Will a Second Civil War Happen in The US?

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Invade Canada ?

We kicked your ass in 1812, and we'll do it again Ten oz.

And please turn off auto-correct.

I am not advocating that anyone invade Canada. Rather I am just thinking through the logistics of a second civil war. During the civil war the South was united and they had their own agricultural based economy and access to critical infrastructure. Today the most partisan states are not in control of any specific type of economy or critical infrastructure. If those most partisan states could leave the Union they'd quickly become failed States. So a more likely scenario in my opinion (neither scenario being particularly likely) would be for a takeover of Canada rather than an attempt a physical civil war. 

[MigL]

Just kidding Ten oz.

Advanced countries don't really have wars anymore.
They just take over economically.
( witness Germany's failure in two world wars, and successfully conquering Europe with the Euro/EU )

I would welcome economic take-over by the US ( i.e. more American investment ).
Most of our west coast is already owned by the Chinese.

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Just kidding Ten oz.

Advanced countries don't really have wars anymore.
They just take over economically.
( witness Germany's failure in two world wars, and successfully conquering Europe with the Euro/EU )

I would welcome economic take-over by the US ( i.e. more American investment ).
Most of our west coast is already owned by the Chinese.

Thanks to global warming Canada should become a significant point of distribution in the near future. The Northwest passage is open long and larger seemingly every year. The Hudson Bay will potentially have some of the largest ports of in the world. Canada doesn't need to be taken over by the U.S.. Canada can make more money as a trade liaison between the U.S. and place like Russian & China. Depending on how Canada chooses to manage their immigration policies I think Canada's future in bright. More land and coast is becoming accessible which means more access to resources.  

[Ten oz]

On 10/13/2018 at 11:39 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Did you actually check out the links? There are a number of examples that are not from Clinton.

She is defending fellow Democrats calling for uncivil behaviour, and the links include a number of examples. (which you requested)

Are you seriously unaware there is a concern with the current political discourse? Do you believe it is only Trump, or only the Republicans?

Your tendency to confirmation bias is pretty consistent, so should I take you at your word that you are serious, and never really able to see both sides? Apologies if I am wrong, but I believe you are much smarter than that, but being disingenuous.

When will we see a return to mutual respect in American politics?

 

I don't have Cable TV. Rather I watch just watch Netflix and Amazon. The News I consume is all through reading online. So I miss a lot of the going popular political outrage and punditry associated with cable news. One of your links mentioned Eric Holder and I didn't understand the context because I don't follow cable news. Seems people have been taking a statement he made about kicking those who go low way out of context and attempting to claim Holder advocated violence. In the same speech where Holder made the kick'em comment he clarified saying "When I say we kick them, I don't mean we do anything inappropriate, we don't do anything illegal, but we have to be tough and we have to fight, and we have to fight for the very things that John Lewis, Martin Luther King, Whitney Young – you know, all those folks gave to us.” It seems you might be allowing dishonest media pundits to influence your perception a bit. Just as I reference civil rights leaders in my early response so too did Eric Holder in his remarks. I recommend you find a full version of the speech and watch it for yourself. I didn't link one because all the ones I found included various bit of commentary. It would be best for you to read or see the comments in full for yourself. Perhaps then you will give the belief you have about Democratic mobs some more thought.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I don't have Cable TV. Rather I watch just watch Netflix and Amazon. The News I consume is all through reading online. So I miss a lot of the going popular political outrage and punditry associated with cable news. One of your links mentioned Eric Holder and I didn't understand the context because I don't follow cable news. Seems people have been taking a statement he made about kicking those who go low way out of context and attempting to claim Holder advocated violence. In the same speech where Holder made the kick'em comment he clarified saying "When I say we kick them, I don't mean we do anything inappropriate, we don't do anything illegal, but we have to be tough and we have to fight, and we have to fight for the very things that John Lewis, Martin Luther King, Whitney Young – you know, all those folks gave to us.” It seems you might be allowing dishonest media pundits to influence your perception a bit. Just as I reference civil rights leaders in my early response so too did Eric Holder in his remarks. I recommend you find a full version of the speech and watch it for yourself. I didn't link one because all the ones I found included various bit of commentary. It would be best for you to read or see the comments in full for yourself. Perhaps then you will give the belief you have about Democratic mobs some more thought.

