Throw it on the pile? I guess?
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
608 points (99.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
10164 readers
3058 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
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
Normalizing the lack of consequences will be horrible to manage in the future. Any administration that wants to do any enforcement will have to deal with years of precedent of inaction.
'You want to punish me? Where was your 'righteous indignity' and your 'laws' when trump was in charge?'
That's why I say we have to either split the union and all be separate (free to join into smaller groups), or we just rewrite the constitution and remake the government from the ground up.
We have to do the latter regardless because we've proven the current ones are fundamentally broken and all it took was to act in bad faith. Literally all of this because there's intentionally no system in place to account for bad faith or no confidence.
That is actually the exact purpose of the second amendment. So that we the people can replace a government that no longer works for the people of the country.
I don't think the second option is viable.
You have whole states loving the pedo unconditionally. And they would need to sign a constitution that specifically bars them to try and summon a new trump.
They simply won't sign it. So you better start thinking as separate states that join to stay relevant and hope the red union that will shortly after form doesn't have imperialist aspirations. Otherwise you'll be in for a second civil war.
But the economics in the red states would lead to such bad living conditions that people would move, and then the spiral of no money, and no people to fight a war would lead to a very one sided victory.
The economics of the red states will pale in comparison to the question of where the weapons end up. There are a lot of nuclear weapons in deep red areas.
What you say is true, but everybody has lost the game if nukes are used. Their states wont be inhabitable either.
It's more about the threat, isn't it? If the other side believes you might be suicidally crazy, they might not want to fight the war, even if otherwise it would be a one sided victory.
The threat indeed, why we had a "nice" cold war, instead of the human ending one. I think both sides would have some amount of them. Not sure how that would play out since we've never had a large scalce war between two nuclear powers. Have only had small limited area, limited troop skirmishes. Like USSR/China near Mongolia and Pakistan/India at various border points. And even more limited is the India/China border skirmishes, that dont even have rifles, but rocks and sticks.
Fortunately the chance of those yokels actually figuring out how to use one is pretty much zero. They're complicated.
Don't discount the ability of people to follow simple directions and manuals. Also, don't discount that there are a large number of otherwise intelligent people who are maga. They have plenty of people who can do calculus, program in an IDE or on a circuit board, and carry on with all the other things you might view as impossible to ever happen at a republican convention. We all have strengths and weaknesses, and few are immune to propaganda. There seem to be a large number of people who have a peculiar weakness to 'simple' logic and strongmen blowing their own horn.
Anyway, without going into the weeds, let's just take a moment and appreciate that there was a very long and large chain of command that carried out the literal listed example of a war crime on pete's orders. There would absolutely be no issue for them to secure the weapons for a red government that told them to do such a thing.
The only state that has a separate electrical grid is Texas, and it sucks.
They are in the process of connecting to the national grid actually. I guess they could just disconnect it again
Ironic given that the secessionist Free State Project was instrumental in Tump's political career
Well I would imagine in such a scenario there would be large upheavals in state gov too. But you're right.
It didn't start with the orange turd, you wannabe "moral" hypocrites.
Go back, far far back and check if any one of the presidents faced serious repercussions.
I'd say the Watergate scandal was pretty significant and still involved consequences (at least compared to now)
Cant think of any other president acting in bad faith against the people for personal gain, can you?
i mean, the bush family has a lot of money in the weapons industry... but they where actually politicians and have plausible deniability between personal gains and political actions.