I keep trying to call the White House to express my disapproval but they just call me a dumb lib and send a gang of ICE officers to my neighborhood to kidnap my neighbors.
General strikes. Technically these are illegal when called by unions under the Taft-HArtley act, but if done at the popular level they can grind the country to a halt. But mass protest is the most effective way to bring down a corrupt government, and doesn't require waiting for an election and being disappointed by another round of political scams.
oh that isn't possible to organize
No with that attitude
authorities will brutalize the protestors
freedom isn't free
Americans are too comfortable/lazy to do mass political protest
Well we'll see whether that's true I guess.
what if this leads to civil war
If the alternative is corruption and tyranny, maybe that's a fight worth having. Authoritarian governments do not historically reach a point where they say 'well that's enough tyranny, let's not get carried away lest history think ill of us.'
Short of enough Republicans finally declaring enough is enough and deciding on impeachment or the fourth clause of the 25th Amendment, the only other option is for pro-impeachment senator candidates to run as Republicans in the primaries, which begin as early as March. Theoretically, if enough Republican senators up for reelection get primaried due to their refusal to rein in Trump, this may put pressure on the rest of the GOP’s senators to remove Trump this year, and this may also encourage the House (which only requires a majority to impeach).
Of course, the challenge is convincing the electorate in red states that Trump’s antics regarding Greenland are catastrophic enough to warrant his removal, given the stranglehold MAGA has on the Republican electorate.
You're completely dismissing all extraparliamentary means of opposition.
Protests. Riots. Strikes.
Y'know, the sort of thing that toppled Yanukovych in Ukraine, lotsa Middle Eastern dictators during the Arab Spring, British rule in India, Soviet control over the Baltics, etc etc etc.
Your politicians are use- and spineless. It's time for your people to step up.
And how did that work out for Ukraine, Egypt, India, etc? Protesting, rioting, and strikes is what people do in dysfunctional democracies like my home country of Bangladesh, where they recently just overthrew the government responsible for almost 15 years of continuous solid growth. Getting emotional and rioting is a third-world trait.
It is a virtue of Americans that they are unemotional and resolve disputes at the ballot box. America got rich because it grew at a modest 2% per year almost continuously for more than 200 years: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/theres-one-thing-we-can-alway.... Nothing is so important that it can't wait until the next election.
If people don't like what Trump is doing, they'll go out and vote in 2026 to reign him in, and then will vote for the other party in 2028. Even during the Civil War, Lincoln stood for reelection. And even with the Confederate States not voting, it was a vigorously contested election. Lincoln's margin of victory (about 10 points) was lower than in 12 elections we had in the 20th century. Reagan won reelection by almost double the margin that Lincoln did while he was Commander-in-Chief during the Civil War. FDR and LBJ won reelection by more than double the margin.
It is a virtue of Americans that they are unemotional and resolve disputes at the ballot box. [...] Nothing is so important that it can't wait until the next election.
MAGA does not fit that bill. January 6 was a direct attempt to overthrow an election outcome and by extension the government. The current executive is anything but emotionally well-regulated.
Only 4% or so approve of going to war to conquer Greenland, so if it gets that bad you might expect sentiment to keep turning. but his approval floor has been pretty steady at no lower than ~30 percent through every controversy so far.
I hope I'm wrong but I don't see American citizens rioting over international affairs unfortunately. Hopefully he'll be unpopular enough to lose senate, and his successor won't be as insane. That would be the best outcome.
Americans have a history of rioting over economic and social conditions, however. An attack on Greenland may open a Pandora’s box of consequences that will devastate America by us becoming a pariah state, which will lead to economic pain.
For the sake of the country, I hope that this is finally the red line that will get enough Republicans representatives to finally have the courage to rein in Trump, at least on this issue.
To add, this 56% is not evenly distributed politically. Protests in California, Minnesota, and New York (all blue states) are not likely to get red state representatives and senators to threaten Trump with removal. Blue state congresspeople are already on board with removing Trump, but removal can’t happen without 2/3rds of the Senate getting on board, which means this can’t happen today without some Republican support.
I’m a Californian. It’s one thing for me to write Alex Padilla or Adam Schiff; they’d vote to convict if they have the chance. But they won’t get a chance unless people like Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham say “enough is enough,” but I don’t live in those states.
Protest every weekend? build momentum until this can't be ignored? perhaps write to congressmen? attend townhall meetings and ask questions to your representatives? try to raise awareness to your friends who don't vote?
I have an American friend who keeps complaining about Trump. There was a protest in his city, but he didn't go because he had a BBQ to attend that weekend.
Seriously, this isn't fun anymore and Americans should be extremely concerned and start acting one way or another. It may be symbolic but it's better than nothing, if only for peace of mind.
Representatives already either agree it's bad (and can't do much about it) or will not listen to the public (because they're Republicans and indented to trump for their careers.
I don't have any friends who don't vote, really, and the midterms might not come soon enough to do anything here.
My senator had a head injury and reversed all his opinions for some reason, so I've called his office a lot but he's very pro Invading Greenland now, and pro criminalizing his voters. Unhelpful guy.
