• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Civil War of 2025

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
4,417
Location
muh-dahy-nuh
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Let’s see if they have the chutzpah to actually do it. Their best chance was Jan 6th, when Trump was still in power and they had the element of surprise, and yet not a single one of them fired a shot. Not a single of their bombs went off.

Are they even organized? Who are their generals? Where are their targets?

Won’t be so much a civil war as isolated uprisings and they’ll be facing actual trained and armed military and national guard.

They should put up or shut up because I would like to see them come out into the open and get this over with.

Do not make assumptions about the leadership of organizations such as the National Guard. A poor leader need only hint at his political leanings to affect how his troops will respond. All law enforcement should be apolitical and professional in their duties but I think it would be naive to think this will be the case.
Further, we do not know at what point they would even be ordered to respond. My observation going back as far as the Bundy’s is to let them tucker themselves out depending on what exactly they are doing.
Would a right leaning sheriff in Smalltown, USA tolerate civilian militia conducting traffic stops? Maybe for awhile. Would left leaning city leadership prevent law enforcement from doing their duty in a timely manner so as not to appear heavy- handed? I think we already know the answer to this.
This will happen by degree. They will probe and test to see what they can get away with.
But they are not going away. They have been underestimated since the formation of the Tea Party.
They may not all take up arms but they will have the support of no small part of the country.
Well, if they were given jobs with a decent wage, that would put an end to all this. But we all know that’s unlikely to happen.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,653
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Let’s see if they have the chutzpah to actually do it. Their best chance was Jan 6th, when Trump was still in power and they had the element of surprise, and yet not a single one of them fired a shot. Not a single of their bombs went off.

Are they even organized? Who are their generals? Where are their targets?

Won’t be so much a civil war as isolated uprisings and they’ll be facing actual trained and armed military and national guard.

They should put up or shut up because I would like to see them come out into the open and get this over with.

Do not make assumptions about the leadership of organizations such as the National Guard. A poor leader need only hint at his political leanings to affect how his troops will respond. All law enforcement should be apolitical and professional in their duties but I think it would be naive to think this will be the case.
Further, we do not know at what point they would even be ordered to respond. My observation going back as far as the Bundy’s is to let them tucker themselves out depending on what exactly they are doing.
Would a right leaning sheriff in Smalltown, USA tolerate civilian militia conducting traffic stops? Maybe for awhile. Would left leaning city leadership prevent law enforcement from doing their duty in a timely manner so as not to appear heavy- handed? I think we already know the answer to this.
This will happen by degree. They will probe and test to see what they can get away with.
But they are not going away. They have been underestimated since the formation of the Tea Party.
They may not all take up arms but they will have the support of no small part of the country.
Well, if they were given jobs with a decent wage, that would put an end to all this. But we all know that’s unlikely to happen.

I'm not sure how the civil unrest will play out, but things will get very grim. We already know that a large share (perhaps a majority) of white-skinned law enforcement officers will side with, or at least not actively counter, Nazi-style insurrectionists. Don't let the amateurishness of January 6th give you hope: such are just dress rehearsals.

One point I disagree with is "if they were given jobs with a decent wage, that would put an end to all this." People struggling to make ends meet generally have little time to buy black flags and parade with guns. I think most of the QAnon crowd have adequate incomes (although poor choices may have left them with debts) but are enraged by right-wing propaganda about vaccines, non-white people, etc.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Cawthorn, the Nazi wannabe (whose bucket list included going to the Eagle Nest), scares the heck out of me. A kid with no experience with anything other than dealing with some harsh physical therapy is marching up the alt-right notables. The alt-right is being pushed forward by the most inexperienced and unqualified people.

The alt-right has been threatening violence for a bit now, oh and trying to 'assist the military' on January 6th, but the worst violence was actually a Sanders supporter up to this point. But the January 6th events definitely proved they are clearly programmable and incitable.
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,771
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
Ignorant blowhard babies.
Time to pat them on the head and tell them it's all okay, they won the civil war, Trump is President and they never need to vote again.

No. They are a real threat. This dismissive type response is exactly what they are looking for.

I agree with Elixir that they are ignorant blowhards. I do not think this is dismissive. It is simply calling a very weak bluff.
They don’t care about voting. They care about overturning elections and will do so through crooked and illegal procedures and outright violence.

.. and so they will end up in jail, unable to legally vote ever again. I call that a win for society.
So far, our democratic controls, weak and held together with chewing gum and thread, are nonetheless holding. So far. More or less. Sort of.
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,771
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
One point I disagree with is "if they were given jobs with a decent wage, that would put an end to all this." People struggling to make ends meet generally have little time to buy black flags and parade with guns. I think most of the QAnon crowd have adequate incomes (although poor choices may have left them with debts) but are enraged by right-wing propaganda about vaccines, non-white people, etc.

A descent entry-level AR-15 costs about $1700 to own, and about $0.70 every time you pull the trigger (shooting the cheapest .223 ammo currently available).
So, ya. I agree.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,311
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I've merged "Trump supporters threaten Civil War II" in "US Presidential Politics" with this one.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,311
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
He Saw America’s Crackup Coming in 2011—He Says It's Worse Now

A decade ago, journalist Colin Woodard wrote "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America", much like "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America" and "The Nine Nations of North America".

