Civil War 2? (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    11,836
    Reaction score
    15,625
    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……



     
    I agree with you on everything but 1 point that I think is at the core of discontent.
    A large number of people presently do not have faith in our elections. You guys didn't after 2016, hence the changing and the continually pushing to change the voter laws. I don't know why we can't make it easy and go back to 1 day is vote day and you have to have to show up in person and present a valid ID. A person has 4 years to plan for it.
    You have the dates wrong, we were most upset about elections from 2000 through about 2006. Republican owned companies were making the voting machines and we couldn't see inside them to see how they worked.

    Then we did make it more traceable, safer and easier. Here in California we do use ID's. There are fewer of those untraceable voting machines being used and more traceable paper ballots. The machines are all but gone now.

    It's never been this easy before. Vote by mail is great.
     
    I think a lot of people are actually hoping for it
    =============================
    Mike "Wompus" Nieznany is a 73-year-old Vietnam veteran who walks with a cane from the combat wounds he received during his service. That disability doesn't keep Nieznany from making a living selling custom motorcycle luggage racks from his home in Gainesville, Georgia. Neither will it slow him down when it's time to visit Washington, D.C.—heavily armed and ready to do his part in overthrowing the U.S. government.

    ..............................................snip...............................


    That's very difficult to read. How someone who has witnessed firsthand the damage a Civil War rains down on a society can be ready to help provoke one is hard to grasp?
     
    I need to address another throwaway line from Farb: that democrats just want more power. This is classic projection from an authoritarian (I believe old Mitch said it yesterday on the Senate floor, and make no mistake, Mitch is an authoritarian whose only god is power).

    Democrats want to allow everyone who has a legal right to vote to actually vote. They want to make it easy and convenient. This is not a power grab, it’s the opposite. Virginia enacted many of the things democrats want to enact nationally for voting. The Governor‘s election didn’t go their way, but it was a free and fair election. That’s all they want. Utah has had mail in voting for anyone who wants to do so for years. Hardly a Democratic stronghold.

    Current Republicans, on the other hand, want to restrict voting as much as they can get away with. They admit it openly when they are being candid. They want to do this because they feel it will help them win elections. But just in case that doesn’t work, they are working to control the counting of votes in some states, taking the authority away from independent and/or bi-partisan boards. Their “base” is using death threats and fear tactics to run honest people out of election boards and school boards. Bannon admits it. It is exactly a power grab from a minority party.

    Everything Republicans accuse democrats of doing is something they are doing or want to do. I simply am astonished at how far the Rs have fallen into authoritarianism and the speed at which they have surrendered their principles.

    Republicans used to be the party of fiscal responsibility, Trump did away with that. They used to be the party of “small government” yet they now want to control what teachers teach, who uses what bathroom, women’s healthcare, and where and how we can vote. They’ve completely gone authoritarian. They don’t believe in a free press. They have no party platform, other than “let us tell you what to learn, what to think, where to pee, where and how you will vote”. It’s disgusting.
     
    You have 4 years to figure it out. I know what wont help people trust the process, ballot harvesting, redistricting and mailing out ballots without requests.

    Remember when Reps were moving post office boxes and it was a sign of voter fraud?
     
    So, this guy thinks there's a civil war coming but says it's all the left's fault
    ==========================================

    This country is at war with itself. The last few decades laid the groundwork for our accelerating polarization and tribalization, and now, America's political Left and Right no longer share much, if any, common ground. The question today is whether this can end without open conflict. Hopefully it can, but it's far from certain.

    I wrote Winning the Second Civil War: Without Firing a Shot last year to avert the possibility of escalating political violence. Without a viable chance of a truce—and after months of violent unrest by the political Left in America's major cities—both sides seemed increasingly willing to use any means necessary to secure their goals. The long-simmering culture war had run out of accommodations and the action in the streets and elsewhere was becoming more extreme.

    The woke Left was in a much stronger position, having taken control of the permanent bureaucracy of government, the media and social media, all levels of education and our popular culture. They had been very successfully waging a long war of fundamental transformation since the days of the Cold War. When Barack Obama was elected president, many thought he could be the great uniter, but the opposite was true.

    Obama threw gasoline on the fire. He told activist groups they truly were oppressed. He told us Trayvon Martin looked like the son he never had. He criticized the police and weaponized his administration against conservative groups. Obama unleashed the social justice warriors and the fires burned higher.

    Donald Trump was elected in part due to his opposition to the America-bashing mentality of the Left. He proudly proclaimed he would "make America great again" and he pulled no punches when talking about it. This fighting spirit brought a whole new cohort into the political game. They would "build the wall" to secure our border and make left-wing political elites pay for their corruption and malfeasance.........

