Zuckerberg Warns of Post-Election Violence (axios.com) 356
Mark Zuckerberg tells "Axios on HBO" that Facebook is imposing new election rules to deter use of the platform to spread of misinformation and even violence, and to help voters see the results as "legitimate and fair." From a report: The new measures, announced Thursday, include throwing a flag on posts by candidates who claim premature victory, and forbidding new ads within a week of Election Day. "There is, unfortunately, I think, a heightened risk of civil unrest in the period between voting and a result being called," Zuckerberg told Axios' Mike Allen. "I think we need to be doing everything that we can to reduce the chances of violence or civil unrest in the wake of this election."
The actual way to stave off civil unrest (Score:5, Insightful)
We should be doing everything we can to ensure that everyone who wants to vote gets to vote, and that their vote is actually counted.
Anything less is an implicit invitation to violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Lololol. Listen you you sounding all rational and shit. The problem, of course, is that people are fucking stupid and won't believe the results no matter how much evidence of a fair vote there is.
Protip: Stop over-estimating people.
Re: (Score:2)
We should be doing everything we can to ensure that everyone who wants to vote gets to vote, and that their vote is actually counted.
We should also be doing everything we can to insure that everyone who votes:
- Is legally qualified to vote.
- Votes no more than once.
(If you just want to count the vote of everyone who wants to vote, I'm sure there are a lot of people in the Mideast, Central and South America, China, and Russia who would like their opinions counted, too.)
Voting isn't about bein
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I vacillate on this issue.
On one hand, you are necessarily giving up some freedoms to participate in society, therefore any member of said society should have the right to participate in choosing their leaders. This is the view I hold most of the time.
However.
I AM enamored by the idea of restricting voting to those who take the responsibility seriously. By merely making voting rights something to achieve you increase it's value in the minds of your citizens. I don't know how this would work. I don't thi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which I found appealing, but it creates a population which doesn't have a voice in the process. I suspect that would end up in slavery, it's just a question of how long until it does.
Re: (Score:2)
"but it creates a population which doesn't have a voice in the process."
Aren't you in this very thread above arguing that the Electoral College should be abolished because it gives us rubes who choose not to live in overpopulated cities a voice we aren't smart enough to have? If it weren't for double-standards you guys would have no standards at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also be okay with having to earn the franchise, but it would need to be always available to one on the street, without qualification.
If you create other restrictions, particularly with economic incentives, you will cut off those who are "undesirables" with the excuse of the week.
Nope, I don't trust my (MY. By, of, for the People.) government any further than I can throw it, but it is a necessary evil.
Re: (Score:2)
You know Starship Troopers is about fascism (either glorifying or poking fun at, depending on how you interpret Heinlein's state of mind), right?
You *could* implement such a thing democratically by requiring civil service, not necessarily military, from everyone. Various countries do that. I suspect that would be a REALLY hard sell in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I AM enamored by the idea of restricting voting to those who take the responsibility seriously. By merely making voting rights something to achieve you increase it's value in the minds of your citizens. I don't know how this would work. I don't think it could work.
We do have a system in place for this - it debatable whether it's an effective system. We have public education! We try to make sure every American good read and write. We teach Americans government and civics and try to train up their reading comprehension. We have rules in place that virtually guarantee that a person's education is completed, and use other methods to compel people that don't want to complete their education to do so.
We try hard to make sure everyone has a basic education so that they can
Re:You would be surprised, shocked and terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
...then we have to admit to the fact that public education being predominantly liberal...
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Spend any time on any public grade school campus, you'll hear it. Middle school and highschool too, but to a lesser degree. College campuses, however...well, the stories aren't false. They are overwhelmingly left, to the point where they make liberals look like conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Spend any time on any public grade school campus, you'll hear it. Middle school and high school too, but to a lesser degree. College campuses, however...well, the stories aren't false. They are overwhelmingly left, to the point where they make liberals look like conservatives.
College campuses are outside the scope of this particular conversation. I speak on public education. Colleges are predominantly for-profit and are never guaranteed access, unlike our public schools.
