Trump 'Doesn't Speak With Precision,' Justice Department Tells Judge
Trump 'Doesn't Speak With Precision,' Justice Department Tells Judge
The Justice Department argued that Trump’s public statements about the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case didn’t reflect the government’s actual position.
You're viewing a single thread.
When one is a world leader, they have to understand exactly what they're talking about, and keep that position constant. This man doesn't. But his incompetence is well known and understood. What are we all going to do about it? Lemme tell y'all, protesting isn't going to stop anything. There's more of us than there are of them (being those with power), and the 2nd amendment exists. Do with that as you will, especially those that are severely depressed.
and the 2nd amendment exists.
I'll make sure to tell Vietnam and Afghanistan that
To win wars afterwards the united states military CANNOT blow up the people who feed it. Literally impossible for the military to win against the populace if they want to live a life after the war.
Germany
Plenty of south african farmers to import.
Plenty of South African bastards to butcher.
It's not warfare. It's assassination. Any gun can kill someone. No matter what he thinks, he's not bulletproof. It's suicidal to make the attempt. But the one to do it would be put in the history books as one of 5 people to kill a US president. I'd do it if I could honestly. Alas, I don't have access to transport, a weapon, or a good plan.
and to what end?
No seriously.
You actually believe trump is the one calling the shots? he's a fucking patsy. do you have any idea how many patsies they currently have lined up? how many martyrs do you have ready to go?
He's being influenced, obviously, but it seems that he's calling the shots. Otherwise, whoever "they" is, is rather indecisive. And it doesn't matter how many there are. There aren't 100 million.
you don't have a 100 million martyrs willing to die to try and assassinate some one.
Not even Hitler had that many assassination attempts. All ~42 of which failed.
And by the way, it's not just your martyrs that are going to get fucked if they try it. You get that, right?
We're already getting fucked. What do you propose?
Peaceful protests have been happening every week since he took office. And they’re the only thing that actually have a chance to change any of this.
Either get a rifle and put your money where your mouth is so we can move on without out- and maybe your family survives your stupidity; or join us.
But don’t fucking egg others into downing something you’re too cowardly to do.
I hope you join us, it’s a waste otherwise.
Peaceful protests have literally never solved anything of significance. Perhaps I'm ignorant to something, but if there has ever been a nationwide peaceful protest that has accomplished something, I'd love to hear it. I'd love to hear stories from non US nations as well if there are stories there.
How have the protests helped so far? And I'm completely willing to do this, I just lack literally any of the means to do it. I don't expect most people to do this. But there's enough people with nothing left to lose, to do something. Anything. I don't like violence. But protests only work when the government cares about popularity and giving the people what they want. I'd like for peace to work. But there's either causing real interference, or waiting this out. I don't think many of us will be around unscathed by that point.
Who won the wars between the US and Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam? Was it the people with the bomber airplanes? Is the US winning the war against the Houthis?
If you want to call them "victories", you can, I guess.
Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam were all political wars without any clear military objective or purpose. They were basically unwinnable from the US side, and we "lost" because political pressure from the home front grew to the point where it was necessary to end the conflicts.
Even if you disagree with that statement, 1.1 million Viet Cong and N. Vietnamese military personnel died, with another estimated 2 million civilian deaths on both sides of the Vietnamese war. Vietnam's infrastructure was absolutely destroyed.
In the second Iraq war, its estimated at 260k-460k deaths; also with their infrastructure being absolutely destroyed.
the Afghanistan war has similar numbers and similar a similar toll on infrastructure.
For a more accurate depiction of what a second US civil war would look like I suggest looking at The Troubles in Ireland. Only it's going to be a lot more people killing their neighbors across a country with 360 million people. it will be a bloodbath, it will be awful, and it's going to be ended by the military bombing the everliving fuck out of whatever is still moving at the end.
stop glorifying violence. It's not going to end the way you think it will.
Regarding the Troubles, it was a low-level civil war with the military involved with very limited rules of engagement. The UK military essentially served a police function, though it was institutionally biased in favor of the Unionists. There was no bombing, no artillery fire, none of that (though there were targeted assassinations, largely done by the UVF based on intel fed to them by the UK military). The UK establishment's goal was to contain the problem, not to eliminate it. The Good Friday accord came after a generation-long stalemate. So that's probably not a meaningful model of what might happen in the US.
And people-power revolutions have occurred in many countries in the world, often without much violence (except for some perpetrated by the authoritarian states against their citizens, and even those tend to be limited). Many have succeeded. On the other hand, there have also been popular movements that have failed (for example, most of the Arab Spring revolutions). Even so, there is no reason to assume that resistance would inevitably lead to a Civil War 2.0 scenario. That would be a worst case; and considering that the pro-dictatorship faction is at most 40% of the population, and largely from the most economically irrelevant parts of the country, the most they could reasonably achieve would be unstable minority rule.
Funnily enough, it just got proven that it is in fact useful again. You can buy a drone swarm and it can down AF1 even.
It just needs more brains to aim than an M16.
Trump spends his weekends on golf courses in the middle of high density populations. They're essentially impossible to actually secure. It would take a really good shot, but a .22 would have the range. On top of that, even Google maps has satellite pics of the course and surrounding area.
Facing the US military head on is suicide, and the police have far more personnel. They're not even a worthwhile target to begin with. There's a reason the super wealthy like the Koche bro's or the Murdochs live on compounds in the middle of nowhere. The open empty space forces anyone going after them to get visibly close to their highly paid, and very effective, security teams.
Wait are you telling me I can't shoot down an AH64 Apache attack helicopter with my AR15? I even modded it to look extra cool though
Stop calling for violence please, it's what his administrations wants.
OK, you carry on attempting to deal with fascism using sweet reason and compliance in advance. Let us know how that goes.
They want meaningless violence that won't accomplish anything for us. This would do a little something. Vance is powerless. He has no cult of personality. He's a couch fucker. No one listens to him.