Civil War 2? (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    11,843
    Reaction score
    15,634
    Age
    48
    Location
    Washington DC Metro
    Offline
    Very sobering article
    ================
    If you know people still in denial about the crisis of American democracy, kindly remove their heads from the sand long enough to receive this message: A startling new finding by one of the nation’s top authorities on foreign civil wars says we are on the cusp of our own.

    Barbara F. Walter, a political science professorat the University of California at San Diego, serves on a CIA advisory panel called the Political Instability Task Force that monitors countries around the world and predicts which of them are most at risk of deteriorating into violence.

    By law, the task force can’t assess what’s happening within the United States, but Walter, a longtime friend who has spent her career studying conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Rwanda, Angola, Nicaragua and elsewhere, applied the predictive techniques herself to this country.

    Her bottom line: “We are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe.” She lays out the argument in detail in her must-read book, “How Civil Wars Start,” out in January. “No one wants to believe that their beloved democracy is in decline, or headed toward war,” she writes.

    But, “if you were an analyst in a foreign country looking at events in America — the same way you’d look at events in Ukraine or the Ivory Coast or Venezuela — you would go down a checklist, assessing each of the conditions that make civil war likely.

    And what you would find is that the United States, a democracy founded more than two centuries ago, has entered very dangerous territory.”

    Indeed, the United States has already gone through what the CIA identifies as the first two phases of insurgency — the “pre-insurgency” and “incipient conflict” phases — and only time will tell whether the final phase, “open insurgency,” began with the sacking of the Capitol by Donald Trump supporters on Jan. 6.

    Things deteriorated so dramatically under Trump, in fact, that the United States no longer technically qualifies as a democracy. Citing the Center for Systemic Peace’s “Polity” data set — the one the CIA task force has found to be most helpful in predicting instability and violence — Walter writes that the United States is now an “anocracy,” somewhere between a democracy and an autocratic state.

    U.S. democracy had received the Polity index’s top score of 10, or close to it, for much of its history. But in the five years of the Trump era, it tumbled precipitously into the anocracy zone; by the end of his presidency, the U.S. score had fallen to a 5, making the country a partial democracy for the first time since 1800.

    “We are no longer the world’s oldest continuous democracy,” Walter writes. “That honor is now held by Switzerland, followed by New Zealand, and then Canada. We are no longer a peer to nations like Canada, Costa Rica, and Japan, which are all rated a +10 on the Polity index.”…….

    Others have reached similar findings. The Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance put the United States on a list of “backsliding democracies” in a report last month.

    “The United States, the bastion of global democracy, fell victim to authoritarian tendencies itself," the report said.

    And a new survey by the academic consortium Bright Line Watch found that 17 percent of those who identify strongly as Republicans support the use of violence to restore Trump to power, and 39 percent favor doing everything possible to prevent Democrats from governing effectively……



     
    Honestly, I don't think children should be allowed in Hooters either so I guess we agree on that.
    Am I wrong in saying that this was indeed a slippery slope from when I was called crazy for bring up the absurdity of 'drag queen story hour' at public libraries? Now we have kids dancing with drag queen under a huge neon sign that says "It won't lick itself".
    What you may call paranoia, I call it the correct response to sexualization of kids.
    Parents have been indoctrinating their kids as long as there have been parents and kids.

    Some parents tell their kids that a man built a boat and put two of every species on earth on it because a man in the sky told him to.

    I think we should be more structured with how we indoctrinate kids, and take parents out of it.
     
    Parents have been indoctrinating their kids as long as there have been parents and kids.

    Some parents tell their kids that a man built a boat and put two of every species on earth on it because a man in the sky told him to.

    I think we should be more structured with how we indoctrinate kids, and take parents out of it.
    Who gets to decide what to indoctrinate kids? The silly ark people or the folks that tell them that men can have babies?

    That is the push with the left recently and you guys are surprised when parents finally push back. Please, please, please encourage all your politicians to run on that platform for all future elections.
     
