As a veteran, with guns, living in a rural area, working in a very conservative industry, most people on meeting me would likely assume I am a far right MAGAt. I am well to the 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 of Biden and the Democrats. I don't want a civil war, but if those right wing assholes come after me with violence, I will respond in kind. I will vote for Biden to do my part to prevent that.
I am not a veteran, and I do not currently own a gun. However, my grandfather taught me to shoot, and he was quite successful at his effort. If I find it necessary, I will arm myself, and I will defend myself. Those who wish to contest against me will wish they hadn't.
An interesting question to ask. Would the answer alter your perception of my post? I so, why? To answer your question, I'm Dutch, but that knowledge should be irrelevant to you.
Welcome. My mom’s family came from The Netherlands back in the 1860’s and I’ve been to that beautiful country.
That said, the people who buy into Project 2025 (it is a horrifying read, I agree) are the minority here and those who yell the loudest are usually the biggest cowards. I don’t see civil war happening but the bully pulpit is hoping we’ll all be so afraid that it won’t be necessary. They would be wrong. More and more people are opening their eyes to what another Trump presidency would bring us and want no part of it. The insurrection at our Capitol was a huge turn off to many. No matter how much the minority would like to gaslight us, we all saw it in real time. Trump is losing support and our Democratic Party is winning elections in states where once it would have been near impossible. That’s a good sign. I’m hopeful.
Part of me would love to agree, but I don't dare to.
Perhaps it's because I've had too many history lessons about how and why people kept underestimating the impact of the events leading up to WWII, but I feel dismissing these people as 'keyboard warriors' is dangerous. January 6th has already shown they were willing to commit violence when the law was not on their side. If project 2025 succeeds, they'll have even fewer reasons to hold back. You don't need a lot of bad apples to sour the barrel, and they are already egging each other on. And when all is said and done... All it takes to light the fuse is a single nutjob, and Trump qualifies magnificently in the nutty department. Point is... The problem isn't so much that "the right has most guns". It is that "the right has most guns AND most willingness to actually use them, while also being positioned to gain authoritarian political power for decades to come".
Watching documentaries about and reading the Shock Doctrine has also been... chilling. When I began reading Project 2025, I basically went... This is the Shock Doctrine all over again, isn't it? A massive number of political changes so fast that nobody has time to respond properly, an immediate lurch towards far right policies, a crashing economy as a trade wars are already looming, extreme disparities in wealth and wellbeing, people still reeling from the damage covid has wrought...
I am not a fan of doomsday thinking, but I believe we have to be realistic at this point. Looking back at the events leading to WWII... The US is in a shitty position right now.
A civil war in the US wouldn't be one group of states against another group. It would be all the states against themselves. It would look like the Northern Ireland of the 20th century on a much larger scale. Even the military would be divided that way. It would be a mess, to say the least .
Like Brandy, I can't see any sort of sustained armed or violent conflict from the right. While there will always be some willing saps who will commit violence plus the really extreme white supremacist groups (the FBI has been pointing out that the main terror threat in the US is from the right wing for, oh, like a decade now), a truly large-scale revolution/secession would fail simply because their leaders are self-interested cowards. All the right-wing pundits, televangelists, radio talking heads, your MTGs and Boeberts, etc. heck even Trump himself: these folks might be happy to incite others up to the legal limit, but they would never actually *lead* such a revolution. Never throw in, so to speak. And while you can get away with that on the small scale, you probably can't mobilize an army-like uprising unless those you are telling to rise up see that you are willing to rise up and throw your lot in with them too.
IIRC this is the Amon Bundy problem. Plenty of right-wingers will say they will stand with him, but they only show up when he shows up. When he doesn't risk his skin, neither do they. And when it comes to people like Trump, MTG, etc., while they are very happy to make subtle hints that you should storm the castle, they have zero intention of ever storming the castle themselves.
Agreed. Continuing your thought, once a few cops are killed and libraries are burnt down, if ever, they've lost. It'll happen in a few places but once people realize what a civil war entails they'll understand that it's not what they wanted. They all just wanted people to think like them and stop being "weird."