Liberal values and conservative values are both taught in school. Teachers do however tend to lean liberal. Many of them teach liberal arts. They all want more public funding. The schools themselves can and do often adopt conservative doctrine where legislated. You see this in sex education classes, where some co
Re:You would be surprised, shocked and terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
Many American Republicans have noted that education is positively correlated with not voting for them. Whether that's because public education is "liberal" has not been established.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Any such system would likely exclude the poor, ethnic minorities and people already disenfranchised.
IMO everybody old enough should be able to vote, no exclusions at all. If you want a better society you don't start off by taking away people basic rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Any such system would likely exclude the poor, ethnic minorities and people already disenfranchised.
I'm not sure that's true, but it's irrelevant. You either object to any disenfranchisement or none. It's kinda a binary choice.
Re: (Score:2)
I object to any disenfranchisement.
Re: (Score:2)
So do I.
As ugly as it tends to be, it's still better than the alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
how many Americans, hell how many /. readers, think it should be difficult to vote because you should have to "work for it".
There are a sizable number of people who don't really believe in Democracy. They of course think they should get a vote but not the "wrong" sort of people. They either don't understand or don't care that what they're proposing is just Oligarchy with a few more oligarchs (themselves included of course).
Pretty sure we've been hearing from all of those people ever since November 2016 when the wrong lizard got in.
Re:You would be surprised, shocked and terrified (Score:4, Informative)
If you ca march in a protest there's no reason you can't go vote.
OK, what of those people who can't march?
Hell, if you aren't afraid to go to the grocery store then you can go vote.
Fear aside, a grocery store is open more than one day a year.
Re: (Score:2)
"OK, what of those people who can't march?"
How did they vote last time? Do that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Voting Absentee has its own problems but comes nowhere close to the invitation for fraud that current universal vote-by-mail proposals do. Anyone arguing that there's no absentee voter fraud is just being flat-out dishonest.
Re: (Score:2)
Also if your vote is counted but canceled by fakes (Score:3)
There is a general tendency towards mistrust of the democratic process; that your vote does not count. If your vote is not actually counted, due to some administrative fiddling, then it is not surprising that this fuels anarchism or worse.
This is a problem - equally or worse - if you vote actually IS counted, but cancelled or overridden by one or more opposing improper votes: from unqualified voters, voters who vote more than once, or fake votes "stuffing the ballot box".
Easy unverified registration (such a
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why not just shut down all social media the week before the election? Better yet, shut it down today. No need to turn it back on either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get the feeling that the biggest damage comes from the other 363 days a year that people are plugged into the propaganda machine. That's where the seed for the bullshit tree is planted. The disconnect from the real world, the alternative facts, both-siderism, whataboutism, the erosion of the very idea of an objective reality. Worked well for Philip K Dick, not so much for a functioning democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
How to combat social media malfeasance (Score:2)
If I were an American (I am), I'd ignore "social media" ....
JUST GO VOTE
And if in North Carolina, vote early and vote often :)
what's zuckerberg's end game ? (Score:3, Insightful)
he doesn't actually care about the violence, he cares about facebook's stock price
so is he just doing this because he's worried the feds will clamp down on facebook in some way ?
facebook's sewer is a net plus for the trump crazies, so my guess is it's a little bit of show to make it look like he's doing something, while he lets the real problems continue. the "threat of violence" stuff is a small part of the right wing crazy machine, it's qanon and all the rest of the cultish streams which are the real money maker, and far more destabilizing. he's just going to let that go on, for example, i doubt he will squash the current Trumpian ploy of sowing doubt about the election result. i would expect there's an absolute shitload of that stuff running around facebook right now.
Is he just announcing this so he can say they are doing "something" and avoid laws that might impact profits ?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
also a sewer for the violent left and the mainstream democrats that are giving them various levels of support.
Re: (Score:2)
One characteristic of the left is that it is overwhelmingly non-violent and violence by left-wingers is pretty much non-existent.
Re: (Score:2)
I live just north of Chicago and I'm laughing at your stupidity and lies.
Gotta hand it to the Russians, NK (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing, that if Trump wins the election, we are going to see some major violence, burning and looting. I've gone as far as to advise my friends to stay in their homes on election night because of this.
We have become so partisan and divided that even giving this bit advice can give you jeers such as "Oh you are saying vote Biden or else, blah blah blah!".
