logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Civil war?, what will happen after this election?
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 22 2016, 08:47 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Jules mentioned on another thread that he believes a civil war is hanging in the future for America.
AM disagreed somewhat in response, and these were good points I think. I'll quote AM here:
QUOTE
Will the USA see another civil war? I doubt it, but maybe you see something I don't. So I'll ask this question:

What would be behind this second civil war that's as important as the slavery issue was in the 19th century? States' rights? Preservation of white privilege? Second Amendment? Abortion? I'm just not seeing it, but maybe you can give a different perspective.

Here's something to consider: Newer generations are making their lives work by abandoning or delaying their ownership of real estate and big-ticket consumer goods, notably cars. For example, I bought my first new car in 1979, shortly after landing my first computer industry gig as a tech writer. Just a few days ago, Lydia's eldest bought her first new car while in her forties. I was 27 years old in 1979. That's almost a twenty-year difference.

Another difference was timing. She bought her car in October as the 2017 models drove down the prices of 2016 models. I bought mine in the summer and just asked for the cheapest thing on the lot. This difference is directly tied to the Internet, which wasn't much of anything in the seventies.

Contrasting instant communications to 19th century communication, it seems highly unlikely that revolution in the form of civil war (POV) will have a chance to develop in the USA. Imagine if everybody had cheap telegraphs in 1860 -- would the Civil War have occurred? Also, what if literacy (reading/writing) were at today's levels?


Thought this was worth a discussion. From my point of view, this election is like no other we've ever seen. More than just unlikeable candidates, there is fear here.
Fear on both sides and people respond to fear on a physiological level by shutting off their higher thought processes. So...what does everyone else think?
Will we see a civil war in our lifetime?
How would each side (hypothetically) respond to a win for the other?

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 22 2016, 08:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
Dingo
post Oct 23 2016, 02:02 AM
Post #2


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



Will we see a civil war in our lifetime?
Civil disorder yes but civil war unlikely. In 2000 we experienced a judicial coup which put the loser in power. That gave him Supreme Court appointment rights so the coup was compounded by additional supporters of undermining the democratic process in favor of one party which they subsequently have attempted to take advantage of.

The more likely scenario is a nuclear war with Russia which we have twice gone to the brink with. Now you can throw in China as she moves toward her own version of hegemony. Then there are loose cannons like North Korea and perhaps Pakistan and Israel.

How would each side (hypothetically) respond to a win for the other?
I hope if the democrats win the presidency that the republicans either behave constructively or go into an internal Jihad and wreck the republican party with the hope that something new and better will emerge. I don't expect anything much new from the democrats if Trump wins other than an anguished reassessment of how it was possible to lose to a political lunatic. I don't think the Bernie crowd have the stomach for a tea party style take-it-to-the- wall fight.

Edit. If you noted my first pre-edit response, sorry. Somehow I interpreted the question as a post civil war assessment, thus the odd response.


This post has been edited by Dingo: Oct 23 2016, 02:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 23 2016, 02:00 PM
Post #3


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,342
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Will we see a civil war in our lifetime?

The Beatles released a song about revolution in 1968, entitled Revolution. This was during a time of riots in the streets and the divide between hippies and cowboys/construction workers/Archie Bunkers. The US military was fighting against the Domino Theory in Vietnam. Nuclear testing was still going hot guns for Armageddon of our own making, no spirits involved. Woodstock happened. Dick Nixon got into power. There were wage/price controls. Looking back on my high school yearbook (now available online), faces were grim as the 1970s promised early graves and widowed single mothers. Yippee.

There isn't more fear today, just different fear. As always, it's a lesson in handling uncertainty in uncertain times, which have been around pretty much forever.

Yet young people figure out how to make things work, and I'm impressed with how well they've done. Sure there are royal screw-ups out there, your meth heads and greedy flucks, your kiss-ups and back-stabbers -- just like always. But then there are those who learn from their own and others' missteps.