I would start preparing for all of this to happen, and tell your friend to get his passport up to date.
> Representatives already either agree it's bad (and can't do much about it)
Representatives can draft articles of impeached for the President.
Senators can start impeaching various Secretaries like Defence ("War") and Homeland Security. Or all of the Secretaries really, since they're not upholding the Constitution themselves by not invoking the 25A to get rid of a mentally unstable President.
Where are all these much-vaunted "checks and balances" that I've been hearing about for so long?
The much vaunted checks and balances rely on Congress and the supreme Court checking the executives power. Since the presidents party controls both, this doesn't happen. The Imperial Presidency has been absorbing power from the other branches since the 90s, and we are pretty close to the end of that process right now.
When the Republican Party has been largely purged of opposition to Trump (except for senators Rand Paul, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski and a tiny handful of people in the House), and when six out of nine Supreme Court justices are generally loyal to the GOP, then there are effectively no checks and balances.
Trump learned during his first term that he can bypass checks and balances by making sure the GOP is thoroughly MAGA. People who stood up to Trump have been sidelined, such as Justin Amash, Mitt Romney, and, most famously, Mike Pence, who stood up to Trump on January 6 and paid a heavy political price for it. That’s why Vance, not Pence, is the current VP.
Have protests ever stopped the creation of a dictatorship, in history?
> build momentum until this can't be ignored?
Your answer to "how do we stop this" is "do something until it stops."
> perhaps write to congressmen?
"Dear official who actively supports subverting our democracy: Please don't."
> attend townhall meetings and ask questions to your representatives?
Filed under "Rearrange the desk chairs."
> try to raise awareness to your friends who don't vote?
This (alone) would have the ability to change things... but at this point, they are hiding that shameful fact. Non-voters and supporters of third parties in the US are effectively supporting the status quo.
You didn't suggest this, but I already employee a spicy bumpersticker that complains about Trump, and give stern looks to the screen when the news reports on abuses of law.
> Have protests ever stopped the creation of a dictatorship, in history?
They do have the ability to change the course of actions. But even if it's just symbolic, massive protests would show the world that Americans aren't all in favor of the regime in place and some have a functioning morale compass.
> Your answer to "how do we stop this" is "do something until it stops."
That is, in part, a major aspect of resistance, yes. Protests on the weekends are great for community engagement and visibility, but constant pressure and activism are necessary. I think Minneapolis is a great example of how people should react when the situation gets bad. But even before that, getting involved in local organizations so that you're ready to help your neighbors is huge. For those of us not in Minneapolis, a general strikes would be great.
> It's absolutely ridiculous to read my comment as expressing any opinion with regards to the US administration. It's simply an accurate answer to the question presented.
Either you're being obtuse or you need to seriously reconsider how you communicate and how you expect others to read it.
Instead of saying "you're being obtuse", say "It seems that you're being obtuse here because ..."
> reconsider how you communicate and how you expect others to read it.
I think the problem is firmly on your side. If we're discussing potential approaches to dealing with political leadership that's on track to start a massive war and possibly get millions of people killed, violence is inherently going to feature in those conversations.
Where would you even draw the line? If a hypothetical leader of a country came on the TV suggesting that we should build large camps where we will kill all the jews, would it be okay to shoot them then? What if we replace killing the jews with re-educating gay people?
This conversation doesn't belong here and will devolve into a flame war. It's not my job to teach you how to communicate.
> I think the problem is firmly on your side
The fact that you're getting downvoted and flagged to death would lead me to disagree. It seems most people didn't interpret it as you intended, which is a failure of communication on your side.
>The fact that you're getting downvoted and flagged to death would lead me to disagree. It seems most people didn't interpret it as you intended, which is a failure of communication on your side.
The fact that I did not choose to tailor my communication to the people obsessively fighting their ideological battles on the internet does in fact not indicate a failure on my part.
There's simply no way a reasonable person can read my comments and reach the same conclusions you have.
Here's the same conversation we just had, simply with the US replaced with another country. Perhaps it'll help you understand just how ridiculous you come across as to someone who isn't emotionally invested in the culture wars:
Commenter 1: Why are residents of Germany letting Hitler go rogue internationally, risk going to war with basically everyone else and also murder all the jews?
Commenter 2: If you can think of a good way to stop that absolutely terrible thing from happening, I'm all ears
Me: You could shoot him
messe: I'm no fan of the German administration (I live in Denmark and am LGBT), but leave that inflammatory rhetoric off of HN.
And before someone brings up Godwin's law or something equally silly, we're literally talking about superpowers fighting over Europe here. Hitler is a perfectly fitting comparison.
We're presumably accepting the premise that the country is going to "go rogue internationally and risk going to war with Europe, Canada, or South America?".
Would it similarly have been a horrible thing in your mind if someone had shot Vladimir Putin in January 2014?
Because we, collectively, have abdicated our responsibility to elect thoughtful representatives who care about the rule of law and betterment of society.
That abdication has lasted decades and led to what is essentially a cascading failure across multiple levels and wings of government.
Despite appearances, Trump's power is largely political. If he didn't have the support of the Republican party, he couldn't do most of the things he's doing, since Congress would override him.
