U.S. Politics

TheSameIdiot said:
They pushed too hard, too fast. Will the new Republican base show up when Trump isn't on the ticket? Their court majority, generations in the making, could go down with the ship. They should've backed Clinton and silently controlled things from the sidelines, as they had for decades.
Click to expand...
I'm not so much worried that the current admin will win a future election, more that they won't have to. They took sledgehammers to so many institutions it will legitimately take decades of sustained work to get back to where we were which was... still not amazing in a lot of ways.
TheSameIdiot said:
I don't see it. Like the main characters in Trump 1.0, he'll fade from the public eye or go to prison. If we elect the right guy, they'll send him to the Hague.
Click to expand...
I think fading is the most likely positive outcome. But him going to the Hague, I feel would require a shift in the American character culturally that seems... let's say unlikely in the near term. We do not currently have the will to relliably prosecute our elites.
TheSameIdiot said:
Any general in the audience could've led a coup right then and there. A stiff breeze could end the Trump administration.
Click to expand...
It could, but from what I know of military folks it would never happen that way even if that was the intent. Just not the way they tend to think. They are a culture governed as much by the decorum of their actions as the actual rules. I think it's more likely to happen now than it ever has been, and I'd be stunned if some of those generals aren't looking to each other and have virtually telepathic communications about it.

But if it happened I don't think it would be bombastic. It'd be a sudden, abrupt thing that was over before we knew what was happening. A flurry of activity in the White House that no one could account for, or a quiet commandeering of Air Force One or something.
 
JakeEkiss said:
But if it happened I don't think it would be bombastic. It'd be a sudden, abrupt thing that was over before we knew what was happening. A flurry of activity in the White House that no one could account for, or a quiet commandeering of Air Force One or something.
Click to expand...
Right, and definitely not something they'd clue a reporter in on. "Yep, we're planning Operation Valkyrie as we speak. Should probably occur in two weeks."
 
The Hague is not where I would hope Hegseth would wind up, I hope due process takes him and others to a far more final position.
I do doubt that America has the moral and intestinal fortitude for all that, though, or even to imprison these obvious criminals and traitors, so we’ll deal with the surviving members of this administration for a long time.
 
AceofKnaves said:
The Hague is not where I would hope Hegseth would wind up, I hope due process takes him and others to a far more final position.
I do doubt that America has the moral and intestinal fortitude for all that, though, or even to imprison these obvious criminals and traitors, so we’ll deal with the surviving members of this administration for a long time.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt any government would ever send an American to the Hague. You guys are not part of the ICC and to send an American there would probably be a bridge too far for most Americans (especially Republicans and Independents). It is going to have to fall on the US legal system to do anything if they get the chance.
 
JakeEkiss said:
I'm not so much worried that the current admin will win a future election, more that they won't have to. They took sledgehammers to so many institutions it will legitimately take decades of sustained work to get back to where we were which was... still not amazing in a lot of ways.
Click to expand...
Yep. The key is to build something better, not reconstruct the old. Last Week Tonight hammered the administrative state over the years for its inadequacies to serve a population as big as ours. This country was built between 1933 and ~1970. After that, the reactionaries took control and slammed the brakes. It's time to be a functioning country again. Every bit of legislation shouldn't be forced into a budget bill because our legislative branch doesn't work. It starts with political reform and works down from there.
JakeEkiss said:
I think fading is the most likely positive outcome. But him going to the Hague, I feel would require a shift in the American character culturally that seems... let's say unlikely in the near term. We do not currently have the will to relliably prosecute our elites.
Click to expand...
I think that will change. Between tariffs, the Epstein files, DOGE, and billionaires destroying everything without consequence, people are mad. I hope the Democrats who take charge over the next five years have more guts than the current/previous ones. The corporate bribes and DOGE theft are open and shut cases. Once the public gets a taste for it and begins to understand just how corrupt this administration is/was, they'll get over any supposed norms.

Every Democratic voter I know only cares about one thing right now: which nominee wants to fit Trump with the tightest shackles. For my money, it's the big governor who openly talks about prosecuting anyone who breaks the law.
 
canprime said:
It is going to have to fall on the US legal system to do anything if they get the chance.
Click to expand...
Kinda my point, yeah, and the U.S. legal system is way too corrupt and ultimately too weak to do what needs to be done here. Should have done it when we had the chance, but Democrats are also incredibly pusillanimous.
 
AceofKnaves said:
“warfighter”?
Click to expand...
To be fair, and understanding there are in-military objections to this term; it's a valid word for military service members and someone within the DOD would probably be used to using it. It's not necessarily just a grossly 'macho' thing that an insecure little pissant wanted to say to sound cool. It's a term they really do use.

Hegseth is a fucking dipshit, though.
 
TheSameIdiot said:
They pushed too hard, too fast. Will the new Republican base show up when Trump isn't on the ticket? Their court majority, generations in the making, could go down with the ship. They should've backed Clinton and silently controlled things from the sidelines, as they had for decades.
Click to expand...
In a backwards way, I am reminded of Ollie's line in DKR about "sure you're quiet, but it's a loud kind of quiet" when he's explaining the escalation.
 
Damien said:
It's not necessarily just a grossly 'macho' thing that an insecure little pissant wanted to say to sound cool. It's a term they really do use.
Click to expand...
OK, so it’s not *just* that, but it’s also that.

Major apologies, but I could never take seriously anyone who uses that sort of terminology. Hilarious.

I should probably add that while I respect (or at least have more potential empathy for) a hypothetical individual soldier way more, in theory, than a hypothetical individual cop, I’ve got no more awe nor respect for the military than I do for the police as an aggregate “force”. I just can’t see my way clear to respecting any “authority”, and certainly I cannot respect any authority attempting to maintain itself through force.
 
Last edited:
AceofKnaves said:
OK, so it’s not *just* that, but it’s also that.

Major apologies, but I could never take seriously anyone who uses that sort of terminology. Hilarious.
Click to expand...
Major Apologies would be a great Classified character.

And I don't think it's also that all the time. Certainly some people use it that way. The term originated with trying to find a neutral term that can be applied to all service personnel but still is clear about their primary role (serving the interests of war -- whether you think that, just by itself, is inherently a macho thing I will leave to you). The idea being that a lot of the words we might use for service members either do not respect their role as someone that does war-related stuff (like 'service member') but also are often specific to certain branches.

ONLY the Army are technically soldiers. Only Navy have marines. So it's not right to address all people in the military as 'soldiers,' as that disrespects basically all branches of the military that aren't 'the Army.' So.... 'Warfighter' was the term they settled on to try to find this unicorn word that can encompass not only all branches of service, but also encompassed support, non-combat roles by pointing out that those people do still fight wars, even if they're not shooting the enemy.

Any personal feelings on the military aside, what they were trying to do made sense. The word they ended up with definitely evoked a lot of mixed response, and still does. Plenty of people in the military hate the term, but it's still an official word in the DOD for 'people in the military.'

AGAIN, this is not a defense of Heggy being a fucking idiot, which he absolutely is. But it is absolutely possible that he used the word specifically because it's the official word they use for trying to say 'everyone in the entire military structure,' just as much as because he thinks it sounds cool.
 
AceofKnaves said:
They need a new word, because that one makes them sound performatively macho to a comical degree.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the main argument I've seen against the word isn't that it's performatively macho, but that it's actually incredibly reductive and dishonest, since most of what the military does is not actually fighting wars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top