This can't be legal, but I don't know the law that says it's not.
Suppose Hillary has a billion dollars in her war chest. She goes to $REPUBLICAN_NOMINEE and offers him a billion dollars to concede the election. Now he doesn't have to spend his billion either, so he gets $2 billion to not contest the race.
What if Trump is the hypothetical future Hitler they always say we need the 2nd amendment for?
Then it won't matter anyway because the idea of a successful armed revolution in the US is laughable.
How so? With a substantial portion of the population being both armed and veterans, and a substantial portion of the rest being armed, and the vast majority of military recruits coming from the lower and middle classes which drive revolution, what's laughable?
How so? With a substantial portion of the population being both armed and veterans, and a substantial portion of the rest being armed, and the vast majority of military recruits coming from the lower and middle classes which drive revolution, what's laughable?
Because waging war isn't a matter of who has guns. At least, not just that, not having guns would make it tricky these days. It's a matter of who has food, transport, medical support and so on - and that's before you even get to the fancier ideas like force cohesion, having coherent command structures and plans of action, which you also wouldn't have. Every soldier requires an average of ten support personnel standing behind them, if not more, and I don't see many hoo-rah wolverines revolutionary types signing on to be blanket stackers or tucker fuckers.
Also consider - a large proportion of those armed people are going to be supporters. Think of the majority of the people who have a decent amount of firearms, let's say at least two, and whom regularly use them, and whom consider this part of their second amendment rights in the sense of overturning the government - doesn't exactly scream left-wing, or even right-wing but reasonable, does it?
There's also the point that the opponent would be the US military. It would not be a war against Trump, it would by a war against President Trump, and by extension, the United states of America. Who have all the gucci gear, everything from flying death robots armed with missiles smart enough to do your taxes before they kill you all the way down to particularly pointy sticks, tanks of all kinds, air support, logistical support, armored vehicles, and more heavy weaponry than the entire 80s worth of action movies twice over. They have the training, the experience, the command structure, and plans already in place, ready to go.
The American populace, by comparison, has AR-15s and lot of copies of Red Dawn on DVD. This isn't the redcoats Vs the minutemen, this is more like Barney Fife Vs the Green Berets. And don't even try that "Oh, but they'd defect if they had to move on US citizens" that people trot out, because it's horseshit - when it's citizens of your country and the mates you've trained with and fought with on either side of a rifle, your mates win over the civvies pointing guns at you every single time. Some would go over - but not enough to really make a difference.
Finally, you bring up the vast majority of military recruits coming from the lower and middle classes, but you're missing one vital point - where you come from doesn't matter a good goddamn when it comes to making a soldier. Training does. You can have a gang of the most perfect of perfect recruits from the lower and middle classes, and a group of the most half-useless piles of utter wank to ever pass basic - bet on the latter every time, because those fuckers will win, because they know what they're doing. Nobody slides out the womb armed and ready for war, they're not formed by social class, they're trained and made.
So, what causes those factors to be mitigated like they were in France? What could bring about a structured army on behalf of the people like Franco in Spain? Or what could cause the army to not get involved like they did (initially) in Egypt?
So, what causes those factors to be mitigated like they were in France? What could bring about a structured army on behalf of the people like Franco in Spain? Or what could cause the army to not get involved like they did (initially) in Egypt?
Well, in the case of France, it was the 1700s, so a lot of the advantages a modern millitary force have today would not be invented for 100+ years.
What could bring about a structured army in the US? God knows. I'd say assistance from outside forces, but that's highly unlikely to come from any modern industrialized nation, and I'm not sure any others would have the resources to devote to it.
Or what could cause the army to not get involved like they did (initially) in Egypt?
I don't know, I'm not familiar enough with that aspect of the Egyptian part of the Arab Spring to comment. The best I can give you is that it's a vastly different situation - for example, the millitary were largely keeping outof it (in terms of force, they were heavily involved politically) until they became the de facto ruling force in the nation, at which point they came down very hard on the protests, resulting in things like the Rabaa massacre.
yea, I'm surprised and non-surprised, on paper he should have had a strong shot at the presidency, in reality he was extremely mediocre in the debates and really all over the place when picking his issues.
