The Next Civil War

  • Thread starter 87chevy
  • 35 comments
  • 1,967 views
87chevy

87chevy

1,271
Ok, pull yourselves out of reality for a second. I'm gonna give you a hypothetical situation and I'd like to see your response to it. Dont tell me that it's not gonna happen or not possible because that just shows that your an idiot. Heres the deal:

It's the evening of November 2nd, and your watching CNN as the votes are coming in. So far, it's very close. For every state that Bush wins, Kerry wins one. There's only four 3 states left and the Electoral votes are tied. Two of the last states report in and now Bush is down by ONE point. Then, you notice that it seems to be taking a while for the last state to report in. And you now that even before the election there was some news of things going awry in this state, ie. missing voter registration forms and false registration forms being uncovered. Then, it happens, the TV anchor on CNN tells everyone watching that this state has a problem and won't be able to report in it's results until tommorrow. Tommorrow comes and now there's talk of a major contraversey. Well a week goes by and they are still counting votes. Then, deja-vu! They are saying they have to do a recount!
Three weeks go by when you hear at work that Bush is going to make an announcement that evening. You get home and turn on the tube to see what all the fuss is about. Bush comes on and to your shock and horror states that: We are in a time of war and the world, along with the entire World, needs to know who is going to be President of the United States. Therefore, i'm suspending the election until next year. That will give us time to sort out the mess, and our military will not have to learn how to operate under a new Chief. I'm activating the National Guard in all states to make sure that this happens peacefully.
At that point you drown out whatever else is being said because you ARE a National Guardsman for your state. You have sworn loyalty to protect the Constitution, and to protect your country from all enemies foreign or DOMESTIC. You also have sworn loyalty to your Governer. You see that the President is clearly violating the Constitution. So what do you do? You report in to your Armory? Your Governer is Republican and a big Bush supporter, so you can be pretty sure that he will expect his Guard to cooperate, and do as their told. What would you do?
 
Board up the windows, lock the doors, get out my assault rifle and wait.

Really, I have no idea. This is pretty far-fetched with a lot of extreaneous variables. And I have my doubts whether the election will be as close as some predict it will be.
 
I would vote for the Supreme Chancellor to gain emergancy powers and the creation of a Grand Army of the Republic to counter the increasing threats of the Separatist forces... oh wait. Wrong story.

I think this is a little far fetched. If there was some legal issue with the election, it would not dissolve into an armed conflict. Once again, that'd be like, parallel universe Evil Spock with a Beard kinda out there.

But I'd report for duty and wait for congress and the supreme court to sort it out. And maybe hope I get to take some politicians into custody.


M
 
If the votes tie 269 to 269 then congress would have the tie breaker and Bush would be pres again.

If it came down to one state to determine whether Bush would tie or win, we would know Bush had won because he wins in case of a tie.

If it were to come to war I would honsetly expect one of them to step down to avoid that scenario.
 
If it came to war, they'd each appoint themselves leader of each side. (:


Civil war, here, again ... I can see it happening. But it's going to take a lot more than this to make the citizens shoot at eachother. The scary thing is that we're not split nicely like we were last time around. No more "North vs South" business. There are signs in my neighborhood for Bush, Kerry, and Nader. You're talking about neighbors going next door and attacking eachother. It's just not going to happen.
 
LoudMusic
If it came to war, they'd each appoint themselves leader of each side. (:


Civil war, here, again ... I can see it happening. But it's going to take a lot more than this to make the citizens shoot at eachother. The scary thing is that we're not split nicely like we were last time around. No more "North vs South" business. There are signs in my neighborhood for Bush, Kerry, and Nader. You're talking about neighbors going next door and attacking eachother. It's just not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Still, it's interesting to dwell on for a little while, as it turns out to be a reality for less fortunate countries depressingly often. It's not a bad idea to think about why that happens there and not here ...
 
So who exactly would be fighting ? Republicans and democrats ? Prolifers against pro choice ? liberal pussys against red neck morons ? Can I still shoot lawyers for free ? we cant even get everyone who is eligable to go out and friggin vote and you think the " voters" would rebel ? TOO DAMMM LAZY... the democrats they'd hire some crack heads to fight and the right wingers would have some more target practice. jessie jackson would sue and al sharpton would have a press conference asking the French to intervene. everyone else would think they were watching a new reality TV show and hope it got renewed.
 
If you really want to see what it looks like in the US when neighbours start flooding the streets and attacking neighbours put on Riot Cheat for GTA 3. :dopey:
 
In lieu of starting yet a new thread, I'm necro posting a dire warning of a new American civil war, already started, by an "expert" said to have predicted 8 out of the last 2 civil wars. Printed in Vice.com:
Is the U.S. Already in a New Civil War?
Experts say that a new civil conflict will look nothing like the last American Civil War, but that the country is on the verge of large scale political violence.