He described US history as a contest between different cultural regions, each one founded by different European settlers and then being perpetuated by which later immigrants chose to settle in them.
  • Yankeedom - New England, northern Midwest
  • New Netherland - NYC and nearby
  • Midlands - southern NJ in a thin strip to a big part of the Midwest, also Canada north of the Great Lakes
  • Tidewater - eastern VA and NC
  • Greater Appalachia - central PA to central TX
  • Deep South - SC to southeast TX
  • New France - Quebec and south LA state
  • El Norte - south TX to south CA, with a projection into south CO
  • Far West - western Great Plains and western mountains and deserts
  • Left Coast - a thin strip of CA, OR, WA, BC
  • First Nation - original populations in northern Canada and Alaska
He also notes the Caribbean for south Florida and Polynesia for Hawaii

The different regions have been at loggerheads for the last two centuries, with the Civil War being fought by two alliances of these regions. The regions now cluster as Red and Blue, with some regions being swing regions.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,311
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Back to the article.
"Another outside possibility is that, faced with a major crisis, the federation’s leaders will betray their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, the primary adhesive holding the union together,” Colin Woodard wrote in the epilogue to his prescient 2011 book, American Nations: A History of the Eleven Regional Cultures in North America.

”In the midst of, say, a deadly pandemic outbreak or the destruction of several cities by terrorists, a fearful public might condone the suspension of civil rights, the dissolution of Congress, or the incarceration of Supreme Court justices.”

A decade later, the specters of MAGA-mania and Charlottesville torches, police and protester clashes, COVID-19, and a Capitol Hill insurrection all haunt the passage. Still, even the author was startled by the arrival of the calamity he’d foreseen.

“I knew the country was brittle and if we kept going down the road we're on that there would be trouble ahead, but it's the speed at which it’s happened, right?” Woodard said over the phone from Portland, Maine.

...
“We’re terribly out of balance. To have a liberal democracy, you must have a balance between those two forces and aspects of freedom, between building and sustaining community and individual liberty,” he said. “Neither can exist long without the other and taken to extremes, they each contain the seeds of their own destruction. Orwellian on one side, oligarchical on the other.”
He got the idea of writing about US regionalism from his experience in covering Eastern Europe during the fall of Communism there. He noticed that Eastern European countries sometimes are divided by who ruled which of their territories in the past.

A big example is Poland.  Poland A and B - western vs. eastern Poland. Polish Election Map Reveals Old Imperial Border - Big Think overlaying the late 19th-cy. German Empire onto the  2007 Polish parliamentary election results map. The former German areas voted for the Civic Platform party (Platforma Obywatelska, PO), while the former Russian areas voted for the Law and Justice party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS).

Ukraine likewise shows a split between east and west, the western part having been in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth some centuries ago. Maps! Ukraine's geographical and historical divisions | Observationalism

Romania has a split between the northwest and the rest of the country, the northwestern part having been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the late 19th cy. Xavi Ruiz on Twitter: "🇹🇩 The map of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867-1918) overlapping the results of the 2014 presidential elections in Romania An example of the long term impact of past institutions. (pic link)" / Twitter
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,311
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
When he returned,
... Woodard took note of similar cultural rifts after returning stateside to live in regions beyond his native New England. Time in Washington, D.C., made it most obvious. Inner Maryland showed German influence while place names closer to the coast were associated with British royalty.

“We'd be driving [to Chesapeake] and you could almost see where the two zones met. Suddenly the baseball teams you would see practicing started being de facto segregated by race whereas they hadn’t been a few miles before,” Woodard said.

...
Widely hailed as a “Rosetta Stone” of American struggle and dysfunction, American Nations has detractors, too. Deep South readers often accuse Woodard of bias. Pedantic disputes arise over regional boundaries.
He brushes aside the notion that he has some superior understanding, saying that fissures or rot or whatever can cause trouble for a society under stress.
His pandemic reference wasn’t an outlier, either. The 1918 flu, smallpox, and polio were worldwide scourges just in the last century. When Woodard penned American Nations, he leaned on previous SARS virus research and health officials concerned about a hypothetical virus “even more contagious” with “rationed care” and “unrest.”

“I was aware people in that universe were worried that eventually a respiratory, air-transmitted virus was going to happen and that we were unprepared,” Woodard said.

Even the public response to COVID-19 preventative measures and vaccines followed Woodard’s contentions. Regions imbued with civic responsibility, communal empowerment and educational emphasis boasted high vaccine rates. Regions marked by suspicion of government trailed in vaccine numbers.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,739
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
I agree with Elixir that they are ignorant blowhards. I do not think this is dismissive. It is simply calling a very weak bluff.
They don’t care about voting. They care about overturning elections and will do so through crooked and illegal procedures and outright violence.

.. and so they will end up in jail, unable to legally vote ever again. I call that a win for society.
So far, our democratic controls, weak and held together with chewing gum and thread, are nonetheless holding. So far. More or less. Sort of.

Yes, but what happens if they overturn elections through out right theft? Suppose in 2024, Arizona and Georgia go for Biden again, and he needs them to win. Then their legislatures overturn the will of the people and appoint electors for Trump. What do Dems do? Just roll over and take it? It may not be the Republicans that start the violence, but the Democrats! And rightfully so!
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,221
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I would hope Dems do not roll over. We need to hold ground and gain ground for democracy now.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
Q did get a few things wrong, though, and I know, 'cause I'm a DSSC1 (Deep State Senior Consultant, Grade 1). We don't kidnap juveniles for sexual bondage!!! C'mon, who does that? Way too much heat on that kind of commerce. We kidnap grandmas. You thought the low life expectancy figures in Third World countries was due to malnutrition and disease? Hardly. When those grandmas vanish, it's 'cause we gagged 'em and bagged 'em and sent them to holding centers around the globe. There they are trained to make granny porn, both print, viral, and DVD (top sellers: Ethel's Big Red Snapper, The Golden Girls Gone Wild, and Muriel's Damp Depends.) Why else do you think the second and third items on the DNC expense accounts are usually Boniva and Hull-less Popcorn?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,408
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
I agree with Elixir that they are ignorant blowhards. I do not think this is dismissive. It is simply calling a very weak bluff.
They don’t care about voting. They care about overturning elections and will do so through crooked and illegal procedures and outright violence.