     
    So, this guy thinks there's a civil war coming but says it's all the left's fault
    ==========================================

    This country is at war with itself. The last few decades laid the groundwork for our accelerating polarization and tribalization, and now, America's political Left and Right no longer share much, if any, common ground. The question today is whether this can end without open conflict. Hopefully it can, but it's far from certain.

    I wrote Winning the Second Civil War: Without Firing a Shot last year to avert the possibility of escalating political violence. Without a viable chance of a truce—and after months of violent unrest by the political Left in America's major cities—both sides seemed increasingly willing to use any means necessary to secure their goals. The long-simmering culture war had run out of accommodations and the action in the streets and elsewhere was becoming more extreme.

    The woke Left was in a much stronger position, having taken control of the permanent bureaucracy of government, the media and social media, all levels of education and our popular culture. They had been very successfully waging a long war of fundamental transformation since the days of the Cold War. When Barack Obama was elected president, many thought he could be the great uniter, but the opposite was true.

    Obama threw gasoline on the fire. He told activist groups they truly were oppressed. He told us Trayvon Martin looked like the son he never had. He criticized the police and weaponized his administration against conservative groups. Obama unleashed the social justice warriors and the fires burned higher.

    Donald Trump was elected in part due to his opposition to the America-bashing mentality of the Left. He proudly proclaimed he would "make America great again" and he pulled no punches when talking about it. This fighting spirit brought a whole new cohort into the political game. They would "build the wall" to secure our border and make left-wing political elites pay for their corruption and malfeasance.........

    Yep t thought it was Obama's fault all along. He pushed those racist into groups and they proudly tried to take the capital!

    That is the ticket. I guess the Hillary boogie man was all used up?
     
    Could have gone in a few threads, but because of the articles title I’ll put it here

    Interesting read, especially the part on polling
    ======================

    ………Similar realities hold for the data that purportedly show we’re on the brink of a new civil war.

    There is strong evidence that many of the surveys and polls indicating support for, or openness towards, political violence hugely overstate actual levels of support in the American public.

    Likewise, data that purport to show high levels of partisan vitriol may be misleading.

    In general, behaviors are often a stronger indicator than attitudinal data for understanding how sincere or committed people are to a cause or idea.

    The number of people who are willing to rhetoricallyendorse some extraordinary belief tends to be much, much higher than the subset who meaningfullybehave as if that claim is true.

    The number of people who profess commitment to some cause tends to be much, much higher than the share who are willing to make sacrifices or life adjustments in order to advance that cause.

    The big lie is no exception. Both the low levels of turnout and the relatively low levels of violence are extraordinary if we take the polls and surveys at face value.

    Event organizers were expecting, “hundreds of thousands, if not millions” to take part in the January 6 uprising. This would be reasonable to expect in a world where tens of millions of Americans literally believed that an apparently high-stakes election was stolen out from under them.

    Even if just 1% of those who purportedly believe in the big lie had bothered to show up, the demonstrations would have been hundreds of thousands strong. Instead, they only mustered 2,500 participants (according to US government estimates)…….


     
    Good interview
    ==================
    ....Barbara Walter is a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, and one of the world's leading experts on civil wars, political violence and terrorism. She is also a permanent member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has consulted for the State Department, the Department of Defense, the UN and the World Bank. Her essays and other commentaries have been featured at CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. Walter's new book is "How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them."....

    This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

    Donald Trump continues to threaten political violence against his "enemies" if he is punished for his crimes. Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon and other right-wing propagandists are also threatening political violence on a near-daily basis across the right-wing media echo chamber. The FBI and law enforcement continue to uncover potential right-wing terrorist plots. Why are so few people taking these dangers of right-wing violence seriously?

    I believe it is human nature for people to not want to believe that they and their fellow citizens are capable of such things. Many people want to live in a world of wishful thinking where life is going to continue to go on in the same way that it always has.

    If it is sunny today and you go to work and afterwards you have drinks with friends and then there is the weekend when you get to watch football and it's like that today, your bias is that it's always going to be that way.

    People are status-quo biased. They truly believe that the way things are today is the way that things are going to be forever. As a result, many people do not see the warning signs. What is so amazing is that throughout history, violent extremists are often very public about their intentions, what their goals are and what strategy they're going to pursue to achieve those goals. Hitler is perhaps the best example. He wrote and published "Mein Kampf," laying out exactly what he intended to do. If you look at neo-Nazis and other white supremacists here in the United States and elsewhere, they have a book called "The Siege" which details exactly what their plans and intentions are.