No. Because I remember what happened back in 2016 when I was boarding a bus to travel to another city, which happened to be o
Facebook Still Treating Trump With Kid Gloves (Score:3)
Re:He's not wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's always violence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, but it did [thehill.com], ye of short memory.
Re: (Score:2)
ye of short memory.
His memory is long enough to know that when discussing violence after Obama's election, that he should stick to things that are both violence, and that actually happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Like these? [splcenter.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So you didn't actually read the article, or the specific link to incidents occurring around the 2008 election. Well, here you go [splcenter.org]. The article fou
Re: (Score:2)
His opponent also didn't spend the months before the election telling his supporters that the only way he could lose was if the election was fraudulent.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall Trump stirring up violence back then, that would be the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Just what the Tucker (Carlson) ordered;
Sep 3, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Man, I miss when Fox News was concerned with The War on Christmas, Bill Clinton's blowjob, and Jay-Z hippity-hoppin.
Re:He's not wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Trump will contest the election after having done everything in his power to fuck it up.
It's the old "I can only lose if they cheat!" setup.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've gotten it backwards. There's going to be a lot of hyped-up right-wingers living in a Fox News bubble that think their boy Trump can't possibly lose unless there's massive fraud (Which Trump has been crowing about for months in preparation.)
Nice theory - all the violence building in the recent years has been from the left. Violence has intensified in the recent months, and once again, it is from the left.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe, but to date which party has hosted and condoned the most violence? Which party supports law enforcement?
Democrats never really forgave Trump for winning, never really accepted it, which has led them further and further into insanity. If Trump wins again, what do you think will happen with BLM and AntiFa? They're already primed, they have riot experience.
If Biden wins, do you really think Blue Lives Matters are going to go buck wild? Patriot Prayers? Proud Boys, maybe, but I don't think so.
For one thing Trump didn't win, he lost the popular vote and 'won' by doing what he always does, gaming the system. For another I can easily see AR-15 toting Trumpists playing a game of militia in badly camouflaged pickups venting their impotent rage on everybody they perceive to be 'liberal scum' over what they perceive is a 'deep state' and George Soros sponsored act of election fraud (or some other idiotic conspiracy theory) that kept Trump from winning another election with fewer votes than Mitt Romney
Re:He's not wrong (Score:5, Informative)
For one thing Trump didn't win, he lost the popular vote
The 'popular vote' is irrelevant. Whether you like it or not, the President is elected based on electoral votes. It's like complaining that you 'won' a baseball game because you got more hits, and it's unfair/luck that the other team managed to score more actual runs, which is ultimately how you win a baseball game. Hits are just and means to an end, just like popular votes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For one thing Trump didn't win, he lost the popular vote
The 'popular vote' is irrelevant.
That is the problem.
Whether you like it or not,
I don't, I'm not alone, there is lot's of us and our number is growing
the President is elected based on electoral votes.
Which is basically gerrymandering to disenfranchise select portions of the electorate and effectively ensures a minority of ultra conservatives has a disproportional chance of winning.
It's like complaining that you 'won' a baseball game because you got more hits, and it's unfair/luck that the other team managed to score more actual runs, which is ultimately how you win a baseball game. Hits are just and means to an end, just like popular votes.
The electoral college is like your team scoring 48 points to your opponents 44 points in a basket ball game but your opponent wins because his 44 points earned him more electoral college votes and the electors declared that 44 is a higher
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Re: (Score:2)
The electoral college is like your team scoring 48 points to your opponents 44 points in a basket ball game but your opponent wins because his 44 points earned him more electoral college votes and the electors declared that 44 is a higher number than 48 and to hell with mathematics. I'm pretty sure that if your basket ball team lost a game that way you'd be pissed as hell. You should choose your analogies more carefully next time. You love this situation because you get to win elections despite losing the popular vote and that allows you to shove your values down the throats of the majority of the populace. That's a lot of things but it's not winning an election, it's gaming an election. There is something really perverse about a system that allowed Donald Trump to win by a landslide with fewer votes than Mitt Romney lost.
The electoral college is like your team scoring 29 baskets to your opponents 20 baskets in a basket ball game but your opponent wins because his 20 three pointers earned him more electoral college votes and the electors declared that 20 three pointers are a higher number than 29 two pointers and to hell with mathematics.
