They’re arming Ukraine, which is weakening the Russian government. Also western nations provide intelligence, arms and funding to insurgencies all over the world.
Also to clarify I’m not talking about the official NATO organization, I’m talking about the individual states that make up NATO. is it not in the interests of western europe and eastern european nations to have a pro-Putin dictatorship in the US.
Republicans (aka southern whites) push for gun control when black people take up arms. Ask the black panthers.
Also under Jim Crow, southern governments enacted a wide range of measures to make it hard for black people to own firearms. There is a reason for that, armed people are harder to oppress and mistreat.
Because if it looked like it might work, Putin would probably nuke as much of Europe as he could just out of spite before being overthrown.
Not like the US authoritarian leader from the OP, who, being American by definition, is above all else inherently benevolent (and probably also tall, good looking, has great white teeth and has already sold the movie rights to Hollywood with a suitable happy ending). With such a rival the NATO countries would dare support an insurgency, but not with Putin, who is evil. The US authoritarian leader would never retaliate.
It seems to me you are calling the non US NATO countries’ leaders cowards (in the case of Russia) and stupid (in the cae of the future US authoritarian). I would take offense if I took that seriously.
When did I say the Europeans would support an American insurgency?
And I can’t say what I think such a US leader would do without getting infracted.
When Ronald Reagan was governor of California, the black panthers went to the state capitol in Sacramento and stood around holding guns. Reagan and the NRA worked together to tighten the states gun laws.
I was replying to you and to Wesley_Clark, who both replied to my post. He claimed that Europeans should/would
I think they would not, that is all. I think they could do more against Putin, and should have done more in the past (looking in particular at the German governments Schröder and Merkel, and also Scholz). I think they could do very little against the US. We depend too much on them. Militarily, economically, in IT an AI, and other fields besides.
It is all very unfortunate and I see many ways it could get worse. It likely will, soon.
I still don’t get how wide or limited the scope of this thread is supposed to be. But IF we are talking about circumstances beyond the specific one discussed in the OP, I will note that I’ve always wondered how an armed resistance would work in this country. How does a fighter in California cause a man holed up in DC (or maybe even in another country) to sweat enough to cause change? I’ve wondered the same thing about anti CEO discussion; it was a lot easier to string up the company owner when he had to be onsite to run things.
I don’t know the answer to this question but what I do know is that if you stop paying your taxes a bunch of important people in DC will take notice real fast. If you stop paying your taxes long enough a couple of guys in suits and sunglasses will show up to your doorstep and ask you a bunch of important questions and you better have the right answers.
That isn’t necessarily true. You will, eventually, get in a lot of trouble, but it isn’t something that happens immediately.
I was being somewhat facetious. Point being if the ‘little people’ really want to fight back against the government then the best thing they can do is stop paying their taxes and buying stuff. Charging an armored Abrams tank with a hunting rifle is pure suicide.
My main point is that people who are as well fed, rich, and comfortable would be really unlikely to start a revolution. Who is going to do it? I have a good job and a comfortable home – I’m not going to rise up if Trump decides to stay in power and congress and SCOTUS shrug their shoulders. I’m not attacking the Capitol if the House GOP devise a way to throw out Democratic victories. I have too much at stake.
In the original thread, the premise was that Americans would immediately (say within weeks or months) rise up, or states would immediately secede. I’m saying that’s wrong.
The millions of people who aren’t, theoretically. However due to decades of anyone who even tried to push for real change being systematically crushed and persecuted, they know better than to believe there’s any hope of success so they don’t bother trying. They’ll just keep their head down and hope the boot comes down on somebody else. Americans have learned the lesson of despair.
I agree with the posters in this thread. When Trump makes his play, most of us will watch it like we would any other tv show, wondering who’s going to do something about it. As long as the stores stay open, we’ll mostly just gripe to one another.
It will take a charismatic leader to galvanize the masses to rebellion and where is that person?
And once they’re not?
Once they’re not, most people will panic, and in the short term they will turn to looting each other to solve the immediate problem of hunger before they rise up against the authoritarian leader who is causing the problem in a rather abstract way while providing a handy trail of scapegoats.
We saw how long and brittle our supply chains were during the pandemic. Did we learn lessons and make changes? We did not.
We know that climate change is going to seriously affect food production. Have we done much about it? We have not.
When stores run out of staples and essentials, we’ll see what we saw in Communist Europe and during WWII: rationing, coupons, and lines. Authoritarians (well, competent ones) are good at that. There are very few Americans who are capable of long-term planning and also willing to risk jail, injury, and / or death. Most young people are also so exhausted by the sheer amount of labour it takes to keep an urban lower-middle-class life going, they don’t have the energy.
One X-factor, as alluded to, is that the United States may be the most prosperous nation to ever go into authoritarian-regime governance. That can make things a bit unpredictable because it’s hard to see from history how it would go down. It would certainly make people less willing to rise up with force.
This thread is pushing back against the idea that the populace would immediately rise up (say, weeks or months). If we end up in a Soviet-style dystopia or whatever, sure, one day, the populace could rise up.
Same with states “immediately” seceding. Yes, an authoritarian could leave to the eventual breakup of the US, but not within weeks or months of not seating Dem senators, or not giving up the presidency.
I agree with this. One aspect that has not been seriously mentioned before is the sheer incompetence of Trump and all his sycophants. I am not sure how it will play out, but Trump cannot do anything well and it must catch up with him and his. I don’t know how, but it will.
IMO the real question is how much trump & his thieving cronies are the sideshow to distract the rubes while the real single party rulers are setting everything up to have their chosen agent (Vance?) win and usher in what amounts to a constitutional single party dictatorship.