Is it already a civil war?

Post Reply New Topic

Good; that means you haven't given that guy any money.

Some ex-crack addicts are worth of support. That guy is not.

Dis chap?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mypillow- ... -no-breaks

Yeah I'm not sure, 'cause I don't know but - wonder if he escaped crack completely unscathed.
Do enough of it, snuff out enough of those tiny arterioles in the "watershed areas" of the brain and -
folks end up looking and behaving exactly like this. Permanently.

But who knows, maybe he's just a genius and so indecipherable

Good and valid points all. (And I agree.)

But I am not referring to political entities or even specific historical events. Not even geographical.

I am referring to the manner of problem-solving. The manner of decision-making.
The manner of navigating life.

In either age, the human creature is a brute -- but a brute for different reasons.

Thomas Hobbes was a product of The Enlightenment, and even he observed (paraphrasing inexactly from memory):
"The life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

An esteemed professor/mentor confided once, with a thousand-yard stare:
"primates are nasty nasty nasty creatures"
- and it puzzled me because I did not understand.

I understand now.

I'd show Disney-documentaries about apes, and then actual documentaries about apes in my media education course. in the first, apes act like humans in loving families, in the latter, apes act like humans at war.... Gorillas maybe weren't going extinct if they didn't kill each others offspring so much.

you're right, though. it's similar to the eco-activists who think humans should go extinct for their thoughtless use of the environment. but if humans go extinct, there's no one who has a human conception about nature either - without humans, there's only wolves who eat until there's nothing left to eat, then they starve, and yeast which eats sugar until it drowns in the alcohol it excretes.

I'm now trying to imagine a world that has literally nothing but yeast and drunk wolves in it.

Civil wars usually happen between two or more power groups as opposed to a zombie like everyone kills each other scenario.

Think your own US civil war and Shia / Sunni divide in Syria or Iraq.

Even if Society collapses from some kind of apocalypse like WW3 or asteroid strike powerful armed groups would quickly form and fight each other for control.

So to happen in the US an example scenario would be if disenfranchised forces on the right like Trump supporters for example organized themselves, got another leader and took up their guns since there were quite a lot of them.

It’s more likely however the US is transitioning from an empire to normal but still powerful country and in strategic retreat from stuff they used to do.

Afghanistan is a prime example.

China has 3 times the population and is pretty much unstoppable in its drive to become the worlds largest superpower.

It also has a de facto military alliance with Russia that provides all the raw materials and military hardware tech / research it needs.

There’s not much the US can do now except accept its place in the world.

Same for the UK which kind of acted as little brother in the relationship. They will have to adjust to the new reality too.

I just hope China doesn't believe that the climate crisis is a Chinese hoax and they actually force all governments & populations around the world to unite and work towards a common goal of remediating the damage we've done to the planet we depend on.

Civil War? No.

If tensions coming from the deranged extreme right wing increase, we're more likely to witness a sociopolitical massacre.

The difficulty with a civil war over this is that divisions aren't geographical.. there isn't a clear North/South divide of territories. It's mixed all over. Sooo, kind of hard to battle it out when friends & enemies are scattered everywhere vs. defending or advancing territory.

People on the right are armed and angry, but also relatively comfortable in a material sense; for all the saber rattling, no one is likely to do much of anything because they don't want to give up their lifestyles and endanger their families. That might change if the left does something like trying to seize political power by packing the Supreme Court or trying to secure a permanent electoral majority through DC and PR statehood, as these people already feel like their enemies control culture, academia, and increasingly business and tech, but even then I'm not sure we'd see actual large scale violence. That being said, I've got my Hawaiian shirts and body armor ready just in case .

1. You mean stack the supreme court like republicans just finished doing?

2. You mean enable all Americans to vote, counter to republicans voter suppression efforts?

3. Did you really just out yourself on this forum as a member of a violent far right extremist group hell bent on instigating a civil war, the bugaloo boys?

Playing hardball with the nominations is not court packing. You may recall that the last time it was tried, in the FDR era, it was his own party who shut that down right quick realizing the damage that a naked power grab of that magnitude would do.



DC could be absorbed into Virginia or Maryland, but that wouldn't produce two reliably Democratic senators, and the lack of interest in that plan kinda gives the game away.



First, it's "Boogaloo Bois", and two, there is no such group with no such goals, it's completely a creation of the media looking for a new boogieman to frighten the libs with. The boogaloo meme is a product of right wing gun boards where I'm a member, it was literally a joke created to make fun of those guys who always seem to *want* a civil war by imagining it as a ridiculous, drug fueled surrealistic event with mythical creatures, side-quests, hallucinations, and yes, Hawaiian shirts. The memes got popular enough that people thought it would be funny to dress that way at actual protests, and there was some loose talk on the Facebook groups that sprang up around the memes, but the idea that there was ever any kind of actual group with real goals is laughable.

Just to confuse things further, here are some "Boog Bois" marching with BLM:

https://twitter.com/fordfischer/status/ ... 1861979136

Intentionally not vetting judges properly to fit an agenda is court packing.

What justification do you have for DC joining some neighbouring state? It's been a separate entity forever and a day.

Far right extremists are a very real threat to America. You shouldn't associate with such people - law enforcement agencies may investigate your affiliations to these groups.

What are you even talking about here? The Kavanaugh accusations where the only witness couldn't even prove she'd even met young Brett? Court packing also has a very specific meaning in the context of American politics, adding justices beyond the customary number in order to shift the ideological makeup of the court, nothing since FDR has come close.



Individual cities don't get the same representation as states, and DC was designated as a special government district for a good reason; retroceding the residents to Virginia or Maryland solve the complaint that they don't have congressional representation, the supposed issue, in a much simpler way. I'll say again, the fact that retroceding is dismissed out of hand gives the game away, it's not about representation, it's about power, namely that of the Democratic party.



I don't associate with any extremist groups, real or imaginary, I just own a nice Luau wardrobe.

It’s a District, not a city. And what makes you assume it’s a Democrat party power grab? republicans can run candidates in any state and win if they have a superior candidate and platform. Seems fair to me.

Because the Democrats are only interested in this if it creates a new state, and I think you know as well as I do that the demographics of the "state" that would be created insure that it would never leave Democratic hands unless Joe Biden came out for slavery again or something. Again, if it's not a power grab, why not retrocede?

If retroceding isn't a republican power grab, why retrocede?

Seems only fair to me that the people of DC have their own say just the same as the people of Virginia, Maryland, or any other State.