In the same sense I describe water as being damp.
As compared to the far right agenda:
-shutting down the solar and wind industries
-instituting sharia* law
-abolition of social programs (except the ones they collect from)
-race war & ethnic cleansing
-abolition of all environmental regulations and protections
-outlawing science that doesn’t agree with the Official Party Line
-complete sexual discrimination and oppression of women
-denial of civil rights to anyone considered a “deviant”
-abandonment of civilization in favor of warlordism
*-“sharia” used as the institution of religious laws on the general population
For those wondering, in the active duty army, “Whites” only make up 53% of the enlisted personnel and you have to believe a significant portion of them will remain loyal to the Unified USA and/or aren’t Red Staters.
“Blacks” & Hispanics are 40% and I’ll bet they’ll end up support the Blue States at a 99% rate.
I don’t think the army would support a rebellion, I doubt even more the Navy & Air Force would.
Again you are assuming that it’s the ‘red’ faction that is in rebellion and the ‘blue’ faction who is the government. Even if that’s the case, I could see instances where you’d have a significant portion of the military splitting in a ‘red’/‘blue’ conflict. Say the ‘blue’ side, in control of the government, decided to do away with the 2nd or 1st Amendments by fiat. Would the military support that, and, more importantly, support being used against the civilian population to suppress it in the event of such a thing?
I think that in general it’s impossible to really answer the OP without specifics, and that those who are doing so are making initial assumptions…as did I, when I put in my own thoughts on it (as did the guy in the video I linked too that showed a ‘red’/‘blue’ civil war scenario).
I also don’t think that "“Blacks” & Hispanics are 40% and I’ll bet they’ll end up support the Blue States at a 99% rate. " is a sure thing either, again depending on what assumptions you make. What if either the ‘red’ or ‘blue’ faction in control of the government decided to create a 1 child policy and force abortion? Still going to be at 99%? :dubious: The assumption you are making is that the ‘red’ faction would be rebelling and that whatever issue they are rebelling about wouldn’t appeal to minority service personnel, but that’s an assumption, and I can think of several that could. Also, IMHO, more than 1% would follow the lead of their officers and their service mates in whatever branch we are talking about. I was in the service, and an officer, and if my Captain said we were doing something then I’d take that seriously, especially if the rest of my shipmates though it was a good idea (not that the Captain often consulted us on what we were or weren’t doing :p).
That should have been ’ I was in the service, and a hispanic, and if my Captain said we were doing something then I’d take that seriously, '…I wasn’t an officer and no idea why I put that in. :smack:
Why do you think this? Blacks and Hispanics didn’t vote for Clinton (or even Obama) at a 99% rate.
Great, you don’t think there will be a 21st century America civil war. I don’t either. However, my answer to the OP is that if there is a red (conservative) versus blue (liberal) civil war, I think the red side will win, regardless of which side starts the war. My premise is that if the red side is in power, the blue rebellion will start with acts of civil disobedience escalating into violence. That violence will put the blue side into conflict with the police and army, and once those two groups choose a side, that side’s going to win. My further premise is that if the blue side is in power, the red rebellion will be different. The rebellion will be against a combination of increasing loss of liberty and massive taxation. Members of the armed forces will be among the victims of these policies, and the tipping point towards violence will be later. Therefore when the police and army do react, their response will be restore order by imposing martial law and ousting the government. It’s a more subtle argument, so I chose to elaborate on it.
I don’t have any problems with anyone who disagrees with me. However, rather than offering simple disagreement, I’d encourage you to read the OP and then provide a better answer than mine.
As for the movement to ban meat, are you saying that movement isn’t real? I’ve already provided five cites for it. Google “should meat be banned” if you want more. Here’s the top search response which has several advocates for meat consumption being illegal.
https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-eating-meat-be-illegal
Yes, it’s a fringe left policy. I was hypothesising about a far-left government. Has anyone ever gone to war against improved health care? Or tax cuts for that matter?