Thanks Ten oz. I hadn't realized he had qualified it in the same speech. I think it still amounts to inciting the extreme left, and enabling Trump and the extreme right, but (hopefully) less so in this case if he later qualified it.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Thanks Ten oz. I hadn't realized he had qualified it in the same speech. I think it still amounts to inciting the extreme left, and enabling Trump and the extreme right, but (hopefully) less so in this case if he later qualified it.

I'm with Michelle Obama as to what motto is more appropriate...

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/10/11/michelle-obama-today-show-orig-acl.cnn

Edited October 14, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

I love how one or two Democrats taken out of context result in everyone’s parties getting in a twist, yet not a peep about years of screaming lock her up and saying people,should be carried out on stretchers or Obama tarred and feathered. Myopia, hypocrisy, who cares? Same result. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Thanks Ten oz. I hadn't realized he had qualified it in the same speech. I think it still amounts to inciting the extreme left, and enabling Trump and the extreme right, but (hopefully) less so in this case if he later qualified it.

Any speech can be better and any speech can be misconstrued. Trump is the only current political figure (elected or formerly elected recently) I know of here in the U.S. who purposefully says uncivil things in public. All the cases I am familiar with where a politician is accused of incivility are just exaggerations made to attack an individual rather than the policy. In my opinion if one is truly concerned with divisiveness in politics and wants more civility it is best to focus on the policies being proposed and ignore the language used by Politicians and the Media to sell and combat those policies. Rhetoric sells. Divisiveness sells. Detailed thoughtful policy isn't clickable, doesn't get ratings, and doesn't sell papers. Yet Policy is the job of a politician so that is what I think we should be he concerned with. On the rhetoric side there will always be outrage about something. There will all be equivalences made. 

I don't like Trump. My dislike of Trump isn't rooted in the way he insults people during campaign rallies, brags about himself incessantly, and etc. I dislike Trump's policies because I don't want families separated at the border, I don't want billionaires paying less taxes while our deficit soars, I don't want Climate Change disavowed,  I don't want the U.S. relationship with Canada diminished, and etc, etc, etc, etc. I have honest differences with Trump that go beyond his public persona. I think a whole lot of people do. So when I ask you what it is that Democrats do which lead you to call them a "mob" and draw an equivalence between then and Republicans I am hoping for something substantive. Not the latest rhetoric pulled from daily headlines. I don't watch CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and so on. I do not watch any News on TV but local news (traffic, weather, and what's doing in my area). National prime time news is all garbage. It is they who stoke incivility and divisiveness for ratings IMO.  

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I do not watch any News on TV but local news (traffic, weather, and what's doing in my area). 

And even nearly all that is owned by right wing Sinclair group. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/6/17202824/sinclair-tribune-map

 

[Ten oz]

57 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm with Michelle Obama as to what motto is more appropriate...

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/10/11/michelle-obama-today-show-orig-acl.cnn

Michelle Obama was asked if she think her motto, when they go low we go high, still stands. She didn't address Holder or Clinton. Rather she addressed her belief in her own statements as previously expressed. Here is the interview without editing or pundit commentary. Considering Eric Holder qualified his statement as a call for strength and not violence or anything inappropriate I am find with his motto as well. I have yet to see Clinton's full remarks in context. 

 

On 10/13/2018 at 8:23 AM, Ten oz said:

In pondering the likelihood of a second U.S. Civil War the thought accorded to me that a Canadian coup might be the easier solution for U.S. Conservatives looking for their our country. At just 10% the population of the U.S. there would be far less people to sway via propaganda. There is just 36 million people in Canada. By contrast Trump received 63 million votes. U.S. Conservatives have the money and the numbers to possibly take over Canada ideologically. As is stands most Canadians live within a couple hundred km of the U.S. border and the majority of U.S. citizens living near the Canadian border are among the most politically extreme in the nation. Coeur d'Alene Idaho is known for its White Nationalists and Coeur d'Alene is just 195km from the Canadian border. If things ever got to the point here in the U.S. where Second Civil War was brewing I suspect a hostile take over of Canada might be the easier solution. What are your thoughts? 

