Is a Second Civil War Coming?

[Anti Federalist]

What's wanted are history tests. That way we actually get to repeat the good eras.

Been saying this for years.

If you can't pass a simple test on US civics, economics and history, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a voting booth.

[Anti Federalist]

In America, talk turns to something unspoken for 150 years: Civil war

https://www.lmtonline.com/news/artic...r-13654893.php

At a moment when the country has never seemed angrier, two political commentators from opposite sides of the divide concurred last week on one point, nearly unthinkable until recently: The country is on the verge of "civil war."

First came former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova, a Fox News regular and ally of President Trump. "We are in a civil war," he said. "The suggestion that there's ever going to be civil discourse in this country for the foreseeable future is over. . . . It's going to be total war."

The next day, Nicolle Wallace, a former Republican operative turned MSNBC commentator and Trump critic, played a clip of diGenova's commentary on her show and agreed with him - although she placed the blame squarely on the president.

Trump, she said, "greenlit a war in this country around race. And if you think about the most dangerous thing he's done, that might be it."

With the report by special counsel Robert Mueller reportedly nearly complete, impeachment talk in the air and the 2020 presidential election ramping up, fears that once existed only in fiction or the fevered dreams of conspiracy theorists have become a regular part of the political debate. These days, there's talk of violence, mayhem and, increasingly, civil war.

A tumultuous couple of weeks in American politics seem to have raised the rhetorical flourishes to a new level and also brought a troubling question to the surface: At what point does all the alarmist talk of civil war actually increase the prospect of violence, riots or domestic terrorism?

Speaking to conservative pundit Laura Ingraham, diGenova summed up his best advice to friends: "I vote, and I buy guns. And that's what you should do."

He was a bit more measured a few days later in an interview with The Washington Post, saying that the United States is in a "civil war of discourse . . . a civil war of conduct," triggered mostly by liberals and the media's coverage of the Trump presidency. The former U.S. attorney said he owns guns mostly to make a statement, and not because he fears political insurrection at the hands of his fellow Americans.

The rampant talk of civil war may be hyperbolic, but it does have origins in a real crumbling confidence in the country's democratic institutions and its paralyzed federal government. With Congress largely deadlocked, governance on the most controversial issues has been left to the Supreme Court or has come through executive or emergency actions, such as Trump's border wall effort.

Then there's the persistent worry about the 202o elections. "Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020 that there will never be a peaceful transition of power," Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer and personal lawyer, told a congressional committee Wednesday.

On that score, Cohen's not the only one who is concerned. As far back as 2016, Trump declined to say whether he would concede if he lost to Hillary Clinton, prompting former president Barack Obama to warn that Trump was undermining American democracy. "That is dangerous," Obama said.

The moment was top of mind for Joshua Geltzer, a former senior Obama administration Justice Department official, when he wrote a recent editorial for CNN urging the country to prepare for the possibility that Trump might not "leave the Oval Office peacefully" if he loses in 2020.

"If he even hints at contesting the election result in 2020 . . . he'd be doing so not as an outsider but as a leader with the vast resources of the U.S. government potentially at his disposal," Geltzer, now a professor at Georgetown Law School, wrote in his piece in late February.

Geltzer urged both major parties to require their electoral college voters to pledge to respect the outcome of the election, and suggested that it might be necessary to ask the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to reaffirm their loyalty to the Constitution over Trump.

"These are dire thoughts," Geltzer wrote, "but we live in uncertain and worrying times."

His speculation drew immediate reaction from the right. Former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin tweeted a link to an article that called Geltzer's warnings "rampant crazy." News Punch, a far-right site that traffics in conspiracy theories, blared: "Obama Official Urges Civil War Against Trump Administration."

Said Geltzer: "I don't think I was being paranoid, but, boy, did I inspire paranoia on the other side."

The concerns about a civil war, though, extend beyond the pundit class to a sizable segment of the population. An October 2017 poll from the company that makes the game Cards Against Humanity found that 31 percent of Americans believed a civil war was "likely" in the next decade.

More than 40 percent of Democrats described such a conflict as "likely," compared with about 25 percent of Republicans. The company partnered with Survey Sampling International to conduct the nationally representative poll.

Some historians have sounded a similar alarm. "How, when, and why has the United States now arrived at the brink of a veritable civil war?" Victor Davis Hanson, a historian with Stanford University's Hoover Institution, asked last summer in an essay in National Review. Hanson prophesied that the United States "was nearing a point comparable to 1860," about a year before the first shots were fired on Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

Around the same time Hanson was writing, Robert Reich, a former secretary of labor who is now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, imagined his own new American civil war, in which demands for Trump's impeachment lead to calls from Fox News commentators for "every honest patriot to take to the streets."

"The way Mr. Trump and his defenders are behaving, it's not absurd to imagine serious social unrest," Reich wrote in the Baltimore Sun. "That's how low he's taken us."

Reich got some unlikely support last week from Stephen K. Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist. "I think that 2019 is going to be the most vitriolic year in American politics since the Civil War, and I include Vietnam in that," Bannon said in an interview with CBS's "Face the Nation."

All the doom, gloom and divisiveness have caught the attention of experts who evaluate the strength of governments around the world. The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, a measure widely cited by political scientists, demoted the United States from "full democracy" to "flawed democracy" in January 2017, citing a big drop in Americans' trust for their political institutions.