But talking about something that maybe has the support of 2% of the population as a matter that ought to be discussed in this context is what is being objected to. I’d bet you there’s more Americans who are in favor of bringing back racial segregation.
You don’t have any basis that you can articulate, then. OK.
Isn’t it part of the Green New Deal to get rid of meat? That takes it out of the fringe, at least wrt exposure, and I’m guessing that it also indicates we are probably talking about more than 2% of the population that would nominally support such a thing. Personally, I don’t think anyone is really stupid enough to push, at this time, a ban on all meat, but it would certainly be a point of serious discord if someone tried to do it by fiat and force people to such a thing.
Basically, a red/blue civil war is unlikely in the extreme. ANY sort of US civil war, at this stage is, IMHO an extremely low probability event, despite what some seem to think. But the OP, like many threads on this board, is basically asking us to suspend our disbelief for a time to answer the theoretical. Personally, as I said, I don’t think a meaningful answer can be made with what’s laid out, as a bunch of assumptions would need to be made to answer the questions asked. What is interesting is seeing the assumptions people are making and what that really says about them.
So would you say that your own personal political views are more or less conservative than those of the Confederates?
I mean, it’s really freakin’ obvious. I don’t normally cite an encyclopedia, but for something this basic it’s appropriate.
We’ve got a situation where one side was SO TERRIFIED of upending their tradition of slavery, weakening their authority over black people, and losing their property of chattel slaves, that they seceded from the nation.
The term derives, IIRC, from the royalist forces who sat on the French king’s right side. The Confederacy saw itself as a new sort of noble class ruling over a utopia based on permanent hierarchies. They were as close to royalists as you ever get in the United States.
I see no basis for suggesting the confederacy was anything other than right-wing.
It doesn’t matter how my view compare to theirs. What matters is how their view compared to those of their political opponents and the lawful government of the nation in their time. Look, I understand that “right wing” is a sneer term here and you thought you’d come up with a real bon mot with the hot dog quip. It seems that you are falling into the trap of taking all of history’s bad guys and assigning them the politics of your present day opposition. You aren’t the first. There is a decades long pissing contest with both left and right claiming Hitler and the Nazis belonged to the other side. A person well enough read and thoughtful enough in hir writing could possibly make a case that they were right wing. You didn’t do that. Your response was just that they were because they were.
I remember when conservatives used to sneer at “moral relativism” as being something that leftist academics dreamed up. Thank god we have someone on the board who will argue that Confederates were not half bad guys for their time, and also imply that they were sorta centrist and/or liberal.
Very well, I’ll give you a scenario at least as likely as your with overwhelming odds of the red side losing. Trump loses the 2020 election, bigly. He loses the popular vote by almost ten million votes and the electoral college by 100. He takes to twitter and says he is going to fight the outcome of the election all the way to the Supreme court, claiming massive voter fraud. The machinery of transition is stalled pending the court filings and he’s facing impeachment with a large Democratic majority in the house and slim Democratic majority in the senate and several Republican senators distancing themselves from Trump in the wake of the election. The Supreme court rules that the election results are valid and that there is no basis for a delay in certifying the election and swearing in our new president in a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the liberals. Trump declares an emergency and says that the court decision constitutes a judicial coup against his administration as Justice Roberts is obviously a Bush loyalist and never-Trumper who along with deep state elements has orchestrated a massive takeover of the federal government by forces that hate America and the Constitution, he activates the Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina and Mississippi national guard and calls them to DC to ‘restore order’ until we can find out what the hell is going on and have a new, legitimate election. The President elect is sworn in by the Chief Justice and liberal members of the court protected by the DC police force and the FBI and calls for Trump to immediately step down, be placed under arrest and held on charges of sedition and for all national guard units activated by Trump to be recalled and stand down. Tensions rise, citizen militias are forming and Trump is railing against the deep state and socialist traitors inciting all ‘real’ Americans to take back their country. The first violence happens in large red state cities as police and national guard units fire on mostly peaceful protests, state legislatures move to neuter the power of municipal governments in red states putting all policing power in the hands of state government agencies citing ‘sanctuary city’ laws and policies and police oversight boards as examples of how Democratic city governments are in violation of the law. Blue state governors activate their national guard units and move to secure their borders in areas with high levels of militia activity and where red state cops are violating their citizen’s right to free movement. Trump leaves the White House for an undisclosed location, the president-elect holds a nationally televised address calling for peace and restoration of order, and for red state governments to abide by the Constitution or face federal charges of sedition. In an absolutely key move, the majority of the joint chiefs of staff make it known they’re taking orders from the president-elect and that the regular armed forces will be at the president-elect’s disposal. Now… how do you see the red states winning that one?