So I don't think there's enough real misery that would fuel violent revolution. Cyber violence, yes, like the recent DDoS attacks that have revealed the huge weakness that web-connected devices with zilch for security (you listening, Alexa?) have introduced to the inherently insecure Internet. When the service went into the toilet, I went and played guitar, read a book, and other pre-web activities. After hearing about the cause, I made sure all my security was solid or the devices disconnected from the web (oh, what we've woven). But this will lead to stricter product regulation, not civil war. Your smart (!?) 35-dollar microwave will be a few bucks more expensive. Your Hot Pockets will still suck. You might need to secure your Wi-Fi.

Even those who build personal armories and have basements that look like something out of an MIB movie know deep down that it's futile. The government has drones, fool. You've got ARs designed for Vietnam. Think about the last Star Trek movie and how a swarm of little bugs brought down The Enterprise (seems to have become a genre plot element).

What about Russia and China trying to gain relevance in the 21st century with 20th century tactics? Um, it didn't work all that well back then, so why would it now? And besides, international fears won't push a violent revolution. Way too impersonal.

How would each side (hypothetically) respond to a win for the other?

I'm fairly certain that there will not be anything more than recounts and attempted delays that don't go anywhere. The upside to not loving any of the candidates is the meh-effect, aka not really giving a hoot. On Trump's side are a bunch of wishful thinkers who like to hear their own internal voices spoken aloud for a change, but as with the Occupy movement, there isn't anything to hang a Get'er Great Again hat on other than wistful hooks. Hippies had the same problem, and then there was Nixon's secret plan to solve Vietnam. In the end of that era, it became obvious that everyone had been clueless, and what had to happen did -- despite protests, fights, arguments, broken families, drugs, and talking revolution trash.

Clinton isn't insane, which is her strongest attraction this season. She is conventional in a 2016 sense, pretty radical in a 1968 sense. However, her greatest supporters are Democrats who admire Gore's handling of the 2000 loss, even though he won the popular vote. EC and SCOTUS, the realities of the USA's form of government, took precedence over emotions, and I expect the same should Trump win. Also recounts and delays, as those are parts of the same system.

If Clinton wins, I expect failed assassination attempts. If Trump wins, I expect hilarious new comedy shows, much like what developed after Reagan's win in 1980. There might also be assassination attempts with him, but I don't see a Hillary win spawning much comedy. She just isn't that funny, reminds me of Queen Victoria. Kate McKinnon will have a career boost, not likely anyone else. Clinton will make a better POTUS though, IMO. And we'll get sick of her emails spamming the entire world's inboxes, thereby boosting Google's market share for its efficient gmail filters.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Oct 23 2016, 07:13 PM
Post #4


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,404
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



civil war - Will the initiation of force by government upon its citizens grow to the point where those so abused will band together to oppose such force?

The Civil War was about the North demanding the South comply. It was a battle between state's rights versus federal power.

The political battle between Clinton and Trump is not about the clash between two separate ideologies. Clinton and Trump are in general agreement on political philosophy. The battle is between the oligarchary and someone who is not sufficiently compliant with the oligarchy. Trump has one good point and that is he is not liked by the oligarchy. Voters do not know much but they can tell Trump is rattling the cage of the status quo state. Trump is getting populous support as more Americans are coming to realize the country is not going very well. The sad state of American politics is affecting people in their lives. Voters can sense/know Trump is challenging those who control the voters. The oligarchy dominates via large expenditures including controlling the media, dominating the airways (television, radio), and payouts to create the modern aristocracy.

Will this growing percentage of Americans who are finally realizing the country is doing badly bring us to war? Certainly we have been inundated with lessons that force is the means to problem solve. However, it does not take war to find a better way. War would be a continuation of bad thinking, not a means to correcting the flaws. Peace and freedom are good things. From what I can tell, these qualities are desired even if they are not understood. There is hope.

Americans need to understand more than they do now about how to get along. It would be disappointing if we continue to think violence and force is the means to a successful society. If the country does learn more, violence rising to the level of internal war is a matter of time.

-------

Assassinations? Nuclear war with Russia? This will take us down the path to civil war. You both are feeling the rising trend of authoritarianism and increased use of force. I expect this coming election will reveal more support of candidates who champion the path of statism and the increased use of force. I can not say you are wrong about conclusions about violence given our history and momentum. When is the instinct to desire peace and freedom going to kick in to motivate learning?