But the reality is that he still has significant public support, from a public who get most of their current events from filtered, biased news media. In that way, we've actually become remarkably similar to Russia under Putin.
I mean, I understand the frustration, but this like asking why don't the Russian citizens just, you know, make Putin stop invading Ukraine.
I did my part, but I have 70 million compatriots that are just all too willing to allow the earth scorching as long as it means they don't have to see another black little mermaid.
Because most Americans don't care about what's going on in the rest of the world and basically just care about inflation: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/HHP... (p. 16). Even after everything, a majority of Americans say Trump is doing a better job than Biden, who had worse inflation on his watch (p. 18).
Americans don't care because they don't have to. In Germany, 40-45% of GDP is exports: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?location.... In the U.S., it's just 10-11%: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?location.... Exports to the EU are just over 1% of GDP. To put that into perspective, if exports evaporated completely, that would wipe out just three years of American GDP-per-capita growth. For Germany, it would wipe out more than two decades of GDP per capita growth.
That not only means that 90% of America's economy is domestic. It means that most people have no exposure to the rest of the world through their workplaces. To the extent they do, that experience is with Canada and Mexico--we have twice as much trade with those countries as with the EU. Canada and Mexico have essentially zero meaningful leverage over the U.S. So even for the relatively few Americans who have some exposure to the rest of the world, most of their exposure is to relationships where America is the utterly dominant party.
In some ways some people are literally blinded to the problems they cause because as you say, they do not and some say cannot see the problem.
A good discussion on the topic is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jooEsmOOm2k
tl;dw - authoritarianism and conservatism directly impact your cognition and ability to reason about the world and prefer abductive reasoning and avoiding new information.
"Republicans don’t want to hear this, but there’s a pretty long-standing body of social science research that indicates people who have right-wing attitudes, particularly regarding religion and epistemology, appear to have lower cognitive capacity." (and it gets worse with age because you do not receive new information)
What makes this disillusionment even more difficult to claim is that it’s the same argument that’s used to counter liberals by saying they are all sheep, etc.
Which, leads us to simply morals and ethics. Two sides with two different views who both are angry at the other for not having their views.
That’s not to say both are right, but there’s surely one side that has a lot more care for us all as humans vs thee.
I've met all sorts of people and they're generally not dumb, so it’s not mass stupidity but maybe narrative capture. When media incentives align with wealth and power, propaganda becomes pervasive and people absorb it without realizing it. Social media algorithms and echo chambers amplify this.
The myth of the American Dream (reinforced by the prosperity gospel and fused with the modern conservative movement) has turned greed and hierarchy into “virtues.”
What’s strange is that the people selling it (Trump, Musk, etc.) come across as profoundly miserable.
I've met all sorts of very rational people, but when you bring up immigrants their brain reasoning centers turn off and they start frothing over Haitians eating dogs.
You have to know how to trigger it, cause Trump knows it extremely well. Studies have shown for a long time the human brain is wired to prioritize group loyalty over factual accuracy.
If you think the average American has any real control over what comes out of the White House these days, I have some ocean-front property in Kansas City to sell you.
We can't give up our power just because the situation is difficult. We need to assert as much power as possible. Organize; talk openly about the problem; coordinate plans for voting (yes, I know its early). Pressure politicians. There are things individuals can do, right now. No, it's not enough on our own. But if we don't act as individuals, then we really are screwed.
It's not, it's supposed to make you come up with your own answers, because sometimes the answer is more obvious to see when you see someone else with the same problem, and pretend you're helping them, instead of helping yourself.
Ironically the original intent of the second amendment was closer to "the states should have a lot of people used to using guns so they can raise militias if necessary".
ICE has recruited a lot of those people - you don't see as many weird paramilitary militia groups as you did back in 2020. So I guess it technically worked as intended here. Unfortunately that means more jackboots with "don't tread on me" flags on their unmarked vans.
you're thinking systemically. chaosh ish a ladder, shansha. this will lead to overall downturns in everything but pockets of extreme windfall for people well positioned to either sell the US the supplies it needs to engage in war all the time against everyone or to distribute looted assets, and those are the people influencing the decision the most.
Living in the EU, I'm skeptical any of this happens. Our leaders have been pretty reluctant to push back on anything so far and most of these assets are private anyway.
> unlike Canadians.
Who did what? Symbolically threaten to tax electricity exports to some cities close to the border and stopped importing American booze?
European banks need the swap lines by the Fed to stay afloat. ECB, BoE, SNB, Denmark, Sweden, all are on USD life support.
The only viable way to do this would be for the EU to fully switch out of USA/USD into China/BRICS but Russia won't allow it and who is going to buy EU's exports? Not China.
But that analysis of viable options is for rational and competent leadership, so who knows.
EU banks: 1. Lend and trade in USD; 2. Have a shitload of deposits (liabilities) in USD-denominated accounts [1] [2] (1 trillion?)
A huge amount of EU imports (from outside Europe) have to be paid in USD. Like oil/natgas/commodities and manufactured stuff.
The Euro is not really used as reserve currency outside of EU.
