Next American Civil War

[Felya]

Depends how vastly the impoverished out number the affluent. In America that number is huge. If all the poor and middle class united for change, then the army plus police force couldn't stop them.

The wealth gap in U.S. is a problem, but not to the extent that those who are even the poorest would give up their lives. You are too spoiled to even understand that concept. U.S. should be able to provide more for the poor, but the current state is nowhere near destitute. We need improvements, not rebuilding.

[Berengil]

Mary Antoinette would like to have a word with you... or she would, if her esophagus was still connected to her head.

Her Majesty couldn't drone-kill the peasants wherever they gathered. Had to send soldiers out to defend herself. Soldiers who had no significant tech advantage over the populace. Unlike the situation between the US federal government and its citizens.

[Damajin]

So it is a conspiracy theory then. If it wasn't it would be allowed.

Anything but the official narrative is, of course. I'll say it's suitably researched and available online though.

[Endus]

Come on dude. Candidates that actually want to do good things for normal people are going to be drowned by the tsunami of money that corporations and the super wealthy give their candidates. Pro corporate candidates will get far more TV air time and basically have a megaphone across the whole country where the other candidate wont. This is completely true, look at the Bernie Sanders case right now. He has not received nearly as much TV air time as the other candidates because TV stations that are funded by corporations do not want his ideology to be broadcasted to the masses.

And yet, those masses are entirely free to vote for Sanders.

They just choose not to, because they feel Clinton's a better candidate. That isn't corruption, it's democracy. I'm in favor of reforming campaign finance, but they aren't buying votes, they're just better able to convince people of their candidate's message.

If you put up a candidate that the people willingly reject, they're still free to vote for an alternative, and those alternatives exist. Take Trump. If you're a conservative, and refuse to vote for Trump, despite him winning the Republican nomination, vote for Gary Johnson. Sure, unless a lot of conservatives do the same, Johnson won't have a chance, but again, that's democracy.

You didn't answer the question. Why the fuck does anyone really need a 10-20 bedroom house? Why does anyone really need a lambo that goes 200+ miles per hour? This type of shit is such a massive waste purely to rub that fact that you money into other peoples faces.

So, you're a straight-up authoritarian communist, right? Because that's what you're effectively arguing, here; that the State should be able to seize the wealth of those who are "too wealthy".

I'm a full-blown self-avowed socialist, and even I think that's ridiculous. Wealth inequality is an issue, but you don't solve it by literally murdering those with money. You need to fix the distribution system that allowed them to achieve that kind of wealth, without distributing it more equally.

That is just objectively not true. The overwhelming majority of the time, we have a "choice" between one corporate shill and another. There aren't pure grassroots, public funded candidates in every race, or really any races. Roughly a quarter of our congress-people are elected unopposed. The rest have massive party and corporate support. I can't name you a congressional candidate I liked from my entire state in the past 10 years.

None of this actually contradicts anything I said. The American election system is still wide open. Pretty much anyone can run. It's just that the Democrats and Republicans have such a lock on the popular vote that it's near-impossible for any other candidates to get any traction.

That doesn't mean they can't. It means there's no popular will to do so. Complaining that other people don't vote the way you want really isn't a valid criticism of democracy.

[Lorianus]

Depends how vastly the impoverished out number the affluent. In America that number is huge. If all the poor and middle class united for change, then the army plus police force couldn't stop them.

I would also call it unlikley that the US military would wage war against its own citizens by that i mean every little soldier who must ask himself if he wants to massacre fellow americans by the hundreds.

[Pangean]

Anything but the official narrative is, of course. I'll say it's suitably researched and available online though.

Don't believe ya. If it was suitably researched you could demonstrate it's not a conspiracy theory.

[dwightyo39]

I suppose I could see there being one in the future after robots take over the work force. By then the richest of the rich will just use drones to kill all us small folk.

[PC2]

Depends how vastly the impoverished out number the affluent. In America that number is huge. If all the poor and middle class united for change, then the army plus police force couldn't stop them.

You're going to do away with our mixed economic system and replace it with what?

[jackofwind]

Mary Antoinette would like to have a word with you... or she would, if her esophagus was still connected to her head.

That was true at a time where black powder firearms, rapiers, and cannons were the height of military power. Sure. How do you think the French Revolution would have gone if Marie Antoinette had had widespread and large-scale access to drones, cluster bombs, and sea/air/land-based long-range ordnance support?

When the average soldier was barely better equipped than a peasant with a flintlock, sure. In modern times, not a chance.

[Reeve]

I'd like a few constitutional reforms, but not a revolution.

[Endus]

I would also call it unlikley that the US military would wage war against its own citizens by that i mean every little soldier who must ask himself if he wants to massacre fellow americans by the hundreds.

We're talking about taking a stand against criminals and traitors. The US military oaths talk about standing against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[Smauldy]

As divided as American politics has become, I'd like to see an amicable split with no weapons fired as far as letting a few states totally secede from the Union and govern themselves. Texas has actually talked about it in their own legislatures, why not let it happen? Continuing to butt heads on literally every single thing is severely damaging the United States as a whole.

[Reeve]

I'm a full-blown self-avowed socialist, and even I think that's ridiculous. Wealth inequality is an issue, but you don't solve it by literally murdering those with money.

Hey, it worked for Caesar, right?

[PC2]

By the sounds of it, Authoritarian Communism. Take money from the rich and give it to the poor, by any means possible...

If he thinks we should we keep our same economic system, I don't think he is as hungry for change as he thinks he is.

[dwightyo39]

We're talking about taking a stand against criminals and traitors. The US military oaths talk about standing against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I don't thing most people in the us military would turn on their own. With drones, they don't need to.

[Reeve]

None of this actually contradicts anything I said. The American election system is still wide open. Pretty much anyone can run. It's just that the Democrats and Republicans have such a lock on the popular vote that it's near-impossible for any other candidates to get any traction.

Which is a direct result of our first past the post voting system.

- - - Updated - - -

As divided as American politics has become, I'd like to see an amicable split with no weapons fired as far as letting a few states totally secede from the Union and govern themselves. Texas has actually talked about it in their own legislatures, why not let it happen? Continuing to butt heads on literally every single thing is severely damaging the United States as a whole.

Texas isn't going anywhere. It'd be moronic for them to try. I'd be the first one on the plane out of the state if they did.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't thing most people in the us military would turn on their own. With drones, they don't need to.

Drones are piloted by people.

[Lorianus]

We're talking about taking a stand against criminals and traitors. The US military oaths talk about standing against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

If potential family members relatives and friends are involved oaths mean nothing, the op is speaking of a civil war, all out, that means millions perhaps 10s of millions of americans on the "traitor" side.

[Deleted]

You and your spite-filled postings are a splendid example of the White Trash of America that votes for Dump IMO.

Did you ever consider the possibility that my anger comes from somewhere, and my reasons are legitimate?

Don't call me white trash.

[Endus]

If potential family members relatives and friends are involved oaths mean nothing, the op is speaking of a civil war, all out, that means millions perhaps 10s of millions of americans on the "traitor" side.

Sure, some of them might turn traitor, but that's true of any situation. It just means their ex-brothers-in-arms will gun THEM down, too.

I really do not understand this image you people have where the US military will just stand aside and let murderous traitors run amok without taking action against them. And that's what we're talking about, with the possibility of a civil war. They're gonna take way more issue with the fact that these traitors are KILLING their friends and family members.

[Dentelan]

Civil war is much more cruel and terrible than normal ones, you don't realize what you wish