• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Going to get close to a civil war

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,001
5,015
136
No there won't be civil war. Unfortunately, terrorism is likely though.

Much could be done to defuse it.

But that would require GOP members to unanimously stand up for Truth and Justice. Just for a little while.

Unanimously Impeach Trump. Unanimously declare the elections free and far, and deny Trumps lies.

But that won't happen because some GOP members are selfish beyond the understanding of normal human beings. They are sociopaths.

They wouldn't change their brand of toothpaste to reduce terrorism in the USA. Because changing their toothpaste is a minor inconvenience to them personally, and terrorism will effect other people. Heck they might even be able to fund raise off the terrorism. So win-win.
Some of it is selfishness, others also probably fear that challenging Trump will cost them their seats or even lead to threats. I mean, if rioters could call for the death of Mike Pence, the VP, what chance does a House rep or senator have?
 

guidryp

Senior member
Apr 3, 2006
964
1,008
136
Some of it is selfishness, others also probably fear that challenging Trump will cost them their seats or even lead to threats. I mean, if rioters could call for the death of Mike Pence, the VP, what chance does a House rep or senator have?
That is still selfishness. It's still putting yourself ahead of the country.

Whatever happened to service to Country?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,404
2,627
136
tbh the only place I've seen it said that civil war is gonna take place in the USA again is right here in P&N. Where in the media are you seeing this?
Well, they conclude it isn't gong to happen but they _do_ raise the possibility. I find it very hard to take it seriously as a possibiltiy, as well.
Though I partly wonder if the US hasn't been in a near-perpetual state of 'civil war' for a long time - just a very low-intensity one!


 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken g6

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,001
5,015
136
That is still selfishness. It's still putting yourself ahead of the country.

Whatever happened to service to Country?
Yes and no. If it's just about holding on to office, sure. But at the same time, it's hard to serve your country if MAGA zealots are trying to kill you.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,120
2,703
136
Many people don't seem to understand that Civil War is citizen against citizen. Not citizen against the government or Military. Yes the government and military are involved, but a Civil War is still citizen against citizen. That is why it is vital how our government maneuvers on how they handle everything that is happening because when the Trumpets can't get to government officials, they will turn their anger on the citizens that voted them in and/or don't align with their ideals. It's been happening before 2020, I've had first hand experience with a previous violent neighbor who attacked people because they where liberals and not Trump Supporters. I'm thankful he is not longer here.
Civil wars are not citizens against citizens. Civil war happens when the military splits. If half of America decided to attack the other half but the military remained united we would have a few bad weeks and then the military would regain control and order would be restored, because no group of civilians can stand against a united modern military for long. Whoever the military sides with wins rather quickly in that sort of scenario.
A real civil war like we saw in 1861 happens when the military splits and starts to fight on each side. That is why right now the most important thing is to make sure the military is of united purpose.

Make no mistake we really are on the brink of a civil war. The question is not if the civilians are going to do something, it is if there is a strong enough and organized enough group in the military to start a rebellion.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,109
3,978
146
Perhaps the "shadow government" trump keeps eluding to.
I know Republicans are prone to projection, but I would have claimed that to be a stretch prior to about two weeks ago. Pretty impressive, now I want to go back over everything any Republican has ever claimed a Democrat was doing and call for an investigation into that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

guidryp

Senior member
Apr 3, 2006
964
1,008
136
Yes and no. If it's just about holding on to office, sure. But at the same time, it's hard to serve your country if MAGA zealots are trying to kill you.
You just said "even lead to threats". Threats are part of being a politician in the USA unfortunately. Can you imagine how many threats Pelosi gets?

If you aren't willing to make a stand against Terrorism in the USA, because you might get some small fraction of threats that a little old lady gets every day, then yes it's selfish. In fact it just makes you a selfish pussy if that's your reason.

If you are too much of a pussy to stand up against terrorism, and aren't selfish, then you should resign, and let people with more fortitude serve the people.

If you are going to serve, and not stand against Terrorism in the USA, then it's selfish, without doubt.

