this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2025
159 points (90.8% liked)

politics

19366 readers
2802 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

It’s time to reengage with politics as Trump prepares to take office again.

Unlike 2017, Trump now has a more compliant establishment, streamlined strategies, and influential allies like Musk, Zuckerberg, and Bezos.

Concerns include his administration’s potential for sweeping authoritarian measures, such as Project 2025, and media normalization of his actions.

Vigilance is necessary to counter efforts to dismantle democratic institutions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Of course, the Black Panthers started out as exactly that. The open carry copwatchers, there to protect the rest of the group practicing Mutual Aid from unfair interference by law enforcement. Which became white people's first time they gave a shit about gun control.

So yeah, absolutely, but like the Black Panthers, the plan should be protection and to be "those who watch the watchmen" more than violent resistance. It can turn to violent resistance if the cops won't leave the group alone, but the overarching goal shouldn't be violent resistance. That kind of resistance will be needed occasionally to prevent any Fred Hampton-esque violent law enforcement assassinations.

Mostly because we have plenty of historical evidence that building the parallel alternatives works better than directly fighting the system. The system is failing, and you build a better system, then people will flock to it. In that way, you don't need to fight, you can just show others a better way and have the old way slowly dissolve in importance. You are correct that on that path to irrelevance, the old system will try to stop a new system from forming.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

That kind of resistance will be needed occasionally to prevent any Fred Hampton-esque violent law enforcement assassinations.

They'll do those anyway. Don't pretend that you can avoid being targeted if you resist in any way.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

We're not in opposition to each other, but you're definitely more optomistic than I am.

"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge (or ammo). Please use in that order."

Three of those have already failed.

[–] DicJacobus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

America can't exist as a single country anymore. Its too divisive. Sooner or later, yall are gonna have to sort this out.

either a bloodless split like Czechoslovakia, or the other way, like Yugoslavia.

... Or there wont be a fight. and you'll become a one party state that ratfucks the election system so that it can never lose again, and the country gets carved up by oligarchs, and mobsters until they become the government itself. (you become, basically Russia

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I don't disagree, but building a new parallel system falls squarely outside of the norms leveled in that quote. Soap, ballot, and jury all are actively within the context of the system as it currently exists, it's not building something else outside of it.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Building another system starts with the soap box. Making it official requires the ballot box. Defending it in place needs the jury box. Doing away with it if it becomes corrupted demands the ammo box.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You're putting the cart before the horse, my friend.

Those things take time to build in a parallel system.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Convincing other people to align with the foundations of a new system is using the soap box. Unless that new system is wholly undemocratic, the ballot box comes next. The jury box must follow unless the new system is an authoritarian one.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You've got to build something at all first to bother to even convince other people to align with it.

We're really on the same page, just looking at it differently. I think there's room for both opinions on this.