.. and so they will end up in jail, unable to legally vote ever again. I call that a win for society.
So far, our democratic controls, weak and held together with chewing gum and thread, are nonetheless holding. So far. More or less. Sort of.

Yes, but what happens if they overturn elections through out right theft? Suppose in 2024, Arizona and Georgia go for Biden again, and he needs them to win. Then their legislatures overturn the will of the people and appoint electors for Trump. What do Dems do? Just roll over and take it? It may not be the Republicans that start the violence, but the Democrats! And rightfully so!

Bring in the Cyber Ninjas!

Seriously, what you lay out is the likely scenario. Only if Dems can gain in both houses in ‘22 can a full autocratic takeover in 2024 be averted. IMO locking up perpetrators of violent coup attempts is what democracies should do. Elected officials who gave support, aid and comfort to a violent insurrection need to be imprisoned; they’d have been executed not too long ago.
 

Trausti

Contributor
Warning Level 1
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
Yes, but what happens if they overturn elections through out right theft? Suppose in 2024, Arizona and Georgia go for Biden again, and he needs them to win. Then their legislatures overturn the will of the people and appoint electors for Trump. What do Dems do? Just roll over and take it? It may not be the Republicans that start the violence, but the Democrats! And rightfully so!

Bring in the Cyber Ninjas!

Seriously, what you lay out is the likely scenario. Only if Dems can gain in both houses in ‘22 can a full autocratic takeover in 2024 be averted. IMO locking up perpetrators of violent coup attempts is what democracies should do. Elected officials who gave support, aid and comfort to a violent insurrection need to be imprisoned; they’d have been executed not too long ago.

Yeah. Really need the DOJ to charge at least one of these J6 unlawful paraders with insurrection. The Narrative requires it.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,039
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I see things are carrying on as usual around here.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,739
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
Bill Maher sees it happening too. Here’s his take on how it will go down:

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/7cR4fXcsu9w[/YOUTUBE]

I think he’s right. 2024 will be violent. The markets will crash. They will come armed this time and in far greater numbers.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,311
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Welcome To The ‘Turbulent Twenties’ - NOEMA
We predicted political upheaval in America in the 2020s.
This is why it’s here and what we can do to temper it.
By Jack A. Goldstone and Peter Turchin
September 10, 2020

Almost three decades ago, one of us, Jack Goldstone, published a simple model to determine a country’s vulnerability to political crisis. The model was based on how population changes shifted state, elite and popular behavior. Goldstone argued that, according to this Demographic-Structural Theory, in the 21st century, America was likely to get a populist, America-first leader who would sow a whirlwind of conflict.

Then ten years ago, the other of us, Peter Turchin, applied Goldstone’s model to U.S. history, using current data. What emerged was alarming: The U.S. was heading toward the highest level of vulnerability to political crisis seen in this country in over a hundred years. Even before Trump was elected, Turchin published his prediction that the U.S. was headed for the “Turbulent Twenties,” forecasting a period of growing instability in the United States and western Europe.
They note that elites are greedy, and that their greed causes a *lot* of trouble. They try to take more of the overall productivity for themselves, they try to ensure that only their descendants get access to valuable resources, like education credentials, and they resist paying taxes, thus depriving governments of needed revenues. "Such selfish elites lead the way to revolutions."
Top leadership matters. Leaders who aim to be inclusive and solve national problems can manage conflicts and defer a crisis. However, leaders who seek to benefit from and fan political divisions bring the final crisis closer. Typically, tensions build between elites who back a leader seeking to preserve their privileges and reforming elites who seek to rally popular support for major changes to bring a more open and inclusive social order. Each side works to paint the other as a fatal threat to society, creating such deep polarization that little of value can be accomplished, and problems grow worse until a crisis comes along that explodes the fragile social order.
Then they describe how they collected a variety of measures of well-being and social dysfunction, measures like (median income) / (GDP per capita), (maximum personal wealth) / (GDP per capita), degree of partisanship in Congress, and social and political violence like lynchings, terrorism, and riots.

They found nearly two complete cycles. There was first a rising phase that peaked in the 1820's, the aptly-named Era of Good Feelings. But that did not last, and in the Jackson era, the US entered into a falling phase. "... political polarization and economic inequality rose sharply in the years leading up to the Civil War. The crisis indicators peaked in the 1860s but did not fall sharply after the war; instead, they remained high until 1920 (the years of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, Gilded Age and violent labor unrest, and the anarchists)."

But the US did not collapse or fall apart into hostile coalitions of states, especially not in World War I or the Great Depression.
The reforms introduced during the Progressive Era and clinched in the New Deal reduced inequality and strengthened the economic share of workers; during and after World War II, the country agreed on new tax policies and increased spending on roads and schools.

The 1950s were a golden age of worker progress and party cooperation; even in the 1960s and 1970s, despite serious racial conflicts, the country’s leaders were able to agree on remarkably far-reaching reforms to improve civil rights and environmental protection. However, the 1960s were a high point in our indicators of political resilience; in the 1970s and 1980s, things began to turn, and by the 1990s, a new wave of rising inequality and political divisions was well underway, exemplified by Newt Gingrich’s policies as speaker of the House. In the next two decades, the crisis indicators rose just as sharply as they had in the decades before the Civil War. It was not just that by the late 2010s, overall inequality was rising to the levels not seen since the Gilded Age; median wages in relation to GDP per capita also were falling to historically low levels.
They wrote in 2010, Political instability may be a contributor in the coming decade | Nature
and some years later, a book, Peter Turchin Ages of Discord - Peter Turchin - Peter Turchin Age of Discord II - Peter Turchin

Thus predicting "Turbulent Twenties"
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,285
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Bill Maher sees it happening too. Here’s his take on how it will go down:

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/7cR4fXcsu9w[/YOUTUBE]

I think he’s right. 2024 will be violent. The markets will crash. They will come armed this time and in far greater numbers.

