So as not to take the C19 Topics thread off topic, I'm sharing this comment here. Coalminer said:
While this is a talking-tough fantasy expressed by many, is it a realistic expectation?
With a like-minded President of the United states himself cheering his supporters on and rallying them with advanced notice, the closest they came to taking back their country was a few thousand of them storming the Capitol with ineffective results. The storm, disturbance, riot, insurrection, peaceful protest, innocent tourism, domestic terrorism event -- call it what you want -- failed. The election was not overturned. Pence was not hanged. Congress met that very night to successfully carry out it's constitutional duties.
Subsequently, hundreds of the stormers, rioters, insurrectionists, protesters, tourists, terrorists -- call them what you want -- have been charged. Some have been convicted and jailed, and more are on their way. Many of them scrambled to take down the social media posts once boldly shared. Their courage rapidly faded when the consequences of their threats and/or illegal acts became known. Some are now flipping on others. Some are blaming Trump for the predicament they now find themselves in.
It seems to me that if a taking back by bullets was destined to happen, the very best chance for that was when Trump was in office. But he is not in office and is highly unlikely to ever be again. Support for him is eroding in his base, not because of his politics, but because he is growing old, and his supporters know that. A Trump-Flynn ticket might address the Trump-age issue but there is no way such a radical ticket will prevail in a general election; even with the voter-suppression efforts now underway.
Trump is the past. DeSantis is gaining major ground on Trump as a possible primary candidate. But even if DeSantis gets elected president, he is not one to advocate the use of bullets so Republicans can take "THEIR" country back. Subject to checks and balances, DeSantis will represent the government and would likely call out the military to oppose an armed uprising against the government he himself is part of.
So with the constitution still in place, Trump fading, and a career-politician president DeSantis unwilling to encourage violence against the government, how will the takeover by bullets materialize?
Who exactly are the Republicans that will openly rise with weapons in hand, ready to shoot? And, realistically, what would actually happen to them if they do? It's not like their intended targets are without brains, money, guns and combat skills. And it's not likely these motivated Republicans would have a superior number of combatants.
In most if not all states, they are a distinct minority. In red states, they are greatly outnumbered and easily overwhelmed by their opponents who, if civil order broke down, would be free to rise up and return violence with violence with their overwhelming force of numbers. If these tough-talking Republicans actually rose up and actually caused a breakdown in civil order, how do you think those outnumebered idealists would fare when their targets shoot back?
Regarding Republicans taking "THEIR" country back by votes, did they not previously do that when Trump was first elected? For his first two years in office, Trump held the White House and Republicans held the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. In those years, did the country need taking back, or did the Republicans already have it?
If the Republicans take back "THEIR" country by votes once again by winning the White House, House and Senate, how would things be different than they were before, when the Republicans did that very thing?
While this is a talking-tough fantasy expressed by many, is it a realistic expectation?
With a like-minded President of the United states himself cheering his supporters on and rallying them with advanced notice, the closest they came to taking back their country was a few thousand of them storming the Capitol with ineffective results. The storm, disturbance, riot, insurrection, peaceful protest, innocent tourism, domestic terrorism event -- call it what you want -- failed. The election was not overturned. Pence was not hanged. Congress met that very night to successfully carry out it's constitutional duties.
Subsequently, hundreds of the stormers, rioters, insurrectionists, protesters, tourists, terrorists -- call them what you want -- have been charged. Some have been convicted and jailed, and more are on their way. Many of them scrambled to take down the social media posts once boldly shared. Their courage rapidly faded when the consequences of their threats and/or illegal acts became known. Some are now flipping on others. Some are blaming Trump for the predicament they now find themselves in.
It seems to me that if a taking back by bullets was destined to happen, the very best chance for that was when Trump was in office. But he is not in office and is highly unlikely to ever be again. Support for him is eroding in his base, not because of his politics, but because he is growing old, and his supporters know that. A Trump-Flynn ticket might address the Trump-age issue but there is no way such a radical ticket will prevail in a general election; even with the voter-suppression efforts now underway.
Trump is the past. DeSantis is gaining major ground on Trump as a possible primary candidate. But even if DeSantis gets elected president, he is not one to advocate the use of bullets so Republicans can take "THEIR" country back. Subject to checks and balances, DeSantis will represent the government and would likely call out the military to oppose an armed uprising against the government he himself is part of.
So with the constitution still in place, Trump fading, and a career-politician president DeSantis unwilling to encourage violence against the government, how will the takeover by bullets materialize?
Who exactly are the Republicans that will openly rise with weapons in hand, ready to shoot? And, realistically, what would actually happen to them if they do? It's not like their intended targets are without brains, money, guns and combat skills. And it's not likely these motivated Republicans would have a superior number of combatants.
In most if not all states, they are a distinct minority. In red states, they are greatly outnumbered and easily overwhelmed by their opponents who, if civil order broke down, would be free to rise up and return violence with violence with their overwhelming force of numbers. If these tough-talking Republicans actually rose up and actually caused a breakdown in civil order, how do you think those outnumebered idealists would fare when their targets shoot back?
Regarding Republicans taking "THEIR" country back by votes, did they not previously do that when Trump was first elected? For his first two years in office, Trump held the White House and Republicans held the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. In those years, did the country need taking back, or did the Republicans already have it?
If the Republicans take back "THEIR" country by votes once again by winning the White House, House and Senate, how would things be different than they were before, when the Republicans did that very thing?
Last edited:
