You’d think that but significant action required significant coordination. Coordinating these people without their guru would be like herding cats. Possibly, the leaders and influencers would tear each other apart, leading to mixed messaging, leading to apathy in the ranks.
The attempted coup made sense because they were united under their leader. Even then, while it was shocking, it didn’t accomplish any of their immediate goals. Without Trump, my guess is the high level individuals that effectively coordinated it would be too busy fighting each other to accomplish anything significant.
The other examples are individuals committing criminal acts, not significant actions. Maybe you’d see a flare up of those, but probably not that much as crazy individualists get bored quick.
I disagree with “significant action required significant coordination.”
One person can take significant action, as we saw in the news the other day.
I’m not agreeing with you and then saying that single people were coordinated; I’m saying that coordination isn’t necessary to perform significant acts.
I think we’re not talking about the same thing. Individual acts of terrorism are not significant in my view, the US gets a bunch of politically motivated shootings every year and it accomplishes absolutely nothing. They are horrible tragedies, but not political drivers.
I’m not Nostradamus but my guess is that if Trump were to suddenly up and die, his movement would fizzle out pretty quickly. His lackeys would fight for power Game of Thrones style, which would fragment the movement and make it essentially toothless. His fans would be agitated for a while, most wouldn’t do shit about it, a few would attempt shootings, even fewer would succeed and make headlines for a couple days. But nothing politically significant would happen. Just my $0.02 !
You’d think that but significant action required significant coordination. Coordinating these people without their guru would be like herding cats. Possibly, the leaders and influencers would tear each other apart, leading to mixed messaging, leading to apathy in the ranks.
You mean like the attempted coup?
Or like the guys that were hitting substations?
Or like the guys driving through peaceful marches?
The attempted coup made sense because they were united under their leader. Even then, while it was shocking, it didn’t accomplish any of their immediate goals. Without Trump, my guess is the high level individuals that effectively coordinated it would be too busy fighting each other to accomplish anything significant.
The other examples are individuals committing criminal acts, not significant actions. Maybe you’d see a flare up of those, but probably not that much as crazy individualists get bored quick.
I disagree with “significant action required significant coordination.”
One person can take significant action, as we saw in the news the other day.
I’m not agreeing with you and then saying that single people were coordinated; I’m saying that coordination isn’t necessary to perform significant acts.
I think we’re not talking about the same thing. Individual acts of terrorism are not significant in my view, the US gets a bunch of politically motivated shootings every year and it accomplishes absolutely nothing. They are horrible tragedies, but not political drivers.
I’m not Nostradamus but my guess is that if Trump were to suddenly up and die, his movement would fizzle out pretty quickly. His lackeys would fight for power Game of Thrones style, which would fragment the movement and make it essentially toothless. His fans would be agitated for a while, most wouldn’t do shit about it, a few would attempt shootings, even fewer would succeed and make headlines for a couple days. But nothing politically significant would happen. Just my $0.02 !
“Individual acts of terrorism are not significant in my view”
You can go find someone else to ‘argue’ with.
Pfff haha. Read the comment again. Slowly. You can do it !