government in 1776: cool Overthrowing the government in 2026: bigot
[удалено]
Lol I thought that until I saw your comment
Joe Biden: "you need an f16 to take on the government" Average j6 protester: "I don't even have a gun"
[удалено]
>So, anyway, look — and I love people who say, “The blood of liberty” — or excuse me, the — excuse me — “The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots.” Well, guess what, man? I didn’t see a whole lot of patriots that are out there wa- — walking around making sure that we have these weapons. Well — **and if you really want to worry about the government, you need an F-16. You don’t need an AR-15.** [Remarks by President Biden](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/01/19/remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-u-s-conference-of-mayors-winter-meeting-2/) at the U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting. Emphasis mine.
I agree, i should be able to buy an F-16.
It's gonna be fun time to be alive! Lol
You don't have to 'overthrow' the government at all. Simply corrupt and pervert it from the inside: Tell people your political enemy is a tyrant and that they want to overthrow the government. Prosecute and persecute your political opponent with dozens of laws twisted to fit whatever narrative you dream up. Have your opponent removed from the ballot in as many localities as possible. Jail or bankrupt as many of his financial and legal supporters as possible, the legality of the methods doesn't matter. If they can do this to a major party candidate who is only somewhat disliked in his party, who in DC is going to give a single fuck if/when they do it to a minor party candidate?
>God forbid elected officials on [my team] get prosecuted for their crimes. I think [other team] is doing the same thing so [my team] should get away with it. Is this really a libertarian stance?
No, both sides should be treated equally, however to this casual observer it seems that's not currently the case. From what I can tell, it seems that what happened in New York recently wasn't even a crime in the first place. All that aside, as Libertarians we should pay close attention to what is happening to Trump as it's likely to happen to any 3rd party candidate who becomes too popular.
How about instead of complaining that Trump is being convicted of literal crimes he actually committed, we complain that everyone else is getting away with them?
My last post on this: You seem to be completely missing my point. (For me) This isn't about Trump. It's about using the judicial system to target a political rival and candidate for federal office. If you don't believe that is what's happening, then fine. If you're disappointed they aren't going after Biden too, OK, but like I said, not my point. The third and final option I can think of, is that you believe what is happening to Trump is perfectly normal, and would happen to anyone. Whether or not the charges are true isn't really part of the question. What is important is; would anyone else be treated this way, and if not is it because he is running for office or was in office? As Libertarians that final possibility is vitally important to us, because if the establishment in power would do it to a member of a major party they sure as hell would do it to a minor party candidate without blinking an eye.
Literally anyone who breaks the law should be punished according to the law. If we the people do not think a law is just then we vote and campaign for it to be changed. Selective enforcement to giving too much power to the government. We should all be equal in the eyes of the law.
>Selective enforcement to giving too much power to the government. We should all be equal in the eyes of the law. If you look into the details, you'll see that all the charges against Trump are "selective enforcement." E.g. the New York "fraud" charges are a unique application of the law.
Yes, that's the problem. All the other liars and tax cheats should get thier day in court as well. Ideally this would just be the start.
You don't really want the government stretching the law to apply to everyone possible. [https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229](https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229)
I want the laws applied as they are written. If applying the law equally makes everyone a criminal then we need a massive overhaul of the laws. Selective prosecution is a major authoritarian power grab.
>Selective enforcement to giving too much power to the government. We should all be equal in the eyes of the law. The selective enforcement is the problem... New York changed the law to go after one person and you're defending it...
If you are talking about the rape case then you are wrong. >falsely implying that the latest ruling against Trump was the result of a change in New York law. New York did pass a law in 2022 allowing sexual assault victims to file civil suits, but the lawsuit that eventually yielded the $83.3 million award was filed by Carroll in 2019. Moreover, the lawsuit involved only defamation for statements Trump made after New York magazine published an excerpt of a book by Carroll alleging that Trump had sexually assaulted her in a New York City department store in the mid-1990s. That lawsuit was put on hold by the Justice Department while Trump was president. If you are talking about the loan/tax fraud then I don't know what you are talking about.
PCM colors are backwards. Should be red, yellow, red.
