People keep saying this and I personally don’t really believe it, I think there could be a couple riots, but not like a full on civil war. What does everyone think?
I think the drug addiction crisis that they have is somehow preventing/delaying this to happen. But the elements for a civil war are there: access to weapons, ideological intolerance, economical imbalance, ever-differing state and federal law and policies, corruption in government and the probable rise of a political group that lost the presidency causing the Capitol Attack out of resentment, between others.
Democracy in the USA feels like holding with pins. I see the country as conservative to far-right with very few space for other political ideologies.
No. Like you say, riots, and of course the ongoing epidemic of stochastic terrorism, possibly with more violence directed against politicians and the government, but it’s definitely not going to look like tanks shooting at tanks, and it’s also not going to look like people crawling through tunnels a la Vietnam. What American simultaneously cares enough about politics to risk their life over it, while also being willing to go live in a trench without their phone for a month? No, as long as it’s an option to live a normal life where you can return to your couch and watch or read the news while feeling righteously indignant and engage with social media however you like, that’s what people will do. Look at the January 6’ers, for example, who fully expected to return home and be able to post all about the exciting event all over social media.
Now, that all goes out the window if some lunatic decides to start WWIII with China and institutes a draft (assuming we don’t all just die in nuclear hellfire). You tell people they’ll have to give up their phones and go live in a trench anyway and maybe some decide they’d rather fight the people making them do that. Americans generally love war, but a lot of that comes from being completely and totally separated from any real life consequences from it. And of course, no insurgency would stand any chance of defeating the US government without foreign support.
So that’s your plan when Trump gums up the election in the courts and through legislative mumbo-jumbo and electoral tampering seizes power even though he lost?
As he’s getting sworn in by Republicans as our illegal president and begins mobilizing the National Guard to “round up” foreigners, you’ll be going back to your life?
What my individual plan is is irrelevant, I’m just describing what will happen. Do you forsee a future where Kamala Harris makes a call to arms for people to rise up and fight against the National Guard and the military? If so, you need a reality check.
And for the record, we already have camps that foreigners are rounded up into.
Won’t result in a civil war. American libs are only capable of organizing for imperialism and complaining on the internet. They will piss and moan, but inevitably stop short of doing anything meaningful.
See: Bush v. Gore
It’s interesting that you think the national guard would support him. I don’t think it’s as simple as that. We can be sure that most lifers in the military have considered what they would do if the unelected commander-in-chief gave an obviously unconstitutional order. It’s not just a hypothetical to them.
Doesn’t answer the question
Sure. Could happen. Imagine trump wins somehow. Then imagine he orders the military to help the Russians or even just orders some people round up like he promises. His disdain for our military is clear. Some generals will follow because he is the president. But others will refuse. And Trump is dumb enough to order his generals to arrest the other generals. Boom, civil war. Or if trump loses… his followers will look for someone else to follow. If someone actually competent shows up, similar path, just 4 years later.
I generally agree, and I also think that the spy agencies would assassinate him within a couple of days. There’s a bunch of men who have been running those groups for decades, and they don’t want to give up their power because some lunatic is making a power grab on the White House.
Occam’s razor suggests it would have already happened had that been the case. When the chips were down, Jan 6th happened and Trump was still in office despite government buildings being seized and civil servants were threatened or even killed. If there was going to be something like that, it would have been on Jan 6th while the president was watching from the White House.
Could? Ehhh… Not really, at least while the economy is profitable. Liberals will do anything to stay in a union with their conservative colleagues. If we see wall street deteriorate then there’d be a real possibility.
The first one never ended, just went into a cold phase. Heated up a bit in the 50s and 60s and has been getting a lot hotter the last 10 years or so
“War is only a few meals away” -idk
Can? Yes. Contrary to common belief history is not over and white people are not exempt. Will? Maaaybe.
I can’t see the US system self-correcting, but a deeply established democracy like the US coming apart is a new thing (all the past ones were much more ephemeral AFAIK). It could just as easily slide into one dictatorship, like Wiemar Germany, or undergo some sort of slow death as states become more and more independent of the broken national system. It’s also hard to say what the timeline is.
There isn’t really two (or more) sides to go to war at this point. There’s only one military, and while the will to fight may exist on the Republican side they aren’t really organised for it. That could all change if the crisis goes on for many years, though.
Why do you believe what you believe?
Inshallah
We’re not going to survive global warming if there isn’t one.
Haha no.
A lot of people don’t realise how shit a war can be, even when you’re hundreds of miles away from it. Your local economy fucking TANKS, jobs disappear, workers disappear on the next plane out, and you’re left with a population that’s struggling on all fronts, trying to make a brave face.
America is full of crazy disparity, but war doesn’t care. The one benefit is that the billionaire class would get fucking rinsed by the locals for every shiny trinket they have when suddenly food costs a fortune because your last shipment got shot up.
So your belief is that it can’t happen because it would suck?
Not the original commenter but I’d wager similarly that yes, the vast majority of the American people are far too comfortable to venture into the “inconvenience” of an actual war. Gripe about it from our couches? Yep. Lift a finger to bring about actual change (and no, signing an online petition doesn’t count) in the face of real, actual, severe consequence? …nah.
Of course it can. War can happen any time, anywhere.