Not a dig at you BTW. I just think there isn't a non-selfish excuse for serving, but declining to stand against rising Terrorism in the USA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,656
2,866
126
Make no mistake we really are on the brink of a civil war. The question is not if the civilians are going to do something, it is if there is a strong enough and organized enough group in the military to start a rebellion.
We can call them the suicide battalion. This is not 1862. Things happen much more quickly now. Any brass backing a military rebellion will be taken out very quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
14,853
5,033
136
Make no mistake we really are on the brink of a civil war. The question is not if the civilians are going to do something, it is if there is a strong enough and organized enough group in the military to start a rebellion.
The thing about upper management in the military is that they are all molded in the same form. Its like different people walk in and the same copy of officer walks out again and again and again. No calling higher, religion or otherwise, than that of the service. To have a coup going on there... I dont see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse and Captante

Zorba

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 1999
8,204
2,102
136
Unprecedented restrain? Yeah.

He's a smart cookie :thumbsup:
The cops didn't just let them in, there were intense melees. They were way under staffed and under equiped. The real issue was they had no plan or backup for when the line got broken.

Most of the videos showing "cops letting them in" were cropped in size and duration. Upon fuller viewing it's obvious the cops are falling back because they were being over ran.

The problem lays with the leadership. There were a few shitty cops, but most did what they could.

The difference is we are used to seeing BLM rallies were there is a 20:1 ratio of cops to violent protesters, while at the capitol was the opposite of 1:20.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,120
2,703
136
The difference is we are used to seeing BLM rallies were there is a 20:1 ratio of cops to violent protesters, while at the capitol was the opposite of 1:20.
That is no where near true. The San Francisco protest had like 12,000 people at it. There was not anywhere near 240,000 police there. The difference how the police were geared out and how they reacted to the crowd.
In San Francisco the police held the line their lines because they had the gear and they fought back. In DC they didn't. The DC police lost ground to people simply walking up to their barricades and having more physical strength to move them then the police had to hold them in place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,656
2,866
126
That is no where near true. The San Francisco protest had like 12,000 people at it. There was not anywhere near 240,000 police there. The difference how the police were geared out and how they reacted to the crowd.
In San Francisco the police held the line their lines because they had the gear and they fought back. In DC they didn't. The DC police lost ground to people simply walking up to their barricades and having more physical strength to move them then the police had to hold them in place.
Won't happen now. They put in a NINE FOOT TALL "unscalable" fence all the way around the Capitol building. It's criminal that the leadership didn't protect the Capitol last week. I don't know the specifics. Maybe it was Trump himself that allowed the incompetence. He's the poster boy for incompetence, so yeah. Unfortunately, he's also the poster boy for malfeasance and malice. He rules in several other loser categories, I won't charge into that swamp right now.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,404
2,627
136
That is no where near true. The San Francisco protest had like 12,000 people at it. There was not anywhere near 240,000 police there. The difference how the police were geared out and how they reacted to the crowd.
In San Francisco the police held the line their lines because they had the gear and they fought back. In DC they didn't. The DC police lost ground to people simply walking up to their barricades and having more physical strength to move them then the police had to hold them in place.
I can't say I've researched the topic beyond just what I remember reading in the newspapers, but what I heard was that there were a very small number of officers present at the DC event, and they lacked any riot-control equipment. Zorba's 20:1 figure may not be correct, but it seems there were a lot more cops dealing with BLM events, especially if you allow for the fact not all of that 12,000 protestors would have been present at any given location at the same time. The actual ratio of cops present to insurgents at any one spot was likely to be much smaller in DC. Concentration-of-force and all that.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,404
2,627
136
I don't see a lot of milage in blaming the cops who were actually there (unless they were off-duty cops there as part of the mob!). The real failure (assuming it was a failure and not a deliberate decision - a question which needs to be investigated) was in the utter lack of planning and preparation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,656
2,866
126
I can't say I've researched the topic beyond just what I remember reading in the newspapers, but what I heard was that there were a very small number of officers present at the DC event, and they lacked any riot-control equipment. Zorba's 20:1 figure may not be correct, but it seems there were a lot more cops dealing with BLM events, especially if you allow for the fact not all of that 12,000 protestors would have been present at any given location at the same time. The actual ratio of cops present to insurgents at any one spot was likely to be much smaller in DC. Concentration-of-force and all that.
We take too much for granted in the USA. The FBI knew, or should have known. The US government dropped the ball on Jan. 6, 2021. There should be a thorough investigation and measures taken to prevent any similar fiasco from happening again. Right now, it's unlikely in DC in the next month that anything remotely as disruptive will happen. But there are 50 state capitols, and there are other potential targets and I won't be surprised if we see some major events in the next week, or two even. The FBI should be all over this and agencies working in tandem with them should be on high alert and quick to respond appropriately.

