522
Nancy Mace repeatedly shouts anti-trans slur in House hearing: 'I don't really care‘
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
522 points (97.8% liked)
politics
19829 readers
3537 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A war that becomes too costly to fight is a war lost. And kinda proves my point. I made no claim about how glorious, or easy an uprising would be, but i am not going to accept “its too hard” as a legitimate argument for giving up to tyranny. People are not very different, even at their most societal extremes, and the same tactics will work even better here in the states then where they were used on other countries soil, because of the very nature of guerrilla warfare and the previous advantages that the US enjoyed losing the previous wars would not be available.
Depends on what you're giving up if you lose. If you're giving up a random colony in tiny nation across the world from you, you can throw in the towel pretty easily. If the cost of losing is that you are unseated from power entirely and left at the mercy of your enemies, then any cost is acceptable.
Valid, and not really what I'm trying to say. Just that the form of resistance we're likely to see in the US is probably going to look different. Rather than Vietnam or the WoT, it may look more like The Troubles in Ireland, or something else entirely.
In the event of a complete collapse of the US government, it's unfortunately more likely that the right would take power, being much better armed. The right may be able to seize power and force a confrontation anyway.
As long as we lack the strength to win a full civil war, it would be very foolish to provoke one. Which tactics are best used when is debatable, but we should keep a variety of tools in the toolbox and adapt to conditions rather than assuming a certain tactic is always best.
No matter how specialized gorilla warfare would look, it’s still effective. Arming the progressives is key, which prompted my exclamation that all progressives should be armed. The narrative that guns should be banned is not only an unfeasible goal, but i do not see any way out of an armed conflict. And sure there may be other tools, but gorilla warfare is just ‘an irregular form of combat in which small, mobile groups use tactics like ambushes, sabotage, and hit-and-run attacks to fight a larger, conventional military force.’ Which is the exact scenario a rebellion would be facing and is proven effective against the US armed forces. Not sure what warfare you would argue would be better.
It's "guerrilla war," not gorilla. Getting armed is good. But if you disagree with my tactical assessment, I'd at least recommend reading up on the movements that actually employed those tactics successfully. For example, here's a very basic summation of the Vietnamese strategy:
We are not at all close to phase 2, we could hardly even be said to have started phase 1. There is no organized system of cells, no infiltration of organizations, no stockpiles of weapons (unless it's very well hidden, I suppose). Developing all those things is valid, but require time and effort. And generally an insurgency should also have a more presentable public facing front.
In short, it's complicated and if you're serious about it you should study and think critically about how to apply it.