So if EU goes into economic war with USA by dumping US treasuries: 1. they would be trading those treasuries for something else (EUR denominated bonds? yuan? something else?); 2. no more swap lines and goodbye exports to USA so USD debt trap with depositors (forced conversion to EUR?); 3. How are they going to pay imports without USD lines?
The only other big player who can give them equivalent liquidity in swap lines is China. But as I stated, that would be even worse than USD dependency and less likely.
All this while the EU industrial base is on the brink and with a huge dependency on American natgas and Chinese supply chain. They cornered themselves and they can't do much without huge sacrifices. The only way out needs a complete shakeup of the leadership in Brussels and a new economic plan. I wouldn't bet on that happening.
Won’t flooding the market with large supply of bonds being sold at one time cause the price of the bonds to drop, resulting in losses for the sellers of the bonds?
Meanwhile, the bond holders that don’t sell, can wait it out until the bond pays out or the selling mania stops, and the price returns to equilibrium.
That won't work... that will crash the price of [new] bonds, and more capitalized nations will buy the dip. You are operating under an assumption that the humans controlling a quantity of wealth enough to [quote] "crash the bonds market" make decisions based on principles. They don't - and if you compare history with a long term bond price chart then it will become apparent.
Now, pray tell, which other nations are more capitalized than the world's third largest economy? Who would buy the dip? China? I doubt it. And nobody else has the scale.
Could, but inevitably one member state will veto it because of their niche interests. See also: EU-Mercosur trade agreements.
We get nothing done in the EU because we are all prisoners to 27 different voting populations, and nothing moves forward if even one of them opposes it
perpetual war is great for neoliberalism because it forces public spending on private, consumable goods. no matter how many bombs you buy today you're gonna need more tomorrow, it's in the nature of bombs. then later if there's ever a break in the destruction the bombmakers can invest their windfall profits in construction companies, thus winning in both directions.
> enjoy watching their family get beaten bloody, ie. Stockholm syndrome
That's sadism or something, not Stockholm Syndrome which is about victims forming psychological bonds with their abductors, named so after it happened in Stockholm in 1973.
I think it's less about "like to see someone get beaten" and more "see someone who thought they owned the world and could bully others around, crumble under their own incompetence is satisfying", or something like that. Personally, I think it sucks, but I do understand how others can see it in different light, considering the long history of meddling with others.
I'm all for us Americans feeling the pain of electing this idiot, but let's not forget that only 30% of eligible voters actually voted for him. It is a shame that more didn't vote against him, but when the Democrats decided to run someone that the country didn't even remember existed a few months before the election, instead of for the 2 years PRIOR to the election, she never had the chance.
Ah, 30% voted for him, but more than 30% decided it didn’t matter to them which one was in power. It’s unclear to me if that apathetic percentage has actually moved significantly.
Why are Americans letting their country go rogue internationally and risk going to war with Europe, Canada, or South America?
I keep trying to call the White House to express my disapproval but they just call me a dumb lib and send a gang of ICE officers to my neighborhood to kidnap my neighbors.
If you can think of a good way to stop it happening before the midterms, I'm all ears.
General strikes. Technically these are illegal when called by unions under the Taft-HArtley act, but if done at the popular level they can grind the country to a halt. But mass protest is the most effective way to bring down a corrupt government, and doesn't require waiting for an election and being disappointed by another round of political scams.
oh that isn't possible to organize No with that attitude
authorities will brutalize the protestors freedom isn't free
Americans are too comfortable/lazy to do mass political protest Well we'll see whether that's true I guess.
what if this leads to civil war If the alternative is corruption and tyranny, maybe that's a fight worth having. Authoritarian governments do not historically reach a point where they say 'well that's enough tyranny, let's not get carried away lest history think ill of us.'
[dead]
Short of enough Republicans finally declaring enough is enough and deciding on impeachment or the fourth clause of the 25th Amendment, the only other option is for pro-impeachment senator candidates to run as Republicans in the primaries, which begin as early as March. Theoretically, if enough Republican senators up for reelection get primaried due to their refusal to rein in Trump, this may put pressure on the rest of the GOP’s senators to remove Trump this year, and this may also encourage the House (which only requires a majority to impeach).
Of course, the challenge is convincing the electorate in red states that Trump’s antics regarding Greenland are catastrophic enough to warrant his removal, given the stranglehold MAGA has on the Republican electorate.
You're completely dismissing all extraparliamentary means of opposition.
Protests. Riots. Strikes.
Y'know, the sort of thing that toppled Yanukovych in Ukraine, lotsa Middle Eastern dictators during the Arab Spring, British rule in India, Soviet control over the Baltics, etc etc etc.
Your politicians are use- and spineless. It's time for your people to step up.
And how did that work out for Ukraine, Egypt, India, etc? Protesting, rioting, and strikes is what people do in dysfunctional democracies like my home country of Bangladesh, where they recently just overthrew the government responsible for almost 15 years of continuous solid growth. Getting emotional and rioting is a third-world trait.
It is a virtue of Americans that they are unemotional and resolve disputes at the ballot box. America got rich because it grew at a modest 2% per year almost continuously for more than 200 years: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/theres-one-thing-we-can-alway.... Nothing is so important that it can't wait until the next election.