How much power rTump has in all this, I do not know. Obviously, he should be marginalized as much as possible.

I think I'll go back to reading the NY Times, their coverage on all this is very intensive... but I don't know anywhere where I would call coverage "thorough."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,001
5,015
136
You just said "even lead to threats". Threats are part of being a politician in the USA unfortunately. Can you imagine how many threats Pelosi gets?

If you aren't willing to make a stand against Terrorism in the USA, because you might get some small fraction of threats that a little old lady gets every day, then yes it's selfish. In fact it just makes you a selfish pussy if that's your reason.

If you are too much of a pussy to stand up against terrorism, and aren't selfish, then you should resign, and let people with more fortitude serve the people.

If you are going to serve, and not stand against Terrorism in the USA, then it's selfish, without doubt.

Not a dig at you BTW. I just think there isn't a non-selfish excuse for serving, but declining to stand against rising Terrorism in the USA.
I suppose I should say it's not the mere existence of threats so much as their credulity and frequency, and that these politicians aren't used to them.

Pelosi is unfortunately familiar with threats, and might almost consider them background noise since they rarely amount to more than saber-rattling. These politicians not only aren't used to them, they know these threats would be more credible and prolific — the kind of people willing to break into the Capitol might not hesitate to shoot at a Congressperson's house.

I do think politicians need to be made of steelier stuff, but I can see why they'd be hesitant in the current climate.
 

MrSquished

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2013
8,342
3,642
136
That is no where near true. The San Francisco protest had like 12,000 people at it. There was not anywhere near 240,000 police there. The difference how the police were geared out and how they reacted to the crowd.
In San Francisco the police held the line their lines because they had the gear and they fought back. In DC they didn't. The DC police lost ground to people simply walking up to their barricades and having more physical strength to move them then the police had to hold them in place.
You didn't read his post. He says a 20:1 ratio to violent protestors, not all protestors. The vast majority of protestors were peaceful
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
16,635
1,395
126
I don't see a lot of milage in blaming the cops who were actually there (unless they were off-duty cops there as part of the mob!). The real failure (assuming it was a failure and not a deliberate decision - a question which needs to be investigated) was in the utter lack of planning and preparation.

While I do see your point about the piss-poor planning last week by nearly all concerned I disagree about the cops to some extent.

From watching coverage both as it happened (along with many here) and extensive viewing since I'm convinced the majority of the police on-scene were just overwhelmed and trying to not die.

Unfortunately I also believe some of the police on scene and more importantly further up the command-chain as well were at the least sympathetic to the rioters and at worst complicit/criminally liable for their conduct.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,683
4,962
136
I fully expect the right to seize on this imagery and whip up a frenzy about “Pelosi’s shock troops!!” and “Dems go full fascist on conservatives!!” Just wait for Hannity/Tucker tonight and it will be on a constant loop.

All she is doing is thanking them for their service.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,120
2,703
136
You didn't read his post. He says a 20:1 ratio to violent protestors, not all protestors. The vast majority of protestors were peaceful
The same would be true at the DC event. There was a group of violent people, and a larger crowd that just went along with them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY