politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Resignations are only useful in the short term.
In the long term, Resignations provide new opportunities for the loyal to gain power and recruit.
Yep, but those who resign for moral reasons will be more likely to take actual actions to protest/stop what's happening. The military will have a hard time recruiting competent people in that environment, though, and the people taking the vacancies will likely have diminishing competence as time goes on.
To put it in perspective, if more officers retire at 20, they'll generally be O-5s (Lieutenant Colonels or Commanders), and so the next year's promotion cycle will need to promote more O-4s to cover the vacancies. This will then trickle down, and suddenly, you have officers who have been O-3s for just a couple of years being promoted to O-4 rather than waiting longer and gaining experience.
In that scenario, there will be less efficiency in planning and execution and far more incompetence, and if being used against civilians, more brutality. But incompetence is easier to defeat in the long run. Seeing the incompetence and brutality will deprive the military of the smartest recruits who staff the important IT, intelligence, cyber, etc. communities. So, while they may get true believers, a lower proportion will be competent.
No matter how it shakes out, it will get very bad.
They don't need competent people. They only need obedient cannon fodder.
That isn't a winning strategy when your ousted minority officers are not just competent, but also become opposed to your actions. The Trump Regime hurt minority soldiers, and those troops will ally with whoever resists the Trump Regime.
An veteran military almost always will beat a green one, many times demonstrated throughout history.
I didn't say it was a good plan...
No. They won't. Or, to be more blunt, the people who would actually be useful won't. Because they are the ones who understand the world isn't Call of Duty and a single guy with a pistol isn't actually going to Jack Bauer his way through an entire armed escort.
They already do. That is why the military is dumb as a door knob and full of the kind of people who just want an excuse to shoot some folk whether they are brown or not.
Oh, well then. That will solve everything.
The ASVAB was pretty basic when I took it. Fortunately, a health condition at the time kept me from basic.
Breathe. We will get through this, and how is a question worth considering, as the commenter above was doing before your sweaty takedown.
If you need to share this burden of despair with someone, my DMs are open. Spreading it among comrades is not OK.
We convince officers and other respected leaders to coup at the right time at the right signal.
But we also accept that the Grunts and dumbasses are gonna dumbass. Maybe you can get like an E-8 or E-9 on our side but don't give much effort to E-3 or E-5.
But sitting around hoping that the military just magically appears on our side (that leans hard into Libertarianism at best and outright far right hooo rah at worst) is dumb.
I’m addressing an instance of doomerism. Participation of current or former military in the rebellion occupies my thoughts far less than that, currently.
Doomerism on the correct contexts is correct.
We shouldn't expect a military coup on this issue. The vast majority of soldiers will take the side of Police and ICE on this issue and proudly stand by them.
Doomerism here allows us to focus our efforts elsewhere, where it'd be more fruitful to strike back vs Trump.
You’re describing pragmatism, a solutions-oriented mindset.
I’m referring to left’s problem with edgy despair evangelists suffering from a deliberately propagated fascist contagion that must be recognized and treated rather than allowed to spread.
Why? Because it deactivates would-be activists (including, for example, voters who had the chance to prevent this fascist takeover). It is not harmless. It must be addressed.
It is not even that they "will" take the side of fascism. They already have at every step of the way.
We can sit thinking warm and cheery thoughts. Or we can think about what it will mean to survive for people who aren't privileged enough to be a cishet white guy without any history of giving a shit about other human beings.