Re: (Score:2)
In my view, it's not that important. The popular vote was very close anyway, it's almost a straight split. And the big point - there are other elected positions that are probably more important than the presidency. By focusing too much on a single job, it discourages a lot of voters from coming out to vote for local selections, statewide elections, or congressional elections, because "we're a blue/red state, the outcome is not in questions, so why should I show up?" The president is supposed to execute
Re: (Score:2)
Affirmative action doesn't mean that. Affirmative action is about taking positive direct action to redress past inequalities rather than remain passive. Whereas the smaller or more rural states have always had an outsized representation in congress since the founding.
Re: (Score:2)
During the slave years, the rural southern states had much more representation relative to their voting population.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>how rotten the US electoral system really is.
Or I think it's fun to see if a leftie reconcile their rhetoric with an institution they oppose that is logically based on the same idea. You haven't disappointed. Instead of actually addressing the argument you go off on tangents and bring race into the mix. Your obsession with race is kind of sad.
I don't see how the Electoral system demonstrates how rotten the US electoral system is when it is up to the states to decide how they manage their elections. Not
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You haven't disappointed. Instead of actually addressing the argument you go off on tangents and bring race into the mix. Your obsession with race is kind of sad.
Idiot, you baited the subject.
"You're not against equitable outcomes and affirmative actions to minorities, are you?"
Re: (Score:2)
It's really not semantic bullshit and I think you are really missing the point. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. Let me try one more time.
California Prop 8: 52.2% v 47.7%. A solid majority undone by a few judges. If you deflect to "it was unconstitutional or it should have been overturned or it's about human rights" then maybe you might begin to understand the concept of a Republic instead of a Democracy and why there is protections against a simple majority.
Good governance is more than just simple platitudes for your political expediency in the moment. I hope someday you will realize that.
Dragging courts into this is pivoting. What is at issue here is that I think that 48.2% is greater than 46.1%. In 2016 the US the electoral college resulted in 48.2% effectively being less than 46.1%. What you are trying to do is convince me that 48.2% is less than 46.1%, that this is how democracy should work and you are trying to do it by inundating me with a torrent of semantic obfuscation. As I pointed out elsewhere, the only difference I see between the US system and the Belorussian system, for example
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really rotten, it's placing priorities in a different way than you'd like. The US electoral college system was explicitly designed to a) provide states with more equitable president-electing power, just as the GP said, and b) to provide a fail safe whereby the elite could override the results of an election.
(a) is not particularly democratic (with respect to the people) from a "one person, one vote" point of view, and (b) is not particularly democratic from any point of view, but that is explicitly
Re:He's not wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not really rotten, it's placing priorities in a different way than you'd like. The US electoral college system was explicitly designed to a) provide states with more equitable president-electing power, just as the GP said, and b) to provide a fail safe whereby the elite could override the results of an election.
(a) is not particularly democratic (with respect to the people) from a "one person, one vote" point of view, and (b) is not particularly democratic from any point of view, but that is explicitly how the system was set up, from the beginning. Those vaunted founding fathers we keep hearing about did it very much on purpose. It's not an example of some democratic ideal that was later corrupted by nefarious political interests. In fact, the whole thing has become much more democratic, by including voters who are not male landowners, and through initiatives by many states to make their popular votes proportional and binding on their electors.
Should the system continue to be democratized? You certainly believe so. Many of us who look in from the outside and are mystified how a modern democracy can continue to support such a system think so. People who see the US as a collection of federal states would not, and might favour going in the other direction, where federal offices are filled directly by member states, the way most international organizations do it.
Layers upon layers of semantic bullshit. In the end the way any normal election works is that the entity that persuades a majority of the people to vote for them wins the election. Simple, clear and mathematically sound. The US political class didn't like this so they 'adjusted' the 'priorities' of the US electoral system so that certain political entities would stand a good chance of winning irrespective of whether they could persuade the majority of the electorate of the merits of their cause. The only difference between the US system and the Belorussian system is that Lukashenko doesn't construct a mountain of semantic bullshit to delude himself into thinking a rigged electoral system is somehow 'fair' when it allows the loser to 'win' the 'election' Lukashenko just unapologetically stuffs the ballot boxes falsifies the results, doesn't care who knows it and shoots anybody who complains. I don't like either system but Lukashenko at least gets a small token of respect from me for his honesty and complete lack of self delusion.