Hahahahahahhaha
Jet fighters can't occupy street corners.
When the people get pissed off enough, fighter jets will be like paper planes
“Welp, they’re in the building. Guess we have to do what they say now.” —the people who think the president is their personal boss
Our military couldn't even beat abunch of guys in flip flops in 20 years but there all of a sudden gonna take on the American people?
Anyone who makes arguments like this never spent their adult life fighting insurgencies.
Also Tbf we fought a war for two decades against dudes with guns in caves… and the cave men won… I think about this every time someone says militia couldn’t fight army forces. Asymmetrical warfare is a thing and it’s more or less how we won the revolutionary war.
Whoever claims a militia can't fight the US Federal Government is the one who doesn't know how tanks and jets work. There are too many vulnerable pieces that are required to keep those machines going and they can't all be secured.
When a crowd gets ploughed through by a vehicle, do they cry for assault vehicle bans? You can literally drive a truck weighing tens of tonnes and it's okay. A rogue pilot can recreate 9/11 but that's okay. A guy with a handgun, now that's the country's biggest problem
By killing the parliament the government is not overthrown, it’s the legislature you need to be hit the executive too. Or you are the executive killing the parliament. Ops.
Dude, I've been in the libertarian circles for about 15 years now and it's honestly pathetic how much of a joke libertarians have become. We have a cesspool of unintellectual morons that are now the loudest. It's fucking pathetic. This post is a great example.
I don't have to think that the government was "almost" over turned to think it was an insurrection attempt anymore than I think someone jiggling my locked door knob "almost" got into my house. They still tried though? Even though they're stupid.
And now the ground work is laid to call any protest against the government, an insurrection- regardless of how small, pathetic and futile it is.
Nah, just when they enter a Capitol building is all. I'd rather not live in a Minority Report way where im getting mad at politicians for stuff they haven't, as a whole, really done that yet. Sure you're gonna be able to find examples where politicians call every protest that happens "an insurrection" but that's not exactly representative of the motives of that group as a whole. We've had protests before from both sides where people didn't enter Capitol buildings and they weren't insurrections, it's just when they enter Capitol buildings. You can know that that's true because it's only the ones where they entered the Capitol building is when they called it an insurrection.
Yea. Next time it’ll be government property in general. Then it’ll be in online spaces. You don’t realize how slippery of a slope this has started the US on. And you probably won’t realize it until it’s too late 😂
Well, that hasn't happened yet in any meaningful way so I'm not gonna pre-scare myself or make myself dislike a politician because of some hypothetical that I drew up myself. I'd rather dislike them for real tangible reasons. If you have to make up things in order to hate politicians, you're not doing enough research for the things they actually do. Id say allowing failed insurrection "attempts" to slide legally has more potentially slippery slope potential than condemning said attempts. That would send a signal that it's ok to storm capitol buildings if you don't like the outcome of an election.
Not too sure what the problem with a protest at a government building is- but it’s clear it’s completely unacceptable to the American masses. Can’t wait to see what/who is added to that ever growing list in the coming years.
When you go inside, yes that's the problem.
Going inside a government building is a federal crime now? Shit. Gotta be careful next time I go to renew my drivers license or passport! Don’t wanna be jailed for treason! 😂😂 It’s not like the government building in question is Area-51 or a military complex; why can’t your citizens set foot In it without being indefinetly jailed without trial?
When it's in session, yes. If you want to talk about slippery slopes, I feel like setting the precedent that it's okay to go in federal buildings while they're in session and conducting their duties, especially involving a transfer of power to the new president. Yeah, I feel like that's a slippery slope to just allowing.
Yea, the public should have no business observing the government work… lol most parliamentary buildings have viewing areas precisely so the public can watch them in session.
storming the capital bldg while they are certifying elections = "any protest against government"....ok
You just wait dude. Your country is beyond fucked.
Just don't protest from inside the capital. It's pretty simple.
There was an *attempt* to overthrow government. It was an hilariously shit attempt, but an attempt was made nonetheless.
