People keep talking about “Federalizing the National Guard” and now you’ve got other States pledging their NG to Texas in defiance of the Supreme Court (see image).
So is this what CW2 looks like?
P.S. I’m a Brit
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s not a totally unreasonable impression, but no, this will not turn into a second civil war. The Guard units of each state can be called up for federal duty. The National Guard is part of the US Department of Defense and thus ultimately answers to the DoD and the US president as commander in chief. The US military has multiple components, including regular services (eg the full time Army), reserve components (eg US Army Reserve) and National Guard components. The latter two are part-time military with one weekend per month training duty plus an annual training. Guards members and Reservists hold regular full time jobs.
The Guard units are deployable by the governors of their respective states, and so can be used in emergency situations like natural disasters. They have also been deployed against what have been perceived as riots that threaten lives and properties of the individual states.
However, they are subject to activation by order of the US president and they fall under the national command authority. Guard personnel take the same oath to the constitution as other military personnel, and cannot legally refuse federal activation. Guards personnel would be subject to courts martial and face potentially extreme penalties including being discharged from service under criminal conditions, being stripped of rank and benefits, and jail time in federal prison. This would be what we call a career limiting rule.
So, if push comes to shove, Biden can activate the NG and order them to stand down or to implement policies to maintain order. Thinking the NG units and in particular their commanders would disobey a presidential order because they just love their state governor and hate the president so much is getting into Turner Diaries levels of right wing apocalyptic fantasy.
They have also been deployed against what have been perceived as riots that threaten lives and properties of the individual states.
Yeah, like when they got called up against random citizens in Minneapolis…
deleted by creator
Robert E Lee famously didn’t want to fight the North but didn’t think of himself as a traitor for doing so, because his loyalty was to his state first, to the US second. And that was a common mindset at the time.
I think it’s possible that there will be resentment, but those with rank would be risking everything for zero gain. It would be determined by the people who wear the birds and the stars, and although there have certainly been high ranking officers who have engaged in conduct we might consider treasonous, it’s simply not going to be a common enough occurrence.
A Handmaid’s Tale scenario, where the US goes down the path of a Christian theocracy, is a possibility that concerns me,
.
You also have to factor in the fact that the military today is not a bunch of guys with rifles. It is carrier battle groups, fighter jets, sophisticated artillery systems, and other platforms that require massive supply chains to deploy and maintain. That’s just what modern warfare is. US aircraft carriers alone are crewed by 5000+ people.
Raytheon, Northrop, and Lockheed are not going to side with Ohio against the US government. The question is about civil war, not about a single military unit going rogue until the members are arrested or killed. Keeping planes in the air and tanks running requires a lot more than Ohio can do. The Feds spend about a trillion dollars per year on the military, and some Confederate missile battery is going to be in trouble once they run low on things to shoot and when their vehicles start to break down.
I’m not a fan of the military industrial complex, to say the least, but it’s an absolutely necessary part of warfare today.
deleted by creator
The difficulty with that scenario is that the US is bound by two oceans and has a navy more powerful in some estimates than the rest of the navies in the world combined. Ukraine can be supplied because they’re contiguous with Western Europe. North Korea could be supplied by China, as could Vietnam. To supply the neo-confederates, Russia or China would have to cross an ocean and get past the US Navy, as well as the navies of other allied countries. Then they’d have to bring in the systems via either Mexico or Canada, both of which would be allied with the US.
I think you could imagine a scenario where they smuggle in small arms, but not artillery or other modern weapons systems.
Unlikely, but if those ng declined federal call up, then all bets are off
You’ll find some dumb schmucks that refuse, but there’s no way the entire NG would refuse
Right but I’m talking about the mechanics of how it would happen. Agree, logically that many would honor the federal oath
All of which misses a critical point:
The forming of the Confederacy wasn’t “legal” either.
We can handwave away concerns about mounting threats of violence by citing regulation and law, but none of that actually addresses the underlying issue that if these people want to start shit, they will find an avenue.
And let’s also not sit here, in 2024, and assume the institutions, norms, checks, and intended safeguards in our system will always work when they need to. We’ve seen far, far too many breakdowns and failures in our system over the last decade to believe otherwise.
That’s what frustrates me so much about the framing of the situation we’re in right now: most people - and the vast majority of major media organizations - are fully intent on presenting this as “normal”, but it’s very fucking clearly not. It’s assumed by so many that the rules will simply be followed… and then they turn around and cover Trump, whose whole bit is to not follow the rules because he doesn’t feel like it and wants to stay in power forever. It’s like being unconcerned about standing 3 feet away from an uncaged, unleashed siberian tiger because someone once told you at one point that it had been “trained”.