I don't think that it's slow moving. It's moving at the usual speed of such upheavals; perhaps even a little faster than some.

There were ten years between the Beer Hall Putsch and the Nazis gaining control of the German government. Because you can read even the most detailed history of the NSDAP's rise to power in a few hours, it's often difficult to grasp just how slowly things changed from the perspective of those who lived through it.

Most coups d'état take a very long time to develop, even if they appear sudden to those who didn't notice anything was happening until the day the glorious leader declared himself dictator, or until the mass arrests of his political opponents started.

The NSDAP, Mussolini's fascists, Lenin's Bolsheviks, and many other aspirants to total power (both successful and unsuccessful) all start out as a bunch of silly clowns, mocked by the press and the intelligentsia. Sometimes they don't stop laughing until it's too late.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
Maher makes sense. As usual, they're doing it right in front of us. Notice also how his predictions work even if it's not Trump and for whatever reason it's Abbott or DeSantis or McCarthy..........
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,653
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
As pointed out in The Atlantic's article "The Real 2024 Election Nightmare: Trump could win, fair and square" Trump may be restored to power in 2024 even without stealing the election. Winning "fairly" would steal the thunder from the democratic opposition. Biden's 2020 electoral-college victory was razor-thin; Biden's popularity is already falling; there is no obvious strong candidate to take Biden's place. And the QOP has three more years to operate its Bullshit Machine: already, just at Google News' home page, I see FoxNews stories that run narratives opposite to reality.

A second Trump term will be much more dangerous than the 1st term. QOP controls SCOTUS. GOPsters who opposed Trump in 2016 are either pro-Trump now, or will be primaried out of Congress. And
... More pliable legislative and judicial branches would help Trump, but he would also have better control of the executive branch. He assembled his first administration from misfit toys and castoffs, staffers who would never have gotten such jobs in another presidency because they were too inexperienced, too incompetent, too abrasive, or too extreme. On his return, he'd do better. Those staffers are now seasoned and more able, and fewer veteran Republicans would remove themselves from consideration next time.

The government lost many able, conscientious civil servants during Trump's presidency, but others calculated that they could weather four years. These people both kept the government functioning when political appointees couldn't, and also pushed to ensure rule of law where Trump tried to erode it. (For their pains, they were labeled the "deep state.") Many of these people would probably quit if Trump came back to power.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,739
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
Welcome To The ‘Turbulent Twenties’ - NOEMA

They note that elites are greedy, and that their greed causes a *lot* of trouble. They try to take more of the overall productivity for themselves, they try to ensure that only their descendants get access to valuable resources, like education credentials, and they resist paying taxes, thus depriving governments of needed revenues. "Such selfish elites lead the way to revolutions."

Then they describe how they collected a variety of measures of well-being and social dysfunction, measures like (median income) / (GDP per capita), (maximum personal wealth) / (GDP per capita), degree of partisanship in Congress, and social and political violence like lynchings, terrorism, and riots.

They found nearly two complete cycles. There was first a rising phase that peaked in the 1820's, the aptly-named Era of Good Feelings. But that did not last, and in the Jackson era, the US entered into a falling phase. "... political polarization and economic inequality rose sharply in the years leading up to the Civil War. The crisis indicators peaked in the 1860s but did not fall sharply after the war; instead, they remained high until 1920 (the years of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, Gilded Age and violent labor unrest, and the anarchists)."

But the US did not collapse or fall apart into hostile coalitions of states, especially not in World War I or the Great Depression.
The reforms introduced during the Progressive Era and clinched in the New Deal reduced inequality and strengthened the economic share of workers; during and after World War II, the country agreed on new tax policies and increased spending on roads and schools.

The 1950s were a golden age of worker progress and party cooperation; even in the 1960s and 1970s, despite serious racial conflicts, the country’s leaders were able to agree on remarkably far-reaching reforms to improve civil rights and environmental protection. However, the 1960s were a high point in our indicators of political resilience; in the 1970s and 1980s, things began to turn, and by the 1990s, a new wave of rising inequality and political divisions was well underway, exemplified by Newt Gingrich’s policies as speaker of the House. In the next two decades, the crisis indicators rose just as sharply as they had in the decades before the Civil War. It was not just that by the late 2010s, overall inequality was rising to the levels not seen since the Gilded Age; median wages in relation to GDP per capita also were falling to historically low levels.
They wrote in 2010, Political instability may be a contributor in the coming decade | Nature
and some years later, a book, Peter Turchin Ages of Discord - Peter Turchin - Peter Turchin Age of Discord II - Peter Turchin

Thus predicting "Turbulent Twenties"

Interesting analyses. I’m curious about the impact of state welfare policies on such developments. Income inequality is real and the fundamental issue. But transfer payments go a long way towards reducing the inequality. But they come with a high cost. Both budget deficits and significant ill will between those who take such benefits and those who work enough not to need them have resulted. To what extent do these fuel or moderate the tendency towards instability. Maybe it’s a wash.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
Completely true. He would assemble 100% sycophants, no "adults in the room", not that that meant much in practice, and his bizarre and ignorant notions would be carried out. Just try to imagine the Supreme Court at the end of another helping of Donald. It's too depressing to think about for long.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,408
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Both budget deficits and significant ill will between those who take such benefits and those who work enough have sufficient income or wealth not to need them have resulted. To what extent do these fuel or moderate the tendency towards instability. Maybe it’s a wash.

