The report released by the Defense Department inspector general revealed that in fiscal 2023 there were 183 allegations of extremism across all the branches of military.
Sure, but again I think you’re underestimating just how enormous the US military industrial complex is. It’d take a notable percentage of mid to high ranking individuals to cause a significant amount of damage to the US’s military. You also have to consider the military isn’t just service members, but also civilians and contractors, so add in another few million people to that number.
Jan 6th wasn’t even remotely close to Trump actually succeeding in his half-assed coup attempt. The only real danger during that election was from the conspicuous attempts from Trump to get states to overrule the election results, which has nothing to do with the military.
I’m not saying this particular report isn’t concerning, I’m just saying it isn’t cause to become seriously worried for the future of the military’s allegiance to the constitution and their impact on the democratic process.
What? I think you underestimate how blocking the certification process would have turned the entire US government and state legislatures against Trump and Pence. The courts would NOT have ruled in their favor, even with hard right courts. They’d most likely just defer the issue to Congress, where they’d then have to contend with both the House and the Senate, the majority of which was NOT on board with Trump’s half-brained coup attempt.
I don’t see the vast majority of the top brass ever changing on that stance. There might be some extremist generals that would, but they’d be in the minority and certainly wouldn’t go far and would quickly be relieved of duty.
Jan. 6 was a test run and went further than they expected. The real thing is probably coming and it’s going to be bad. There’s a chance of saving this country, but it requires a contingent of people realizing they’re wrong and those people aren’t you or I.
At the time it felt like that, but this SCOTUS thankfully seems unwilling to entertain his election BS.
Remember, SCOTUS is powerful because the US is a stable constitutional democracy. In fascist coups the judiciary is typically first put against the wall. All justices not named Clarence Thomas are smart enough to understand this.
I fail to see how doing things like keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and domestic abusers or making it harder to purchase one on the spur of the moment will make anything easier for them. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
yeah, because guns are stupid and never help anyone with anything, except in making unstable people worse… only morons cling to guns for safety… guns are for the weak and fearful…
Or you can just think they’re cool like a car. Saying something is too dangerous to own is fucking stupid, we sell dynamite commercially and anfo by the ton. Bombings just aren’t common because they’re are reasonable licensing and registration requirements.
I’m trying to figure out your logic here. You seem to be trying to defend an undefendable position. Cars, afaik, typically require a license to actually own one, yet we don’t consider them too dangerous for someone to own. Are they too dangerous for an unlicensed individual to own? Yeah, but most people can get a license for one.
On the other hand, anyone can own a sword or a crossbow, or (afaik) build a maser out of a couple microwaves if they want to (or until recently, build and own a flamethrower), so those must be perfectly safe to own. I can pull the electron guns out of old CRTs and build a device pretty much guaranteed to cause melanoma in anyone I point it at. I’m sure the people who end up with skin cancer would be happy to know that the hacked-together cancer-beam I created is perfectly safe because it doesn’t require a license to own.
So I’m trying to figure out what your point is. You seem to be trying to say that if something is restricted, then it is “too dangerous to own” but that’s obviously not true. Yet for some reason, you’re trying to cling to this argument.
Well I sure feel safe.
I mean, 183 out of 1.4+ million is pretty small, even if you account for the ones they don’t know about.
The problem isn’t the small percentage. The problem is that if these people are in the right places, they can cause a lot of damage.
Bare in mind that the 2020 election was saved when a handful of people refused to follow Trump into fascism.
Sure, but again I think you’re underestimating just how enormous the US military industrial complex is. It’d take a notable percentage of mid to high ranking individuals to cause a significant amount of damage to the US’s military. You also have to consider the military isn’t just service members, but also civilians and contractors, so add in another few million people to that number.
Jan 6th wasn’t even remotely close to Trump actually succeeding in his half-assed coup attempt. The only real danger during that election was from the conspicuous attempts from Trump to get states to overrule the election results, which has nothing to do with the military.
I’m not saying this particular report isn’t concerning, I’m just saying it isn’t cause to become seriously worried for the future of the military’s allegiance to the constitution and their impact on the democratic process.
deleted by creator
What? I think you underestimate how blocking the certification process would have turned the entire US government and state legislatures against Trump and Pence. The courts would NOT have ruled in their favor, even with hard right courts. They’d most likely just defer the issue to Congress, where they’d then have to contend with both the House and the Senate, the majority of which was NOT on board with Trump’s half-brained coup attempt.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3520160-pences-lawyer-told-him-blocking-vote-certification-would-likely-lead-to-court-loss-standoff-with-congress/
Even Pence’s lawyer consulted him that they would almost certainly lose if he opted to block it.
And back to the original context of this whole comment chain, even the US military’s top brass at the time all said they would NOT back Trump’s claims and would absolutely not support his coup. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/563117-top-generals-feared-trump-would-attempt-coup-after-election-and-had-informal/
I don’t see the vast majority of the top brass ever changing on that stance. There might be some extremist generals that would, but they’d be in the minority and certainly wouldn’t go far and would quickly be relieved of duty.
Jan. 6 was a test run and went further than they expected. The real thing is probably coming and it’s going to be bad. There’s a chance of saving this country, but it requires a contingent of people realizing they’re wrong and those people aren’t you or I.
deleted by creator
At the time it felt like that, but this SCOTUS thankfully seems unwilling to entertain his election BS.
Remember, SCOTUS is powerful because the US is a stable constitutional democracy. In fascist coups the judiciary is typically first put against the wall. All justices not named Clarence Thomas are smart enough to understand this.
deleted by creator
I like turtles.
I fail to see how doing things like keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and domestic abusers or making it harder to purchase one on the spur of the moment will make anything easier for them. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
yeah, because guns are stupid and never help anyone with anything, except in making unstable people worse… only morons cling to guns for safety… guns are for the weak and fearful…
Or you can just think they’re cool like a car. Saying something is too dangerous to own is fucking stupid, we sell dynamite commercially and anfo by the ton. Bombings just aren’t common because they’re are reasonable licensing and registration requirements.
Don’t you think the reason there are licensing and registration requirements for dynamite is because it’s too dangerous to own?
It’s clearly not too dangerous to own, it’s dangerous enough to license… That was my point.
And if you don’t have a license, you are not allowed to ___ it?
I’m trying to figure out your logic here. You seem to be trying to defend an undefendable position. Cars, afaik, typically require a license to actually own one, yet we don’t consider them too dangerous for someone to own. Are they too dangerous for an unlicensed individual to own? Yeah, but most people can get a license for one.
On the other hand, anyone can own a sword or a crossbow, or (afaik) build a maser out of a couple microwaves if they want to (or until recently, build and own a flamethrower), so those must be perfectly safe to own. I can pull the electron guns out of old CRTs and build a device pretty much guaranteed to cause melanoma in anyone I point it at. I’m sure the people who end up with skin cancer would be happy to know that the hacked-together cancer-beam I created is perfectly safe because it doesn’t require a license to own.
So I’m trying to figure out what your point is. You seem to be trying to say that if something is restricted, then it is “too dangerous to own” but that’s obviously not true. Yet for some reason, you’re trying to cling to this argument.
Congratulations. You figured out my point in your first paragraph.
Purchase or possess, yes… You’re taking a real slow route to a very obvious point.
Register, license and own whatever the fuck you want.
So… own.
guns are for addle-brained fools who can barely string two thoughts together
Yes yes, bigoted hyperbole solves everything and isn’t at a projection of your insecurities.
and unsurprisingly guns are for people who like to defend themselves by projecting
How am I projecting anything? I’ve not said an ill word about or to you.
you hang onto those guns, son, i’m sure they help you