• silence7@slrpnk.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    If we removed him by force with only something like 1.5% of the population on board, we’d have kicked off a civil war we could not win. Right now, it’s more important to use protest as an outreach tool to get more of the population to support change.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Well the civil war wouldn’t be 98.5% vs 1.5%. I reckon it would be fairly even, maybe even a bit more on the anti-Trump side, despite the fact that some people might not agree with violence. If forced to pick sides, I reckon most will stay on the same side of the political spectrum they’re already on.

      However

      I agree that civil war should be avoided. But at the same time I recognize some amount of violence may be required in the end, to have a true “liberation day” for Americans. Trump’s not stepping down as long as he’s alive and free.

      • mutual_ayed@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 hours ago

        No, you need to consider the National Guard and all armed forces in the US and Abroad.

        IF there is a civil war it’s not going to be a bunch of citizens armed with AR pattern rifles shooting at the soldiers. It would be Palintir finding the communication hubs of any resistance fighters and a drone strike at the center of it, with a platoon of Marines coming in to clean up and post security. The Army close behind to go through and secure any surrounding structures and setup a FOB to prevent further insurrection.

        It will be factions of the military fighting itself, and it would be devastating. Think Gaza but across two million square miles.