(02-05-2024, 11:31 AM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(02-04-2024, 11:08 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: For my highlighted point; I wasn't directing this at anyone in particular. It's a pet peeve of mine in general. 

As to your bolded point, the numbers say yes, but large numbers don't always equal effective action. 

Sadly, we saw this happen after George Floyd and other black Americans were killed when blm and others took to the streets and literally terrorized people by destroying property, riding through neighborhoods screaming over bullhorns, doxxing people with whom they didn't agree, etc. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't recall one instance of the National Guard being deployed to quell the violence. And don't tell me that was not domestic terrorism.

There were actions in some of those riots that absolutely qualify for the term. No doubt.

The situation that was proffered by p_r however was that the government/military could not stop an armed and violent uprising by the right/conservatives.

A scenario that involves one group of Americans killing members of another group of Americans with both their personal arsenals as well as commandeered/stolen weaponry from the US military (supposedly). 

That is a lot different than local governments grappling with whether or not to seek help from the Nat'l guard for a riot that has turned violent beyond their control. 

The FBI has already thwarted a number of plots from various militia groups who intended to kidnap politician(s) that opposed their policy views. As I'm sure you know - these are well armed groups ranging anywhere from dozens of members to thousands. The chatter about mass casualty inducing violence from some of these groups is constantly being monitored and evaluated for veracity by the FBI, DHS and the local and state agencies they collaborate with. 

Government accountability reports state that domestic terrorism investigations have increased by nearly 400% in the past ten years. 

All I've been asserting here is that if a number of these militia groups really decided to take violent action against American citizens and elected officials following another losing bid from Trump - the US military would effectively intervene. (and that "plan" is the subject of the chatter these days from the far right) 

And yes - in my uninformed opinion  -it would be swift and resolute.  Not due to numbers - but due to the stark contrast in technology and sophistication of weaponry and coordination. The ability to monitor and impede the communication of a domestic terror group plus the ability to carry out precision strikes from multiple sources with a broad range of munitions just seems to overwhelmingly tilt the odds in favor of our armed forces. 
Even if 30% of them walk out the door. (36%-40% is the current estimate of "conservative" active military) 

I'll leave it at that.
You're welcome to wave off my estimations all you like. That's just how I see it with my limited insight. 

 It's depressing that these conversations are even being had. 
Americans wanting to kill off another group of Americans that vote differently than them.
Really sad.

---

(02-05-2024, 11:05 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: You guys are so easily distracted. Can't even find common ground on blatant corruption. We're [BLEEP].

Blatant corruption is as old as the hills and doesn't care about politics or ideology. Just money. 

Thought we already covered that.

It truly baffles the mind. Personally I'm only doing violence if it's done against me. As in, they invade my home or my personal space and create a problem. I will 100% defend myself. Otherwise, I've got no beef with anyone who votes, looks, or lives differently than me. 

A lot of these mouthy far right nut jobs are just that - mouthy nut jobs who likely never served their country because they're cowards so they stroke their egos by playing 'protector of the people'. They should really seek mental health care. It's the ones you don't hear about that are the serious ones who could cause legitimate trouble.

---