You have to understand that the US military today is a very different organization than it was in the 1860s. I know - I served and majored in military history for my first undergraduate degree, and studied the civil war in particular. I also come from a military family with a father, grandfather, and uncle who served as officers until retirement age.
Far right domestic terrorism is a real and developing threat coming from both former military personnel and from civilians. The election of a far right government that shreds the constitution is also a major threat to American democracy. But if the shit does come down, it’s not going to be because some Guardsmen decide that they’d follow DeSantis over Biden.
Military justice is no joke. Falling on the wrong side of it can end people. The military is also very integrated and has political as well as ethnic diversity. I’m not saying you couldn’t find an Army colonel who wouldn’t want to engage in an armed rebellion, but the country today is very, very different than it was mid-19th century, and so is the military.
Please do note that I do see the rise of American fascism as a real threat. It’s just not going to manifest because state Guard orgs decide to disobey orders.
Thank you for sharing this insight! It’s frustrating to hear everyone everywhere speculate about how easily the active military would turn, not considering…well, everything you wrote.
Yeah, ex-military of course is part of the brainwashed; nowhere else in the civilian world (outside of mercenary work) is warfare conducting knowledge of direct use.
Add that our Government has not always done even the bare minimum for our vets, and you got a recipe for the radicalization of the “disenfranchised warriors” (quotation because I don’t consider oathbreakers worthy of any title).
They’re gonna fall and listen to the honeyed words of Fascism in a different, harder way than your average civilian. That’s a call to something they amongst the rest of their group are genuinely and tangibly valuable for–until they aren’t.
Please do note that I do see the rise of American fascism as a real threat. It’s just not going to manifest because state Guard orgs decide to disobey orders.
Same, and I do still worry for the death tolls. That “theirs” (the civilians, who can be said to not know better) would be orders of magnitude higher than any on the military’s side doesn’t mean I’d like to see deaths on either side.
Since you studied the Civil War, I got a book from my grandfather before he passed, Don’t Know Much about The Civil War, by Kenneth C. Davis, and was wondering if you’ve read of heard of this book and if it would be a good resource or not to read about the Civil War? Or if you can recommend another book or author that is great for learning about the Civil War, I’d appreciate any helpful insights as I’m curious to learn more about the Civil War, thank you.
The Battle Cry of Freedom is pretty widely seen as being one of the best introductions to the civil war.
Thank you! Luckily it’s at my local library so I’ll pick this up first thing tomorrow if they’re open, appreciate your help!
No.
Ayo check out the Cornfederacy up there!
All of the recent news surrounding Texas tells me we need to return to a more literal reading of the 10th Amendment. Bring back dual federalism.
Neither an American nor knowledgeable about constitutional and amendment law - would you mind elaborating please?
Context: The United States government has a federal structure, unlike most governments. This means that the federal/national government and the state governments have distinct divisions in power and responsibility. For example, the highest level of law enforcement that can legally exist is at the state level. Rogue Supreme Courts have made illegitimate and tyrannical rulings to grant the federal government some police power, even though the Constitution and Bill of Rights clearly reserve police power to the states.
That only the states have police power was implicitly understood prior to the ratification of the Tenth Amendment, the final amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment states that whatever powers and rights are not expressly granted to the federal government in the Constitution shall be reserved to the states or to the people. Since police powers are not expressly granted to the federal government, only the states may enforce laws. Again, illegitimate rulings by rogue Supreme Courts have granted this power to the federal government with no legal basis.
Dual federalism is this divide between the power of the federal government and the state governments. Over time, especially since the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, dual federalism has been eroded without meaningful constitutional amendments. Most people are generally satisfied with this, but when a state has significant differences with the federal government on the enforcement of the law or on matters of authority, the easy solution without having a civil war is to return to the state that which rightfully belongs to it: The powers implicitly reserved to it by the Constitution.
Other than those illegitimate Supreme Court rulings, only Texas has the authority to enforce border laws in Texas. The federal government, technically speaking, has no authority to enforce border laws anywhere, unless a constitutional amendment is ratified granting it such power.
The United States government has a federal structure, unlike most governments.
Most large countries have a federal structure. Just from my memory, Canada, Mexico, Brasil, Germany, Spain, Italy, Nigeria, South Africa, the UAE, Russia, China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia at least.
