Civil War 2? (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    12,091
    Reaction score
    15,870
    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……



     
    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.
    Some how I don't think you believe this. What do you consider a right of self-determination besides abortion?
     
    Eventually the gun conversation will shift to whether or not it should be a constitutionally protected right, because ultimately the gun nuts always hide behind the consitution. I am talking a generation from now.

    We will have the NRA to thank for the eventual repeal of the 2nd amendment.
     
    Some how I don't think you believe this. What do you consider a right of self-determination besides abortion?
    Well, like most times, you are wrong. I believe that everyone should have the right to decide what they do with their bodies. I also believe that a woman has the right to decide if she wants to be pregnant or not.
     
    Well, like most times, you are wrong. I believe that everyone should have the right to decide what they do with their bodies. I also believe that a woman has the right to decide if she wants to be pregnant or not.
    Can a child decide to drink beer? What age?
    You also were against vaccine mandates obvious.

    Who do you think makes the decision if a woman is to be pregnant or not? Surely not your suggesting the state has any say if a woman become pregnant, right?
     
    Eventually the gun conversation will shift to whether or not it should be a constitutionally protected right, because ultimately the gun nuts always hide behind the consitution. I am talking a generation from now.

    We will have the NRA to thank for the eventual repeal of the 2nd amendment.
    I agree. The only way to limit gun ownership in this country is to appeal the 2nd. No other way. I just wish they would come out and say it so we can have that debate and put it to bed. Either way, I see that is one of the main issues that is the reason for this country to split.

    Crazy how people that like something 'hide' behind the reason for that right to enjoy it. Reminds me of those abortion nuts that hide behind Roe.
     
    Can a child decide to drink beer? What age?
    You also were against vaccine mandates obvious.

    Who do you think makes the decision if a woman is to be pregnant or not? Surely not your suggesting the state has any say if a woman become pregnant, right?
    You’re mincing words.

    You evidently lost your hypocrisy meter. In the same breath you question the government’s ability to put some fairly benign and common sense restrictions on gun use that will lead to less gun violence in a country that is awash in it, and then you turn around and say the government should intervene in a woman’s private medical decisions.
     
    I agree. The only way to limit gun ownership in this country is to appeal the 2nd. No other way. I just wish they would come out and say it so we can have that debate and put it to bed. Either way, I see that is one of the main issues that is the reason for this country to split.

    Crazy how people that like something 'hide' behind the reason for that right to enjoy it. Reminds me of those abortion nuts that hide behind Roe.
    The 2nd amendment is already limiting gun ownership and has from the beginning of memory. You don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

    Also-you constantly parade your misogyny around like you are proud of it. i suppose you are proud of it. I don’t know what else to think in response to statements like you just made there.
     
    You’re mincing words.

    You evidently lost your hypocrisy meter. In the same breath you question the government’s ability to put some fairly benign and common sense restrictions on gun use that will lead to less gun violence in a country that is awash in it, and then you turn around and say the government should intervene in a woman’s private medical decisions.
    My concern is those 'benign and common' sense restrictions. What would those be? Why do I need to have restrictions on what gun I can own because gang members are killing each other en mass?
    The vast majority of gun violence is committed with illegal guns. Again, explain how restricting my access will help solve the gun violence in the cities and gang violence?

    If the point of prohibiting guns to protect life, then what is wrong with prohibiting abortion?
     
    The 2nd amendment is already limiting gun ownership and has from the beginning of memory. You don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

    Also-you constantly parade your misogyny around like you are proud of it. i suppose you are proud of it. I don’t know what else to think in response to statements like you just made there.
    The 2nd was created to make sure the government could not limit gun ownership. And, yes, you could own a cannon.

    Please show me where I was misogynists, since I parade it around....I will for sure wait on this one.
     
    My concern is those 'benign and common' sense restrictions. What would those be? Why do I need to have restrictions on what gun I can own because gang members are killing each other en mass?
    The vast majority of gun violence is committed with illegal guns. Again, explain how restricting my access will help solve the gun violence in the cities and gang violence?

    If the point of prohibiting guns to protect life, then what is wrong with prohibiting abortion?
    I think the vast majority of gun deaths are by suicide, not gang activity, and presumably those guns are almost always legally owned. So I’m not sure you are correct with your assertion about illegal guns. And what is an illegal gun? Don’t you think all guns should be legal? Machine guns, bombs, anything goes, right? Or do you actually believe some regulation is necessary after all?

    Abortion is a private matter of bodily autonomy that should only be regulated at the point where the fetus is viable, IMO. At that point we have another person in actuality, not in potentiality, and it’s in society‘s interest to regulate something that involves two separate people. Before we have an actual person, it’s none of the government’s business to interfere in a woman’s healthcare decisions.

    Gun violence ends up in the death or maiming of actual people. Not potential people. Real actual people. It’s in society‘s interest to regulate harm that happens between actual people.

    As for the religious angle against abortion, nobody has ever explained this to me: Doesn’t Christianity hinge on personal choice? If I remember correctly, it does. Christians are not asked to control or regulate other peoples’ actions. To sin or not is a choice (free will) for which people will be judged by God and ONLY by God. To attempt to control another person’s free will is not acting in accordance with the teaching I was taught years ago.
     