    The bible of the alt-right is a book called "The Turner Diaries." It lays out exactly how they intend to start a second civil war in the United States. "The Turner Diaries" includes an attack on the U.S. Capitol, and in that book a working gallows is erected outside the Capitol where they're going to bring "traitors" out for trial and then kill them. They're not hiding what they intend to do, and yet throughout history, the people who are at risk have not taken those messages, warnings and manifestos seriously....

    At one of Trump's recent rallies, he told his followers to be ready to die to defeat "critical race theory." Michael Flynn recently told his audience he wanted them to "charge machine gun nests" in service to their cause. How do you fit these examples within your model of a second civil war or other massive violence in the United States?

    One of the challenges that violent extremists have is how to expand their base of support. If they don't expand their support base, they just remain fringe movements forever. One way is to provoke a harsh government response. Let's say that there are peaceful protests, but then there are provocateurs there who try to get the police to open fire or to bash a few heads. Violence entrepreneurs will use those actions as evidence that the police or the government or the opposition are evil and intent on crushing them.

    That tactic is often successful in radicalizing at least some portion of average citizens. It pushes them towards the extremists. Donald Trump is what I would describe as an "ethnic entrepreneur." He and his loyalists want to regain power. He is an autocrat. Trump has no interest in ruling democratically. But Trump is not going to get that power back without the support of the average white American. This means that Donald Trump has to convince them somehow that his is a worthy cause to defend.

    How many people, in terms of a whole population, does such a movement need to take over society and impose its will on the public?

    There is not much data on that question. Research suggests that perhaps 3% of the population is necessary to challenge whatever leader or group is in power. That is a quite small percentage, but if there is 3% of the American population out in the streets in a sustained way, it is actually enormous. You do not need a lot of people to start a civil war that's going to be incredibly costly to the country as a whole. All they would need are a few militia groups who are effective at targeting infrastructure and shutting down the economy.............

     
    Interesting article
    ==============
    The US supreme court’s upcoming decision to reverse Roe v Wade (an early draft of which was leaked last week) doesn’t ban abortions; it leaves the issue to the states. As a result, it will put another large brick in the growing wall separating blue and red America.

    The second American civil war is already occurring, but it is less of a war than a kind of benign separation analogous to unhappily married people who don’t want to go through the trauma of a formal divorce.

    One America is largely urban, racially and ethnically diverse, and young. The other is largely rural or exurban, white and older.

    The split is accelerating. Red zip codes are getting redder and blue zip codes, bluer. Of the nation’s total 3,143 counties, the number of super landslide counties – where a presidential candidate won at least 80% of the vote – jumped from 6% in 2004 to 22% in 2020.

    Surveys show Americans find it increasingly important to live around people who share their political values. Animosity toward those in the opposing party is higher than at any time in living memory. Forty-two per cent of registered voters believe Americans in the other party are “downright evil”.

    Almost 40% would be upset at the prospect of their child marrying someone from the opposite party. Even before the 2020 election, when asked if violence would be justified if the other party won the election, 18.3% of Democrats and 13.8% of Republicans responded in the affirmative.............

    Increasingly, each America is running under different laws.

    Red states are making it nearly impossible to get abortions but easier than ever to buy guns.

    They’re also suppressing votes. (In Florida and Texas, teams of “election police” have been created to crack down on the rare crime of voter fraud, another fallout from Trump’s big lie.)

    They’re banning the teaching of America’s history of racism. They’re requiring transgender students to use bathrooms and join sports teams that reflect their gender at birth.

    They’re making it harder to protest; more difficult to qualify for unemployment benefits or other forms of public assistance; and almost impossible to form labor unions.

    And they’re passing “bounty” laws – enforced not by governments, which can be sued in federal court, but by rewards to private citizens for filing lawsuits – on issues ranging from classroom speech to abortions to vaccinations.

    Blue states are moving in the opposite direction. Several, including Colorado and Vermont, are codifying a right to abortion. Some are helping cover abortion expenses for out-of-staters.

    When Idaho proposed a ban on abortions that empowers relatives to sue anyone who helps terminate a pregnancy after six weeks, nearby Oregon approved $15m to help cover the abortion expenses of patients from other states.

    Maryland and Washington have expanded access and legal protections to out-of-state abortion patients. One package of pending California bills would expand access to California abortions and protect abortion providers from out-of-state legal action.

    After the governor of Texas ordered state agencies to investigate parents for child abuse if they provide certain medical treatments to their transgender children, California lawmakers proposed making the state a refuge for transgender youths and their families.

