And you've yet to explain how this whole civil war thing is going to work. How are battle lines going to be drawn up and how is this going to be fought? The country is not drawn up by red states and blue states that can fight each other. This is a country that is well blended and where enemies would literally live next door to each other. How does that turn into a civil war.
This is a good question and you've made me think about it. I'm not sure, to be honest but it does seem to be heavily divided between two "factions" but I suppose you're right it is not necessarily very clear cut as to geographically which territories would split into two different, or various countries. I'm also not certain it would require war, now that you have me thinking about it.
Do you think it is possible that, depending on whatever happens, a collection of Democrats and Republicans could ever negotiate their way into an agreement to split various states into two separate countries one day? If they hate each other so much, and there is so little regard for the operation of the country or the political mechanisms that govern it, maybe the next best solution for Democrats is just to say 'look fine, go have your country over there with all these states and we'll go over here; you can go have your ####ed up dictatorship and we'll continue to have our functional democracy and the American people can decide where they want to live'.
Fascism (from Britannica); "a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government"
I don't think it's accurate to say the United States during Trump's presidency was 'pseudo-fascist', but you could arguably say instead that he wants it this way, and those are two different things. He was not a dictator, the other branches and components of the government still existed and operated. He lost the election and still got voted out, despite his attempted coup.
Most definitions of Fascism include ethno-centric policies, authoritarianism and private enterprise.
I mean, of course, you're right that the US wasn't fascist during Trump's tenure but that's because he is an incompetent boob surrounded by Yes-men and grifters, that ran out of time. Hence, pseudo.
Quote:
Secondly, doesn't every country basically operate for the best interests of its' citizens all the time, and therefore inherently constantly in a state of expansion of power and wealth at all time? Look at all imperialist societies throughout history, look at Russia today (why are they invading Ukraine?), look at Canada with protectionist policies on various industries, etc. There are many examples. So wealth and power are the goal for every country and in most cases this applies "no matter the consequences" because that is what history seems to suggest based on what I understand about various empires over time.
When you talk about 'best-interests' whose specifically are you referring to? For Trump, Bush, Reagan, Nixon and many current Republicans, they are concerned with the best interests of the wealthy, mostly white, mostly male members of society. Or people just like them. If you believe in trickle-down economics then I guess this counts as serving the countries best interests, but otherwise it's Plutocracy. The goal for most modern, democratic nations is the well-being of their citizens, which isn't necessarily the same as wealth and power.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
You think Elon is gonna leave that $8 on the table? He'll be back for sure.
I like how he was at $20 for about 5 minutes before Stephen King calls $20 bull####, and immediately after he goes down to $8. That's not how you negotiate!
Kari Lake doesn't know what she is talking about on this issue. This is political grandstanding plain and simple. If she would talk to the Maricopa County Recorder for two minutes this would be easily explained, and she could stop the faux pearl-clutching routine and stop trying to delegitimize the election process.
Do you think it is possible that, depending on whatever happens, a collection of Democrats and Republicans could ever negotiate their way into an agreement to split various states into two separate countries one day? If they hate each other so much, and there is so little regard for the operation of the country or the political mechanisms that govern it, maybe the next best solution for Democrats is just to say 'look fine, go have your country over there with all these states and we'll go over here; you can go have your ####ed up dictatorship and we'll continue to have our functional democracy and the American people can decide where they want to live'.
Because of the way the country is split I don't think this is possible. It would require forced migration of people based on ideology, which is pretty sick when you think about it. The reality is this is a population density and education issue. The red parts of states are sparsely homogenously populated and more rural. The blue sections are more heavily and diversly populated. The blue parts have more exposure to differences in peoples and people are usually more accepting. The red areas are isolated and educated on God and guns, rarely coming in contact with person different from themselves. They are afraid of what they don't know, and based on their education and experiences they don't know a helluva lot. So this is where the battle lines are drawn.
If you actually look at it from that perspective, the United States has been in a second civil war - but a cold war - since the civil rights era rose to prominence. This has been a battle for the hearts and minds of American citizens and we are seeing a protracted engagement over the rights and freedoms of religious white people versus the rights of secularist white people and non-white people. It is a battle of hearts and minds and the right-wing has a decided tactical advantage in technology and strategy, while the liberals have the advantage of numbers and evolution on their side. It has been a cold war waging for decades, but the potential for it turn into a hot war are extremely limited because of lack of clear regional or geographic lines to be drawn.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
what will divide the states in the end is money, the rich states are predominantly Blue, the the welfare states are Red, the divide will be about the Blue states not wanting to fund the inbred trailer park yeha's in the end, pretty much the same as in 1860
Because of the way the country is split I don't think this is possible. It would require forced migration of people based on ideology, which is pretty sick when you think about it. The reality is this is a population density and education issue. The red parts of states are sparsely homogenously populated and more rural. The blue sections are more heavily and diversly populated. The blue parts have more exposure to differences in peoples and people are usually more accepting. The red areas are isolated and educated on God and guns, rarely coming in contact with person different from themselves. They are afraid of what they don't know, and based on their education and experiences they don't know a helluva lot. So this is where the battle lines are drawn.
