Is a second civil war realistic? And if so what do you think will set it off?

[Kiri]

Yes, there are more then two.

You don't have enough money and need hand outs.

You have enough money but not enough to give hand outs.

You have more then enough money and can give hand outs.

But there is only one that is rich: The one that has more then enough money and can give hand outs.

That is the only class that makes the rules and the only class that can ensure the non-rich are treated humane.

Well, technically it would not have to be. The American system is just primed in such a way that you have to be rich in order to campaign and you need to campaign in order to be elected. Though I would argue that with the advent of the internet and cheap access to it, there could now be a chance to get someone from the lower classes up there. Technically. Because in order to get there, people from both parties would have to give up their 'identity' as voters, which appears to be pretty hard when looking at the currently expressed divide. Of course, politicians on both sides feed into that quite strongly, to keep the divide going, sadly.

[Sevarin]

what would set it off you ask? why stupidity, of course. unfortunately we seem to have more than enough of it to go around.

[Clevername]

Possibly, yeah, though it is muddied due to the classes being present on both sides. I mean there was like grand accusation about corruption against the democrats, while the republicans stuff their cabinet with billionaires. Parties just try to sway the economic classes to their side, like Trump with all his 'common man' rhetoric, but ultimately they neither represent them, nor identify with them. Ultimately, politics is more the rich (politicians and their backers) trying to get segments of the at least relative poor on their sides every four years. It is not really a clash between economic classes as much clashes within those classes that try to paint it as a clash between classes (since there are more than two economic classes, that is possible).

Edit:

Yes, I do get your point. You want to deride the left by omitting the hard working people and the rich there and prop up the right be omitting the rich and the unemployed there. Sure, one side may have more than the over, but with your 'harmless exaggeration', you try to reduce each side to a stereotype, which obviously is insulting towards one side.

The thing about stereotypes is they're usually created out of a nasty truth.

[Total Crica]

Well, technically it would not have to be. The American system is just primed in such a way that you have to be rich in order to campaign and you need to campaign in order to be elected. Though I would argue that with the advent of the internet and cheap access to it, there could now be a chance to get someone from the lower classes up there. Technically. Because in order to get there, people from both parties would have to give up their 'identity' as voters, which appears to be pretty hard when looking at the currently expressed divide. Of course, politicians on both sides feed into that quite strongly, to keep the divide going, sadly.

Rich and poor exist based on supply/demand/geography.

The rich can only attain their rich status AT FIRST by meeting the demand with supply if geography allows and then can only remain rich by the same token as long as there is not alot of infighting between the rich.

The poor remain poor because they are unable to meet the demand with supply if geography allows because the rich make the rules once they are rich. There is always alot of infighting between the poor because they are poor.

[Otimus]

US citizens do not want to fight, save for maybe some real loud mouthed people, who are in a minority.

MAYBE an economic civil war. Though still insanely unlikely. Maybe if all the more liberal coastal states got REALLY fed up, and the right wingers ignorantly told them to "Go on, leave, we don't like you liberal baby killer gay-sex havers anyways! I'VE GOT THE LORRRRRRRD!", then they'd realize that most of those coastal liberal areas bring in a fuckton of the GDP :x

In any event, that'd never happen.

[Total Crica]

The thing about stereotypes is they're usually created out of a nasty truth.

Yes, truth that you have yet to learn. I am just now learning it, and it's pretty nasty so far.

[Teebone]

This thread is just... I have no words. What the fuck is wrong with this generation?

[Total Crica]

This thread is just... I have no words. What the fuck is wrong with this generation?

Same thing wrong with all generations. Lack of money or too much money.

[Clevername]

Yes, truth that you have yet to learn. I am just now learning it, and it's pretty nasty so far.

I'm confident on my handle on Americans. Of course there are no absolutes when it comes to people and you have no way of knowing someone's true motivations but my truth's have been reinforced by almost 4 decades of observation.