FIFY. (Just a niggle.) There's probably a tipping point. When income and wealth disparities are a needed feature for economic growth, that's fine until too many people have too little. Then, pitchforks. (Except in .223 form.) But up to that point, rock on with the billionaires' economy. Subsistence living becomes middle class, multimillionaires are "upper middle", billionaires own everything else and poverty makes you an expendable commodity for anyone to exploit if they are able. Then things get hairy.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,284
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
As pointed out in The Atlantic's article "The Real 2024 Election Nightmare: Trump could win, fair and square" Trump may be restored to power in 2024 even without stealing the election. Winning "fairly" would steal the thunder from the democratic opposition.
There’s no longer such thing as a fair election. If the Republicans think the Democrats can steal an election so easily and leave no evidence, why wouldn’t the Democrats be able to claim that the Republicans can steal an election the same way, especially if it comes out of states with Republican legislatures? The days of reporting results and respecting the outcomes are over. Welcome to the new paradigm that Trump has created. Whatever it is I’m not sure it’s democracy anymore.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
There's a difference between spinning a tale that you lost because of fraud (Trump) and, hypothetically, calling out the fraud involved in a red state legislature throwing out the vote (or the part of the vote they didn't like) because they claimed there was an appearance of fraud. From what I've read of the Georgia law, they want to empower themselves to take over certification if fraud is simply alleged. If that's the case, it allows and encourages the kind of corruption that kills the election process altogether. Who knows what the Mighty Nine Umpires would choose to do about it?
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,311
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Writing in October 2020, "Democrats are certain that if Donald Trump is re-elected, American democracy will not survive. Republicans are equally certain that if Trump loses, radical socialists will seize the wealth of elites and distribute it to undeserving poor and minorities, forever destroying the economy of the United States." (typo fixed: underserving -> undeserving)

Both sides are also concerned that the other side will fix the rules of the game so that they will always win no matter what.

Trump was very unlikely to win the popular vote, and he didn't win it the first time around. "If Trump wins narrowly in the electoral college but loses the popular vote by a large margin, there will surely be massive demonstrations protesting the outcome, calling it illegitimate and demanding allegiance to the will of the majority of Americans." Trump would likely call out Federal troops to suppress these protests, and that would provoke even more protests.
If Trump loses, he is likely to contest the outcome as a “rigged” election. But that action will again lead to massive popular protests, this time to insist that the election results be honored. If Trump again puts federal security forces in the streets, governors may ask their state troopers or even national guard to protect their citizens and defend the Constitution. Or Trump may call on his many armed civilian supporters to defend their “all time favorite president” (as he put it) against so-called “liberal tyranny.”
As it happened, his lawyers filed 60+ lawsuits, only to be rebuffed in nearly every one, sometimes with strong words from the judges. Then he invited his followers to come to DC and then march on the Capitol building to make his Vice President declare him the winner. Pretty much the scenario in the last sentence of my quote.

The authors then argue that if Joe Biden has a big win, then Trump would say that such a victory could only be the result of vote fraud on an enormous scale.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,311
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
"From the birth of the nation, the unity across economic classes and different regions was a marvel for European observers, such as St. John de Crèvecoeur and Alexis de Tocqueville." That fell apart in the middle and late 19th cys., but as a result of the New Deal, a new social contract was formed, one that made the 1950's seem like a second Era of Good Feelings. "But since the 1970s, that contract has unraveled, in favor of a contract between government and business that has underfunded public services but generously rewarded capital gains and corporate profits." -- Gilded Age II.
As a result, American politics has fallen into a pattern that is characteristic of many developing countries, where one portion of the elite seeks to win support from the working classes not by sharing the wealth or by expanding public services and making sacrifices to increase the common good, but by persuading the working classes that they are beset by enemies who hate them (liberal elites, minorities, illegal immigrants) and want to take away what little they have. This pattern builds polarization and distrust and is strongly associated with civil conflict, violence and democratic decline.

At the same time, many liberal elites neglected or failed to remedy such problems as opiate addiction, declining social mobility, homelessness, urban decay, the collapse of unions and declining real wages, instead promising that globalization, environmental regulations and advocacy for neglected minorities would bring sufficient benefits. They thus contributed to growing distrust of government and “experts,” who were increasingly seen as corrupt or useless, thus perpetuating a cycle of deepening government dysfunction.
They were unwilling to do much to challenge the Gilded Age II political consensus. Clintoncare was an unintelligible mess. Obamacare was tinkering around the edges.

"What we need is a new social contract that will enable us to get past extreme polarization to find consensus, tip the shares of economic growth back toward workers and improve government funding for public health, education and infrastructure."

The two authors then discuss some previous cases of nations that avoided bloody revolutions.
The United Kingdom in the 1820s was coming apart. After defeating Napoleon, the Duke of Wellington became the leader of an elite group that sought to maintain the dominance of the traditional landlord elites. As prime minister and then leader of the House of Lords, Wellington sought to ignore, rather than adjust to, the new realities of the booming cities of Birmingham, Manchester and other burgeoning cities of the fast-growing industrial economy. Meanwhile, the workers of these cities demanded political reforms that would give them a voice in Parliament.
They protested such things as the "Corn Laws", protectionism for British landlords that kept the price of grain up. (For speakers of American, in Britain, "corn" is grain in general, US corn is "sweetcorn".)