[Snip]
I was going to do a long winded rely, but **lokij **did it better than I could.
Really, complaining about not knowing Mark Morano is a bit silly when it could had been any of the right wing pundits that lied about that meat banning, of course there are militant vegans out there but banning meat is not what most liberals are about, and that is even less of an item among Democratic politicians as it was shown.
Another clear bit of misleading info you fell for was also that about coal, even conservatives from Reason Magazine saw that coal was done not by environmentalist concerns, but by basic economics.
Well, in a way you answered that too, most of the Reds will clearly fall for off the wall propaganda talking points, and in a war I can foresee the reds ramp up the use of coal to keep tings going.
And with that I can, putting aside how we got there, speculate on how the Red group can fall:
Warfare is bound to make the Red group ramp up coal use based on purely misguided ideological and ignorant reasons. That is bound to make things worse for the heath and the environment of the Red areas. Ideological motivation can misguide you big because thanks to the ideological blinders and ignorance, they will be willing to turn their regions into Isengard or Mordor as Tolkien described. Add then to that situation the rest of the world also having yet another reason to support the Blues as the increase in carbon dumping into the atmosphere will be seen as an asshole move and the blue coastal areas that will not be amused to see their land go under water thanks to ocean rise, so, even more incentive for the Blue side to fight on and the Red areas next to the sea losing territory to the ocean will also have a hard time when the people there see their new rulers continuing with their King Canute act.
Going to war to eat is laudable. Much better than the left who goes to war to bring famine.
Lincoln went to war to starve the slaves? This is getting weird, even in comparisons to the other things you’ve said about the Civil War.
And that. That right there. This is why I say the right will be the reason there is a civil war, if we have one. Because they don’t disagree with us, that’s not enough, they must vilify us. That’s right, leftists (meaning liberals) want to go to war to bring us famine. That makes total sense. That’s what I, as a voting liberal democrat, am looking to do… starve babies that make it past my abortion camps. It can’t just be that we have a different perspective on agricultural policy and believe, consistent with every single shred of scientific evidence, that eating meat (particularly red meat) is not only pretty bad for you but wasteful of resources and damaging to the environment. No… we want to starve people. Because we’re evil, we hate this country, we hate freedom, we want to murder babies, we want to round up Christians and persecute them etc. etc. You wonder why we think it’s just a short jump to you guys shooting at us.
Y’all get pissed off when we generalize about you, mostly saying you’re stupid, racist and greedy… but none of those things come with the sort of apocalyptic ‘it’s us or them’ kind of rhetoric that you guys employ. It sorta reminds me of the Margaret Atwood quote, ‘Men are afraid women will laugh at them, women are afraid men will kill them.’ Conservatives are afraid liberals will laugh at them in an SNL skit. Liberals are afraid conservatives will bomb us.
I think it was a reference to leftists in China and Russia bringing about starvation. Since others decided that the Confederacy was rightist and associated conservatives with slavery, it seems apt…if we are going to just strawman and attempt to paint with broad brushes that have little to do with today it makes sense. And since that is what everyone is doing, might as well get some licks in…