The hardcore groups will do the crimes, be seen as criminals, and when force is brought against them not a tear will be shed. It'll be violent but brief.
The funniest thing though is that those that want a civil war think the country will go on in some recognizable fashion that will be better after a magical transformation. Whole counties would be under martial law, soldiers would police, food and fuel rations, zero amenities, communication black outs. Just like their religions, their vision of the aftermath of a civil is a fantasy. Even if they were successful, what company would provide goods to their secessionist state? What electricity will they have? Besides wells what water? Gas will dry up quick. They'll come groveling back quick.
"The hardcore groups will do the crimes, be seen as criminals, and when force is brought against them not a tear will be shed. It'll be violent but brief."
And the cowards who egged them on will say "don't lump us in with the violence-doers! We're not responsible for THAT. We never meant for THAT to happen, and heck we didn't even incite it!" Their followers who didn't do the first violence, but might have followed a strong leader into more violence will hear that. They'll say "frack this shirt, if they're not in then neither am I," and that'll be the end of the revolution.
Quibble: it was the FBI that originally sounded the alarm bell, not DHS. But AIUI DHS law enforcement and intelligence functions reach much the same conclusions.
"Perhaps it's because I've had too many history lessons about how and why people kept underestimating the impact of the events leading up to WWII"
And that's political and military, catastrophes from which it's possible to recover. For a chilling preview of what may be in store for the entire planet when it comes to the climate, read Jared Diamond's book "Collapse", about half a dozen societies that saw the end coming but did nothing to forestall it and so perished. Of course, they were all relatively isolated on islands, remote areas surrounded by desert, or valleys within difficult-to-traverse mountain ranges, so their loss didn't affect civilization as a whole. The same cannot be said of climate change.
You may very well be correct, but considering Project 2025 denies climate change and is intent to take actions which will inevitably exacerbating it, and looks to actively start trade wars and explode prison populations even further... Not to forget the criminalization of LGBTQ+ and rolling back policies protecting non-whites... I'm inclined to conclude we disagree on "how many are going to feel they have nothing to lose".
You mentioned the 110% before, and I find that interesting.
It's a fact that the left is more divided, but I've always found the left far more willing to discuss and compromise. I'd even go as far and argue that the reason Climate Change is still an impending disaster rather than an issue long resolved is that the left was willing to compromise themselves into oblivion.
This is also what I'm seeing in US politics, and even the politics in my own country, the Netherlands. "The right" constantly yanks the country further to the right, and "the left" is unable to pull the country back left because "we need to compromise, talk and discuss and come to a bipartisan conclusion". AKA, it doesn't need to be 100% or even 70% our way. The left is willing to talk, the right just isn't willing to play ball. Which, in my opinion, going back to the US, is illustrated perfectly by Project 2025, in so far as the gerrymandering and vilification of the left didn't already prove it. "Do it our way, or we'll damn well torch the place, [insert tantrum]."
So when I read your post, I can't help but raise an eyebrow.
Allowing myself to ponder... Is it because we disagree on what a compromise is?
For example... Quite a few TERFs have allied themselves with far-right groups, such as the Project 2025 authors, because they share an anti-trans agenda. So, they are compromising for the sake of forming a coalition in the war against trans, so to speak. A coalition which, admittedly, appears to be working. Again, project 2025. The issue is that this coalition is going to criminalize pretty much all LGBTQ+ and rob women of decades of progress (which you appear to blame the left for?). Changes many, if not most, TERFs don't agree with. My impression so far is that they believe their allies will 'compromise' and let them have their non-traditional families and abortions, knowing full well that said allies loath both and that said allies will be the ones with political power. It'll be interesting to watch that ship sink, pikachu face-style. Anyway, my point is... Are the TERFs "compromising" or are they "burning the house down in order to light the fireplace"?
Can you name a few groups which "women and LGBTQ+" should have "compromised with" for the sake of forming a coalition, which would not have been very harmful to society as a whole?
I wouldn't be so sure. There are several Americans vets in this community and like they say "republicons are not the only ones with guns".
Now, may I inquire on which side of the Channel you are ?