 

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

And even nearly all that is owned by right wing Sinclair group. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/6/17202824/sinclair-tribune-map

 

Which is why I pondered a ideological take over of Canada as being likely as a second Civil War. 

[beecee]

Don't really like getting involved in another country's politics and such, but could "MAD" be a consideration as it continually was during the cold  war with the old USSR? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Michelle Obama was asked if she think her motto, when they go low we go high, still stands. She didn't address Holder or Clinton. Rather she addressed her belief in her own statements as previously expressed. Here is the interview without editing or pundit commentary. Considering Eric Holder qualified his statement as a call for strength and not violence or anything inappropriate I am find with his motto as well. I have yet to see Clinton's full remarks in context. 

 

Can you not see that, though it might work as a call to action for the left (get the vote out etc.), it may also motivate the right and disaffect the moderates and independents.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I love how one or two Democrats taken out of context result in everyone’s parties getting in a twist, yet not a peep about years of screaming lock her up and saying people,should be carried out on stretchers or Obama tarred and feathered. Myopia, hypocrisy, who cares? Same result. 

Sadly it is hardly one or two, and the context is often intentionally vague,

Where have you not heard a peep with regard to Trumps antics? If you mean here, you might want to pull your head out of...ah...the sand.

[Ten oz]

41 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Can you not see that, though it might work as a call to action for the left (get the vote out etc.), it may also motivate the right and disaffect the moderates and independents.

As previously stated I would hope people would look at the policy and not focus on the bumper sticker slogans. End of the day Holder clearly said not to do anything inappropriate or illegal so I am fine with his speech. It is campaign season and politicians are holding rallies daily. I don't get caught up in the rhetoric. I am not in here criticizing the stump speeches of anyone. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Where have you not heard a peep with regard to Trumps antics? If you mean here, you might want to pull your head out of...ah...the sand.

Trump is POTUS. His "antics" are legitimate policy matters. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

58 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

Trump is POTUS. His "antics" are legitimate policy matters. 

What does this mean in context to what I said that you quoted? Almost everyone here has dumped on Trump, most of it for good reason. "not heard a peep" is simply inaccurate if iNow was alluding to posts on this Forum.

On it's own, this is absolutely correct, but why did you quote what you did before stating it?

Edited October 15, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[OldChemE]

Regardless of the politics and debates, there is at least one practical reason why a civil war is unlikely in the US:  territorial boundaries.  For a civil war to be practical you need large areas under the control of one idealogy that have a boundary with those of another.  Here we have cities that trend toward liberal views surrounded by urban area with more conservative views.  That's not a very practical situation for civil war.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What does this mean in context to what I said that you quoted? Almost everyone here has dumped on Trump, most of it for good reason. "not heard a peep" is simply inaccurate if iNow was alluding to posts on this Forum.

On it's own, this is absolutely correct, but why did you quote what you did before stating it?

Dumped on Trump for things he is doing on office and not purely for rhetoric he has said. You don't see a difference? People like Clinton and Holder aren't even in office. They are renegotiating trade deals, appointing judges, and etc. There stump speeches are meaningless. Complaining about someone like Holder is equivalent to someone like Newt Gringrich or some other former official who often does the media rounds. It isn't equivalent to the President. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Sadly it is hardly one or two, and the context is often intentionally vague,

Sadly, you appear to be suggesting an equivalency which is false. That’s where I was applying my criticism, Peeps or no. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sadly, you appear to be suggesting an equivalency which is false. That’s where I was applying my criticism, Peeps or no. 

What equivalency am I "suggesting"? If you mean Hirono, Booker, Kamala Harris, Clinton, Holder et al, as individuals, you are misreading my posts. If you mean the same for that extended group by committee...

