Civil War 2? (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    11,848
    Reaction score
    15,636
    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……



     
    Unless the CDC says she can't due to a pandemic.
    You make it sound like women get pregnant from walking outside. You do know there is one very specific act that requires 2 people to make that happen correct?

    Your CDC comment is plain stupid and you know it.
    Try again.
     
    Your CDC comment is plain stupid and you know it.
    Try again.
    It was not. It was a well timed and placed dig at those that love to told what to do by bureaucratic dolts.
    When did the CDC get the power to make economic decisions for an individuals private property? I am sure you applauded it though.
     
    Still not buying into the whole 'coup' conspiracy.
    I believe that is because you don't want it to be true. You don't want to believe that the party you support would commit treasonous acts against the country you love. They did.
    Do you think the committee will return a call for criminal charges against Trump?
    Yes. It won't be necessary as there is overwhelming evidence that crimes were committed.
     
    Do you think the committee will return a call for criminal charges against Trump?
    Probably not but imo all that is really displaying at this point is how poorly the system was set up for dealing with an incumbent like Trump who lawfully lost an election (and all court battles of consequence related to it) yet disregarded the result and continued to pursue staying in power up until things went to hell on January 6th.

    As the conservative federal judge cited by Pence on January 6th said today at the hearing, had Pence followed Trump's orders to disregard the electoral college it would have meant revolution. The Republic was held together that day by Mike Pence and that's not really too big of an overstatement.

    Edit: actually think they will call for criminal charges against Trump.. I just have doubt as to Garland pursuing it.
     
    Last edited:
    I believe that is because you don't want it to be true. You don't want to believe that the party you support would commit treasonous acts against the country you love. They did.

    Yes. It won't be necessary as there is overwhelming evidence that crimes were committed.
    If there is evidence that Trump wanted viloent people in the capital as opposed to what he said publicly at the rally, then I will be right there with you.

    This feels like another fishing expedition (Mueller/Steele/Impeachment).
     
    Probably not but imo all that is really displaying at this point is how poorly the system was set up for dealing with an incumbent like Trump who lawfully lost an election (and all court battles of consequence related to it) yet disregarded the result and continued to pursue staying in power up until things went to hell on January 6th.

    As the conservative federal judge cited by Pence on January 6th said today at the hearing, had Pence followed Trump's orders to disregard the electoral college it would have meant revolution. The Republic was held together that day by Mike Pence and that's not really too big of an overstatement.

    Edit: actually think they will call for criminal charges against Trump.. I just have doubt as to Garland pursuing it.
    Good take and maybe but I still feel like this is another fishing expedition and to get negative press out about him because of the fear of him running again.
    I have been wrong before, but I just don't think I am on this one.
     
    If there is evidence that Trump wanted viloent people in the capital as opposed to what he said publicly at the rally, then I will be right there with you.

    This feels like another fishing expedition (Mueller/Steele/Impeachment).
    There is more than enough evidence that is already common knowledge to conclude that's what Trump wanted.

    You either haven't been paying attention, or wish they had been successful in overturning the election results.
     
    There is more than enough evidence that is already common knowledge to conclude that's what Trump wanted.

    You either haven't been paying attention, or wish they had been successful in overturning the election results.
    By what he said at the rally? Is that the evidence that is common knowledge?
     
    If there is evidence that Trump wanted viloent people in the capital as opposed to what he said publicly at the rally, then I will be right there with you.
    People have been convicted of murder with less evidence than has been presented thus far. Trump is on audio recordings breaking the law in his call to SOS in Georgia. Are you right there with us saying he should go to jail for the crime he committed or do you think it was a perfect call?

    Not that it matters one iota to you but I simply don't believe that you will accept any evidence presented that shows Trump and a number of republican law makers broke the law.
     