If you actually look at it from that perspective, the United States has been in a second civil war - but a cold war - since the civil rights era rose to prominence. This has been a battle for the hearts and minds of American citizens and we are seeing a protracted engagement over the rights and freedoms of religious white people versus the rights of secularist white people and non-white people. It is a battle of hearts and minds and the right-wing has a decided tactical advantage in technology and strategy, while the liberals have the advantage of numbers and evolution on their side. It has been a cold war waging for decades, but the potential for it turn into a hot war are extremely limited because of lack of clear regional or geographic lines to be drawn.
So what do you think realistically happens if Trump wins presidency / runs his second term for 4 years and then refuses to relinquish power?
Do people in blue states just kinda shrug and go with it?
Because of the way the country is split I don't think this is possible. It would require forced migration of people based on ideology, which is pretty sick when you think about it. The reality is this is a population density and education issue. The red parts of states are sparsely homogenously populated and more rural. The blue sections are more heavily and diversly populated. The blue parts have more exposure to differences in peoples and people are usually more accepting. The red areas are isolated and educated on God and guns, rarely coming in contact with person different from themselves. They are afraid of what they don't know, and based on their education and experiences they don't know a helluva lot. So this is where the battle lines are drawn.
If you actually look at it from that perspective, the United States has been in a second civil war - but a cold war - since the civil rights era rose to prominence. This has been a battle for the hearts and minds of American citizens and we are seeing a protracted engagement over the rights and freedoms of religious white people versus the rights of secularist white people and non-white people. It is a battle of hearts and minds and the right-wing has a decided tactical advantage in technology and strategy, while the liberals have the advantage of numbers and evolution on their side. It has been a cold war waging for decades, but the potential for it turn into a hot war are extremely limited because of lack of clear regional or geographic lines to be drawn.
You sure have some solid stereotypes in this, just wondering what your qualifications are to give these fabulous insights?
I wonder if it’s also possible that the Democrats have completely screwed up the country in the limited time they have been in power and now is some accountability is in store.
But hey it could also be a conspiracy theory and a Cold War raging also I guess.
I wonder if it’s also possible that the Democrats have completely screwed up the country in the limited time they have been in power and now is some accountability is in store.
Lmao. Because the GOP had it in such good shape with Trump running up one of the biggest deficits of any president and millions of people dead from a botched covid response.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
So what do you think realistically happens if Trump wins presidency / runs his second term for 4 years and then refuses to relinquish power?
Do people in blue states just kinda shrug and go with it?
I honestly don't know. Conservatives are very aggressive and are willing to wear their hearts (and minds) on their sleeves (or pickup trucks). Liberals are much more cerebral and rarely act out. It takes something dramatic to take to action outside their coffee clutches. It is the way the brains are wired. Liberals do their processing in the prefrontal cortex where our adjudicative functions reside. In moments of conflict they will sit and ponder on issues endlessly, usually leaving themselves in danger. Conservatives rely mostly on the amygdala for processing which is our fear centers and responsible for our fight/flight response centers. In conflict they will be the first to throw a punch or recognize the potential danger and run. I think even with the election of an authoritarian with totalitarian tendencies liberals will wait and see how things go, even when the SS is banging on their door and dragging them off to re-education camps. I don't see a call to violence until something really goes sideways and it is draconian in nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout
Sometimes you read something, and your brain just stops.
I never thought of it that way, but my goodness it's accurate.
I'm going to be paraphrasing this a lot.
I've been thinking about this context for a about a month now. I've had multiple conversations about this with my wife about how this all started, who the major players were along the way, the regulator and governance changes made that allowed this become weaponized, and then the major battles/battle lines that have been drawn. She's trying to goad me into a book on the subject since I have a lot of the research done from a previous publication, but it is so controversial and could be a tough write. Still mulling it over. Maybe more conversation here would help and mature certain themes? Who knows. It's just an idea and approach to the problem. Glad you guys liked it.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