Have you followed his state-level politics at all? The whole anti-union fiasco?
He was a lightning rod of conservatism and anti-union sentiment in the state. His mandate was seen as a rallying cry for a big push along those lines. There was a backlash, but it wasn't strong enough to stop him. The whole GOP was pushed a full step to the right in the state because of his base. A lot of people openly supported him.
Now he's a failure on the national stage. The GOP that remains behind at the state level is fractured between Walker conservatives and the more moderate typical midwestern GOP. Meanwhile, the Democrats are hugely unified in reaction to his initiatives.
The GOP will either realign more moderately, or fracture in twain, leaving Wisconsin either returning to the pre-Walker status quo, or seeing a Democrat wave in 2016 on the local level. It will be easy to run ads tying local conservatives to Walker's national failure.
Comments
One America News is ever so slightly to the right of Hitler. The show we watched (well he slept through) was basically the "Bash Obama Hour."
Suppose Hillary has a billion dollars in her war chest. She goes to $REPUBLICAN_NOMINEE and offers him a billion dollars to concede the election. Now he doesn't have to spend his billion either, so he gets $2 billion to not contest the race.
Why wouldn't that work?
Also consider - a large proportion of those armed people are going to be supporters. Think of the majority of the people who have a decent amount of firearms, let's say at least two, and whom regularly use them, and whom consider this part of their second amendment rights in the sense of overturning the government - doesn't exactly scream left-wing, or even right-wing but reasonable, does it?
There's also the point that the opponent would be the US military. It would not be a war against Trump, it would by a war against President Trump, and by extension, the United states of America. Who have all the gucci gear, everything from flying death robots armed with missiles smart enough to do your taxes before they kill you all the way down to particularly pointy sticks, tanks of all kinds, air support, logistical support, armored vehicles, and more heavy weaponry than the entire 80s worth of action movies twice over. They have the training, the experience, the command structure, and plans already in place, ready to go.
The American populace, by comparison, has AR-15s and lot of copies of Red Dawn on DVD. This isn't the redcoats Vs the minutemen, this is more like Barney Fife Vs the Green Berets. And don't even try that "Oh, but they'd defect if they had to move on US citizens" that people trot out, because it's horseshit - when it's citizens of your country and the mates you've trained with and fought with on either side of a rifle, your mates win over the civvies pointing guns at you every single time. Some would go over - but not enough to really make a difference.
Finally, you bring up the vast majority of military recruits coming from the lower and middle classes, but you're missing one vital point - where you come from doesn't matter a good goddamn when it comes to making a soldier. Training does. You can have a gang of the most perfect of perfect recruits from the lower and middle classes, and a group of the most half-useless piles of utter wank to ever pass basic - bet on the latter every time, because those fuckers will win, because they know what they're doing. Nobody slides out the womb armed and ready for war, they're not formed by social class, they're trained and made.
What could bring about a structured army in the US? God knows. I'd say assistance from outside forces, but that's highly unlikely to come from any modern industrialized nation, and I'm not sure any others would have the resources to devote to it. I don't know, I'm not familiar enough with that aspect of the Egyptian part of the Arab Spring to comment. The best I can give you is that it's a vastly different situation - for example, the millitary were largely keeping outof it (in terms of force, they were heavily involved politically) until they became the de facto ruling force in the nation, at which point they came down very hard on the protests, resulting in things like the Rabaa massacre.
Tech people screw up the political game a lot... :-p
He was a lightning rod of conservatism and anti-union sentiment in the state. His mandate was seen as a rallying cry for a big push along those lines. There was a backlash, but it wasn't strong enough to stop him. The whole GOP was pushed a full step to the right in the state because of his base. A lot of people openly supported him.
Now he's a failure on the national stage. The GOP that remains behind at the state level is fractured between Walker conservatives and the more moderate typical midwestern GOP. Meanwhile, the Democrats are hugely unified in reaction to his initiatives.
The GOP will either realign more moderately, or fracture in twain, leaving Wisconsin either returning to the pre-Walker status quo, or seeing a Democrat wave in 2016 on the local level. It will be easy to run ads tying local conservatives to Walker's national failure.