1. How is it (currently) false?

2. Trump is no more rude and obnoxious than he ever was...it is already factored in, in the minds of voters. His approval rating, though poor, can actually increase simply by not saying anything particularly rude or unacceptable to most American values...and it can increase even if he keeps slinging mud if the Democrats do the same.

Democrats had a clear win in this area...now it is approaching a tie as they get sucked into this.

That leaves "the economy stupid" (Bill Clinton reference, not directed at anyone) vs all the dumb/dishonourable things Trump has done (rhetoric aside, which as per above already factored); with the GOP, despite being aligned with Trump, seeming reasonable by comparison. (

Meantime Trump gets a free ride on the economy, as if it was all him, LOL.

So...who do you hold your nose and vote for? Current Republicans (aligned with Trump) or current Democrats? If you can't respect either how and why do you cast your vote?

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Democrats had a clear win in this area...now it is approaching a tie as they get sucked into this.

You seem to suggest the fault is theirs, while I suspect most of the opposition is being manufactured and exaggerated. 

Both are clearly true, but one clearly matches the actual scale of what we’re seieng and hearing while the other does not. 

Hence, my suggestion of false equivalence. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

You seem to suggest the fault is theirs, while I suspect most of the opposition is being manufactured and exaggerated. 

Both are clearly true, but one clearly matches the actual scale of what we’re seieng and hearing while the other does not. 

Hence, my suggestion of false equivalence. 

I'm suggesting.

From a moral point of view they are responsible for their own part in it.

From a tactical point of view their current attempt to "match Trump" may work, but may also backfire, and they seemed like they had better options.

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

From a moral point of view they are responsible for their own part in it.

Do you feel this point was previously in dispute?

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

From a tactical point of view their current attempt to "match Trump" may work, but may also backfire, and they seemed like they had better options.

Are you suggesting “they” all act as some sort of homogenous unvaried and unwavering bloc?

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Do you feel this point was previously in dispute?

Are you suggesting “they” all act as some sort of homogenous unvaried and unwavering bloc?

LOL. I wouldn't even suggest that about Trump...

Why do you feel the need to overstate what I say? Are you a Democrat pundit?

Edited October 15, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Sicarii]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm suggesting.

From a moral point of view they are responsible for their own part in it.

From a tactical point of view their current attempt to "match Trump" may work, but may also backfire, and they seemed like they had better options.

 

How has “going high” benefited Democrats?

[Ten oz]

9 hours ago, OldChemE said:

Regardless of the politics and debates, there is at least one practical reason why a civil war is unlikely in the US:  territorial boundaries.  For a civil war to be practical you need large areas under the control of one idealogy that have a boundary with those of another.  Here we have cities that trend toward liberal views surrounded by urban area with more conservative views.  That's not a very practical situation for civil war.

 It is Rural areas which are conservative and it is Rural states with the greatest ideological divide . Wyoming for example went 67% Trump to just 21% Clinton.That was a 46 point win. Trump won West VA by 43 points. In total Trump won 9 states by at least 30 points. Clinton only won just 2 states by such margins despite win 3 million more votes. Texas is know as a Conservative State yet all of its major cities are Democrat. Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, and El Paso all have elected Democratic leadership. Trump won Texas by single digits thanks to the rural counties.  During the first Civil War the South had a total united geographical location of value and an economy. Had the South succeeded in separating from the U.S. they would have had the ability to produce goods wells as transport them throughout the South and beyond. The Rural areas with the ideological divides today do not have that. They do not produce anything and have no means of distribution if they did. I do not see a second Civil War happening under the current political climate. 

If Conservatives could ecologically take over Canada then Conservative states on the Northern border like Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, and etc could attempt to secede to join Canada. However a conservative take over of Canada doesn't appear to be in motion. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Sicarii said:

How has “going high” benefited Democrats?

I think that is a fair question. Was 2016 "going high" or " going normal/medium" while ignoring many issues? (They still "won" the popular vote, despite Trump going low)

But it is a fair question. Is what they are currently doing a good strategy? Will it seem to have worked if they do as well in this election as was expected in any case?