I think it would be very wise to just vote for the normal person so we don’t even have to entertain the possibility of an authoritarian government and a resulting civil war. Once we are no longer a democracy, or are a managed democracy like Russia, it will be extremely difficult to unring that bell.
No, not in a North vs South sense. If anything it’s just going to be in the form of terrorism like we saw during his presidency. Just more bold.
No and you should not listen to people who think it could.
A civil war is large scale armed conflict between groups vying for the levers of power. In the case of the American civil war it was over slavery and came to war because there was no mechanism to integrate the south’s elites into the power structures of the north’s or vice versa and the material bases of those two groups power structures were in opposition.
What two groups would fight an American civil war nowadays? Democrats and republicans? They serve the same masters. We are witnessing propaganda bent to the ends of integrating members of one group into another.
Separatist militias? Not only would that not be a civil war, we saw how the fbi handled them in the 90s.
Corporations? Why would they do that? Government already does the unprofitable things they want and does them how they want them.
Separatist states? It’s against the economic interests of the very people who would make up the elite class of the new nation of Texas to submit their borders to taxes and tariffs.
Workers? That’s a revolution, not a civil war.
If someone wants you to fear modern civil war they’re trying to control you.
If someone makes art about a modern civil war they’re trying to tell you about something else on the sly, like with zombies.
In Florida, I have heard it from way too many people to feel comfortable. Republicans will say how they are ready if Trump loses. They say it’s because there is no way he can lose unless it’s all rigged. They believe this will happen. The worst I heard was a guy saying he will shoot anybody he suspects is not on his team. Others were not quite as ready, but definitely as angry and ignorant with the means. Some of the more intellectual I talk to are quick to point out the flaws of Democrats and how that said is more violent because of all the riots.
Living here is scary. It would be a war of ignorance, frustration, and hate against a false enemy. It will be a passionate group of clueless rebels without an enemy based in reality. Anyone could become a casualty in the chaos. These people are anti-intellectual, basing everything on what they call “common sense.” What that actually mean is whatever reinforces their anger in the moment is the truth no matter how ignorant or hypocritical.
It feels too real that citizens will be taking up arms. The worst part is not knowing who they will attack since the enemy is all in their heads.
That’s not a civil war though, that’s stoichastic terrorism at least and militia violence at most. I, uh, was just in a disaster in the us where militias were said to have been run off by the national guard and local law enforcement.
It’s still scary, but it’s not civil war.
To give you an idea of how common what you’re describing used to be, when 9/11 happened people who hadn’t already gotten the word from the federal government were blaming it on domestic terrorist organizations and individuals. We had just come off of a decade of federal law enforcement torching Waco, sniping ruby ridge, package bombs, federal building bombs (including wtc!) and school shootings there at the end.
The harmless nut job was such a common idea that the Feds had to really struggle against it when they bungled Waco and ruby ridge.
There’s been thirty years of domestic counter terror training to deal with just this type of situation. Fifty if you count the bender mienhoff group in Europe as the start.
You may see Waco 2.0 but you won’t see a civil war.
Republicans will say how they are ready if Trump loses.
99% of people who profess revolutionary politics are full of shit, for what it’s worth. It’s cheap to talk tough, and not so cheap to actually be in the line of fire, or in jail.
Actual uprisings have a structure to motivate fighters in other ways, be it by greed, ego or coercion. There is no paramilitary branch of the Republican party so far.
While I agree civil war is unlikely, there are paramilitary groups in the republican party, which Frontline investigated.
I could see a more minor version of The Troubles taking place.
Groups “in” and groups “of” are two very different things. The militias that exist are pretty wimpy, and pretty fractured. I’d guess 90% of militiamen are also full of shit, but with more merchandise.
If there was a power vacuum they’d get bigger, but that seems unlikely with so many various established authorities in the mix. I could see them getting coopted into whatever hypothetical faction, though, or just doing terrorist attacks.
Unfortunately, I can’t actually see that video.
How do you define the destinction? I assume you’re only counting ‘in’ as officially recognized by the republican party, the political entity?
There’s no way those guys vote Democrat, so it’s fair to say they’re “in” the Republican party, but they’re not a paramilitary “of” the Republican party, because none of the organisation and centralisation which makes the Republican party a force crosses over. They’re totally separate, and very unofficial - if a pastor or a local politician supports a militia group, they’re going to be doing that quietly on their own time. As a result, they all have a kind of “startup” thing going, and don’t really have logistics the way a viable insurgency would.
Sorry, I should have expanded a bit more there. Brevity vs. clarity is always a tough balance.
It is still not civil war, it is just plain old fascism. The politicians that endorse “vigilantes” to uphold “democracy”, “freedom” or whatever bullshit they can make up, are just exerting regular political violence from the old fascist playbook.
Making you feel scared is the point.
No. For practical reasons. Who is your enemy? Are we going shirts and skins? With the American civil war and most wars it’s easy to determine who your enemy is. Everyone who lives south of that river.
The friend of certainty is time. One day perhaps then we won’t even call ourselves Americans. I doubt the 1860s will happen again anytime soon. Maybe something closer in scale to Blair Mountain.
Look to history. We’ve had two. Look at the words explaining the necessity of independence in the declaration of independence. Those were not hollow words but detailed a long series of abuses. Then look to the causes of the Civil War. A perfidious institution anathematic to the very core ideal of the nation, that all men are created equal.
Our times doubtless have our problems but the do not meet nearly the standard set in the past.