The support of Trump gives a hint of optimism that voters are changing. You have to recognize there is a problem before you can identify the problem and later correct it.

Knowledge is a powerful thing. It can spread rapidly. Change can happen rapidly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 23 2016, 08:37 PM
Post #5


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Oct 23 2016, 12:13 PM) *
Trump has one good point and that is he is not liked by the oligarchy. Voters do not know much but they can tell Trump is rattling the cage of the status quo state.

And what is this oligarchy? And what is his one good point and how is he rattling the cage of the status quo anymore than a stickup man? Is it his birthirism? Is it his bigotry? Is it his ignorance? Is it his pathological lying? Is it his uncontrollable narcissism? Is it his name calling? Is it his abuse of women? Denying them the right to determine their own birth choices? Is it his love of torture? Of war? Of nuclear proliferation? If he represents the alternative to the oligarchy then I'll go with the oligarchy - I've never seen them so positively represented. innocent.gif

QUOTE
Americans need to understand more than they do now about how to get along. It would be disappointing if we continue to think violence and force is the means to a successful society. If the country does [not] learn more, violence rising to the level of internal war is a matter of time. (I'm assuming in context you mistaken left out that insert).

Just to get our history straight, there would be no USA without violence to an indigenous people. But yes we have to find an alternative ultimately. A most obvious point seems to be something that you and so many others miss - you can't have peace in a world where everybody is playing musical chairs. A world where more people are continually pushing the boundaries of space and resources is a world inherently in conflict. Endlessly proclaiming peace and freedom does not produce the conditions that bring that about.

QUOTE
The support of Trump gives a hint of optimism that voters are changing.

More like escalating the worst aspects of the status quo. A Quaker he is not. devil.gif



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Oct 23 2016, 09:13 PM
Post #6


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,404
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Here is an article about the oligarchy.

There is a history of force used against the indigenous people in the formation of the United States but that is not the same as violence being necessary for the formation of the United States. Another example would be slavery and the Civil War. Some people think slavery would exist in today's United States if not for the Civil War. Speculative and unlikely in either case to reach the conclusions made.

Dingo, I have a similar opinion of how different Trump would be if elected. Makes me sing: We Don't Get Fooled Again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 24 2016, 01:04 AM
Post #7


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Oct 23 2016, 02:13 PM) *

I agree with Rockwell that Jimmy Carter has been under rated. Rockwell also appears to support Trump and clearly is a conspiracy nutcase, which is consistent with the Trump candidacy. wacko.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 24 2016, 12:20 PM
Post #8


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Thanks for your responses, everyone. flowers.gif

AM's made me smile.
It is good to put context on the current state of affairs by comparing it to others times, and things have certainly looked worse.

Just thinking on the topic this morning.
When considering why countries devolve into civil war (and “Revolution”) I’m not thinking specifically about singular issues (those always vary), but the underlying basic reasons.

I think it could be summarized in a nutshell:
A country devolves into civil war when a large enough percentage of the population does not believe the current government has legitimacy.
When a government lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the public, the public rises up against it. That could be any number of reasons.
For example, if there is massive crime against the citizenry and the state is not able to maintain basic security, the government is delegitimized in the eyes of the public.
It is true of our civil war that ended slavery…the heart of the matter was the question of legitimacy of the federal government to rule over the states.

We currently have two candidates with very high disapproval ratings. What happens if there are election-related shenanigans?
It could be anything. Imagine a series of bomb threats at voting stations in Clinton (or Trump) centric areas. They don't even have to be bombs, just called in scare tactics that cause people to avoid the booths.
Anything that tarnishes the legitimacy of the process.
I don’t think this is similar to the Gore situation because people were not this emotionally invested.
Few people truly considered Bush or Gore to be the monsters they consider the current contenders to be.
At any rate, I guess we’ll know soon enough what happens. ermm.gif

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 24 2016, 12:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Oct 24 2016, 04:17 PM
Post #9


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,937
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 22 2016, 09:47 PM) *
Jules mentioned on another thread that he believes a civil war is hanging in the future for America.