As a veteran, with guns, living in a rural area, working in a very conservative industry, most people on meeting me would likely assume I am a far right MAGAt. I am well to the 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 of Biden and the Democrats. I don't want a civil war, but if those right wing assholes come after me with violence, I will respond in kind. I will vote for Biden to do my part to prevent that.
I am not a veteran, and I do not currently own a gun. However, my grandfather taught me to shoot, and he was quite successful at his effort. If I find it necessary, I will arm myself, and I will defend myself. Those who wish to contest against me will wish they hadn't.
An interesting question to ask. Would the answer alter your perception of my post? I so, why? To answer your question, I'm Dutch, but that knowledge should be irrelevant to you.
Welcome. My mom’s family came from The Netherlands back in the 1860’s and I’ve been to that beautiful country.
That said, the people who buy into Project 2025 (it is a horrifying read, I agree) are the minority here and those who yell the loudest are usually the biggest cowards. I don’t see civil war happening but the bully pulpit is hoping we’ll all be so afraid that it won’t be necessary. They would be wrong. More and more people are opening their eyes to what another Trump presidency would bring us and want no part of it. The insurrection at our Capitol was a huge turn off to many. No matter how much the minority would like to gaslight us, we all saw it in real time. Trump is losing support and our Democratic Party is winning elections in states where once it would have been near impossible. That’s a good sign. I’m hopeful.
Just curiosity. I am French :)
Part of me would love to agree, but I don't dare to.
Perhaps it's because I've had too many history lessons about how and why people kept underestimating the impact of the events leading up to WWII, but I feel dismissing these people as 'keyboard warriors' is dangerous. January 6th has already shown they were willing to commit violence when the law was not on their side. If project 2025 succeeds, they'll have even fewer reasons to hold back. You don't need a lot of bad apples to sour the barrel, and they are already egging each other on. And when all is said and done... All it takes to light the fuse is a single nutjob, and Trump qualifies magnificently in the nutty department. Point is... The problem isn't so much that "the right has most guns". It is that "the right has most guns AND most willingness to actually use them, while also being positioned to gain authoritarian political power for decades to come".
Watching documentaries about and reading the Shock Doctrine has also been... chilling. When I began reading Project 2025, I basically went... This is the Shock Doctrine all over again, isn't it? A massive number of political changes so fast that nobody has time to respond properly, an immediate lurch towards far right policies, a crashing economy as a trade wars are already looming, extreme disparities in wealth and wellbeing, people still reeling from the damage covid has wrought...
I am not a fan of doomsday thinking, but I believe we have to be realistic at this point. Looking back at the events leading to WWII... The US is in a shitty position right now.
A civil war in the US wouldn't be one group of states against another group. It would be all the states against themselves. It would look like the Northern Ireland of the 20th century on a much larger scale. Even the military would be divided that way. It would be a mess, to say the least .
Like Brandy, I can't see any sort of sustained armed or violent conflict from the right. While there will always be some willing saps who will commit violence plus the really extreme white supremacist groups (the FBI has been pointing out that the main terror threat in the US is from the right wing for, oh, like a decade now), a truly large-scale revolution/secession would fail simply because their leaders are self-interested cowards. All the right-wing pundits, televangelists, radio talking heads, your MTGs and Boeberts, etc. heck even Trump himself: these folks might be happy to incite others up to the legal limit, but they would never actually *lead* such a revolution. Never throw in, so to speak. And while you can get away with that on the small scale, you probably can't mobilize an army-like uprising unless those you are telling to rise up see that you are willing to rise up and throw your lot in with them too.
IIRC this is the Amon Bundy problem. Plenty of right-wingers will say they will stand with him, but they only show up when he shows up. When he doesn't risk his skin, neither do they. And when it comes to people like Trump, MTG, etc., while they are very happy to make subtle hints that you should storm the castle, they have zero intention of ever storming the castle themselves.
Agreed. Continuing your thought, once a few cops are killed and libraries are burnt down, if ever, they've lost. It'll happen in a few places but once people realize what a civil war entails they'll understand that it's not what they wanted. They all just wanted people to think like them and stop being "weird."
The hardcore groups will do the crimes, be seen as criminals, and when force is brought against them not a tear will be shed. It'll be violent but brief.