Dual federalism is this divide between the power of the federal government and the state governments.
Isn’t this just normal federalism?
deleted by creator
The vast majority of governments around the world are not federal. However, it is a popular system in countries that have diverse territory and demographics.
From Wikipedia:
Dual federalism, also known as layer-cake federalism or divided sovereignty, is a political arrangement in which power is divided between the federal and state governments in clearly defined terms, with state governments exercising those powers accorded to them without interference from the federal government. Dual federalism is defined in contrast to cooperative federalism (“marble-cake federalism”), in which federal and state governments collaborate on policy.
If you grew up in the United States, it stands to reason that dual federalism would be the default form of federalism to you. Also, since the 1930s, the 10th Amendment has been largely (and illegally) ignored, so today we mostly experience “marble cake federalism”. The way the Constitution is written, however, does not legitimize any form other than dual federalism with distinct and separate powers granted to the federal government and the states.
Thank you. I guess my country has a mix of these, depending on subject.
Thanks for explaining this. Your wording has a distinct bias of American exceptionalism, since your first sentence is patently incorrect - federal and unitary governments are roughly evenly represented across the world’s 200-odd governments. Not an attack, just a reasoned criticism, which may help explain the downvotes.
I was interested to learn about dual federalism and Eisenhower’s layer- and marble-cake metaphors. I didn’t realise that dual federalism was distinct, as I’m not a constitutional lawyer and am primarily familiar with Australian federalism and secondarily those of the US and Canada. In retrospect it’s unsurprising that the Australian federal system can be described with the layer cake metaphor, since our federation in 1901 was based on the American model!
It’s an interesting observation about the layer cake system, where states have primacy, becoming a marble cake, where constitutional law has been (probably deliberately) overlooked in the US over the years. It reminds me a bit of the gerrymandering and malapportionment issues, not to mention the electoral college systems affecting fair and open democracy in your country.
Good luck with it all - your insights will help me keep a keener eye on Australian developments to slow Australia’s slide towards the corruption of the fine American model. As seen in the (alarmist and fearful) question posed by the OP, the decay of democracy happens slowly until it becomes utterly obvious to most that the rot has spread throughout.
Thanks for explaining this. Your wording has a distinct bias of American exceptionalism, since your first sentence is patently incorrect - federal and unitary governments are roughly evenly represented across the world’s 200-odd governments. Not an attack, just a reasoned criticism, which may help explain the downvotes.
Thanks for your response. I am currently taking an American government course in my university and in the class it was explained that relatively few countries have federal systems. The Wikipedia page on the topic only lists 20 countries that currently have federal systems.
I’m always looking for more knowledge and information, so I’m curious what your source is that around 100 countries have federal systems of government. It seems like a large discrepancy from the information that I am aware of.
Good luck with it all - your insights will help me keep a keener eye on Australian developments to slow Australia’s slide towards the corruption of the fine American model. As seen in the (alarmist and fearful) question posed by the OP, the decay of democracy happens slowly until it becomes utterly obvious to most that the rot has spread throughout.
Yeah, it’s definitely alarming. The fact that the US government has basically given itself power that it’s not supposed to have freaks me out a bit whenever I think about it. Something for citizens of any country to watch out for.
The Wikipedia page on the topic only lists 20 countries that currently have federal systems.
Fair enough - I knew I should have supported that claim. An earlier commenter did, listing many - my claim probably represents a lot of countries with larger populations and/or enough wealth to support regional representative government. It may not be the majority - smaller countries like Tonga and Eswatini are notionally unitary monarchies, but I’d still be surprised if there weren’t chiefs on each island or in each significant town or region in most countries. It’s harder to qualify - my claim probably comes from looking at a world map and seeing 50-50, but it’s probably Mercator projection and recognition bias (I may be able to name all countries and their capitals, but not the ins and outs of their government systems, given it gets murky).
The fact that the US government has basically given itself power that it’s not supposed to have freaks me out a bit whenever I think about it.
Again this is an unsupported gut feeling, but this is what corrupt countries do, and I was going to say the US is nearly the only ‘marble cake’ democracy but I suppose people might be able to say “what about the Democratic Republic of the Congo?” which everyone knows is neither democratic nor a proper republic, but a barely-functioning government representing a large and valuable area of land easily manipulated by richer countries for its wealth. I suppose what I mean is that the US has, at least until recently, been the country most others and commentators sycophantically praise as a true democratic marble cake federation, when it is not truly democratic, it’s just wealthy, and that wealth is held by oligarchs in the same way as federations like Russia or Brazil.
