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.
A civil war is extremely unlikely. What is more likely is a slow dollar devaluation (perhaps ramping up to a sudden devaluation), a resultant contraction of global trade and a contraction of cosmopolitanism, immigration, and liberalism in general.
This isn't a function of politics, but of the economy and money. In other words, the government will drive the changes no matter who is elected. These changes will diffuse much of the current national tension, but living standards will decrease.
Again, this would not be a political decision, but rather one that is driven by considerations of economic necessity that are well above the heads of the average voter.
Trump is the perfect strawman to begin instituting these changes that were always going to be necessary, but can at this moment be blamed on politics before everyone is used to the new normal (just like they got 'used to' liberal presidents driving war in the ME exactly like conservative presidents were thought to).
Witness the Trump tariffs as one widely publicized salvo.
Witness the vast deportations under Obama as a prior non-publicized salvo.
Witness the Left being fired up to a socially intolerable level over a period of relatively recent years.
Witness the Right being told that economic protectionism is a victory over the Left.
End the Fed and back to the gold standard! Right? How long has that been a meme?
Things seem to be setting up, over a period of years, for strong and somewhat permanent contraction.
Notice that no "bankers" were prosecuted after the 2008 crisis.
Thus, there is still very significant public outrage stored up against the banking system that can be harnessed for later reform that will be necessary to cement the contraction in-place (as an aside, if you haven't seen the movie "The Big short" yet, see it. It's great in the sense that its entertaining).
It's being staged to make it feel cathartic when it occurs, if for no other reason then social tension should lessen a lot at the cost of diversity and the extreme elements of progressivism (no comment). Notice that diversity has been linked to all sorts of extreme social behaviors and events that persecute normative social life and law enforcement, even by the so called leftist press. My only surprise is that this hasn't been widely (or maybe just effectively) called out by POC and LGBT groups. It endangers their political progress through association.
I wouldn't be surprised at some bloodshed and / or violent oppression as part of the contraction process, but I would be somewhat surprised if it would go beyond anything that is somewhat isolated and temporary.
(sigh) And what delusions are we White people under that would make us think an actual civil war would be possible, let alone winnable? We aren't all DC politicians who couldn't learn from history if it were a physical thing with teeth and claws. I think more than most of us know that's a bear doesn't need poking.
By the same token, what brand and noble cause would the federal government hold up to justify a slaughter of a large portion of its population? Along those same lines what would a rebellious faction have?
And where would be the end gain for either side? That's the question at odds here. Answer is there is nothing to be gained by a civil war. Which, by the way, would require each side have land, sea and air power to project, a clear strategy, and dedication by people fighting on either side. Clear territorial borders, resources and industry to utilize those resources, supply lines (and supplies in abundance) to the front lines, sophisticated communications...all required.
Scattered militia supplied from their own stores of food, medicine, ammunition etc cannot wage a "war". As a "delusional White person" I can recognize these things. In the War Between the States the Confederacy recognized from the jump that they needed one particular thing. Quick victory. They knew that a sustained war was unwinnable.
The same would be true of a seceding faction today with one BIG difference. That faction would not be allowed any build up. In the first war the Union controlled the seas, and thus all ports (deepwater in particular matters now) and they would have uncontested control of those now.
Nawww., we "delusional White people" ain't quite as delusional as you think.
I didn't see an option for CNN, Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel. In other words, the modern day Neo Progressive. Hate, division and intolerance controls and fuels the leftist.
A civil war between the Left and the Right in this country wouldn't last long.
One side is heavily armed and has a billion rounds of ammunition. The other side can't decide which bathroom to use.
Actually, it wouldn't be that one sided. The Right has more of the guns (unless the military itself gets involved (and that is a wild card as I don't think everyone there would follow the Deep State against the American people, but I think some would.) but the Left has Silicon Valley, Gates, Soros, Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Buffet, etc and loads of money at their disposal (not that consumers couldn't strike back, but it would take a big organized effort and the elites could cause problems by laying people off to keep their cash hoards and then blame the layoffs on the Right to try and foment anger against them.)
With social media, Microsoft, Apple, Intel, IBM, etc, and most of the phone companies on the Left's/RINO's side, they could knock out communications of the patriots. (And that's not even counting what the CIA/NSA could do!) And since the postal service is currently controlled by the Feds, that would be compromised too.
The Left, especially with all of their illegal alien allies, would definitely outnumber the Right population wise.
On the flip side, the Right does control more state houses than the Left, so we could use the power of state and local governments to try and hack around NSA/CIA technology and to seize Leftist Big Business assets and technology so that we could use them and also block the Left's side at the same time.
We could also, since the more rural areas that produce most of the food, are in Right-wing territory, cut off the food supply to the more urban Leftist areas and try and force their surrender.
And we could use the oil supplies in the red states of Texas, North Dakota, and Alaska to help the Right while cutting off the fuel supply to the Left to hamper their ability to travel.
So the Left would have the bureaucracies of the federal government (and I suspect the Congress would sit this one out, if not, in the end, totally show what I suspect all along, that they side with the Left, and the few good guys like Cruz, Paul, Lee, and maybe Trump would join the Right's rebellion in their leadership.), the corporate institutions , have trillions of dollars at their disposal, have a larger population, and have social media and the tech companies on their side.
The Right would have larger land mass, more state and local governments, more of the consumers (which is a mixed bag if it came to a boycott), the oil supply, and the food supply, and, of course, more civilian guns.
It would be a very ugly long war.
Last edited by MongooseHugger; 03-05-2018 at 11:42 AM..
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.