Re: (Score:2)
The election is determined by the popular vote if you'd open your eyes and see. The popular vote of the states, proportionally determined by their respective populations. That's how the Electoral College works. Popular Vote. Of the States.
Re: (Score:2)
Your urban centers make up something like 3% of the US, that's why. And they tend to attract the worst of our population to inhabit them. I understand your narcissism and why you believe that the rest of us who reject that lifestyle are sooo beneath you but that doesn't give you the right to stomp us out.
P.S. How has your urban lifestyle been working out in the pandemic? Yeah, that's what I thought. Told you so. That pandemic is never going away, at least probably not in you or my lifetimes, so... enjo
Re: (Score:2)
For one thing Trump didn't win, he lost the popular vote and 'won' by doing what he always does, gaming the system.
so i take it you are not from the united states, or if so, smoked pot during your entire civics classes. What the hell does popular vote have to do with a fucking thing? The vote for president is an election among states. It does not really matter as much if you have 10million people or 10,000 people, its only somewhat weighted. The fact that you even get to vote at all for president is a privilege granted to you by your STATE. Do you even understand how Article II, Section 1 was written into the constituti
Re: (Score:2)
What does the popular vote have to do with anything? It has to do with the consent of the governed, that is, the legitimacy of the government. It certainly seems we could do with some more legitimacy there. If the system of voting, or of not voting and hoping the Electoral College delegates know best, or however you want to characterize it - if that system is consistently giving shitty results, maybe it should be looked at.
If you want to go high-school history class on it and defer to what was said about it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You may be right about Trump supporters, and I don't doubt there will be a few regardless who are violent if he loses.
However, I suspect differently, and my assumption is based on BLM/AntiFa's behavior.
You are worried about picketers when these right wing militias are showing up armed to the teeth and are using protesters for target practice. When was the last time Antifa and BLM opened fire with assault rifles and killed a bunch of Trump supporters? So far the overwhelming number of shootings has been Trump supporters panicking and drawing guns on, or even opening fire on, unarmed people.
Re:He's not wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
"BLM" doesn't care about who gets elected, however much certain people want to make-it-all-make-sense for you. They want the roadside executions in broad daylight, without due process, to stop. It's worked somewhat for Trump's poll numbers to politicize that, and if you actually buy into it, you need to realize you're being taken for a ride.
Most black people I know don't vote because, as usual, neither of the approved candidates have what it takes to address the issue. One of them's gassing them to take weird Bible-brandishing pictures, and the other one told them They Ain't Black and doesn't have the balls or the vision for real change.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A) That would clearly be the Republican party led by the president.
Q) Which party supports law enforcement?
A) With Kamala Harris a former prosecutor, that would have to be the Democrats.
2016 was a year of foreign election interference, voter suppression, Republican FBI Director Comey's announcing investigations into Hillary Clinton days before the election, and the advent of illegal usage of social media platforms by compani
Re:He's not wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Who is the partisan joke?
Re: He's not wrong (Score:2)
"Proud Boys" - this group is a bunch of
hooligans that love to start fights. They
are remenicent of the brownshirts in early
Nazi history.
Re:He's not wrong (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure who's moderating this down but news broke last night that a member of Antifa (who had already shot and killed a man for supporting Trump) got into a shootout with police and police ultimately ended up killing him.
So, uh, yeah. Keep on pretending we can't see the leftists burn down their own cities and aren't noticing the news of leftists shooting people for supporting Trump or for protecting businesses because WE CAN. WE KNOW what's going on. You can't hide a burning city, no matter how much you may try and mod down the people pointing it out.
Perhaps this article [businessinsider.com] will offer some perspective:
Trump frequently accuses the far-left of inciting violence, yet right-wing extremists have killed 329 victims in the last 25 years, while antifa members haven't killed any, according to a new study.
So, I guess it's now 329 vs. 1.
[ Note that this 2018 article by the ADL puts the number domestic extremist-related murders over the past 10 years at 427. Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2018 [adl.org]. ]
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it's a "Study" doesn't mean it's worth a damn.