[Total Crica]

I'm confident on my handle on Americans. Of course there are no absolutes when it comes to people and you have no way of knowing someone's true motivations but my truth's have been reinforced by almost 4 decades of observation.

Then why didn't you say the the whole truth if you know it?

[Gsara]

Its a really long way to a civil war when only a really small vocal minority of people are the ones bitching and whining about shit. The vast majority of people dont give a shit about or have time in their lives for the bs going on.

[Clevername]

Then why didn't you say the the whole truth if you know it?

Nah, grown bored of the derailment and eggs and bacon are done cooking, cheers.

[ati87]

Pretty sure the majority do not have the training, the fortitude, the discipline, nor the access of the armament our US Military does.

So, if the majority of the Military personnel are Rightwings without empathy, the Leftwings are going to be screwed without intervention from Leftwing military help, such as Canada.

- - - Updated - - -



People who's job's don't matter to the economy everyday? I dunno, it's almost like the rich don't have to work everyday like the poor do.

First if you read who I quoted he talked about the the silent majority in America hates the left wing and again the majority voted left so why do people even talk about that the right wing is bigger?

2e
And the left won't start a civil war that's just a standard right wing fantasy that likes to talk shit but don't have the balls to back up their boasting. The most likely scenario will be people protest every time republicans overreach and try to fill the swamp. YOu will have protest and you will have right wingers overreacting to the protest like at Dakota and at some point what you will have is the avg person that gets disgusted by the actions of right-wingers

[Total Crica]

Nah, grown bored of the derailment and eggs and bacon are done cooking, cheers.

Grown bored of sharing truth? The result of that will be your next lesson in truth. Enjoy your meal!

[ParanoiD84]

I thought we where supposed to be more civilised in this day and age, atleast that what people always tell me.

No there wont be.

[Deleted]

No. People nowadays are lazy pussies who only dare to vent their opinion and frustrations on message boards or organized civil marches. Revolution in the West is a thing of the past, the police state will ensure that if all else fails.

[Total Crica]

First if you read who I quoted he talked about the the silent majority in America hates the left wing and again the majority voted left so why do people even talk about that the right wing is bigger?

2e
And the left won't start a civil war that's just a standard right wing fantasy that likes to talk shit but don't have the balls to back up their boasting. The most likely scenario will be people protest every time republicans overreach and try to fill the swamp. YOu will have protest and you will have right wingers overreacting to the protest like at Dakota and at some point what you will have is the avg person that gets disgusted by the actions of right-wingers

Being disgusted at actions doesn't win wars. Training, fortitude, discipline, and access to resources win wars.

[Typhoria]

Not even close to the mark. Democrats have both the money and body count. It would literally one bunch of skilless idiots fighting another group of skilless idiots. With one side having more money and more idiots it is clear who will win.

If it's a civil war, currency becomes near worthless. All that would matter would be precious metals, property and trade skills for "wealth".

[iperson]

HAHAHAH. Are you serious? I was in the Marines for 4 years. There's no "majority of x or y" in the military. Overall it may lean slightly conservative in matters of foreign policy and use of force, but when it comes to social and economic values, you have people of every walk of life in uniform. Please, actually serve and don't just make blanket assumptions or generalizations based on "I saw a movie" or "I know a guy". Hell, even 'ol Mad Dog Mattis, who we practically venerate as a saint, has outright said he has nothing against gays or women in the military, all he cares about is that our units funtion effectively. And that's pretty much the sentiment you'd see echoed by 90% of the armed forces. Most just couldn't be arsed to get involved in political BS one way or another, tbh.

Served 8 years in the Corps and have 2 sons serving in it now. Obama was very unpopular compared to Bush among both active and retired service members. Personally I went in a democrat and came out a libertarian which seems to be pretty common.

[Kiri]

The thing about stereotypes is they're usually created out of a nasty truth.

Stereotypes are created out of perceived nasty truth. There is a bit of a difference there.