Then such incidents as the Peterloo massacre at a workers' protest.
Nonetheless, Wellington not only refused any legal changes, he sought to clamp down on the agitation for voting reforms. New laws were passed to expand police power and block public assemblies; newspapers were closed; protestors and journalists were jailed. Still, popular agitation continued, and there was even an attempt to assassinate several cabinet ministers.
Would Britain have a revolution?
The solution was for leaders to accept the Reform campaign, which sought voting reforms that would reduce the power of the landlords and support the new industrial working class. After the growing confrontations of the 1820s, in 1830, Wellington’s Tories lost control of Parliament, and a Whig leader who supported the Reform campaign, Lord Grey, became prime minister. Grey’s initial efforts to pass a Reform bill were frustrated, and Grey threatened to have the King create enough additional Whig peers to force the bill through. The Tories then relented, and in 1832, Parliament passed the first Reform bill, which expanded the franchise, undermined the clientage of the landed elite and gave representation to the residents of the factory cities. Additional Reform bills followed, allowing Britain, despite continued large-scale workers’ movements, to avoid the revolutions that wracked the continent and emerge as the leading economy of Europe.
In effect, Lord Grey threatened to pack the House of Lords.

The authors then discuss the US in the Great Depression, and I must note that FDR once planned to appoint additional Supreme Court Justices when the SC invalidated some of his New Deal efforts. Packing the SC was politically a flip, but the SC stopped challenging the New Deal.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,311
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
How did Lord Grey and FDR do it?
The formula in both cases was clear and simple. First, the leader who was trying to preserve the past social order despite economic change and growing violence was replaced by a new leader who was willing to undertake much-needed reforms. Second, while the new leader leveraged his support to force opponents to give in to the necessary changes, there was no radical revolution; violence was eschewed and reforms were carried out within the existing institutional framework.

Third, the reforms were pragmatic. Various solutions were tried, and the new leaders sought to build broad support for reforms, recognizing that national strength depended on forging majority support for change, rather than forcing through measures that would provide narrow factional or ideologically-driven victories. The bottom line in both cases was that adapting to new social and technological realities required having the wealthy endure some sacrifices while the opportunities and fortunes of ordinary working people were supported and strengthened; the result was to raise each nation to unprecedented wealth and power.
Seems like the present-day left.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,514
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/14/wisconsin-election-review-gableman-errors/

Oh, don't worry. Trump is saying that Republicans aren't going to vote in 2022 or 2024 because of all the fraud in 2020.:hysterical:


“If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020,” Trump said in a statement Wednesday urging further reviews of his debunked claims, “Republicans will not be voting in ’22 or ’24. It is the single most important things for Republicans to do.”

That's right Republicans. Don't vote. Your cult leader said it's the most important thing for you to do. :D

( I meant to give the article, but forgot. Sorry about that. )

It's an article about the fools who are still trying to find fraud in several states to prove that Trump won.

Hopefully, these people are too stupid and fucked up to take over the country. Let's hope so and make sure that every decent person votes, and the rest of them listen to their foolish cult leader.
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,771
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/14/wisconsin-election-review-gableman-errors/

Oh, don't worry. Trump is saying that Republicans aren't going to vote in 2022 or 2024 because of all the fraud in 2020.:hysterical:


“If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020,” Trump said in a statement Wednesday urging further reviews of his debunked claims, “Republicans will not be voting in ’22 or ’24. It is the single most important things for Republicans to do.”

That's right Republicans. Don't vote. Your cult leader said it's the most important thing for you to do. :D

( I meant to give the article, but forgot. Sorry about that. )

It's an article about the fools who are still trying to find fraud in several states to prove that Trump won.

Hopefully, these people are too stupid and fucked up to take over the country. Let's hope so and make sure that every decent person votes, and the rest of them listen to their foolish cult leader.

I feel similarly... but to maybe a more radical extent. I have convinced my wife to cancel her blood donation because there is a +90% chance that it will go to an anti-vax trump-supporting moron, as that is the ratio right now in the ICU units in hospitals around the world.

Let Darwinism do its job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/14/wisconsin-election-review-gableman-errors/

Oh, don't worry. Trump is saying that Republicans aren't going to vote in 2022 or 2024 because of all the fraud in 2020.:hysterical:


“If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020,” Trump said in a statement Wednesday urging further reviews of his debunked claims, “Republicans will not be voting in ’22 or ’24. It is the single most important things for Republicans to do.”

Is this a threat to destroy the Republican Party? Or is it to cover his tracks? Trump's legacy is removing a LOT Of republicans from the field. Either voting as Democrats or being buried in mass graves. That's going to have an impact on voter turnout numbers in the coming years. Is he crafty enough to try to minimize the BIG GLARING DROP in numbers by adding a third possible justification? "Daddy told us not to have our voices counted."?

Or is it just a sop to his ego? If nobody votes, he can always claim that he WOULD have won, if only he had allowed participation. The invisible landslide...
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,771
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/14/wisconsin-election-review-gableman-errors/

Oh, don't worry. Trump is saying that Republicans aren't going to vote in 2022 or 2024 because of all the fraud in 2020.:hysterical:


“If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020,” Trump said in a statement Wednesday urging further reviews of his debunked claims, “Republicans will not be voting in ’22 or ’24. It is the single most important things for Republicans to do.”

Is this a threat to destroy the Republican Party? Or is it to cover his tracks? Trump's legacy is removing a LOT Of republicans from the field. Either voting as Democrats or being buried in mass graves. That's going to have an impact on voter turnout numbers in the coming years. Is he crafty enough to try to minimize the BIG GLARING DROP in numbers by adding a third possible justification? "Daddy told us not to have our voices counted."?