    Another California proposal would thwart enforcement of out-of-state court judgments removing children from the custody of parents who get them gender-affirming health services.

    California is also about to enforce a ban on ghost guns and assault weapons with a California version of Texas’ recent six-week ban on abortion, featuring $10,000 bounties to encourage lawsuits from private citizens against anyone who sells, distributes or manufactures those types of firearms............

     
    Posted in EE (not by me)
    ================
    Three members of a militant white supremacist group were the first in Michigan to be convicted of conspiring to train with firearms for a civil war, state Attorney General Dana Nessel announced Tuesday.

    The men belong to The Base, a pro-Hitler movement that advocates a race war against non-white people with the goal of using violence “to overthrow the existing social and political order,” according to the Anti-Defamation League.

    Justen Watkins, Thomas Denton, and Tristan Webb were charged in August 2021 with larceny in a building, gang membership, felony possession of a firearm, and conspiracy to train with firearms for a civil war. They were accused of breaking into the vacant Michigan Department of Corrections Camp Tuscola annex and Tuscola Residential ReEntry Program in Caro in October 2020 and stealing state-issued clothing from one of the jails.

    Prosecutors allege they were scoping the site as potential training grounds for “hate camps,” which is the name the group gave its paramilitary firearms training exercises...........

     
    There won't be an actual civil war but I can easily see the country breaking up. The only real sticking point is how nukes are divided. Almost all of them are based in red states.
     
    There won't be an actual civil war but I can easily see the country breaking up. The only real sticking point is how nukes are divided. Almost all of them are based in red states.

    The nukes are the reason that it will never happen.

    Even if we wanted it, the world would not allow it. We have nukes everywhere, it is impossible to unravel.
     
    The nukes are the reason that it will never happen.

    Even if we wanted it, the world would not allow it. We have nukes everywhere, it is impossible to unravel.
    What would the world do to prevent us from divorcing? I don't think they could do much to stop us. The world didn't mind when the USSR split up, they had nukes.
     
    This is a completely stupid argument, IMO. We aren’t breaking up the most powerful nation on earth because some 10-15% of the population is believing conspiracy crap. It may be 30-40% of Republicans, which is a real problem, but I suspect the sane Rs will get a handle on it sooner or later.

    Even though states are thought of as red or blue, they really aren’t. Even the deepest red states have around 40% democrats. Even the deepest blue states, the same in reverse. Most states are closer than that even.

    People in the media talk about it to get ratings and sow more division. It’s mostly coming from the Q people, like Flynn and Bannon and the Q wing of the R party.
     
    What would the world do to prevent us from divorcing? I don't think they could do much to stop us. The world didn't mind when the USSR split up, they had nukes.
    The world could do quite a bit.

    Russia didn't have nukes placed across the ocean in countries they didn't share a border with.

    I doubt we would just let Poland, or France, Germany or wherever we have nukes in Europe keep our nukes.

    I'm sorry charlie, your dream of a divorce ain't happening.
     
    I dunno... I could easily see it happening. And I don't think it would be a huge deal. There will be no warfare because, outside of maybe 1-5% of the population being complete sickos, I doubt there is a will to fight other Americans. It's mostly a logistical issue like how do you go about splitting purple states (and the nukes). There would still be normalized trade and such.

    The U.S. is a very young country in comparison. It was a nice go but it's now unworkable thanks to what a bunch of rich white guys who thought slavery was okay and woman shouldn't vote to be a good idea centuries ago. I think a 'divorce' would be better for everyone in the long run.
     
    I dunno... I could easily see it happening. And I don't think it would be a huge deal. There will be no warfare because, outside of maybe 1-5% of the population being complete sickos, I doubt there is a will to fight other Americans. It's mostly a logistical issue like how do you go about splitting purple states (and the nukes). There would still be normalized trade and such.

    The U.S. is a very young country in comparison. It was a nice go but it's now unworkable thanks to what a bunch of rich white guys who thought slavery was okay and woman shouldn't vote to be a good idea centuries ago. I think a 'divorce' would be better for everyone in the long run.

    It's a huge logistical issue though. Like what would happen to all of the military bases around the world and all of our treaties and defense arrangements. How do you divide the states? What about federal land and water/mineral rights? What do you do with social security/medicare and safety net programs that people have paid into their entire life? What about borders and trade with Mexico/Canada? How do you facilitate mass relocation based on political ideology?

    It just seems like so much to decide and separate between factions that already hate each other and can't reach compromise. I think if something like that is attempted, it would eventually lead to war because there are a number of critical impasses that we wouldn't be able to find agreement on.
     

    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