If people don't like what Trump is doing, they'll go out and vote in 2026 to reign him in, and then will vote for the other party in 2028. Even during the Civil War, Lincoln stood for reelection. And even with the Confederate States not voting, it was a vigorously contested election. Lincoln's margin of victory (about 10 points) was lower than in 12 elections we had in the 20th century. Reagan won reelection by almost double the margin that Lincoln did while he was Commander-in-Chief during the Civil War. FDR and LBJ won reelection by more than double the margin.
It is a virtue of Americans that they are unemotional and resolve disputes at the ballot box. [...] Nothing is so important that it can't wait until the next election.
MAGA does not fit that bill. January 6 was a direct attempt to overthrow an election outcome and by extension the government. The current executive is anything but emotionally well-regulated.
Last time I checked, only 56% of Americans disapproved Trump's actions. Not enough to trigger big riots...
https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
Only 4% or so approve of going to war to conquer Greenland, so if it gets that bad you might expect sentiment to keep turning. but his approval floor has been pretty steady at no lower than ~30 percent through every controversy so far.
I hope I'm wrong but I don't see American citizens rioting over international affairs unfortunately. Hopefully he'll be unpopular enough to lose senate, and his successor won't be as insane. That would be the best outcome.
Americans have a history of rioting over economic and social conditions, however. An attack on Greenland may open a Pandora’s box of consequences that will devastate America by us becoming a pariah state, which will lead to economic pain.
For the sake of the country, I hope that this is finally the red line that will get enough Republicans representatives to finally have the courage to rein in Trump, at least on this issue.
May I introduce you to the 3.5% rule? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.5%25_rule
To add, this 56% is not evenly distributed politically. Protests in California, Minnesota, and New York (all blue states) are not likely to get red state representatives and senators to threaten Trump with removal. Blue state congresspeople are already on board with removing Trump, but removal can’t happen without 2/3rds of the Senate getting on board, which means this can’t happen today without some Republican support.
I’m a Californian. It’s one thing for me to write Alex Padilla or Adam Schiff; they’d vote to convict if they have the chance. But they won’t get a chance unless people like Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham say “enough is enough,” but I don’t live in those states.
Protest every weekend? build momentum until this can't be ignored? perhaps write to congressmen? attend townhall meetings and ask questions to your representatives? try to raise awareness to your friends who don't vote?
I have an American friend who keeps complaining about Trump. There was a protest in his city, but he didn't go because he had a BBQ to attend that weekend.
Seriously, this isn't fun anymore and Americans should be extremely concerned and start acting one way or another. It may be symbolic but it's better than nothing, if only for peace of mind.
Representatives already either agree it's bad (and can't do much about it) or will not listen to the public (because they're Republicans and indented to trump for their careers.
I don't have any friends who don't vote, really, and the midterms might not come soon enough to do anything here.
My senator had a head injury and reversed all his opinions for some reason, so I've called his office a lot but he's very pro Invading Greenland now, and pro criminalizing his voters. Unhelpful guy.
I would start preparing for all of this to happen, and tell your friend to get his passport up to date.
> Representatives already either agree it's bad (and can't do much about it)
Representatives can draft articles of impeached for the President.
Senators can start impeaching various Secretaries like Defence ("War") and Homeland Security. Or all of the Secretaries really, since they're not upholding the Constitution themselves by not invoking the 25A to get rid of a mentally unstable President.
Where are all these much-vaunted "checks and balances" that I've been hearing about for so long?
Did you pay attention to his last impeachment?
The much vaunted checks and balances rely on Congress and the supreme Court checking the executives power. Since the presidents party controls both, this doesn't happen. The Imperial Presidency has been absorbing power from the other branches since the 90s, and we are pretty close to the end of that process right now.
When the Republican Party has been largely purged of opposition to Trump (except for senators Rand Paul, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski and a tiny handful of people in the House), and when six out of nine Supreme Court justices are generally loyal to the GOP, then there are effectively no checks and balances.
Trump learned during his first term that he can bypass checks and balances by making sure the GOP is thoroughly MAGA. People who stood up to Trump have been sidelined, such as Justin Amash, Mitt Romney, and, most famously, Mike Pence, who stood up to Trump on January 6 and paid a heavy political price for it. That’s why Vance, not Pence, is the current VP.
> Protest every weekend?
Have protests ever stopped the creation of a dictatorship, in history?
> build momentum until this can't be ignored?
Your answer to "how do we stop this" is "do something until it stops."
> perhaps write to congressmen?
"Dear official who actively supports subverting our democracy: Please don't."
> attend townhall meetings and ask questions to your representatives?
Filed under "Rearrange the desk chairs."
> try to raise awareness to your friends who don't vote?
This (alone) would have the ability to change things... but at this point, they are hiding that shameful fact. Non-voters and supporters of third parties in the US are effectively supporting the status quo.
You didn't suggest this, but I already employee a spicy bumpersticker that complains about Trump, and give stern looks to the screen when the news reports on abuses of law.
> Have protests ever stopped the creation of a dictatorship, in history?
They do have the ability to change the course of actions. But even if it's just symbolic, massive protests would show the world that Americans aren't all in favor of the regime in place and some have a functioning morale compass.
> Have protests ever stopped the creation of a dictatorship, in history?
They have in my country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2009_Moldovan_parliament...
And in Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
And in many other places.
> Your answer to "how do we stop this" is "do something until it stops."
That is, in part, a major aspect of resistance, yes. Protests on the weekends are great for community engagement and visibility, but constant pressure and activism are necessary. I think Minneapolis is a great example of how people should react when the situation gets bad. But even before that, getting involved in local organizations so that you're ready to help your neighbors is huge. For those of us not in Minneapolis, a general strikes would be great.
You could do as the Ukrainians did for a start : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
Kind of hard to pull off in a country that helped orchestrate it and with a lot more people to defend the status quo.
Personally, I'm hoping Danish special forces are currently building a replica of Trump's house.
[dead]
[flagged]
I'm no fan of the US administration (I live in Denmark and am LGBT), but leave that inflammatory rhetoric off of HN.
[flagged]
> It's absolutely ridiculous to read my comment as expressing any opinion with regards to the US administration. It's simply an accurate answer to the question presented.
Either you're being obtuse or you need to seriously reconsider how you communicate and how you expect others to read it.
Go on, actually use words.
Instead of saying "you're being obtuse", say "It seems that you're being obtuse here because ..."
> reconsider how you communicate and how you expect others to read it.
I think the problem is firmly on your side. If we're discussing potential approaches to dealing with political leadership that's on track to start a massive war and possibly get millions of people killed, violence is inherently going to feature in those conversations.
Where would you even draw the line? If a hypothetical leader of a country came on the TV suggesting that we should build large camps where we will kill all the jews, would it be okay to shoot them then? What if we replace killing the jews with re-educating gay people?
This conversation doesn't belong here and will devolve into a flame war. It's not my job to teach you how to communicate.
> I think the problem is firmly on your side
The fact that you're getting downvoted and flagged to death would lead me to disagree. It seems most people didn't interpret it as you intended, which is a failure of communication on your side.
>The fact that you're getting downvoted and flagged to death would lead me to disagree. It seems most people didn't interpret it as you intended, which is a failure of communication on your side.
The fact that I did not choose to tailor my communication to the people obsessively fighting their ideological battles on the internet does in fact not indicate a failure on my part.
There's simply no way a reasonable person can read my comments and reach the same conclusions you have.
Here's the same conversation we just had, simply with the US replaced with another country. Perhaps it'll help you understand just how ridiculous you come across as to someone who isn't emotionally invested in the culture wars:
Commenter 1: Why are residents of Germany letting Hitler go rogue internationally, risk going to war with basically everyone else and also murder all the jews?
Commenter 2: If you can think of a good way to stop that absolutely terrible thing from happening, I'm all ears
Me: You could shoot him
messe: I'm no fan of the German administration (I live in Denmark and am LGBT), but leave that inflammatory rhetoric off of HN.
And before someone brings up Godwin's law or something equally silly, we're literally talking about superpowers fighting over Europe here. Hitler is a perfectly fitting comparison.
NO. Just no.
Why not?
We're presumably accepting the premise that the country is going to "go rogue internationally and risk going to war with Europe, Canada, or South America?".
Would it similarly have been a horrible thing in your mind if someone had shot Vladimir Putin in January 2014?
Americans don't live in Russia. How does that comparison even make sense?
Is it all about American exceptionalism then?
Because we, collectively, have abdicated our responsibility to elect thoughtful representatives who care about the rule of law and betterment of society.
That abdication has lasted decades and led to what is essentially a cascading failure across multiple levels and wings of government.
Despite appearances, Trump's power is largely political. If he didn't have the support of the Republican party, he couldn't do most of the things he's doing, since Congress would override him.
But the reality is that he still has significant public support, from a public who get most of their current events from filtered, biased news media. In that way, we've actually become remarkably similar to Russia under Putin.
Trump has around 90% support from Republicans.
Honestly, this looks very much like 1930s Germany. I really wish that weren't an exaggeration.
With Trump admin being protected by ICE goons and surrounded by people loyal to him, TrumpPutin is exactly what is gonna happen.
>filtered, biased news media
There isn't a lot of unbiased media, in any political direction. Danish media is no different.
BSABSVR? Really? BS.
I have no idea what you're saying.
I mean, I understand the frustration, but this like asking why don't the Russian citizens just, you know, make Putin stop invading Ukraine.
I did my part, but I have 70 million compatriots that are just all too willing to allow the earth scorching as long as it means they don't have to see another black little mermaid.
Because there is no risk of war. Hyperventilating online isnt reality.
Because most Americans don't care about what's going on in the rest of the world and basically just care about inflation: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/HHP... (p. 16). Even after everything, a majority of Americans say Trump is doing a better job than Biden, who had worse inflation on his watch (p. 18).
