Civil War 2? (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    11,820
    Reaction score
    15,601
    Age
    48
    Location
    Washington DC Metro
    Online
    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……



     



    Yay cherry picked data!!!
    Also from the same study:

    cherries.png



     
    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.

    Never thought you'd be so triggered by a flippant comment.

    I'm shocked.
     
    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.
    No stranger than forcing women to travel hundreds of miles or out of their home state to have a completely legal medical procedure that is their right under the law.
     
    No stranger than forcing women to travel hundreds of miles or out of their home state to have a completely legal medical procedure that is their right under the law.
    Why would they have to travel it is completely legal? It must mean that the procedure in question is not completely legal in that area, so it is regulated in some degree. Similar to how I cannot by a F-15 and our commander in chief likes to point out.
     
    Why would they have to travel it is completely legal? It must mean that the procedure in question is not completely legal in that area, so it is regulated in some degree. Similar to how I cannot by a F-15 and our commander in chief likes to point out.
    They have to travel because Republicans in those states have found loopholes to the law that allows a woman to have a legal medical procedure but you knew that. The buying an F-15 comparison is stupid whether you made it or Biden made it. It's simply a very stupid comparison.
     

    This is not the first time I've read fears that charging and prosecuting Trump for his crimes could lead to civil war. The alternative is allowing someone who tried to end democracy as we know it and have known it since our inception to walk Scott-free as if he and his supporters wouldn't make another go at it. That's a bullshirt luxury we don't have now. The Republicans who were willing to hold Nixon accountable are all dead and gone or retired. This is not that Republican party. We don't have the luxury of pardoning an obvious guilty Nixon for the "good of the country".

    Trump said fork the country and our constitution and anything that gets in the way of what is best for him. It's time the country and our constitution give Trump and his supporters a big fat fork you back. If civil war is the only way to hold a treasonous dictator wanna be accountable for his actions then civil war it will be.
     
    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.
    What virtue am I signalling? I'm just full of practical solutions.
     
    Conscription is a fantastic idea.

    If you already served though, you shouldn’t have to serve again. No those guys are heroes for real.

    If you haven’t served, I think conscription is a really small price to pay to have a gun at home. A gun. Singular. Then you would have fulfilled the well regulated militia part that is conveniently forgotten. If you want more guns? Fine, but they get kept at the range.
     
    They have to travel because Republicans in those states have found loopholes to the law that allows a woman to have a legal medical procedure but you knew that. The buying an F-15 comparison is stupid whether you made it or Biden made it. It's simply a very stupid comparison.
    by 'loopholes', do you mean by voting to protect innocent life?
     
    Conscription is a fantastic idea.

    If you already served though, you shouldn’t have to serve again. No those guys are heroes for real.

    If you haven’t served, I think conscription is a really small price to pay to have a gun at home. A gun. Singular. Then you would have fulfilled the well regulated militia part that is conveniently forgotten. If you want more guns? Fine, but they get kept at the range.
    I think you are referring to the draft? Women included in 'conscription' if they have 'a' gun?
    How about you have the state try that on those that possess illegal guns first. If that works, then we can have a discussion about those that legally own weapons. If it doesn't and the state can't regulate illegal firearms then that explains why I should be allowed to own whatever I want to protect myself and my stuff since the state can't.

    Why would someone being force to wage war by the state (often in wrong wars mind you) be because I also choose to take part in my constitutionally protected right of self defense? That doesn't add up, unless you are simply saying that to set up a deterrent to owning a gun and that is what you are really trying to do.
     
    What virtue am I signalling? I'm just full of practical solutions.
    Sure. Lets see how it works for illegal firearms first, get those out of the criminal hands first and then we can discuss citizens giving up there weapons of self protection.
     
    by 'loopholes', do you mean by voting to protect innocent life?
    No. By making it harder for doctors to practice and perform legal medical procedures. We are not going to agree on this "protect innocent life" stance because Republicans and conservatives are not really interested in protecting innocent life.
     
    @Farb

    Having a gun, as the constitution is currently interpreted, is absolutely your right.

    Restricting that ownership does nothing to infringe on the right provided in The BoR.

    So you want a pistol? Fine. You want an assault rifle? Join up for two years, learn from the best, and then you can possess one at your home. More? Ok but they are at a range.

    None of that infringes on your rights
     
    No. By making it harder for doctors to practice and perform legal medical procedures. We are not going to agree on this "protect innocent life" stance because Republicans and conservatives are not really interested in protecting innocent life.
    Yes. How does a medical procedure turn from legal to illegal? The answer is a change in law and those that change the law are elected officials (generally) so basically, the people that live in a state, chose to make a medical procedure illegal.
     
    @Farb

    Having a gun, as the constitution is currently interpreted, is absolutely your right.

    Restricting that ownership does nothing to infringe on the right provided in The BoR.

    So you want a pistol? Fine. You want an assault rifle? Join up for two years, learn from the best, and then you can possess one at your home. More? Ok but they are at a range.

    None of that infringes on your rights
    Why does the state determine where I store my legal property?
    Why does the state put hurdles or require service to itself for me to exercise my right to bear arms?

    What about a shotgun or a M-4? Can I keep those in my home with my pistol and assault rifle?

    Restricting is infringing by definition.

    What benchmark will you suggest we use for measurement of the law applied to illegal gun owners? How will we know that they also have enlisted for 2 years and only have the allowed amount of weapons in their possession and at their home?

    Will the state subside gun ranges or control them? You would have to if they are also responsible for all the store weapons on site and there will have to be a lot more ranges available for the lawful gun owners.
     
    Yes. How does a medical procedure turn from legal to illegal? The answer is a change in law and those that change the law are elected officials (generally) so basically, the people that live in a state, chose to make a medical procedure illegal.
    It was once "illegal" for certain people to own land but then that law was determined to be unconstitutional. Republicans have put laws in place that utilize loopholes to restrict the rights of woman to control their own body based on religious beliefs of a minority of the population.

    Laws restricting people's rights of self-determination should not be up for a vote by elected officials. I bet you'd lose your shirt if elected officials in your area made it illegal for you to practice your chosen religion. It would be wrong for them to do so just as it's wrong now to restrict a woman's right to self determination.
     

    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