Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

The worst civil war on record is said to be the 30 year war of Germany, of which our 80 year against the Spanish is considered a part. Go figure with these numbers.

Anyway the bad reputation of this 30 year war is always tied to the fact that it came into families. Families got divided by this war, where this isn’t normally the case as much, not even in civil war.

So this war we’ve got brewing right here has at least this characteristic in common with the 30 year war, that it cuts right through families.

Um, actually, it is a hallmark of all civil wars.

I hesitate to accept Germany’s as a civil war, for similar reasons as the US’s. Was there a Germany? If anything, that it split families makes the case that it was in fact.

I remember my father, in a period where he became obsessed with the Spanish civil war, always highlighted that aspect most. How terrifyingly destructive civil war is, for that very reason.

“Brothers turn against brothers,” he would always say.

I agree that things have changed in these last 3 years. We were expecting some resistance, but also perhaps were expecting the clear sanity of the ideas to eventually win over hearts. That the left only dug in, crazyfied, showed a disease we didn’t realize was so progressed.

We, the defectors, the Trump lovers (for this includes defectors from the Republicans, lest you forget), felt like Obama betrayed us by using his good promises to expand the fascist state. We thought this would be made clear to all, or most, but it turns out most people wanted precisely that. It is precisely that which they loved about Obama.

We still haven’t fully wrapped our heads around it.

But I want to be the dude that says it here, there is not even civil war on the horizon. The disease is real, but the “war” is already being fought. They want to destroy Trump politically, as you say. But they haven’t yet. And I put the odds against them, for sanity gives a clear strategic advantage.

Just look. Take a cold look. We have suffered set-backs and disillusionments, but Trump has tectonically shifted the direction of things. He has established a new normal, still imperceptible to most, certainly to leftists. Also to the loonies on the right, who think it will be their time.

Negus.

What Trump is doing will not be fully felt until the earthquake is over and the plates have settled.

Sorry, did some wikipediaing. Forgive the standard foreigner’s indolence.

The 30 year’s war does constitute civil war, for it was an inward one within the civil society, not between rival kingdoms per se, where ideas split members into bands. It’s hard to describe why, but it is a civil war.

In Venezuela there is a period, between the fall of the Great Colombia and about 1900, about 100 years give or take, that isn’t even actually studied in school. It is just glossed over as the “Federal Wars,” because the chaos was such that historiography is impossible. It was basically a 100 year civil war, of brothers against brothers. Until it was mostly mothers left. Some say that’s why we are so matriarchal.

I know civil war. It is in my DNA. It is literally not possible to discern sides, much less choose them. There are ideas at the very beginning that split people, federalist vs centrist, conservative vs liberal, democrat vs autocrat. But in very short order it devolves into looting bands and vendettas. Like, fast.

I’m actually counting from 1810, when the independence war started. That, too, was brothers against brothers. Literally.

Simon Bolivar’s sister was a Spanish loyalist.

I may have simplified some things, but the literature is out there. On the Spanish war, for example, volumes. From both sides.

In the past, with sabres and black powder rifles, it was easier for chaos to take hold. And in Venezuela, we never had the discipline to constitute an army, which was what gave the fascists in Spain the advantage needed to win. If left to the communists and anarchists, the sheer disorganization and lack of discipline would have ensured the state I described of bands and vendettas.

That is the actually only serious reason to avoid civil war. It is a no brainer win for the military. Some may defect, some always do, but the core always remains intact. And when the coins fall, the army is always on the army’s side. See: Spain, Egypt, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, France.

Fuck. Even in trying to describe it, civil war is an un-unomelletteable omellette.

Just a… fucking… mess.

Loyalty to whom? To what?

So you’re saying that if I come to the Right I will find people that will allow me and others to express our right to be, for example, pro-choice? That what just happened in Alabama is nothing more than an bunch of good ol’ boys just having a laugh on those Liberals? That I and others can express whatever religion we wish even if it isn’t Christian? That we can even be atheists? That the Left, or even moderately Left, can have their own space with no worries about legislative incursions from the right? If you really believe that, then you’re not on the same page as the Right. Different chapter maybe, but not on the same page.

I and many others don’t need Facebook or other social media to inform our opinion, we’ve lived the actual history of many of these concerns before there was an internet.

And please inform me as to precisely what the Right is and how it doesn’t project its own shadow.

People on the Left do respect American democracy, if they didn’t then the Right wouldn’t encounter opposition. What they’ve learned not to respect is the Right’s support of a president who cares nothing about democracy, who cares only about himself, his “brand”, and his money. Who one moment said he was fine with transparency and whatever investigations reveal because he had nothing to hide, and then later turns around and obstructs all information from those investigations. What is that if not someone trying to suppress the facts? Or do you think like many others on the Right that they are ‘fake’ facts.

Did news networks try to ‘kill’ Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr.? They certainly criticized them but at least the mentioned presidents had the guts to answer the media’s questions directly and stood their ground without resorting to hiding behind the mommy-skirt of Twitter crying out petulant accusations of ‘fake news’, ‘bad people’, ‘liars’, ‘witch-hunt’, ‘alternative facts’, and a long list of other nonsense.

The Right seems oblivious as to what the current presidential administration has already done to them. And if you are as you say, an extension of the moderate right, then surely you know that many on the moderate right think said administration is an insult to moderate right principles.

Yes, condemn anything and anyone that doesn’t show you ‘loyalty’. Reminds me of someone who had the same attitude around 86 years ago.

Then extend nature to where sooner or later the ground will be shifting for the Right and its misnomer of a president. It already is in some ways but you won’t hear that on Fox News.

By the way, Mr. Horde, you answered the first question: " If Id live there id be armed".. Does that mean you’re an expat, or a citizen from another country, or what? It helps in the sense of from what vantage point you’re defending the Right. Whether you would be committed to actual participation in a conflict here or if you’re more armchairing it from there. If the latter, that’s fine. But I’m sure you can see why it does matter.

Civil unrest is not a civil war. I asked because it seems assumed what this war would be. In the previous civil war the federal government did not have the kind of military might that can instantly reach many places. I have no idea what you are thinking of, what it would mena in the modern context. Who the groups fighting are… Etc. And yet it is as if we could answer what we would be doing on the ground.

I’ve been through rioting periods and there have been widespread periods of rioting. That’s not civil war. Adn most people were not directly affected.

I don’t think so. For reasons i don’t need to go into I am very safe in the types of scenarios you are now raising which are not civil war. My answers to the questions if it was civil war are very relevent to making any kind of rational answer.

No there would be media and government explanations of who the people causing unrest were - criminals, terrorists, rogue factions of the military, etc. Just as in previous unrests and in previous civial wars. All groups will be trying to get people to view the situaion as they frame it. And those who can do this well, especially in relation to the military and law enforcement stand to win. if they do this well fast, there will not be a civilar war. And civil unrest will be something they can put down without watching their backs the whole time. (not saying who is right or wrong here, just ppointing out that framing is important and always done and done in a hurry because it affects costs, outcomes, winning and more.

Of course, but this is all just air. I hae no idea if this will be unrest, a coup, an actual large split involving military and law enforcement going to two or more sides, etc.

It’s like asking what you would do if problems arise. Well, it depends.

I can’t get up from the chair in a response to a post in the thread. Of course we are armchairing, this is a philosophy discussion forum.

Which also could lead to an incredibly wide range of scenarios.
[/quote]
Look, it’s fine to raise the issue of possible unrest to possible civil war, but you asked a bunch of questions where which particular set of scenarios affects radically what we would do, how we would think. The expectation that we could possibly answer a number of those questions makes me think there is some foundational confusion.

Karpel you show yourself to be utterly inhuman. You’ve taken in nothing about the lives Trump has saved abroad. You don’t care. IM SICKENED.

Im leaving this site for good now.

I don’t know what you’re talking about, man. I am responding to ideas about civil war. I have presented no compliments or critiques of Trump here.

I did mess up putting quotes around Ivers link, maybe that’s causing the problem. But if my previous post was the last drop, you are close to fed up…

Yeah yeah. More empty promises. sigh

Go to Google and input, “will there be a civil war in the united states 2019”. It gives 664 million as results of the search. Even if it were only 664 the basic idea is that as put forth in the Merriam-Webster definition of civil war: ‘A war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.’

You can argue as much as you want about the semantics of it, how it depends which definition is used and which word applies best. But it’s the optics, the actual, palpable scenario of it that will matter to those who would be experiencing the conflict. If a large number of civilians start to throw rocks, bottles, incendiary devices, or send bullets in each other’s direction it won’t matter what it’s called, what will matter is how to survive it.

Let’s look at the facts: I live in Nevada. In 2017 the ATF statistics noted that there were 76,888 registered guns in the state. Remember, that’s only ‘registered’. We don’t have to put on our thinking caps to figure that the number of ‘unregistered’ guns would be enough for, as the article stated, “a lot of angry people causing a lot of mayhem”. And here’s an extra dash of salt: Nevada does not require the registration of firearms.

Now, take all of that and read this: [i]"…those who see owning a gun as central to their overall identity are particularly committed to gun ownership. For example, 89% of gun owners who see owning a gun as very or somewhat important to their overall identity say they can’t see themselves ever not owning a gun, compared with 58% of those who say owning a gun is not too important or not at all important their sense of identity.

And while 85% of gun owners who say the right to own guns is essential to their sense of freedom say they can’t see themselves ever not owning a gun at some point, 41% of those who don’t see the right to own guns as essential say the same."[/i] url=https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership[/url]

Take that identity-freedom stance, mix it in with all those whose garbanzo-size brains tell them that Trump is their savior, and you have a recipe for a potentially bitter scenario. Call it civil unrest, rioting, revolt, widespread urban conflict, call it a civil brawl if you like. But whatever you call it make sure it means a scenario where your very life could be on the line.

Do I personally want a scenario like that to happen? No, of course not. Something like, no matter what you call it, would set this country back decades and the damage done on different levels would take decades if not more to repair. In short, you won’t have to worry about the semantics or any “foundational confusion” if any of that shit goes down.

Then let us hope, for Left, Right, and Center, that the scenario remains nothing more than a thread in a philosophy discussion forum. If someone reads this in the future and say to themselves, “Wow, that Del Ivers was so wrong”. Then I will be a happy man. :slight_smile:

If I google will ufos take over the us in 2019
I get 108,000,000 hits. I am not sure what this demonstrates.

Right, a war. Civil unrest is not a war. 1968 had no civil war in the US, for example.

Sure, for those shot at. The difference, however between the civil war in the 1860s and what people, for example those living in the south towards the end of the war, and people in the late 60s, even those in cities during the most heated parts of the rioting/anti-Vietnam cultural and civil unrest, is radically different. Different strategies, orders of magnitude differences in the per capita death rates, different cultural and infrastructure changes, different smart strategies for survival and riding out the problems and so on.

Not difference in semantics, radical difference in the effects and good strategies. You are making it sound like I am quibbling over words.

NO. I am pointing out that the range of possible situations makes any answers ridiculous becase of the down to earth physical differences between the threats and scenarios. It’s panic talk without any possible focus.

Yes, all the guns could lead to all sorts of different scenarios. For anyone to speak about what they will do, without knowing which of an incredibly wide range of different degrees on intensity or types of scenios, how local or regional or general, how much military involvement, how widespread, etc. is just to talk out of the ass.

So what might we do in all the various possible scenarios where our lives might be on the line, now without the words ‘civil war’ even on the list of options…Please.

I don’t think I suggested, or even thought you did.

If what shit goes down? As if it doesn’t matter what the scale or intensity it. Again, as if I saying, hey, let’s get the words right. When I am saying, you are talking about such a wide range of possible scenarios, any of us telling you what we would do, is making shit up.

I think what you are doing is finding a way to make the people on the right seem like a core threat to everything. Fine. That’s a position and one can enter polemics and arguments about that. But you are couching in the form of practical questions to us about what we will do, in a vast range of potential futures, so vast we cannot answer in any real way. We could respond to your concerns that something bad is coming or might come. But that’s not the discussion, it’s focused on how we are or would plan as if the vast range of possibilities have not the slightest influence on how we would need to react in those very different scenarios.

And paint me as if I am focused on words, when I am focused on the ludicousness of saying here’s what I would do, when I don’t even know the situation.

It’s like asking a surgeon…how would you operated if a patient had an illness?

Well, it depends.

That answer is not understanding the point I was making. I was not arguing that no one should prepare or think practically about the issue. I was pointing out that how else can we answer? This is a philosphy discussion forum, you raise an issue for discussion, and we are going to discuss it.

that
must
be
armchair
like
discussion

You want to invite us to your place to start drawing up plans for self-defense, choosing areas of nature to retreat to, and other physical planning and preparation, and we came over and started doing that stuff, well, that wouldn’t be armchair.

But, jeez, you raise and issue in a philosophy forum and then complain that we are, basically, discussing the issue, that’s a confusion about what you are doing yourself.

Then you end with, you being glad if it turns out you are wrong. Which confirms for me that the issue is you see a threat, and you want a discussion of that threat. You are asserting there is a likelihood of something very bad coming down the pike.

That issue can be discussed and we can weigh in on our sense of the liklihood and what likely scopes of that threat are, etc. That is a discussion one could have.

To say what we as individuals will do, w hen we do not know which of the various possible outcomes you have suggested might come to happen, is a discussion that leads to a bunch of meaningless prat and people presenting themselves in lights their egos are happy with. But it is a discussion with no substrance.

It’s a rhetorical trick and I think a poor one. Get us to imagine we are in some catastrophic scenario and babble about what we would do… The horrible thing about that is not that it leads to a bunch of wasted speculation, but it feeds the us them hatred, gets more people into a panic without anything concrete. Rigth wing people and left wing people will posture about how they will be ready to be violent and there will be more paranoia, because they are being asked about how violent and with what weapons and strategies they will deal with their hated enemies.

To talk about a threat you see does not make everyone posture and threaten. It would be a discussion of a possible threat. That’s a potentially useful discussion.

Just to piss you off :character-megaman:

Which I shouldnt cause my guy is in the WH.
They’ve banned heartbeat abortions.
they’ve kicked “isis”.
they’ve prevented war with Russia
they’ve installed hundreds of conservative judges
they’ve moved the Embassy to Jerusalem

what the fuck am I angry for??
I can’t have everything at once, this is already more than Id ever have dared to ask.

Aliens are something I believe in but choose not to “believe in” like I basically don’t believe in anything I can’t indicate to another person with some seriousness.

If they exist I bet they are time travellers. Well they have to be, to get here from any other solar system, they have to beat the speed of light or be very old and very bored.