    Good take and maybe but I still feel like this is another fishing expedition and to get negative press out about him because of the fear of him running again.
    I have been wrong before, but I just don't think I am on this one.
    Without wading into all the bullshirt (and of course Democrats would like to damage Trump with this), there are established facts and on the record statements by Trump admin officials - people who were loyal to Trump prior to this 2020 election stuff - that clearly display Trump's unprecedented attempt at remaining in power in spite of the clear electoral loss and the losses in all meaningful court cases related to it.

    Once the courts made their decisions it all should have reasonably been over there. That's how this shirt has to work in order for it to function unless you've (general YOU) decided that it indeed is time for the revolution.

    Instead, we know that Trump continued to apply extreme pressure on Pence to not certify the official result.

    It's wrong and it's frustrating from my point of view to see that the partisanship and divide is so immensely strong that something like this, so plainly antithetical to the ideals of our American democracy is, in the end, viewed no differently than anything else that we argue about.
     
    If there is evidence that Trump wanted viloent people in the capital as opposed to what he said publicly at the rally, then I will be right there with you.

    This feels like another fishing expedition (Mueller/Steele/Impeachment).
    Whether or not he intended for it to become what it became, Trump's actions and rhetoric regarding the election, combined with the reckless at best decision to have the 'stolen election' rally outside the Capitol as the election was being certified.. makes him clearly morally responsible for what occurred.

    Legally? Probably not for that particular thing as Trump is a master of the double speak thing and likely covered himself well enough within that I think.

    But the insurrection/terrorist attack of January 6th is really just a slice of the bigger picture as to what was being attempted.
     
    It was not. It was a well timed and placed dig at those that love to told what to do by bureaucratic dolts.
    When did the CDC get the power to make economic decisions for an individuals private property? I am sure you applauded it though.

    When did the MIBs hold you down for an injection? When did the cops add vaccination status to the list of things they look for at a traffic stop?
    Again, it's a stupid argument and you should be ashamed for promoting it.
     
    The rally was not a vacuum. Stop being obtuse.
    I have no other way of knowing what he said or didn't say. I can only go by what was said on video at his rally. The part about a 'peaceful march to have their voices heard'. Now if you have proof of something nefarious, then I am all ears.
    I don't need a reason to vote for DeSantis, but I can always use more.
     
    People have been convicted of murder with less evidence than has been presented thus far. Trump is on audio recordings breaking the law in his call to SOS in Georgia. Are you right there with us saying he should go to jail for the crime he committed or do you think it was a perfect call?

    Not that it matters one iota to you but I simply don't believe that you will accept any evidence presented that shows Trump and a number of republican law makers broke the law.
    Well, then I would say you don't know me at all. If they broke the law, the arrest and prosecute.
    But I have a feeling this is a political stunt like the impeachments and the mueller debacle.
     
    When did the MIBs hold you down for an injection? When did the cops add vaccination status to the list of things they look for at a traffic stop?
    Again, it's a stupid argument and you should be ashamed for promoting it.
    Who brought up vaccine and bodily autonomy? I was discussing the time when a health bureaucracy 'ruled' that private individuals could not evict others from their property for nonpayment of rent.
    I stand by my statement proudly, stupid and all. Honestly, when someone calls you stupid, it is wise to look at the person who is calling you that and what they believe. Then you can more than likely, like is the case here, sleep easy at night because some dolt calls your point stupid on the internet. Comical actually.
     
    Well, then I would say you don't know me at all. If they broke the law, the arrest and prosecute.
    But I have a feeling this is a political stunt like the impeachments and the mueller debacle.
    I know enough to know that you will ignore what you have to to continue to support and defend the people you support. Your last sentence pretty much says all anyone needs to know.
     
    Then you can more than likely, like is the case here, sleep easy at night because some dolt calls your point stupid on the internet. Comical actually.
    There's a difference in calling someone's opinion stupid and calling the poster stupid. In this case, you are calling someone a dolt, which is attacking the person, rather than attacking the statement.
     

    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