Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If one does not need to earn an income allowing them to be self sufficient, it is fine. But then no whining "Can't pay back my loans as a 45 year old, well educated barista".
Few professional jobs would view a Gender Studies major as relevant for consideration.
The few who major in it might find jobs teaching it, writing books about it, or giving talks about it. But it's not a major that many choose so of course, not a good example.
I can foresee an end to the constitutional republic that is the USA. But I don't foresee it breaking into pieces. What I see is just what we saw during Obama's term, that is making law by the president without congressional action. DACA is just one example. Then the president might make himself an emperor. This is what happened in Rome. FDR almost got this done, but was thwarted.
I can foresee an end to the constitutional republic that is the USA. But I don't foresee it breaking into pieces. What I see is just what we saw during Obama's term, that is making law by the president without congressional action. DACA is just one example. Then the president might make himself an emperor. This is what happened in Rome.
The Founding Fathers put in checks and balances to make sure that doesn't happen. We have Congress, and the Courts. A military coup would be more likely, but so far our military is satisfied with a huge budget. I was more concerned Obama was going to want a third term, and hence become more emperor like than I am about Trump, who may not even run again.
We are very divided right now, but I don't see a second Civil War because, unlike 1860, there is no obvious geographical boundary for the split. It's pretty hard to join all of the cities into one country, all the rural areas into another and then fight over the suburbs. I would also remind everyone that in the late 1960s we had much bigger protests, we had cities on fire and radical groups bombing government buildings, the National Guard firing on students, and it never developed into a civil war.
The one civil war scenario i could see is if the party in power uses protests as an excuse to crack down on civil liberties, uses the military to enforce said crack down and starts jailing its opponents, shutting down the media, etc. Then you could see an armed insurrection. But this is not a likely scenario.
Its quite evident that the majority 99% of the make up is angry white people, who want what has already gone past in time.
You need to open your eyes and see - rather than close your eyes and dream. Go to a Trump rally and you will see people of all colors, races and nationalities. Men, women and children. Straight and gays. You won't hear that from the MSM press. Go to a Trump rally - that is if you can get in due to demand.
You live in the past but promote the future.
Quote:
I hear Republican whining and crying incessantly about people being assisted with Public Services, why would I want to back such attacks on the people who need assistance the most.
This is not true. The concerns are for the abuse of the system - not against those truly in need.
How, though? There are no clear boundaries. Even in "red" states, there are often a good many cities that vote blue and have a higher number of citizens than the rural areas around them.
In blue states, you have pockets of red (thinking of California, for example).
I just don't see this being practical at all.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
The comment stated. "when the Catholic Church is filled with cycles of sexual predators and many of those members are among the Republican make up"
It is s statement of fact... not a matter of whether I like Catholic Churches or Not...
And many of those members are among the Democratic make up. If you want to discuss sexual predators in a political party - or church - or school - we can do that.
A Civil War requires the support of corporate interests who would stand to benefit from a Civil War/secession/etc. The people don't actually matter, and never did. Not in this country, and not in any other country. The common people aren't leaders, they are only soldiers. Who would organize them? Anyone capable of leading anyone, is already doing well, and has too much to lose.
The more-likely scenario is that the government clamps down on freedom of speech, the media, the internet, etc. To bring about stability or "law and order", and the overwhelming majority of corporate-interests would go along with it(including their media arms), because there simply aren't many corporations who would benefit from a Civil-War.
The moment this division begins to threaten the state, the state will be forced to react, or America will become Libya.
why would you wish to see the US reduced to rubble? Or are you under some illusion that "your" side would win? (hint i don't even know what side you are on)
Even the best case of a fast victory would result in the US becoming a 2nd or 3rd tier nation subject to the whims of the EU, China and Russia.
nope civil war is for suckers, it is an extremist's fantasy, a magical dream where you get everything you want at little cost.
The kavanaugh confirmation certainly didn't help trump unite this country...not like he really cared about uniting to begin with. I've never seen a Scotus nominee act so undignified in a job invite. Trump's entire shtick has been to rile up gullible right wingers against blacks, Hispanics etc It's a sad and scary time to be an American. Putin is probably happy beyond his widest dreams.
Amid widespread political polarization on issues like immigration and recent public confrontations of Trump administration officials, 31 percent of probable U.S. voters surveyed said they think "it's likely that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years."
Democrats at 37 percent were slightly more fearful of a second civil war than Republicans at 32 percent, the poll from Rasmussen Reports found.
It's a pity these polls tend to be so damn bad. Trump objects to polls, terming them "fake" if he doesn't like the results. Me, I object to polls that are either too vague in their questions, not transparent about their sources and methodology, or unsubstantiated in their conclusions.
I see no reason for them to say Dems are "fearful," based on the one vague question. The polls seems to have been too half-baked to delve into anything. It would, of course, make sense that Dems would be "fearful" since so many Trumpers are rapid about their guns and spout so much violent rhetoric. But the poll should have been done better.
Or, better still - not. This kind of thing can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Interesting post, though. Thanks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
