97
https://bsky.app/profile/msnbc.com/post/3m2kfp4k3wk2d
Libs get so worked up about typos.
Jesus Christ you're a news organization and you don't know the difference between a mayor and a governor, a state and a city, and who runs each.
---
This is a thread - https://bsky.app/profile/juliedicaro.bsky.social/post/3m2kd5v3ebk23
Honestly, sounds like a good premise for like a civil war or some sort of military conflict brewing which, I think the U.S. needs at this point at their homeland but whaddya know I'm not American
Yeah, I think it prudent to do it now to put them on their back foot and give them pause. They would not know how to handle that level of resistance and Trump only picks fights that he knows he can win. Could broker a peace before things get extremely ugly. But these people are civilian politicians, they don't know how wars and conflict are actually won.
More that they are trying to protect their own assess by being weak. They didn't learn from history.
I think your assessment is correct but given how many innocent would be killed in such a conflict I don't think anyone "needs" it
Innocents are already dying without any latitude to defend themselves. Challenging the monopoly on violence is the only hope the Amerikkkan has. The alternative is to aid the Hitlerite state, by action or inaction.
This is true and my above comment was not worded very well. It's just painful and frightening to think of how many more lives the :amerikkka: empire is going to take with it on the way down.
it is very scary for sure, and considering the ongoing history of not caring about really anything but rich white men's profits, i agree and don't think the number of dead innocent will be small by any stretch of the imagination
What good is freedom if you don't have a civil war to defend it with?