By Matthew Gault
October 27, 2020, 6:16am
America’s COVID-19 numbers aren’t under control. In many places they're getting worse. Large portions of the west coast are on fire, social media is fueling genocides, and political violence in the U.S. is increasing. People are marching in the streets, aligned with two ideologically distinct factions. Many of them (overwhelmingly from one side) are armed, and violence and death has resulted when these two sides have clashed.

The signs of a coming conflict are everywhere. Political polarization is up, gun and ammunition sales have spiked, killers such as Kyle Rittenhouse are being lauded by their political allies, and protests are widespread in American cities. Police kill unarmed people in the street, the government is polarized and corrupt, and our institutions are failing. Armed militias patrol U.S. streets and groups like the Atomwaffen Division and the Base plot to start a larger conflict. Mass shootings, sometimes ideologically motivated and other times not, occur frequently. Poverty and unemployment are widespread as mass evictions loom and Congress stalls to help those in need.

etc.

link:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjp48x/is-the-us-already-in-a-new-civil-war
Click to expand...
 
TexRex
That same classic Dotinian sensationalism you know, now featuring dead thread resurrection.
Click to expand...
These days it's really hard to tell the difference between sensationalism and actual possibilities we need to be considering. We've all read history books, we know that crazy things have happened before, they can happen again, and that nobody ever really knows what is happening until it's already happened and it's too late to stop it.

One thing I do know is that full-blown civil conflicts are usually preceded by many years of small-scale conflicts, with continued escalation and extremism of increasing scale over time. Our current timeline matches that trend. How far we've gone down that path nobody will really know until it's too late.
 
From the article posted above:

“We are in a state of civil war, whenever, in more than one geographical location in the United States it becomes commonplace for multiple non-state armed groups, to fight each other with deadly force. When that is an occurrence that is common in more than one location in the country, that’s a civil war”
 
Dotini
From the article posted above:

“We are in a state of civil war, whenever, in more than one geographical location in the United States it becomes commonplace for multiple non-state armed groups, to fight each other with deadly force. When that is an occurrence that is common in more than one location in the country, that’s a civil war”
Click to expand...
We won't know for sure until the Fake News Media picks it up and runs with it.
 
Dotini
From the article posted above:

“We are in a state of civil war, whenever, in more than one geographical location in the United States it becomes commonplace for multiple non-state armed groups, to fight each other with deadly force. When that is an occurrence that is common in more than one location in the country, that’s a civil war”
Click to expand...

That definition needs some more refining, as it would mean that some gang shootings can be classified as civil war but that The American Civil War can’t.
 
eran0004
That definition needs some more refining, as it would mean that some gang shootings can be classified as civil war but that The American Civil War can’t.
Click to expand...

It seems like it should be possible for at least one of the belligerent groups to be the state, or in the case of something like the United States for it to be multiple state groups fighting each other. It just has to be a war that's internal to a country.
 
I'm not being patronising to the OP but it's quite cute that this thread was started about possible civil war fallout from the delightfully mundane Bush-Kerry 2004 election.

Compare the 2004 election to 2016 and 2020; it's staggering how much the United States has sunk in that time.
 
Something is happening, that is for sure. I think that the pandemic is only a part or the beginning of the turmoil that is coming upon this world.
 
Liquid
I'm not being patronising to the OP but it's quite cute that this thread was started about possible civil war fallout from the delightfully mundane Bush-Kerry 2004 election.

Compare the 2004 election to 2016 and 2020; it's staggering how much the United States has sunk in that time.
Click to expand...
Yes. The juxtaposition of the cute and mundane 2004 concerns to the present issues give perspective on how far we've "advanced" as a perfected Democracy. Due consideration to just exactly what took us to this place in only 16 years should be given. In my humble opinion, one of the milestones was 2013 when the nuclear option was adopted into the Senate rules. I think this is a corruption that leads to incessant partisan power-grabbing.

The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a standing rule of the Senate, such as the 60-vote rule to close debate, by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that contravenes a standing rule, such as that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but the ruling of the chair is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.

This procedure uses Rule XX to allow the Senate to decide any issue by simple majority vote, regardless of Rule XXII, which requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) to end a filibuster for legislation and 67 for amending a Senate rule. The term "nuclear option" is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.

In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court.[1] In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.[2][3][4]

As of September 2020, a three-fifths majority vote is still required to end debates on legislation.[5]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#cite_note-5
Ironically, that delightfully mundane 2004 election played a role in this history.
The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances. Several of the blocked nominees were brought to the floor, voted upon and approved as specified in the agreement, and others were dropped and did not come up for a vote, as implied by the agreement.
Click to expand...
 
We live in a tumultuous time, a turning point, in American history. So says a theorist who writes a highly regarded book, The Fourth Turning.



 
It makes sense, not really sure what else to say about it lol. Sounds like a reasonable theory.
 
Dotini
Disturbing analysis of how a new US civil war may run its course.

Click to expand...

There wont be a civil war , unless of course trumpers think they can take on M1 tanks or drones with smart bombs . And i wont lie , i would love to watch it .
 

Latest Posts

Back