What I actually said on the other thread was:
QUOTE(Myself)
it's not hard to imagine another US civil war within my lifetime (and I turn 50 next October).


Not quite the same as saying that I believe there will be a civil war in my lifetime. But it is a lot less hard to imagine one than it was (say) 10 years ago, or 20, or 30. There's just a whiff all over the developed world that ordinary people are no longer enough of getting what we have been promised by the last three or four decades of 'neoliberal' economic sand media-dominated, two-party politics to still be sold on the idea that we're ever likely to get what we've been promised. The American Dream looks a bit more illusory than usual, and trickle-down economics seems to have dried up.

This is seen by one side as a problem caused by big government and too much interference in markets from government and national or even supranational agencies, with the solution being varying degrees of scaling back of government activity and spending. The other side sees the cause as almost the complete opposite - not enough government regulation and taxation (though almost always of other people, not themselves) and the solution being more of both, more spending and bigger government.

And, more pertinently, the media bubbles that 'choice' and 'diversity of voice' have allowed us to surround ourselves with, so that we hardly ever hear contrary opinions unless they are framed to be ridiculed or held up as ideological bogey men. These self-created bubbles of information have made it ever harder for people on either side to calmly discuss practically anything. It's come about for any number of reasons; f the market-led competition of broadcasters and publishers (of both traditional and new media); the fragmentation of all types of media to serve smaller and tighter market niches; the lefty ideas that identity politics and political correctness are paramount and that contrary opinions are something to take offence at, not something to actually listen to or engage with. This, or course, amplifies and reinforces the (seemingly) almost complete disagreement on the diagnosis of the problem, and prescriptions for the cure, that I mentioned above.

QUOTE
Thought this was worth a discussion. From my point of view, this election is like no other we've ever seen. More than just unlikeable candidates, there is fear here.
Fear on both sides and people respond to fear on a physiological level by shutting off their higher thought processes. So...what does everyone else think?
Will we see a civil war in our lifetime?


It very much depends on how people react. Sober reflection might happen, where you realise that the people you rant about and hate on are supported by your friends, neighbours and colleagues, before anything escalates into open conflict. I just don't detect a lot of sober reflection going on, at least not in the media.

By analogy, the 'if it bleeds it leads' idea of giving editorial prominence to crime stories has, over many decades, led to public perceptions of crime that dramatically overestimate the number of crimes actually happening, and the risks of becoming a victim. Muslim-first reporting of terrorism and focusing on immigration as a cause of social problems and stretched public resources (which, at least on this side of the pond, have been more affected by deliberate spending cuts by government than by the number of foreign born people claiming them), has led people to dramatically overestimate the numbers of immigrants, the amount of welfare fraud, and the amount of welfare claimants per se.

So where might another few electoral cycles where right wing political supporters are portrayed in lefty circles as unstable lunatics at worst, or idiots and fools at best, with no grasp on how the world really works and no inclination to learn anything about it from sources other than Fox News and the Bible, and whose preferred politicians are terrifying populist demagogues with no care for hard-won civil rights and no concern simple politeness, let alone diplomacy, and pander to the worst prejudices of their supporters if it'll make the evening news or get them elected?

Or where left-leaning voters are portrayed in right wing circles as cosseted high falutin' City tenderhorns with no clue on how the world really works who would much rather argue over who is allowed to use which restrooms than do anything to defend the country from external military, terrorist or economic threats, and whose politicians are either sandal wearing vegans or sinister and cynical Washington robots who'd lie through their teeth six times before breakfast and will pander the the worst prejudices... you get the idea?

QUOTE
How would each side (hypothetically) respond to a win for the other?


Either they'd raise their game and take seriously the concerns of the other side. Or (and this seems more likely) they'll react with further annoyance and get more extreme in both directions in turn - winning side crows about their victory for common sense; people with common sense on the losing side feel slighted by the idea that they must be idiots for not voting for the winning side, and form a backlash against it; backlash gathers momentum and supporters of the winning side get frustrated that the losers are now dominating the argument, which is not right as they were the losers and are supposed to shut up and bow down to the superior wisdom of the winning side; losing side take further umbrage at this and lashes back even further.