Nor your arm-chair analysis. Just sayin'.
Re:He's not wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
If Trump convinces enough of his base that the election was "rigged" against him, I can see mass rioting from them.
Re: (Score:2)
You think he'll pull a Hillary and do that?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:He's not wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of the world looks on aghast at the slow car crash that is the USA election.
Comment from someone who lives in England.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, we're aghast too.
I'm actually a bit surprised at Putin (Score:2)
I don't think anyone really understands just how deep the undercurrent of crazy runs in America. Our puritanical roots make us prone to violent outbursts. And we have the most powerful conventional army the world have ever known. It's so large that nothing could stand up to us if we went on the rampage.
Sure, it would be a Pyrrhic victory. We'd destroy ourselves. But we'd make sure to take everybody with us whe
Re: (Score:2)
No, there were a bunch of English convicts dumped there as well. America is the OG Australia.
Somehow the US did end up being the most religious western state though, and the one where religion seems to play the biggest effective role in governance.
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the world looks on aghast at the slow car crash that is the USA election.
Comment from someone who lives in England.
Well... that's why it's not a good idea to let a spoiled baby drive. And it's not a car, he "loves trucks" [theguardian.com], but, to be fair, what little boy doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
the term you were looking for is train wreck
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad. The US often claims to have an unbroken chain of peaceful handoffs of power through its entire history as a nation. That's not true (*cough* civil war *cough) but it has been pretty successful since 1865.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, there will be violence from the same people if Biden wins. And over a few months, it will provoke retaliatory violence from everybody else, and rightly so.
Re: (Score:2)
But they're largely aligned with democrats, so a Biden win mollifies them more than a Trump win. That's my guess anyway.
Re:He's not wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, because the left/BLM/antifa has quietly protested in Seattle, Portland, etc.
Yeah, those protests have been pretty quiet. I live about a 10-15 minute walk from the core of the Seattle protests (the police station CHOP was centered on). I've even walked through that in area a couple times in the past month. If I hadn't been following the news/social media, I wouldn't even know the protests had occurred.
My friends in Portland give similar reports.
Re: (Score:2)
Scenarios the democrats and republicans are preparing for: https://assets.documentcloud.o... [documentcloud.org] .
So assuming Trump wins and the dems contests the elections that could mean chaos.
Plus covid with its social and economical crisis.
Plus the US desperate to maintain its slipping position of world dominance.
I'm sure there will be a yuge need for an external enemy to keep it all together. It won't be enough to say the russians made Trump win. But for safety reasons flattening a small country is preferred over getting
Re: (Score:3)
We've got lots of idiots with guns, but they're not organized enough for actual helter-skelter. The largest ones seem to be about as effective as the Manson Family. Yes, a few people will technically be dodging bullets at the mall, but on the whole nothing changes.
The guys with the guns don't have anyone organizing them into an actual militia. The guys who are controlling them don't want a war. They want no taxes on the rich, and no rights for the underclass. They've mostly got that. Civil war would be a bi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I'm not a member of the "Second Amendment Solution" brigade.
I don't even own a gun.
Re: (Score:2)
well, that makes you different, I guess.
The only people I've heard spouting this civil war bullshit are people who've been brainwashed by Fox into thinking they're about to be murdered at random by a busload of Antifa.
So far, we're just slinging BS and anecdotes. But I don't hear the left calling for war: I see calls for police to be held to the standard of the law, and if they can't do that, to have their funding reduced and toys taken away.
Re: (Score:3)
"the left" is not a party.
"the left" comprises individuals, some of whom organise into parties, some of whom organise into movements, some of whom take to the streets to murder people under the guise of a fascist movement.
It's one of those that was calling for war. One of the ones calling for police reform. One of the ones that tried to reform a small number of policemen by shooting them.
You know he was talking shit, you know I made a very valid rebuttal and you're now trying to make up new definitions to t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Thank You, Captain Obvoius! (Score:2)
Uh, traditional militia in the US would show up with their own weapons, they wouldn't be stored in a depot. That musket or shorgun you march around with on the town square one Saturday a month? Every other day of the month you were using that to put food on the table.