Poll: Left vs Right in a Civil War. Who will win?

[monovillage]

bye.
http://zapatopi.net/cascadia/

 

[davmat787]

Cascadia FTW.

There doesn't even have to be a war...

I think a lot of us would go voluntarily.

Cascadia will rise! Power to the Cascadians!!

I think I have mentioned Cascadia once before, never seen it used here on ATOT which is a feat.

 

[First]

And who do you think will have the military equipment?

The lefties currently in power.

 

[Lithium381]

everyone thinks because the left is for tighter gun control that they don't pack themselves..... please recall that they are the most hypocritical bunch to take stances on any issue. it's not that they're for tight gun control..... they're for tight gun control for EVERYONE ELSE..... for examples see CA Senators....

 

[monovillage]

everyone thinks because the left is for tighter gun control that they don't pack themselves..... please recall that they are the most hypocritical bunch to take stances on any issue. it's not that they're for tight gun control..... they're for tight gun control for EVERYONE ELSE..... for examples see CA Senators....

Good point and accurate.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would be forced to shoot anybody on either side who was attempting to shoot anybody on either side.

 

[Craig234]

Any such 'war' would do nothing but turn our nation into a repressive police state indefinitely if not forever. It will not happen. The days of 'civil war' are over in the US.

The vast majority of Americans WILL NOT go and get themselves killed, fighting their fellow citizens over wealth distribution.

Look, I'll try to explain this with an analogy. When the civil war happened, 'the south' could unify against an enemy - 'the north' and federal government it controlled - as oppressing it and as an enemy. It just wanted to secede; the north had to send troops to prevent them from doing so, and that made for a clear war.

Here's the analogy. Old colonialism had soldiers of the European power occupying a third world country, carrying out violent and oppression, and made for a clear target for a resistance war. In the 1960's, there was a shift to a new type of colonialism - 'economic colonialism' - that was devastating to the third world countries but didn't give them the easy target for 'war' of the colonizing powers' troops. At best, they could go to war against the puppet regime of the colonizer had in - their own people.

Today, there is no target for 'war' - the people are told 'you aren't repressed, you have the vote', even as the economic royals have corrupted our democracy by making their money essential to get elected and making the government serve them against the people. But there's no geographical divide for sides, no clear targets, it would be 'killing your fellow citizens' that seems a lot more like murder than war. The people have been highly conditioned against 'terrorism' - perhaps for a reason.

It's totally impractical - and immoral - to call for 'war'. What's needed is - while the people still have the political tools - political revolt.

Elect progressives - and pass a constitutional amendment against the corruption of our government by the money of the 1% to allow that to happen.

The US is either headed on the road to long-term plutocracy and the loss of a functioning democracy, or to reform.

I'm concerned these protests are 'too little' - they need some organization towards specific political reform. But war isn't going to happen, thank goodness.

 

[schneiderguy]

Any such 'war' would do nothing but turn our nation into a repressive police state indefinitely if not forever.

Elect progressives

That'd do it too.

 

[Craig234]

That'd do it too.

You're an idiot. But for what it's worth, you are also a data point for this:

95% of what's said here about liberals is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

 

[schneiderguy]

You're an idiot. But for what it's worth, you are also a data point for this:

95% of what's said here about liberals is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

Your "progessive" agenda requires the government to have complete control over its subjects lives. A police state would be required to implement this.

 

[fskimospy]

Your "progessive" agenda requires the government to have complete control over its subjects lives. A police state would be required to implement this.

No it doesn't. For examples of this, please see the entire remainder of developed planet Earth.

Where do people get these ridiculous ideas?

 

[Craig234]

Your "progessive" agenda requires the government to have complete control over its subjects lives. A police state would be required to implement this.

No, it doesn't. That's your idiotic false version. Like "All Republicans want to eat babies".

 

[Jhhnn]

Your "progessive" agenda requires the government to have complete control over its subjects lives. A police state would be required to implement this.

That's insane projection and attribution. Hard to tell from the inside, I'm sure.

In order for civil war to occur, some faction will have to attempt to bring down the govt via insurrection, and they'll lose.

Who was it talking about second amendment solutions, anyway?

Oh, yeh, that would be the losers.

 

[schneiderguy]

No it doesn't. For examples of this, please see the entire remainder of developed planet Earth.

Where do people get these ridiculous ideas?

You mean police states like England?

 

[First]

You mean police states like England?

lmao. I love it when people who have never been to the countries they cite claim they're socialist police states .

 

[schneiderguy]

lmao. I love it when people who have never been to the countries they cite claim they're socialist police states .

Their subjects are constantly under surveillance by CCTV cameras and are subject to police raids like this. Sounds like a police state to me.

 

[fskimospy]

Their subjects are constantly under surveillance by CCTV cameras and are subject to police raids like this. Sounds like a police state to me.

England had a progressive state long before they installed CCTV anywhere, and there's no reason to believe that such CCTV was required to have a progressive state. Not to mention all the other states in the world that have nothing of the sort and have progressive states themselves.

Look, you said something so wrong an eight year old could have set you straight. Why don't we just admit it and move on?

 

[schneiderguy]

England had a progressive state long before they installed CCTV anywhere, and there's no reason to believe that such CCTV was required to have a progressive state. Not to mention all the other states in the world that have nothing of the sort and have progressive states themselves.

Look, you said something so wrong an eight year old could have set you straight. Why don't we just admit it and move on?

Why don't you just admit that "progressives" are authoritarians that want the government to control everything?

 

[fskimospy]

Why don't you just admit that "progressives" are authoritarians that want the government to control everything?

Because that would be obviously false and a hilariously juvenile strawman argument.

You said something that was super easy to disprove, and the thing is that I can't imagine even you actually believe it.

 

[schneiderguy]

You said something that was super easy to disprove, and the thing is that I can't imagine even you actually believe it.

It's OK, you're a liberal, there's a lot you don't understand.

 

[fskimospy]

It's OK, you're a liberal, there's a lot you don't understand.

 

[Nebor]

Well since much of the left is ideologically opposed to violence, while much of the right is ideologically predisposed towards violence, I'd have to imagine it wouldn't be much of a fight.

The active duty military would likely split between the left (small group,) those that attempt to follow the constitution\law\their oath (mid sized group,) and those that have been evolved into a warrior class over the past decade of war while the majority of Americans have been going to the mall and watching American idol (large group.) That last group will do as they're told, and would enjoy the challenge of an American insurgency (they're used to dealing with insurgencies, you know.)

And if you think the democrat president would side with leftists over preserving the status quo, you're hopelessly naive in regards to politics.

 

[Matthiasa]

Given that the military would stay out of it... would probably be which side had the most corrupted police force.

Not that it would ever happen but still.

 

[schneiderguy]

Well since much of the left is ideologically opposed to violence, while much of the right is ideologically predisposed towards violence, I'd have to imagine it wouldn't be much of a fight.

Actually the left encourages violence with their gun control policies.

 

[Nebor]

Actually the left encourages violence with their gun control policies.

Yeah, but their most dedicated thinkers, like Craig, might not even kill someone to defend himself.

Conversely, he could be on his knees in a row of prisoners and I wouldn't have to offer a moments consideration before killing him and then heading inside for breakfast. *shrug*

It's not the best plan to evolve into a more peaceful, high minded person\society when the world is still full of bloodthirsty savages.

Note that this isn't meant to be a threat towards Craig, just an example of the difference mindsets on violence between the left and right. If anything, I'll happily follow Craig the day that we evolve into beings of pure energy and no longer require resources, allowing us to dance the eons away as celestial bodies in the night sky.