I’m feeling so uneasy with everything I’ve been seeing. I keep thinking about what we will be this time next year, and if shit hits the fan, what is your plan? I’m queer and was politically active in 2020, so I would potentially be considered a political enemy.

The only blueprint I can think of is what you do in an active shooter situation; Flee, Hide, Fight.

I know there’s that romantic notion of “don’t be a coward, get out and protest”, but I remember the brutality of the 2020 protests firsthand, and even then I thought “thank god I’m going toe to toe with the CPD and not the CCP”. Next time is going to be different. The president now has authority to send drone strikes. Protests and riots don’t stand a chance agains missiles and live rounds.

Flee- I have an Uncle in Montreal who my family could potentially use as a way to at least temporarily escape the chaos. The hope I’d have is that Canada and other countries would accept American refugees, however that’s not a guarantee.

Hide- If borders are closed, lay low and move away from major cities if possible. If civil war breaks out, try to get away from the violence even if you think your side will win. Todays losers may be tomorrows victors.

Fight- If cellular data/ social media algorithms can keep track of you, and surveillance can make sure there’s no movement, this would be the last resort of desperation. I guess if possible try to either find a group for safety in numbers, or conversely go guerrilla as groups of resistance would make easy targets.

Sorry my mind is running and I’m getting scared.

  • Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 months ago

    I’d like to try to assuage your fears regarding a protest meeting missiles or drone strikes. Yes, the President can order drone strikes with impunity. It’s been that way since the first use of drones, early as the Obama era (maybe earlier, but I was a bit young then).

    However, this does not apply to US soil. One of the benefits of state sovereignty is that federal armed forces can’t operate on US soil. National guard gets involved, at the governor’s request, but they don’t have missiles or drones. Police are barbaric, but they also don’t have missiles or drones.

    So I don’t think we’d see much of an escalation in terms of weapons of violence with regards to protests when compared to 2020.

    • SonicDeathTaco@lemm.ee
      0·
      2 months ago

      Haven’t been following the news, have we? What you said was mostly true a week ago. Now, NO ONE has legal protection under U.S. law against crime committed by an American president.

      • Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world
        01·
        2 months ago

        While this may be true, and a drone strike may be ordered on US soil, the President will not be the one controlling the drone, not directly in command of that person. The UCMJ supercedes in the case.

    • dactylotheca@suppo.fiEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      However, this does not apply to US soil. One of the benefits of state sovereignty is that federal armed forces can’t operate on US soil

      From the Project 2025 wiki page:

      In November 2023, The Washington Post reported that deploying the military for domestic law enforcement under the Insurrection Act of 1807 would be an “immediate priority” upon a second Trump inauguration in 2025. That aspect of the plan was being led by Jeffrey Clark, a contributor to the project and a former official in the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ). Clark is a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America, a Project 2025 partner. The plan reportedly includes directing the DOJ to pursue those considered by Trump as disloyal or a political adversary

      • Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world
        01·
        2 months ago

        I was unaware of “Project 2025”, interesting read! While that does contain multiple concerning ideas, this is far from a reliable manifesto. Additionally, ties have been drawn to the Trump campaign, but these are loose ties and appear primarily to be op-eds. Trump has also disavowed ties to this “publication”. Lastly, that “Washington Post report” is another one of those vague articles featuring “according to sources familiar”.