Civil War 2 ?

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: JinMI

It has become crystal clear what "side" condones offense and which condones defense.

I only see one side threatening the other with civil war.

While I agree with you... It's all about perception. Personally I see the right saying civil war as an empty threat, maybe a few would act, but not to a degree I'm worried about. But I'm sure many on the right feel just as attacked by their perception the left has used arms of the government to stifle their elected wishes. While I think that is politics, and possibly dirty politics, the likes of which have existed since any form of government... I try to see it as some feel attacked already, so I can at least try to empathize where they come from.

Personally, I do think there is a double standard right now, but if I had to be honest with myself. I'm sure that pendulum swings just as much as the electorate.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: JinMI

It has become crystal clear what "side" condones offense and which condones defense.

I only see one side threatening the other with civil war.

Ok, and I see one side actually asserting their will with violent means.


So where does that leave the topic?

Which side is asserting their will with violent means?

Are you talking about the side whose members send mail bombs to politicians, block off bridges with weapons over an 8chan conspiracy theory, commit mass shootings, has a leader than wonders out loud why they can't treat whistleblowers like treasonous spies, has militias actively training to attack and lock up their political counterparts?

Or are you talking about anti-fa and someone that hit someone with a bike lock one time?

a reply to: redmage

I agree the flames have been fanned by both side's extremes, but there's a real and clear difference between a fringe group like antifa calling for violence, and the POTUS doing it.

I think he's flirting with it, or dog whistling at best... And many people of political stature have been doing that for some time. Whether it's quoting a preacher who said we may be leading to a civil war, or someone implying the country has been taken over by nazis. It's just playing at peoples emotions.

As for people being "too comfortable", I can't agree. Grievance politics of the country's discomfort is exactly what got Trump into office.

I agree with you here, more reason people can't afford to give it up. Who has enough money and resources to do that? Not the one's who would be giving everything up .

"Civil war" likely won't happen, but I have a strong feeling if Trump loses in 2020, or is convicted in the impeachment and removed from office, then there will be riots and violent civil unrest.

We already have riots and civil unrest unfortunately (though they're rare and localized). And I have yet to see any really try to address root problems. Rather, they're hooligans taking to the street for their team just like soccer fans in some countries.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I do not see a civil war breaking out in America due to impeaching Trump. In the future, if America was dragged down economically by an authoritan and oppressive government, then yes, it is possible.

Right now, Trump has many supporters, but he is not what is holding America together. It is the integrity and patriotism of his supporters. Those same supporters know they have the power to elect another to keep making America great again.

There are other possibilities like Nikki Haley, Condoleeza Rice, ecterera, that may be called upon to step forward for the GOP side.

Red vs Blue is certainly just a social media civil war in full discourse presently otherwise.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The "Civil War" has been going on for years now, it's being fought on social media and in the minds of the brainwashed. "Democrat this, Republican that", it's history repeating itself and people refuse to see past their own nose. ATS is fully invested in the psyop, as are places such as Reddit that lean heavily to the left. Controlled opposition.

Guess what year "Captain America: Civil War" was released. 2016. Not a coincidence IMO, it's been in the works for a long time.

Hahaha
A movie proves your point?
Really???
Yet you rail about the media?
The comic was publised in 2006.

You have lost it bub.
Too funny!

Rawr captain america rawr
Lol

a reply to: JAGStorm

America has already had 2 Civil Wars.

The first was in 1776, followed by the second in 1861.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Condoleeza Rice

Sounds like a Mexican dish. (sorry, after Chappelle said it, it's all I can ever think about when I hear her name).

Joking aside, anyone from Bush's admin has about the same appeal as someone from Obama's admin. The only thing they have going for them is they are establishment puppets with name recognition IMO. Both presidencies were disasters.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: JinMI

It has become crystal clear what "side" condones offense and which condones defense.

I only see one side threatening the other with civil war.

While I agree with you... It's all about perception. Personally I see the right saying civil war as an empty threat, maybe a few would act, but not to a degree I'm worried about. But I'm sure many on the right feel just as attacked by their perception the left has used arms of the government to stifle their elected wishes. While I think that is politics, and possibly dirty politics, the likes of which have existed since any form of government... I try to see it as some feel attacked already, so I can at least try to empathize where they come from.

Personally, I do think there is a double standard right now, but if I had to be honest with myself. I'm sure that pendulum swings just as much as the electorate.

It may be an empty threat, but that doesn't stop them from threatening it every time their politics are brought into question.

Here's an idea for all the right wingers, how about you work through the existing framework of government to air your grievances? If you're right and the facts are on your side then that will be proven for everyone to see. And you'll have your win. You won't have to kill other Americans.