    I don't know what event you're referring to, so I can't really say.
    Transbar.jpg
     

    The "It's not gonna lick itself" neon sign in the background isn't appropriate for young kids. But honestly kids get more sexual inuendo in any random TV commercial. Aside from that, I don't see anything objectionable in that picture. Seems like a family event with all the parents present. Certainly doesn't appear that anything nefarious is going on.

    Do you want to legally prevent those parents from allowing their children to interact with drag queens?
     
    Last edited:
    Who gets to decide what to indoctrinate kids?
    Me. And kids will be indoctrinated with what can only be objectively proven. Boom, I have solved everything.

    Also I like that it's 'the left' vs. 'parents.' As if all parents are a monolith.
     
    The "It's not gonna lick itself" neon sign in the background isn't appropriate for young kids. But honestly kids get more sexual inuendo in any random TV commercial. Aside from that, I don't see anything objectionable in that picture. Seems like a family event with all the parents present. Certainly doesn't appear that anything nefarious is going on.

    Do you want to legally prevent those parents from allowing their children to interact with drag queens?
    Apparently that is already illegal in Tx. I read there is a law passed last year that places that is sexual in nature (or some legal talk) cannot host kids parties or events.

    So in one sentence you say it is not appropriate, but then you have justify by comparing it to TV. I would agree. I think the sexualization of everything in our culture needs to cool down a bit.

    No, you will always have horrible parents, like the one pictured. Nothing the state can do about that but as a society, we could shame them in the hope that they raise their kids better. Would you be against that?
     
    Me. And kids will be indoctrinated with what can only be objectively proven. Boom, I have solved everything.

    Also I like that it's 'the left' vs. 'parents.' As if all parents are a monolith.
    I think most parents are a monolith when it comes to state indoctrination of their children. It is a naïve thought, but I hope
     
    Apparently that is already illegal in Tx. I read there is a law passed last year that places that is sexual in nature (or some legal talk) cannot host kids parties or events

    If that is the law, I don't have a problem with it. I don't believe gay clubs, strip clubs or just night clubs in general are appropriate settings for kids activities, even during the day. All I see in the picture that indicates that that is probably a gay club is the neon sign, so it wouldn't be my first choice to have an event there for children. But I don't know that for sure sense everything else in that picture is benign. Of course, that doesn't mean the event itself was inappropriate for children (aside from possibly the setting (in my opinion)).

    So in one sentence you say it is not appropriate, but then you have justify by comparing it to TV. I would agree. I think the sexualization of everything in our culture needs to cool down a bit.

    Yes, because I'm being honest. Neon sign aside, there's nothing that indicates that the drag queen and parents in that picture are sexualizing the kids.

    No, you will always have horrible parents, like the one pictured. Nothing the state can do about that but as a society, we could shame them in the hope that they raise their kids better. Would you be against that?

    I don't accept your characterization that those parents are horrible simply based on that picture.
     
    See, we almost agree on everything when we discuss the actual facts. All the other stuff we can disagree on but the simple truth is that most normal adults don't find this push of gender theory to be fair or good for young children.
     
    The latter should be conscripted and forced to fight in our next war.
    Why? Because they enjoy a hobby? What about that those that already fought in one of our many many past wars? Do they have to go again because they enjoy guns too? Sounds like an emotional response to me.
     
    Why? Because they enjoy a hobby? What about that those that already fought in one of our many many past wars? Do they have to go again because they enjoy guns too? Sounds like an emotional response to me.
    Seems like the best allocation of their skill set to me.
     
    Seems like the best allocation of their skill set to me.
    You are for sending 60 year old off to fight in wars for taking part in a completely legal hobby? That is a strange position.

    Does that include all the citizens that possess guns in the inter cities too or just the ones the purchase their firearms legally?

    Are they issued new weapons that are designed for warfare, or are they to provide their own weapons? Do they receive they a credit if they supply their own weapons?

    What is the benchmark for being sent to war? 10 guns, 5 guns? Do shotguns count or just the guns that will blow the lung out of a human? What about the guns that decapitates people, are those moved right to the front of the line?

    What about the collector that only has WW1 weapons, does have to fight with a bolt action?

    I have lots of questions on your virtue signaling suggestion.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom