If indeed the replacement of the Yanuckovich government resulted in only 120 killed, not 120,000, that would indeed be a very bloodless (or at least incredibly blood-lite) revolution.
Arguments that the Russian invasion off Donbas or the current war are somehow part of that revolution is crazy.
Lol, don’t let the screen door hit you where the good Lord split you! 
We’ve already got some precedent in the lame duck part of his presidency, when Gen. Milley took a lot of steps to prevent Trump from doing something unhinged involving nuclear weapons.
The thing is, I don’t think even the President can just appoint his own guy over a bunch of otherwise qualified officers. Like for example, appoint some dipshit MAGA Colonel to be the head of a UCC, over all the more qualified officers. So he’d have to find a qualified one who’s sympathetic, and I suspect at that level, those people are extremely pragmatic, and unlikely to be on board with dumb-ass shenanigans.
No joke. What was the point there?! I guess we’ll never know.
Good points!
Not so much crazy as disingenuous and repeating Russian propaganda.
As for the o.p., they are doing their usual thing of making absurdist claims, demanding ‘cites’ even though they’ve provided no evidence of their own, and generally being obnoxious until driving away anyone trying to engage in an actual discussion that contradicts what they want to believe.
Stranger
Yes.
Right, the idea that people might resist a second Trump presidency is “absurdist.”
And I thought bitching like this was supposed to go in the Pit? Maybe the rules changed or something, I dunno.
Moderating:
Adding a smiley face does not in any way ameliorate the inappropriateness of this personal attack. It is not your place to kick people out of threads. Don’t do this again.
To all, let’s take the discussion regarding the Russian invasion of Donbas to a different thread. It’s all off topic for this thread.
Edited to read - [Never mind]
I see a ModNote has intervened while I was typing.
My bad.
It would help if the OP clarified what he means by Trump “trying to make himself a dictator”. If he crowns himself God-Emperor and orders the mass execution of Democrats on Day One, I doubt that would work out well for him. But give him a few more years to pack the bureaucracy and judiciary with his accomplices, especially if the GOP somehow wins control of both houses of Congress, and I think it’s legitimately possible he could effectively take control of the Federal government before 2028.
Which would be an entirely different argument if that was the one initially presented. Calling it relatively bloodless for a revolution would be fine. Insisting in the face of 121 dead bodies on continuing to call it a peaceful and bloodless revolution is flat out factually incorrect, and to be blunt, offensive to the memories of those that died in the revolution.
Your point is dumb. If those involved in a protest movement or a revolution, etc., intend not to use violence to achieve their ends and do not substantially use it, then that movement is legitimately and correctly called “nonviolent.”
You seem to be saying that if such a movement ends up being involved in killings, even if its participants are the victims of them, then it cannot be called “nonviolent.” That’s not how the word is used.
Now if you are saying that the Maidan Revolution participants were substantially the perpetrators of violence, then that is a different matter, and you are free to provide a cite for that.
It’s tiresome having to argue this.
I agree that Trump will have to work slowly and methodically in order to establish his dictatorship successfully. Since he doesn’t have the discipline for that, it probably won’t happen as he would like.
Thanks for the insult. And no, it isn’t dumb, nor is it correct to call a revolution peaceful and nonviolent when 121 people died in it. I’m sure the Heavenly Hundred appreciate you insisting that there was no violence involved in their deaths. Their families should return their posthumous Orders of the Heavenly Hundred Heroes. After all, the revolution was peaceful and nonviolent. That’s what those words mean. Or were you simply initially unaware that people actually died in the revolution?
You’re very persistent on this one point, about which you are incorrect and which is not even the focus of the thread, so I don’t have anything more to say about it.
OK. You really seemed to me to have been saying the opposite.
And the real problem here is, no matter which way they go, they establish a dangerous precedent. Support Trump? Then the military is supporting a fascist take-over of the US, and democracy dies. Oppose Trump? Then for the first time in US history, the military is refusing to follow orders from the civilian leadership, which in other places has led to things like military juntas running the show. Split decision? Welcome to Civil War 2.
Better all 'round to not have to answer this question in the first place.
Sort of the “frog in the slowly heating pot” theory.
No, our country is in trouble. Half of the electorate wants a strongman dictator or something close to it. They want to cause trouble. Without a revolution and under our current political order, it’s going to take a generation to deal with this; meanwhile, any big change to make things better for people is going to be close to impossible.
If there is any kind of revolution, civil war, etc., these same people are going to be fighting against positive change and causing all kinds of problems. But they will lose their current advantages in the senate and electoral college, and the majority may have a better chance of getting things done.
Either way, it’s not a great situation.