Not to mention, our military budget is more than the GDP of 85% of the countries in the world, and it's only getting bigger. The proposed budget for next year is more than 90% of the world's countries' GDP. Think about that for a few minutes.

You say as if American soldiers aren't also Americans. It's not just up to civilians to partake in politics and the resistance of tyranny.

Coups happen all over the world, for various reasons. You'd think an openly genocidal regime headed by a fascist, paedophile, moronic traitor, actively making life worse for the majority and aiding their enemies. Shitting on the constitution, and making veiled threats to cancel elections, would be enough to instigate one, but I guess not.

The stereotype of American soldiers seems to hold up, all bark but no bite unless the opponent is clearly outmatched with bigger weapons.

By one estimate, there were 457 coup attempts from 1950 to 2010, half of which were successful.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

You’re not wrong about the conditions that historically lead to unrest, material desperation, fear, and breakdown of basic stability tend to be the tipping points. The U.S. government isn’t there for most citizens, and that’s not accidental.

But what’s worth pointing out is that this “just stable enough” environment didn’t emerge naturally, it’s been actively managed over decades. And a strong case can be made that this is less about general governance and more about a long-term political strategy, particularly on the Republican side.

You’ve had a pattern where social safety nets are publicly criticized, underfunded, or slowly eroded but rarely eliminated outright. Why? Because removing them completely would create exactly the kind of instability you’re describing. Instead, they’re kept barely functional. Enough to prevent collapse, not enough to meaningfully improve mobility or reduce inequality.

At the same time, there’s been consistent resistance to policies that would shift people from “barely stable” to genuinely secure, things like stronger labor protections, universal healthcare, or aggressive wage growth. That keeps a large portion of the population economically stressed, but not desperate enough to unify or revolt. It fragments people using base animal instincts, keeps them focused on short-term survival, and limits collective action.

Add in cultural and political polarization, and it further diffuses pressure. People incorrectly channel frustration horizontally, at each other, instead of vertically at faceless institutions.

So yes, you’re right about the threshold for unrest. The uncomfortable part is recognizing that a lot of political strategy has been about keeping the country just below that threshold, stable enough to barely function, and strained enough to control.

It's understandable that not everyone wants to riot for moral values and against mass corruption, but surely everyone can see that it's just a matter of time before distress comes to the USA if nothing is done right now? It's pretty naive to assume that your new enemies won't hit back in some way, and most of the world just wants the US to become a meaningless country, since everyone is sick of the constant abuse of power and its negative effects on the world economy and stability. To join riots right now is the least the American people can do. Throughout American history it was often needed for the many to fight the elite and that time has come again.

We arnt in active physical danger.

You arent in percieved active physical danger.

If trump launches a nuke boy that sure will change lickity split tho