Americans don't care because they don't have to. In Germany, 40-45% of GDP is exports: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?location.... In the U.S., it's just 10-11%: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?location.... Exports to the EU are just over 1% of GDP. To put that into perspective, if exports evaporated completely, that would wipe out just three years of American GDP-per-capita growth. For Germany, it would wipe out more than two decades of GDP per capita growth.
That not only means that 90% of America's economy is domestic. It means that most people have no exposure to the rest of the world through their workplaces. To the extent they do, that experience is with Canada and Mexico--we have twice as much trade with those countries as with the EU. Canada and Mexico have essentially zero meaningful leverage over the U.S. So even for the relatively few Americans who have some exposure to the rest of the world, most of their exposure is to relationships where America is the utterly dominant party.
The edgy conservatives who frequent HN these days will be notably silent in offering a response to this.
They don’t view anything that is going on as incorrect or “the wrong direction”.
In some ways some people are literally blinded to the problems they cause because as you say, they do not and some say cannot see the problem.
A good discussion on the topic is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jooEsmOOm2k tl;dw - authoritarianism and conservatism directly impact your cognition and ability to reason about the world and prefer abductive reasoning and avoiding new information.
"Republicans don’t want to hear this, but there’s a pretty long-standing body of social science research that indicates people who have right-wing attitudes, particularly regarding religion and epistemology, appear to have lower cognitive capacity." (and it gets worse with age because you do not receive new information)
So basically ideological phrenology.
What makes this disillusionment even more difficult to claim is that it’s the same argument that’s used to counter liberals by saying they are all sheep, etc.
Which, leads us to simply morals and ethics. Two sides with two different views who both are angry at the other for not having their views.
That’s not to say both are right, but there’s surely one side that has a lot more care for us all as humans vs thee.
I've met all sorts of people and they're generally not dumb, so it’s not mass stupidity but maybe narrative capture. When media incentives align with wealth and power, propaganda becomes pervasive and people absorb it without realizing it. Social media algorithms and echo chambers amplify this.
The myth of the American Dream (reinforced by the prosperity gospel and fused with the modern conservative movement) has turned greed and hierarchy into “virtues.”
What’s strange is that the people selling it (Trump, Musk, etc.) come across as profoundly miserable.
I've met all sorts of very rational people, but when you bring up immigrants their brain reasoning centers turn off and they start frothing over Haitians eating dogs.
You have to know how to trigger it, cause Trump knows it extremely well. Studies have shown for a long time the human brain is wired to prioritize group loyalty over factual accuracy.
"Why are Americans"
If you think the average American has any real control over what comes out of the White House these days, I have some ocean-front property in Kansas City to sell you.
We can't give up our power just because the situation is difficult. We need to assert as much power as possible. Organize; talk openly about the problem; coordinate plans for voting (yes, I know its early). Pressure politicians. There are things individuals can do, right now. No, it's not enough on our own. But if we don't act as individuals, then we really are screwed.
we're in the streets every day being brutalized by the regimes masked, armed thugs. what else would you like from us?
When Americans have said the same about Russians for a decade, who gave you the same response, what did the Americans reply?
Americans aren't one person. Regardless, this is whataboutism.
It's not, it's supposed to make you come up with your own answers, because sometimes the answer is more obvious to see when you see someone else with the same problem, and pretend you're helping them, instead of helping yourself.
you know, if i say one thing and a different american says a different thing that doesn't make us hypocrites, it makes us two different people
Wow, I had no idea, I thought people in the same country were the same person?
Now when we've both shaken off our much pent in sarcasm, what would you say to them?
I thought your 2nd Amendment was supposed to prevent that.
Ironically the original intent of the second amendment was closer to "the states should have a lot of people used to using guns so they can raise militias if necessary".
ICE has recruited a lot of those people - you don't see as many weird paramilitary militia groups as you did back in 2020. So I guess it technically worked as intended here. Unfortunately that means more jackboots with "don't tread on me" flags on their unmarked vans.
> only if foreign holders of US assets are willing to suffer financially
As a foreign-domiciled holder of US assets, my vibe is that losing the rule of law would indirectly lead to significantly more financial suffering.
How well did bond-holders fare, getting out of the last Lebensraum era?
you're thinking systemically. chaosh ish a ladder, shansha. this will lead to overall downturns in everything but pockets of extreme windfall for people well positioned to either sell the US the supplies it needs to engage in war all the time against everyone or to distribute looted assets, and those are the people influencing the decision the most.
Living in the EU, I'm skeptical any of this happens. Our leaders have been pretty reluctant to push back on anything so far and most of these assets are private anyway.
Wouldn't this be done by individual institutions and countries, not all once by "the EU?"
Evidence of that:
> Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46692594
That's a tiny barely significant amount, though.
However the amount of US treasuries Denmark holds but privately and publicly did decrease by 20% or so over the last yea which I guess is something..
Fair point. Though I wonder if individual fund moves actually move the needle here or if it's mostly symbolic until it becomes a trend.
If open war breaks out with Europe, wouldn't these assets end up frozen anyway? It doesn't seem like weaponization to hedge that risk.
Such righteous resolve would’ve been useful when dealing with Russian oil and gas.
So much optics and theatre going on, makes you wonder what is the larger play / bigger move that is motivating all of this.