The funniest thing though is that those that want a civil war think the country will go on in some recognizable fashion that will be better after a magical transformation. Whole counties would be under martial law, soldiers would police, food and fuel rations, zero amenities, communication black outs. Just like their religions, their vision of the aftermath of a civil is a fantasy. Even if they were successful, what company would provide goods to their secessionist state? What electricity will they have? Besides wells what water? Gas will dry up quick. They'll come groveling back quick.
Anyway it's a fantasy.
"The hardcore groups will do the crimes, be seen as criminals, and when force is brought against them not a tear will be shed. It'll be violent but brief."
And the cowards who egged them on will say "don't lump us in with the violence-doers! We're not responsible for THAT. We never meant for THAT to happen, and heck we didn't even incite it!" Their followers who didn't do the first violence, but might have followed a strong leader into more violence will hear that. They'll say "frack this shirt, if they're not in then neither am I," and that'll be the end of the revolution.
Quibble: it was the FBI that originally sounded the alarm bell, not DHS. But AIUI DHS law enforcement and intelligence functions reach much the same conclusions.
"Perhaps it's because I've had too many history lessons about how and why people kept underestimating the impact of the events leading up to WWII"
And that's political and military, catastrophes from which it's possible to recover. For a chilling preview of what may be in store for the entire planet when it comes to the climate, read Jared Diamond's book "Collapse", about half a dozen societies that saw the end coming but did nothing to forestall it and so perished. Of course, they were all relatively isolated on islands, remote areas surrounded by desert, or valleys within difficult-to-traverse mountain ranges, so their loss didn't affect civilization as a whole. The same cannot be said of climate change.
You may very well be correct, but considering Project 2025 denies climate change and is intent to take actions which will inevitably exacerbating it, and looks to actively start trade wars and explode prison populations even further... Not to forget the criminalization of LGBTQ+ and rolling back policies protecting non-whites... I'm inclined to conclude we disagree on "how many are going to feel they have nothing to lose".
You mentioned the 110% before, and I find that interesting.
It's a fact that the left is more divided, but I've always found the left far more willing to discuss and compromise. I'd even go as far and argue that the reason Climate Change is still an impending disaster rather than an issue long resolved is that the left was willing to compromise themselves into oblivion.
This is also what I'm seeing in US politics, and even the politics in my own country, the Netherlands. "The right" constantly yanks the country further to the right, and "the left" is unable to pull the country back left because "we need to compromise, talk and discuss and come to a bipartisan conclusion". AKA, it doesn't need to be 100% or even 70% our way. The left is willing to talk, the right just isn't willing to play ball. Which, in my opinion, going back to the US, is illustrated perfectly by Project 2025, in so far as the gerrymandering and vilification of the left didn't already prove it. "Do it our way, or we'll damn well torch the place, [insert tantrum]."
So when I read your post, I can't help but raise an eyebrow.
Allowing myself to ponder... Is it because we disagree on what a compromise is?
For example... Quite a few TERFs have allied themselves with far-right groups, such as the Project 2025 authors, because they share an anti-trans agenda. So, they are compromising for the sake of forming a coalition in the war against trans, so to speak. A coalition which, admittedly, appears to be working. Again, project 2025. The issue is that this coalition is going to criminalize pretty much all LGBTQ+ and rob women of decades of progress (which you appear to blame the left for?). Changes many, if not most, TERFs don't agree with. My impression so far is that they believe their allies will 'compromise' and let them have their non-traditional families and abortions, knowing full well that said allies loath both and that said allies will be the ones with political power. It'll be interesting to watch that ship sink, pikachu face-style. Anyway, my point is... Are the TERFs "compromising" or are they "burning the house down in order to light the fireplace"?
Can you name a few groups which "women and LGBTQ+" should have "compromised with" for the sake of forming a coalition, which would not have been very harmful to society as a whole?
Don’t you just “love” it? I should have a masters degree in proof-reading by now...
"Dear autocorrect:
It's NEVER duck."
If it looks like a fuck, walks like a fuck and quacks like a fuck, you can be sure it's a fuck.