If the facts aren't on your side, maybe you aren't on the right one.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: redmage

I agree with you here, more reason people can't afford to give it up. Who has enough money and resources to do that? Not the one's who would be giving everything up .

Give what up? Over 30 years of bad policy from both sides have decimated the middle class. Over 150,000,000 Americans have less than $400 in their bank accounts in case of an emergency. One thing Americans still do have is guns. Half the country has virtually nothing to lose, and riot looting to gain. Trump seems more than willing to light the fuse on that powder keg if it serves his own self interest, country be damned.

a reply to: underwerks

Are you talking about the side whose members send mail bombs to politicians, block off bridges with weapons over an 8chan conspiracy theory, commit mass shootings, has a leader than wonders out loud why they can't treat whistleblowers like treasonous spies, has militias actively training to attack and lock up their political counterparts?

Yes. Although some of the finer details change, intent and mo remain.

I do like the recorded insight however.

a reply to: underwerks

Here's an idea for all the right wingers, how about you work through the existing framework of government to air your grievances? If you're right and the facts are on your side then that will be proven for everyone to see. And you'll have your win. You won't have to kill other Americans.

Honestly, I think that analogy would be better mirrored for the left right now. Even if they win the impeachment, they get Pence who is further right, and Trumps base gets a rally call.

The left should just focus on getting the right candidate with a charismatic and contagious platform that makes sense and win 2020.

And yes, the right has been (in low numbers) talking about civil war recently. But the left does have ANTIFA that wops people on the head for wrong thoughts. And the majority of the right and left wish they weren't associated with either would be my guess. I'm sure there are plenty of republicans face palming every time they hear the term.

a reply to: underwerks

Here's an idea for all the right wingers, how about you work through the existing framework of government to air your grievances? If you're right and the facts are on your side then that will be proven for everyone to see. And you'll have your win. You won't have to kill other Americans.

I'm not a right winger but I agree with CriticalStinker that your statement is more fitting for the left.

To add the conspiracy spin, there are 46+ people that have died with ties to Hillary Clinton.

Anyone seriously asking this question should go take a college history course on the civil war. Any states seceded? Nope. Are their two competing armies ready to fight? Nope. Cuz it werent civvies doing the fighting.
And so on and so forth. This is more like 1968 if anything.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Honestly, I think that analogy would be better mirrored for the left right now. Even if they win the impeachment, they get Pence who is further right, and Trumps base gets a rally call.

That's what the left is doing now. They are using what is outlined in the constitution as a way to hold a rival politician accountable.

They aren't threatening the right with murder if things don't go how they want.

a reply to: JAGStorm

To add the conspiracy spin, there are 46+ people that have died with ties to Hillary Clinton.

Using the Alex Jones theory of Hillary Clinton being the most prolific serial killer of the 20th century doesn't do you a lot favors.

Nah.

As the Dalai Lama once said: “everybody wants to be a gangster till it’s time to do gangster....stuff.”

Lone actors? Sure, I could see that. A full scale civil war? Doubtful.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: underwerks

Are you talking about the side whose members send mail bombs to politicians, block off bridges with weapons over an 8chan conspiracy theory, commit mass shootings, has a leader than wonders out loud why they can't treat whistleblowers like treasonous spies, has militias actively training to attack and lock up their political counterparts?

Yes. Although some of the finer details change, intent and mo remain.

I do like the recorded insight however.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the left.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Honestly, I think that analogy would be better mirrored for the left right now. Even if they win the impeachment, they get Pence who is further right, and Trumps base gets a rally call.

That's what the left is doing now. They are using what is outlined in the constitution as a way to hold a rival politician accountable.

They aren't threatening the right with murder if things don't go how they want.

This happened after Trump was elected

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: underwerks

Are you talking about the side whose members send mail bombs to politicians, block off bridges with weapons over an 8chan conspiracy theory, commit mass shootings, has a leader than wonders out loud why they can't treat whistleblowers like treasonous spies, has militias actively training to attack and lock up their political counterparts?

Yes. Although some of the finer details change, intent and mo remain.

I do like the recorded insight however.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the left.

I'm talking about a tiny majority on both sides that claim to represent a much larger base.

I thought that was clear.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: underwerks

The left should just focus on getting the right candidate with a charismatic and contagious platform that makes sense and win 2020.

Again, I don't think that's gonna work since Trump will pull out the "rigged election" playbook just like he did in 2016. He's predictable like that, and I think him inciting violence is highly likely if he's convicted in the impeachment, or if he loses in 2020.