Or is it just a sop to his ego? If nobody votes, he can always claim that he WOULD have won, if only he had allowed participation. The invisible landslide...

I keep coming back to the highly implausible "long game" Trump is playing as a life-long abortion-celebrating Democrat with rich parents that was never accepted into the Republican-dominated circle of the multi-million dollar families that just thought Trump was "a low-class plated-gold wanna-be jet-setter" that was never taken seriously.
So, the long game is to infiltrate and destroy from the inside.

But then I return to the age-old expression, "do not confuse deviousness with pure incompetence"
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,408
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/14/wisconsin-election-review-gableman-errors/

Oh, don't worry. Trump is saying that Republicans aren't going to vote in 2022 or 2024 because of all the fraud in 2020.:hysterical:


“If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020,” Trump said in a statement Wednesday urging further reviews of his debunked claims, “Republicans will not be voting in ’22 or ’24. It is the single most important things for Republicans to do.”

Is this a threat to destroy the Republican Party?

No, it is what he says it is; a plea to abstain from voting in order to lend credence to the assertion voiced before, during and after the election, that it was rigged and stolen, and needs to be overturned by the trumpsuckers Republicans have placed in SoS and election overseeing positions. "We have 12 million registered Republicans, and only 4 million voted? Nobody believes that!"
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,653
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
I keep coming back to the highly implausible "long game" Trump is playing as a life-long abortion-celebrating Democrat with rich parents that was never accepted into the Republican-dominated circle of the multi-million dollar families that just thought Trump was "a low-class plated-gold wanna-be jet-setter" that was never taken seriously.
So, the long game is to infiltrate and destroy from the inside.

But then I return to the age-old expression, "do not confuse deviousness with pure incompetence"

Yeah. Low-intellect and grift are the hallmarks of Donald Trump. Just as the Kardashians catapulted to fame after their friend committed a heinous murder, so Ivanka and Jared — mediocre intellects but smarter than Eric and Don Jr. — AND their father became household names after DJT starred in a scripted reality show. (Ivanka and Jared were a true birds-of-a-feather romance: both had daddies who were big-time crooks in New York real estate.

Yes, the parallels between the Kardashians and the Trumps are strong — I view it all as another almost-humorous paradigm in post-rational USA. Comparisons between Trump and Hitler or Mussolini make one laugh: Trump is just a cheap womanizing crook. But the way the GOP has embraced him makes me think he's manipulable. Why not? He spends most of his time farting BigMacs in bed, or playing golf. He ran for Prez in 2016 as a big publicity stunt, he was probably hoping to lose! He's always had Putin's backing, as well as any around the world who want to see the USA fail. (Islamic jihadists, Kim Korea, probably the Chinese Communist Party). He has financial support from the ultra-rich Beast-Starvers with their big PACs. Nearly all of the GOP politicos are his ostensible fans. If the election were held soon, he'd probably win legitimately!! Assuming a Biden Fizzle in 2022 we can expect Congress and state houses to turn Red then, and quite probably a Red White House after 2024.

If Trump is too old, who does QOPAnon* run? Does it matter? They can pick a favorite (Tucker Carlson, MTG, etc.) or some other ilk and perhaps be favored no matter what. If they're smart they'll run Nikki Haley but keep her on a short lease. If Trump-QAnon fever lingers into 2024, American democracy is probably doomed. Let's just hope it serves as a wake-up call for Europe, which might otherwise be following in the USA's footsteps.

* - What is the best term for this weird alliance — Republican Party, Proud Boys, QAnon, Zuckerberg, Kremlin and other foreign autocrats, jihadists and communists? "Kremlin-Trump-QAnon axis" seems too long-winded, and doesn't even acknowledge important support from the Tea and GOP Parties as well as BOTH Sunni and Shi'ite jihadists! So I call it "QOPAnon" for short.

(U.S, Israel and Saudi are in de facto alliance against a Russia-Syria-Shi'ite axis. Saudi's Sunnis want to see Trump in power, mainly for his stupid anti-Iran policies. Shi'ite terrorists, and even pro-Jihad Sunnis, want to see Trump in power for the same reason!)

2021 is almost over. 25% of Americans think Joe Biden is a sex trafficker who's putting spyware in the vaccines. QOP fans are assaulting Americans just for wearing masks!! Time is running out. Truth will be far far stranger than any fiction.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,653
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Yes, but what happens if they overturn elections through out right theft? Suppose in 2024, Arizona and Georgia go for Biden again, and he needs them to win. Then their legislatures overturn the will of the people and appoint electors for Trump. What do Dems do? Just roll over and take it? It may not be the Republicans that start the violence, but the Democrats! And rightfully so!

Very few people will turn to violence unless they are extremely desperate or extremely hate-filled. But it is QOPAnon for whom hatred is a key agendum: Democrats are more focused on inclusion and improving living standards. Are the Democrats desperate enough to turn to violence? Some are, but for most Dems — even ones with extremist views — politics is almost a "hobby" (as is discussed in another thread). Those on the left who do resort to violence will be met by greater fire-power from the right and from law enforcement: police and military, at least at the lower ranks, tend to be allied with the right.

One hears much whingeing from the right about violence from Antifa, violence by blacks, and violence by a tiny number of American Muslims. But in fact statistics show that the vast majority of political violence in the U.S. is now committed by right-wingers. Even random "non-political" violence is often committed by redneck Christians likely to be allied with the right. (Are there polls available showing political views of gun-owners compared with non-owners? I'll guess that right-wing views strongly predominate, especially among owners of assault weapons and other non-hobby guns.)