    As for misogyny- you’ve made it abundantly clear. You think women should be punished for having free will to control their own bodies. Can’t put it more clearly than that.
     
    If the point of prohibiting guns to protect life, then what is wrong with prohibiting abortion?
    Because the question of when does life begin is not settled science. It's based on religious beliefs. I don't believe life begins at inception because science tells us that a fertilized egg can't survive outside of the womb. So no, an egg is not a child. An embryo is not a child. A fetus, unless it can survive outside of the womb, is not a child. You can't get a social security card for an embryo. You can't claim an embryo on your taxes.
     
    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.
    I never said they should give up their weapons, just that they are creepy and weird for fetishizing them and would be put to good use dropped into war zones.
     
    I think the vast majority of gun deaths are by suicide, not gang activity, and presumably those guns are almost always legally owned. So I’m not sure you are correct with your assertion about illegal guns. And what is an illegal gun? Don’t you think all guns should be legal? Machine guns, bombs, anything goes, right? Or do you actually believe some regulation is necessary after all?

    Abortion is a private matter of bodily autonomy that should only be regulated at the point where the fetus is viable, IMO. At that point we have another person in actuality, not in potentiality, and it’s in society‘s interest to regulate something that involves two separate people. Before we have an actual person, it’s none of the government’s business to interfere in a woman’s healthcare decisions.

    Gun violence ends up in the death or maiming of actual people. Not potential people. Real actual people. It’s in society‘s interest to regulate harm that happens between actual people.

    As for the religious angle against abortion, nobody has ever explained this to me: Doesn’t Christianity hinge on personal choice? If I remember correctly, it does. Christians are not asked to control or regulate other peoples’ actions. To sin or not is a choice (free will) for which people will be judged by God and ONLY by God. To attempt to control another person’s free will is not acting in accordance with the teaching I was taught years ago.
    I am glad you are taking into account suicide in the gun violence. We can just toss those then since a suicidal person will harm themselves regardless of the form.

    So now we are just down to accidents and intended harm to others (gun violence). Would you be willing to agree that most gun violence, inflicted on another person by a person with a gun, is majority by a person not having the gun according to laws that exist today, thereby making that gun an illegally owned gun? So, it would seem that most actual gun violence is caused by criminals. Do you think criminals will obey more gun laws since they don't obey the laws/regulations we already have.

    If I own an AR-15, I can promise it wont harm anyone, unless I want to harm that person. You want me to not have that gun, why? Because you think it might harm another person. That 'person' you are worried about, is in-fact a 'potential' person, since you fear has not happened yet. So, you are wanting the state to regulate something that is legal based on a fear of harm to a potential person.

    Honestly, I think there should be no regulations. If I can afford an apache or a tank, I should be allowed to own it. Why would the state not want me too? For their survival instinct or the protection of a potential victims?

    Yes, Christians are big on self agency. So, the simple solution that is always ignored because in today's world, self control is not popular, is don't have sex and if you can't control that urge, be smart enough to use protection. If that is not enough and you get someone pregnant or become pregnant, congratulations, you are going to be a parent because of you consequences of you own actions and it is a wonder experience and you should make the best of it and enjoy being a parent.
     
    Because the question of when does life begin is not settled science. It's based on religious beliefs. I don't believe life begins at inception because science tells us that a fertilized egg can't survive outside of the womb. So no, an egg is not a child. An embryo is not a child. A fetus, unless it can survive outside of the womb, is not a child. You can't get a social security card for an embryo. You can't claim an embryo on your taxes.
    No, science is pretty clear, life begins at conception.

    I can't claim my dog on my taxes either but there are laws preventing me from killing it out of convenience, is there not?
     
    I never said they should give up their weapons, just that they are creepy and weird for fetishizing them and would be put to good use dropped into war zones.
    Creepy and weird are very much subjective, right?

    You have a point about gun owners being good to have in a war zone. I agree. So did the guys who wrote the 2nd. That was 100% their point as well.
     
    No, science is pretty clear, life begins at conception.

    I can't claim my dog on my taxes either but there are laws preventing me from killing it out of convenience, is there not?
    Almost every thing you say just isn’t true. You use the word “science” without any understanding of it. Because a group of cells is alive doesn’t make it a full human being, a person, with rights that overrule the rights of the woman that is hosting those cells. And it doesn’t matter how many times you indicate how you think the woman shouldn’t have any rights, it will never be true.

    You assert that suicidal people will harm themselves without regard to the method, I don’t believe that’s true either. I think guns facilitate killing, by suicide or any other method.

    Christianity shouldn’t impose their beliefs on other people. That’s not a core teaching of Christianity, to force people to follow their religious beliefs, at least to my knowledge. God is the only judge of sin, not you nor anyone else gets to judge.

    This isn’t the first time a whole bunch of people have misinterpreted Christianity to justify their own power grab, though, and it won’t be the last. It will always be wrong, though, and against God.
     

    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