That last paragraph describes Western politics since the late 1990s as far as I can see, and what I can't see (but admit is possible) is anything on the horizon that might put a stop to it. America has been doing things that way for longer than anywhere in Europe, so whatever the outcome, you're likely to experience it first.

The traditional response to that would be that unity comes from existential external threats, but we already have several of those (the rise of China, the reassertion of some aspects of the Cold War as Putin tightens his grip on Russia). And then there's global warming, but the two sides can't even agree that's happening at all (it is) let alone what is causing it (we are) or what to do about it.

The idea of civil war is a long way off, of course, and I don't generally like slippery slope arguments and I'm not trying to make one. However, the idea of civil war is no longer completely outlandish, either.

This post has been edited by Julian: Oct 24 2016, 04:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 25 2016, 02:05 PM
Post #10


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,342
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Just a few comments on the Civil War of the USA:

States' rights was a rationalization for maintaining slavery, an economic system that had been rejected by England years before and without the butchery that characterized the USA's transition. On the upside, lots of advances were made in surgical tech and implementation. Amazing that there'd be grace coming out of that hell.

A greater force than states' rights was industrialization versus agriculture. Slavery only made sense in a highly labor-intensive agricultural system. The cotton gin, invented in 1793, should have given a hint as to the limited usefulness of human chattel, but of course you have the conservative inertial effect. It didn't work out so well in this case.

But industrialization alone wasn't going to end slavery, merely shift it from one form to another. Instead of having to care for slaves enough to make them profitable, slave wages at sweat shops became the norm. Ha-ha, fooled yah! Now take your pennies and go live off that, if you can. Give us your children! How much for the little girl? (Blues Bros. 1)

And then came the labor movement, and communism attracted a lot of attention. Then fascism, then war, then nukes, then Korea, then Vietnam, and so on to the ME and continuing war for who knows how long.

Say you want a revolution? Well, you can simply join the armed forces and get your belly full of it. Then end up having to pay back enlistment bonuses because some bozo(s) played fast and loose with government funds. Sucks, doesn't it.

Still, people have options. That's a very important thing to keep in mind while considering what sort of revolution might be in the offing. Slavery eliminated options. Slave wages sucked, but since options had been reintroduced, there were possibilities that didn't exist before for a whole group of North American inhabitants. Also other groups got more options along the way, your minorities like Native Americans. Women too, sort of. It's still not explicit in the Constitution, but the vote is. Ergo, there's hope.

Which brings me to bloodless revolution, a concept that gained traction in the 1960s but is as ancient as life itself (think evolution versus conquering, fitting in rather than pushing out). That is what's going on today, not a movement toward violent revolution. But the firearm industry appreciates all the support that fear has generated for it.

There's a man with a gun over there, ah-tellin' me I got to beware. Meh, think I'll buy sheet music instead. Guns just aren't that interesting. Getting a fat jazzy/woody sound out of a Strat with single coils, now that's something!

Besides, I already have a gun. It melts solder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Oct 29 2016, 09:10 AM
Post #11


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,189
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Will we see a civil war in our lifetime?

Having almost passed the point of saying I am Three Score and ten years old, I'm going to say it is unlikely in my lifetime. However, the native Americans seem to have reached a point where they are willing to fight against the U.S. military and the U.S. military has forgotten that treaties signed with the Indians have the same force of law as the United States Constitution, and Constitutional Amendments have made the native Americans U.S. Citizens... Their battle should be fought in the courts, and the courts should have the courage to tell the corporations to suspend their pipeline construction projects until final rulings have been made.

I doubt very much that the outcome of the Presidential Election will directly affect the resolution of that conflict...

How would each side (hypothetically) respond to a win for the other?

If Hillary wins the Presidency, but loses the Congress, I expect that an attempt to impeach her will begin before she is able to take office.

If Trump wins the Presidency and the Democrats win the House and Senate, I suspect that the attempts to impeach him will wait until late January.

Either way, I suspect that we can look forward to four years of an unproductive Congress and serious discussions and reconstruction in both parties of how the nominating process is going to proceed for the 2020 election cycle. We need to be asking why we nominate a Presidential Candidate by a process of popular selection with no careful vetting, and then let that candidate vet his /her running mate.

I seriously believe that it is possible that Republicans voted for Hillary in the Primaries because she would be an easy target to defeat and that it is equally likely that Democrats felt it would be easier to defeat Donald Trump than say, a brain surgeon running for President...

We are not being served well by a process of selecting leaders because they are good at raising money from wealthy donors. I believe this is the Election Cycle that may have made this evident to professional politicians.

Yes, there are third party "I'm having an Aleppo moment" candidates out there, but we are still operating from a two party system and I do not foresee any change in that.

I live in Michigan, where we learned in school that before we became a state, The Michigan Militia attacked Canada at one point, and started a "border war" with Ohio which resulted, if my memory is correct, in only a single casualty... Two, if I recall correctly, was the son of an Ohio Sheriff.

If Donald Trump is elected President, I am very unlikely to go in search of weapons and training and try to attack Washington D.C. in an effort to kill Congress and the President... We have discussed leaving the country, but 75% of our income is from Social Security. I am far more likely to simply turn off the television, head to a favorite diner, and talk about weather, the granddaughter, and the fact that I have never understood why I should concern myself with the price of tea in China... The price of gasoline in America is about half of what it was under George Dumbya Bush. I have already voted. In 41 more days I will be over 70... I lacked the stamina to be of any help in this years election cycle. It is time for me to hope that my children and grandchildren will work to improve our government...

I do not understand how a candidate for President can say, "I started out with only a few million dollars and built it into billions, but I think the country is not the great country it once was that offers everyone opportunities... Make America grate again." (Hug flag. sell baseball caps, sell campaign signs, bilk loyal believers in the con) Yes, he is drawing 'Youge crowds," but I doubt that he will win. I think that he simply set out to effectively destroy the Republican Party because he believes "the economy runs better when Democrats are in charge." (About 101,000,000 results (0.59 seconds)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaytonRocker
post Oct 29 2016, 03:48 PM
Post #12


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,520
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



Population during the revolution: 2.5 million, but roughly half were slaves. The largest cities in the colonies were Philadelphia, Pa, (43,000), New York, N.Y. (25,000), Boston, MA (16,000), Charleston, S.C. (12,000), and Newport, R.I. (11,000). The four largest American colonies were Virginia (447,016), Pennsylvania (240,057), Massachusetts (235,308), and Maryland (202,599). Source

It was far easier to get enough people to revolt with that size population and no internet keeping them in their houses.

Population during the Civil War: 22 million. With no internet and TV keeping them home, it was much tougher, but certainly doable. The southern states had about 5.5 million free people and roughly 3.5 million slaves. So, about half had to be mad enough to revolt when someone wanted to take their slaves away. Harvest my own crops? Are you kidding me?

Obviously, you can see where I'm going with this.

Current population of the US? About 325 million. Source here. The 101st Fighting keyboardists are a rascally bunch, but they are not significant and they are not leaving their mom's basement.

How many would it take to start a civil war with any chance of winning? Who the heck knows. Assuming 1/4 of the population could actually fight (able bodied adults), 30-40 million? Somehow 30-40 million people would have to militarize without being squashed early. The problem I see is that a conspiracy that large could never work. It would be taken down quickly, early,and forcefully using weaponry the conspirators have no access to. In using the term conspirators, I don't mean they are wrong. But the federal government will side with one side.

The bigger problem is that we have a representative republic. The system is fair to all that vote. It's not our fault that people don't give a crap about elections. They sure as hell aren't going to fight for anything if they're too lazy and uninformed to vote.

My prediction - 0.00000001%. Because the 101st Fighting Keyboardist might leave mom's basement to lose weight, discover sunlight, and decide being outside ain't a bad thing.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: May 27th, 2018 - 05:22 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.