Maybe my point wasn’t valid. Maybe it was a gut feeling. I don’t know any more, I’m just a downtrodden man.
I don’t think the conservatives are sufficiently unified to form a single opposition army. The problem with basing your appeals on hating “outsiders” is that you end up with a lot of internal hatred too. There’s also a strong undercurrent of “no one can tell me what to do” that makes central control unlikely.
What seems more likely are terrorist incidents, carried out be individuals and small groups, without any overall communication or strategy. We’re already seeing some of that. The lack of coordination won’t prevent it from happeing, but will prevent it from achieving anything.
I don’t think there are very many people within the MAGA movement who honestly want to resort to violence, whatever they tell themselves. The ones who are actually willing are the ones who wanted to hurt someone anyway. Politics provides them with an excuse, not a motivation.
I think we’re going to have a nasty time for a while, but I don’t think a right-wing takeover by violence has any chance of happening. I’m much more worried about a political takeover that then turns into an authoritarian coup. The left-wing has a much better chance of organizing as a whole, but I don’t think there are that many people ready to fight from that side either, but that could change as conditions get worse.
The right has been used, and steadily intensifying stochastic terrorism for a while now. You’re right, it’s not a strategy for a military takeover of the US. It’s just one step in the political takeover.
Taking into account the overall average of all the comments posted to tour question:
It looks one the answer is:
No one knows.
And as usual, the ones that act like they do know, are specifically the ones you should ignore.
Thanks for the summary. I just heard about the Florida State Guard in another comment. It’s been reactivated and I’m honestly more shocked that’s happened than this new thing. Creating an army separate from the main government is kinda the definition of starting an armed rebellion. But no ones panicking. The last time Florida had a state guard was WWII when it made sense cos the NG left.
But there’s no war. Everyone seems very calm and complacent right now.
Which makes me wonder - do you reckon Trump is shouting this stuff and Florida is provoking the Federal Government could be so Biden federalises so Reps can start shouting “Inssurection” and accuse him of doing what Trump did?
So basically pretend to sart a Civil War and if/when Biden moves to protect the Union Trump can scream - “EVIL INSSURECTIONIST DICTATOR”.
Cos that seems like a really, really stupid and dangerous thing to do. Normalising this level and extreme of sabre rattling is not good.
This has to be purposefully not getting media coverage so as to not incite panic/public support, right? When I saw the first ruling posted by Gov Abbott it seemed almost like a secessionist rant, but it’s NO WHERE to be seen in MSM
Attention is what they want. They want drama. They want the illusion of high stakes. We shouldn’t give them what they want.
Them defying the supreme court is a step they haven’t taken before. It forces Biden to respond or look incredibly weak. Either he allows a red state to actively break federal law and make treasonous statements or he arrests Abbott. It’s not just drama anymore.
It’s 100% drama. They’ve got you caught up in it.
No one in the National Guard is going to stop the CBP from cutting the fence down because their pension is on the line. The government of Texas doesn’t control that.
They were ordered to stop putting the fence up, ignored it, and continued to put the fence up. Yes, if the Texas National Guard is federalized they probably won’t refuse orders but that has to be an active choice by Biden to do. Until then, they are under the Governor’s orders which have been to ignore the supreme court ruling and federal law.
It is the definition of treason as the Governor is expected or trusted to obey federal laws.
Point of order: Nobody in Texas has been ordered to do anything. They’re completely allowed to put up razor wire under whatever rule Abbot cited. The court order was to allow the federal border guys to cut the wire if they needed to.
Legally, Texas is allowed to put up wire, and also legally the feds are allowed to cut it. That’s it. It’s a literal Looney Tunes situation. The nonsense from Abbot and the rest of the Rs is just chest-puffing.
They’ve been ordered to allow the federal agents to carry out their duties but adding new wire has “effectively barred” the agents from doing what the supreme court has ruled they have the legal right to do. Yes, they’re allowed to cut holes in existing wire but by constantly adding new wire and barriers, it’s actively defying that ruling.
I know the ruling doesn’t explicitly say “Texas can no longer put up razor wire” but this is like being told by your mom “your brother is allowed to play on the xbox” and you giving them an unplugged controller. They’re allowed to play on the xbox, you’re allowed to give them an unplugged controller, but you actively went against her ruling and earned a whooping.
But Texas already blocked CBP from a portion of the border https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-blocks-federal-border-agents-processing-migrants-eagle-pass-shelby-park/
Because the CBP barely tried to access it? I feel like the CBP was just told to wait them out, like a child. Let Texas have a temper tantrum and wait.
They probably had to wait for the fence cutting equipment anyway. This isn’t the DMZ border with North Korea. If there was a pressing reason to do it, it would have already happened.
Like I’ve said before, if Biden really wants to access it he could just sign the federalization order at 8 AM EST. All the Guard troops would wake up to a direct order to sit their asses down or lose their pensions. By 10 AM Texas time, the fence would be on the ground or the Guard CO would be unlocking the gate.
But that’s what Abbott wants to happen so he can escape this dumb situation he created. Biden is trapping him by not taking the bait. Now Texas looks dumb paying money to lose in court. Abbott wants Biden to do something so he can shout “Federal overreach!” and get donations.
I’d say its not getting coverage because Texas talks about seceding almost every year and states have been using their national guard as political tools for years now.
When the national guard was sent to DC after the insurrection, Texas pulled their national guard back because of “poor treatment”. I was there, there was no poor treatment. Texas (and several more states afterwards) used their national guard as a political tool to make the other side seem bad.
Very good point. I’d like to also think it’s not getting attention as to avoid prompting more idiots from joining in on the idiocy, but that’s likely me giving MSM too much credit.
Texas doesn’t talk about seceding. A tiny miniscile handful of people who live in Texas talk about it.
who’s the Youtuber in the bottom right
It’s Hasan Piker aka Hasanabi
I mean, isn’t this kind of keeping with the theme of US civil wars so far?
If I was creating a civil war bingo card based on history of civil wars in the US, “starts over how people with darker skin can be abused or not” would certainly have been on it.
Biden needs to send the army to Texas and arrest Winey Greg.
No no he just needs to appease his murderous posturing!
Abbot will be satisfied with getting what he wants for no cost to him, surely.
God, I’m a political genius.
I can’t speculate as to what Abbot wants, but he’s definitely asking for an armed confrontation with the U.S. Military, and as a Texan, I think Biden should give only Abbot exactly that.
there is such thing as an unlawful command. Is there a way the military deals with such commands?
I’m not aware of anything outside of the civil war. There have been impeached governors sure, but the feds stepping in to stop one or more states from being egregiously bad happened only once that I know of.
From what I’ve heard, the supreme court decision was mostly about the feds having access to the border, and the ability to cut down the razor wire, rather than any specific opposition to the razor wire existing in and of itself. I would wager this whole deal is mostly just a kind of political play, to try and egg biden into doing something stupid, while simultaneously keeping up the appearance that everyone at the head of these states is doing something dangerous, anti-institutional, and counter-cultural, even though they’re all kind of inherently unable to do anything along those lines just as a matter of their positions.
Everybody’s correct when they say that the political divides in this country are less clear-cut, but I also don’t think that the radicalization that we’ve seen, as a matter of perspective from being in online space, necessarily reflects reality. I think if you look at most people, most people want social security of some kind, and want healthcare of some kind, and want drug legalization of some kind, and want us to stop fighting wars in some form. Those are all kind of generalities, because the specific mechanism by which people want those things achieved differs from person to person. It’s very fractured as a matter of course, as a matter of how our political system and society is set up, and the ruling class has taken advantage of this to enact a divide and conquer strategy, where they can selectively promote whatever ideological positions benefit them the most, and cordon everyone off into a relatively small set of solutions over which they have a high amount of control. Rather than, you know, what a good democracy might do, which is come to a compromise solution, that everyone but the most extreme propagandized radicals might be kind of okay with. There is a reason why lots of conservatives like communism, as long as you use the right words. Both parties attempt to be mostly “populist” parties. This is all kind of obvious, right, but people understate the degree to which it’s a deliberate thing, and the overstate the degree to which it’s been successful, you know, which isn’t surprising, because, again, serves the interests of the powerful. People aren’t, broadly, morons, people have realized that this is all the case. That’s mostly what the “radicalization” that you’ve seen online has been, people just realizing that they hate these shitass solutions that aren’t really compromise solutions. See how everyone is cripplingly disappointed with the democratic party, and also how, likewise, conservatives are consistently disappointed with their own party, as well, and for many of the same reasons, barring the extreme radicals.
Most people are focused on how the internet divides people into radicalized swaths and conspiracy theorists, which is true, but even the mainstream monopolized internet is kind of a good tool for mass mobilization. See the occupy movement and the arab spring for older examples, for more recent examples, maybe the george floyd protests, or the french retirement protests. The only risk of these is kind of that they more easily get co-opted as a result of their visibility, i.e. “defund the police” gets turned into an argument for “fund the police”. If you were an asshole, you could cite charlottesville, or jan 6th, for examples of internet mobilization, but those are relatively smaller scales of things, compared to the others, which were more popular, they just got disproportionate media attention relative to their size, and had disproportionate political effects.
I think if we’re looking at the true, extreme political radicals, we’re seeing them come about as a result of a kind of well-oiled engine. I’m not gonna say that this is an institutional kind of thing, and it’s maybe more of a third level effect of active decisions, but it’s still something that, nonetheless, has been deliberately constructed. 4chan is funded by a japanese toy company and a hands off japanese internet techbro, and is administrated by some former american military freak who’s deliberately organized the site. The more radical offshoots, that use the same source code, tend to be funded by oil money, and political action committees, but through second-level effects, where they fund some small level conservative actor, and then they prop up the space. Which churns out some radical terrorists that are capable of your more fucked up bombings, and shootings, and controlled and coordinated protests. And then you kind of get military people at almost every level of this, in lower numbers, who act to control the space.
I dunno what I mean to extrapolate from all of this, but yeah. There’s probably not going to be a civil war.
There’s probably not going to be a civil war.
So… there’s still a chance then…
did we even have a federal military back then tho? because we have one now and no state could prevail over it.
The US Regular Army (RA) was founded in 1775. State militias supported the RA through the various wars fought on what is now US soil (including the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812). In the Civil War, the RA was supported by volunteers and fought on the side that ultimately won. The Confederate Army was similar to the RA at the time. Currently, the RA has been absorbed into the US Army (including Army Reserve and National Guard).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_Army_(United_States) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Army
So… yes there was a federal military, but it was a different thing than the US Army is now. How that would play out if things went bonkers in 2025… who knows. There are a LOT of people around the world watching VERY closely though… and really hoping (not that confidently though) that sanity will prevail.
If you read the popular opinions around 1860, we have the same “we are right and we’ll show them” attitude building up in the new poor-people-and-women slave states.
Yeah I see it (as a not American looking in from outside the country). Every time I visit the USA, the changes in things are more and more visible.
Apologies, but too verbose and meandering to gain insight/understanding from (and I tried). Also, its murder trying to read that on a phone (vs PC monitor) to boot.
Appreciate the attempt though, thank you for that.
I don’t even come to a conclusion in the thing itself, but the tl;dr is basically just that this is all political farce, political theater, and the nature of the opposition’s control is too like. granular, too atomized, to be able to co-ordinate a large scale war. What we see instead are discrete “events”, discrete attacks, civil unrest which is corralled and channeled towards political ends by political powers. That’s what we see, we don’t see like, large scale organized institutional conflict, because the institutions are (mostly) all on the same side.
Oh, this’ll be fun in the future when people try to whitewash it. We’ll have another chance to follow up by asking, “a state’s right to what, specifically?”
to drown parents and kids, i guess. ☹️
but honestly, i think Abbott is engaging is massive political theater. i seriously doubt that man’s interests are served by actual conflict.
Nah, just giving Texas back to Mexico.
This will all blow over once Trump fucks off to private dementia care to escape prosecution.
AKA Epstein’s Loli Island
I can’t imagine it disappeared with him, I wonder who’s running it now.
Donald Trump, of course!
Gotta grab 'em by their pussies!
That’s disgusting even in context
Exactly!
Trump is beating Biden in the polls and bookies have him as the favroite to win.
Unless some states that matter kick him off the ballot the US is headed for 2nd Trump presidency.
God help the entire world.
Polls and Bookies: America’s finest first option for information gathered from boomers.
Yeah you hear about bookies going out of business from bad lines all the time. /s
The house always wins. Haley is 20 to 1 just to win the nomination.
And polls are off but rarely outside the margin of error.
I don’t hear anything about Bookies, ever. But do go on.
Obama was well behind in the polls to Hillary a year out from the election. 45% to 27%. Polls right now mean nothing.
Weak king, so the local lords smell the opportunity to gain power, tale as old as time.
deleted by creator
It’s a supposed to be an amusing parallel with events people used to read about in history books. King is just a placeholder for someone with power, and if this person is perceived as weak, people down below in hierarchy might challenge that person. You are welcome.
