• Deceptichum@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      They’re already delusional and obsessed about their new prophet, what difference would it make.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        Most likely they would take significant action. There’d be a lot of terrorism.

        Though, probably not much more than if he loses.

        • Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          You’d think that but significant action required significant coordination. Coordinating these people without their guru would be like herding cats. Possibly, the leaders and influencers would tear each other apart, leading to mixed messaging, leading to apathy in the ranks.

          • linearchaos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            ion required significant coordination. Coordinating these people without their guru would be like herding cats. P

            You mean like the attempted coup?

            Or like the guys that were hitting substations?

            Or like the guys driving through peaceful marches?

            • Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              The attempted coup made sense because they were united under their leader. Even then, while it was shocking, it didn’t accomplish any of their immediate goals. Without Trump, my guess is the high level individuals that effectively coordinated it would be too busy fighting each other to accomplish anything significant.

              The other examples are individuals committing criminal acts, not significant actions. Maybe you’d see a flare up of those, but probably not that much as crazy individualists get bored quick.

              • linearchaos@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I disagree with “significant action required significant coordination.”

                One person can take significant action, as we saw in the news the other day.

                I’m not agreeing with you and then saying that single people were coordinated; I’m saying that coordination isn’t necessary to perform significant acts.

                • Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I think we’re not talking about the same thing. Individual acts of terrorism are not significant in my view, the US gets a bunch of politically motivated shootings every year and it accomplishes absolutely nothing. They are horrible tragedies, but not political drivers.

                  I’m not Nostradamus but my guess is that if Trump were to suddenly up and die, his movement would fizzle out pretty quickly. His lackeys would fight for power Game of Thrones style, which would fragment the movement and make it essentially toothless. His fans would be agitated for a while, most wouldn’t do shit about it, a few would attempt shootings, even fewer would succeed and make headlines for a couple days. But nothing politically significant would happen. Just my $0.02 !

                  • linearchaos@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    “Individual acts of terrorism are not significant in my view”

                    You can go find someone else to ‘argue’ with.