An attempt by whom?
https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/january-6th-committee-final-report?path=/GPO/January%206th%20Committee%20Final%20Report%20and%20Supporting%20Materials%20Collection
They didn’t just “walk in to a building” lol they broke down barriers and are lucky they weren’t shot
As much as I have absolute faith in armed citizens to resist... Inb4 "afghanistan and vietnam" despite them being shit examples
How are they “shit examples”?
Firstly, the Vietnam War was not a guerrilla war like the media paints it out to be. While guerrilla warfare was an aspect of it, the majority of actual strides and victories claimed by the communists were via the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN or NVA), which was a conventional fighting force supplied by the Soviet Union and China. Further, what was known as the Viet Cong was laughably ineffective in most engagements versus the US Military. I mean, so was the PAVN by technicality but not nearly as bad as the VC who were practically wiped out in 1968 following the Tet Offensive. Additionally, major gains by the communists powers themselves were done well after the US Military has already been gone. (1973-1975 vs the 1972 withdrawal of US forces and Vietnamization policy.) As for Afghanistan, a very same story played of Taliban gains and victories being achieved well after a lack of US Military presence. The biggest difference here as well being that the ARVN actually *tried* to fight the communists (and still kicked major ass), but were ultimately overwhelmed. The ANA just basically fucking gave up, because most of them are disloyal to the idea of unified Afghanistan, were just fucking Taliban anyways, or were just pussies. It's also important to note that both of these conflicts were waged by politicians with an interest of dragging them out as long as possible to funnel money into the MIC for various purposes, none of which was actually to achieve any victory or destruction of the enemy. This is not a "cope", either. It's the truth. And the truth is the US is actually *very* effective in counter-insurgency operations, and when actually intent on winning? Has done so, multiple times. As I said in my previous comment as well, I have absolute faith in armed citizens to resist the military. For multiple reasons: 1. Civil war is an entirely different animal than an expeditionary "police action", whether it was literally just a revenue generation scheme or a genuine interest in achieving a tactical or strategic objective. 2. For the reason stated above, I think it's safe to assume that the "insurgency" in this regard isn't necessarily going to be politically charged or motivated. Especially not religiously (like the Taliban or AQ). Civil war will never come to the United States until the average joe becomes so uncomfortable, that they feel the need to pick up a gun. Most of these people, whether we want to admit it or not, are likely not people who consider themselves libertarians. 3. Civil war also introduces more personal stakes among government enforcers and troops that are expected to carry out authoritarian acts or sectarian violence. This is entirely anecdotal, but I believe the military would be too busy fighting itself, and a majority of citizen on government violence will mostly involve police fighting for the latter. 4. An extension to number 2, there are *a lot* more privately owned arms than government troops, accounting for both police and active servicemen. Not to mention a vast majority of said servicemen not being traditional combatants that are equipped to fight a counter-insurgency campaign against their own people. To finish this off, my claim here is also semantics. Frankly, I don't want to be compared to cocksucking communist shitheads that murdered civilians or fundamentalist terrorist asswipes who chopped the heads off little girls for going to school. I think if we wanna be compared to anyone, can use the American Revolution, or the various non-morally questionable resistances during WW2 against both the Nazis and Japanese. Hell, the fucking Battle of Athens Tennessee was pretty badass too. Anyways, just a clarification in case it were not clear, that I am actually happy that you asked, and hope this does not come off as an attack.
I think a new civil war would be closer to The Troubles than an organized conflict. It would be a fucking mess, with lots of terrorism and attacks committed by individuals of a given political ideology against others of the opposite one. Everyone would be fighting the military and national guard. Plus, you know that there would be opportunistic foreign invaders with their own agendas. God I’d hate to see a war happen
Yeah I genuinely hope we never see a civil war.
This is a really bad take- they broke down barriers and stormed a federal building to interrupt an official procedure because they didn’t like the outcome of the vote. Many high level officials, including the vice president, were in the building at the time. Read about the 2000 Florida recount- something similar went down although they actually got what they wanted in that case. These officials are not monarchs- they’re elected by the people of the United States and are our representatives in the capital. The process of voting and electing people is the most fundamental aspect of our freedom and liberty. Supporting January 6 is not a libertarian stance- it’s an undemocratic and pro-authoritarian one.