It may be quite hard to foresee how this great American schism will play out. But I'd be surprised if it isn't the R's who start the violence. (Indeed some are already violent.) If D's resist with violence, expect to see D's slaughtered.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,739
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
Yes, but what happens if they overturn elections through out right theft? Suppose in 2024, Arizona and Georgia go for Biden again, and he needs them to win. Then their legislatures overturn the will of the people and appoint electors for Trump. What do Dems do? Just roll over and take it? It may not be the Republicans that start the violence, but the Democrats! And rightfully so!

Very few people will turn to violence unless they are extremely desperate or extremely hate-filled. But it is QOPAnon for whom hatred is a key agendum: Democrats are more focused on inclusion and improving living standards. Are the Democrats desperate enough to turn to violence? Some are, but for most Dems — even ones with extremist views — politics is almost a "hobby" (as is discussed in another thread). Those on the left who do resort to violence will be met by greater fire-power from the right and from law enforcement: police and military, at least at the lower ranks, tend to be allied with the right.

One hears much whingeing from the right about violence from Antifa, violence by blacks, and violence by a tiny number of American Muslims. But in fact statistics show that the vast majority of political violence in the U.S. is now committed by right-wingers. Even random "non-political" violence is often committed by redneck Christians likely to be allied with the right. (Are there polls available showing political views of gun-owners compared with non-owners? I'll guess that right-wing views strongly predominate, especially among owners of assault weapons and other non-hobby guns.)

It may be quite hard to foresee how this great American schism will play out. But I'd be surprised if it isn't the R's who start the violence. (Indeed some are already violent.) If D's resist with violence, expect to see D's slaughtered.

And so our great experiment in Democracy simply ends. No civil war. I don’t think so.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,798
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Yes, but what happens if they overturn elections through out right theft? Suppose in 2024, Arizona and Georgia go for Biden again, and he needs them to win. Then their legislatures overturn the will of the people and appoint electors for Trump. What do Dems do? Just roll over and take it? It may not be the Republicans that start the violence, but the Democrats! And rightfully so!

Very few people will turn to violence unless they are extremely desperate or extremely hate-filled. But it is QOPAnon for whom hatred is a key agendum: Democrats are more focused on inclusion and improving living standards. Are the Democrats desperate enough to turn to violence? Some are, but for most Dems — even ones with extremist views — politics is almost a "hobby" (as is discussed in another thread). Those on the left who do resort to violence will be met by greater fire-power from the right and from law enforcement: police and military, at least at the lower ranks, tend to be allied with the right.

One hears much whingeing from the right about violence from Antifa, violence by blacks, and violence by a tiny number of American Muslims. But in fact statistics show that the vast majority of political violence in the U.S. is now committed by right-wingers. Even random "non-political" violence is often committed by redneck Christians likely to be allied with the right. (Are there polls available showing political views of gun-owners compared with non-owners? I'll guess that right-wing views strongly predominate, especially among owners of assault weapons and other non-hobby guns.)

It may be quite hard to foresee how this great American schism will play out. But I'd be surprised if it isn't the R's who start the violence. (Indeed some are already violent.) If D's resist with violence, expect to see D's slaughtered.

That's not entirely accurate.

There are a LOT of serious people to the left who understand armed conflict quite well, and far better than those on the right.

The difference is, those on the left who are armed against such likely conflict keep their mouths shut, their heads down, and off of watch-lists. I know folks across the country tracking and documenting the local Y'all-Qaeda chapters, their meeting schedules, their members.

If you are concerned, start tracking and documenting your local Y'all-Qaeda chapter, buy a few rifles, and buy a few cans of rounds.

I expect the R's to start the violence, and the result of such a grab to be predictable and miserable for them.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,285
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Non-military and paramilitary forces are not really relevant to a civil war in any nation with a powerful regular military force, and the US has one of the most powerful regular militaries in history.

Neither right wing nor left wing second amendment enthusiasts can make a serious stand against the US Army, so the only way to get a civil war (as opposed to a campaign of terrorism with isolated acts of violence) would be for the army to split its loyalties.

There's a reason why the leaders of many revolutions are Colonels or Generals; An army officer (or group of officers) with command of a significant fraction of the military, needs to decide to support the anti-government forces (and to retain the loyalty of his subordinates when he does so), or there can be no civil war.

The only way I see that happening in the US would be to have a group of senior officers who are completely convinced that the government has already been unconstitutionally subverted. If a bunch of redneck yahoos with ARs think Biden (or his successor) has stolen Trump's rightful presidency, then they can make a criminal nuisance of themselves, but any 'civil war' exists only in their heads. But if a cabal of officers in command of a worthwhile fraction of the military buy into the claim that Trump has been robbed, then that's a very different and very dangerous thing.

So far I have seen little evidence from the Pentagon of high ranking officers who do not recognise the legitimacy of the electoral process that led to Biden's inauguration. If that were to change, then only at that stage would the risk move from one of hightened terrorism threat, to one of a danger of civil war.

The 'militias' cannot go toe to toe with the cops, much less the army. They'd be crushed like bugs.

The Provisional IRA thought that they could stand up to the British Army in the 1970s. They were far better organised, disciplined, and cohesive than any extant US 'militia', and they got their arses kicked, and very quickly went back to sporadic terrorist attacks. No amount of arms, ammunition, and local knowledge can substitute for organisation, discipline, training, cohesion, and effective and robust logistics and command structures.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,221
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Agreed. I think the right wing people honestly believe that they have the military in the bag agreeing with them and ready for takeover. I don’t think they have anything close to that.
 
Top Bottom