Many times when I see these articles, I just think TACO and move on.
I wonder if Maduro felt the same
"Could". Of course they'll drag their feet once again because they're appeasing cowards, unlike Canadians.
> unlike Canadians. Who did what? Symbolically threaten to tax electricity exports to some cities close to the border and stopped importing American booze?
Canada is still the top 5 holder of US bounds..
If the US would suffer more than the EU we should do it. A less powerful US would be a boon for the world.
European banks need the swap lines by the Fed to stay afloat. ECB, BoE, SNB, Denmark, Sweden, all are on USD life support.
The only viable way to do this would be for the EU to fully switch out of USA/USD into China/BRICS but Russia won't allow it and who is going to buy EU's exports? Not China.
But that analysis of viable options is for rational and competent leadership, so who knows.
> or the EU to fully switch out of USA/USD into China/BRICS but Russia
TO solve
> need the swap lines by the Fed to stay afloat
?
This is about as nonsensical as it gets.
EU banks: 1. Lend and trade in USD; 2. Have a shitload of deposits (liabilities) in USD-denominated accounts [1] [2] (1 trillion?)
A huge amount of EU imports (from outside Europe) have to be paid in USD. Like oil/natgas/commodities and manufactured stuff.
The Euro is not really used as reserve currency outside of EU.
So if EU goes into economic war with USA by dumping US treasuries: 1. they would be trading those treasuries for something else (EUR denominated bonds? yuan? something else?); 2. no more swap lines and goodbye exports to USA so USD debt trap with depositors (forced conversion to EUR?); 3. How are they going to pay imports without USD lines?
The only other big player who can give them equivalent liquidity in swap lines is China. But as I stated, that would be even worse than USD dependency and less likely.
All this while the EU industrial base is on the brink and with a huge dependency on American natgas and Chinese supply chain. They cornered themselves and they can't do much without huge sacrifices. The only way out needs a complete shakeup of the leadership in Brussels and a new economic plan. I wouldn't bet on that happening.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurodollar
[2] https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/financial-stability-publicat...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
Won’t flooding the market with large supply of bonds being sold at one time cause the price of the bonds to drop, resulting in losses for the sellers of the bonds?
Meanwhile, the bond holders that don’t sell, can wait it out until the bond pays out or the selling mania stops, and the price returns to equilibrium.
That's kind of the point. Crash the bonds market and with it the US government.
That won't work... that will crash the price of [new] bonds, and more capitalized nations will buy the dip. You are operating under an assumption that the humans controlling a quantity of wealth enough to [quote] "crash the bonds market" make decisions based on principles. They don't - and if you compare history with a long term bond price chart then it will become apparent.
Now, pray tell, which other nations are more capitalized than the world's third largest economy? Who would buy the dip? China? I doubt it. And nobody else has the scale.
Except at that point the dollar will be so devalued that you are still losing in real terms.
https://archive.ph/S918n
Could, but inevitably one member state will veto it because of their niche interests. See also: EU-Mercosur trade agreements.
We get nothing done in the EU because we are all prisoners to 27 different voting populations, and nothing moves forward if even one of them opposes it
Does this play into his supporters' agenda?
Trump's policies seem to be aimed at devaluing USD and harming the US and its allies.
I guess maybe this pressures the other powers that be in the US that don't take the threat seriously to do more to stop him?
the entire world of neoliberal ghouls will bend over for trump because they've all quietly been offered a share of what he loots
Isn’t Europe full of neoliberal ghouls stoking war with Russia, blowing up pipelines, and cheering on rogue nations like Israel?
> Isn’t Europe full of neoliberal ghouls
There are some, but not as many as you imagine.
perpetual war is great for neoliberalism because it forces public spending on private, consumable goods. no matter how many bombs you buy today you're gonna need more tomorrow, it's in the nature of bombs. then later if there's ever a break in the destruction the bombmakers can invest their windfall profits in construction companies, thus winning in both directions.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I want to see USA recover from the abuser that is separating us from our friends and trying to beat us into silence/compliance like abusive people do
I never realized there was so many people that enjoy watching their family get beaten bloody, ie. Stockholm syndrome
> enjoy watching their family get beaten bloody, ie. Stockholm syndrome
That's sadism or something, not Stockholm Syndrome which is about victims forming psychological bonds with their abductors, named so after it happened in Stockholm in 1973.
I think it's less about "like to see someone get beaten" and more "see someone who thought they owned the world and could bully others around, crumble under their own incompetence is satisfying", or something like that. Personally, I think it sucks, but I do understand how others can see it in different light, considering the long history of meddling with others.
Organize. Find like-minded people. Take to the streets. Go on strike. Don't just let this happen!
I'm all for us Americans feeling the pain of electing this idiot, but let's not forget that only 30% of eligible voters actually voted for him. It is a shame that more didn't vote against him, but when the Democrats decided to run someone that the country didn't even remember existed a few months before the election, instead of for the 2 years PRIOR to the election, she never had the chance.
Ah, 30% voted for him, but more than 30% decided it didn’t matter to them which one was in power. It’s unclear to me if that apathetic percentage has actually moved significantly.