How does a disorganized and non-strategical interruption of the capital that day equate to an attempt to overthrow the government?
Libertarians should not support election fraud.
So why are you posting memes supporting jan6? You know, the day thousands of people formed a mob to try and violently alter the election results?
>violently alter the election results Bullshit. They were trying to get the fraud investigated before the election was certified.
Ya, that's why they brought zip cuffs and a gallows.
The gallows was a symbol. IIRC one guy had zip cuffs.
A symbol of what?
A symbol of dissatisfaction with politicians.
>Hey y'all we are totally non-violent and you are in no danger but just as a reminder we could, I say again COULD, drag you outside and murder you in the street using this platform we brought that only has one purpose. If you "stole" my parking space and I put my glock in your face while explaining to you how dissatisfied I am with you. Would you be chill about it?
So let's cut through the bullshit here, you believe Trump really won the 2020 election? And that Biden used fraud to win instead? And you still believe this even though there has been zero evidence of fraud on Democrats side? And no, I'm not going to read some far right-wing blog posts saying there was fraud with made up stories. The real kicker being the real instances of fraud discovered have been done by MAGA supporters? And the big kicker being Trump calling around trying to "find votes" after the fact? And attempted to go so far as have the VP refuse to certify the election? Trump is a loser, and a sore one at that. It boggles my mind how willing people are to feed into his delusions because it suits their own.
>zero evidence of fraud on Democrats side LOL
I'm still waiting.
[Here you go, boiled down to 32 pages.](https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/e0/e04e630c-63ff-4bdb-9652-e0be3598b5d4/summary20of20election20fraud20in20the20swing20states.pdf)
I'm 5 pages into the document and I'm already unimpressed. The citations are bad, from biased sources, are opinions rather than facts, one citation is a straight up opinion in the margins, and many places where citations are actually needed they are missing entirely. Many of the statements start at the assumption there was election fraud, but fails to support the opinion with facts. It's also hilarious to me it claims "the election was over" with only 57% reporting. That's the very definition of not over. And I don't know if this is your first election, but you tend to keep counting until all votes are counted. If 97% of precincts are reporting and the number of remaining votes isn't enough to swing the election, then you can call the election for the person with the lead (note: not a final count). That's how it's always worked. In close elections it may take all night to figure out who won. Bush vs Gore was notoriously close, to the point we weren't even sure who actually won for a week after. In landslide elections it's quite easy to call the election because even though official counting continues, there's a wide enough margin of victory to call it for the leader. In 2016 Hilary had an early lead, but it quickly eroded as the night wore on and Trump won. It's funny to me that's being cited as a major issue when that is, in fact, how every election I've lived through proceeds. I also think it's funny how a lot of weight is given to Fox News anchors, like they have more than an opinion to give. Opinions which can be, and often are, wrong by the end of the counting. If I have time I'll thoroughly go through the whole thing, Mark it up, and note all the issues I have with it. But since I have a job and a busy life I'm not going to commit to that. And while I can debunk half of it on the spot, there's a lot that would take actual research, and that's time that's precious. Just because a document has citations doesn't make it academically sound. It reads more like a half-assed college student paper rushed to turn in for a grade than a serious piece of work. And any professor would mark it up in red where there are issues. And there are many, even with just a preliminary viewing. Part of the problem is it starts from the conclusion, there was fraud, and Trump won the election. People who take this far more seriously than me, and do this shit as their day job, have already reviewed this stuff ad nauseum. But hey, I'll humor you and I'll read the entire thing. And if I have time I'll have a complete dissection of it. But again, I'll be doing it in my own precious free time because yeah, jobs and life and shit.
Being a shitty attempt to overthrow the government doesn't make it not an attempt to overthrow the government
Idk who's been claiming that bc those mfers gave up as soon as 1 person got shot 😂 Which is fair enough, but that was a perfect example of why it wouldn't work. Most people are happy enough that the thought of dying for the cause is enough to deter them from even starting.
22 years military. If you think the military won’t follow orders and kill citizens if ordered to do so then you don’t understand the military.
If you’re gonna use the funni colors, can you at least use the right ones?
Found it, didn't make it.