Similarly, Freedom House, which monitors freedom and democracy around the world, warned in 2018 that the past year has "brought further, faster erosion of American's own democratic standards than at any other time in memory."

Those warnings about the state of America's democratic institutions concern political scientists who study civil wars, which usually take root in countries with high levels of corruption, low trust in institutions and poor governance.

Barbara Walter, a professor of political science at the University of California at San Diego, said her first instinct was to dismiss any talk of civil war in the United States. "But the U.S. is starting to show that it is moving in that direction," she said. "Countries with bad governance are the ones that experience these wars."

James Fearon, who researches political violence at Stanford University, called the pundits' warnings "basically absurd." But he noted that political polarization and the possibility of a potentially serious constitutional crisis in the near future does "marginally increase the still very low odds" of a stalemate that might require "some kind of action by the military leadership."

"I can't believe I'm saying this," he added, "but I guess it's not entirely out of the question."

Less clear in the near term is what kind of effect the inflammatory civil war rhetoric has on a democracy that's already on edge. There's some evidence that such heated words could cause people to become more moderate. A 2014 study found that when hard-line Israeli Jews were shown extreme videos promoting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as essential to Israeli pride, a strong army or national unity, they took a more dovish position.

"Extreme rhetoric can lead some people to pull back from the brink," said Boaz Hameiri, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and co-author on the study. But that only happens when people already believe a "more moderate version of the extreme views" and find the more extreme message shocking, he said.

In such cases, people recognize the absurdity of their position, worry it reflects badly on them and reconsider it, he said.

If the extreme messages become a normal part of the political debate, the moderating effect goes away, the study found.

Violence is most likely to occur, Hameiri added, when political leaders use "dehumanizing language" to describe their opponents.

Most experts worried that the talk of conflict here, armed or otherwise, was serving to raise the prospects of unrest and diminish trust in America's already beleaguered institutions.

The latest warnings of civil war from diGenova drew an exasperated response from VoteVets, a liberal veterans advocacy group whose members have fought in actual civil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Amazing we have to say this but: 1. We are NOT in civil war. 2. Do NOT buy guns (or any weapons) to use against your fellow Americans," Jon Soltz, the group's chairman, tweeted.

[Anti Federalist]

Why does there have to be war?

Can't we just peaceably separate?

Look to whatever entity claims that is not allowed.

And there you will find the true enemy.

[acptulsa]

Been saying this for years.

If you can't pass a simple test on US civics, economics and history, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a voting booth.

But, of course these days graduating school in an educated condition is considered 'being privileged'. Not sure if that's an admission public schools are worthless, or if it means being disposed to work at something is a punishable crime. But there it is.

[bv3]

Those who refuse to learn from history... have us outnumbered.

We've been trying on this site to figure out how to improve the quality of voters. Land owners? Job holders? Back to males only? Back to over 21? No, no, no, no.

What's wanted are history tests. That way we actually get to repeat the good eras.

Most people I talk to, though it certainly ain't a lot, begin their abstract conceptions of the past in 1944. For the ol' Balkan strategy to work it needs mutually antagonistic groups--along whatever lines may be drawn distinctly. It seems to me like even the Imperial-Royal administrative distinctions has been replicated here. Imperial being Federal, and Royal being state. I suppose Imperial-Royal would be those instances wherein the supremacy clause applies--or has been made to apply. Anyhow, the lines are pretty distinct now, the manipulated groups are for moment comparable in power, and the deciding factor seems to be one seat in the executive office. How convienent for Eris that this single objective exists to be focused on. There is this book The Dark Side of Democracy by Michael Mann, talks about ethnic cleansing being that dark side and the conditions wherein it occurs "Democide." I've no doubt thats a demon to be feared, but not to the exclusion of others; politicide (which ironically auto corrects to politicize....)


What $#@!ed me up was learning that Gavrilo Princip was finessed into acting by Serbian intelligence to kill an heir sympathetic to the Serbian people, kicking that whole party off.

As Mark Twain said, History doesn't repeat itself but if often rhymes.

[shakey1]

Why does there have to be war?

Can't we just peaceably separate?

Look to whatever entity claims that is not allowed.

And there you will find the true enemy.

^^^^this exactly^^^^

[bv3]

Why does there have to be war?

Can't we just peaceably separate?

Look to whatever entity claims that is not allowed.

And there you will find the true enemy.

If the differences that have arisen so viscerally had been entirely authentic, then such peaceful separations would be possible. These differences, or so is my contention, have been artificially emphasized to such a degree that I consider them entirely artificial. The point being, this artificial condition has been and is a necessary precondition for the centralized power grab thats been occurring and seems to be heating up. It is a variation of the Hapsburg game, to try a chess metaphor

Any peaceful settlement of this difference is unlikely, it just ain't in the position.

[PAF]

Been saying this for years.

If you can't pass a simple test on US civics, economics and history, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a voting booth.

Cart before the horse. End the FedDeptEd/Common Core (which isn't promoted anymore even among republicans) and introduce a curriculum that teaches a true account of history and sound economics.

[acptulsa]

If the differences that have arisen so viscerally had been entirely authentic, then such peaceful separations would be possible. These differences, or so is my contention, have been artificially emphasized to such a degree that I consider them entirely artificial. The point being, this artificial condition has been and is a necessary precondition for the centralized power grab thats been occurring and seems to be heating up. It is a variation of the Hapsburg game, to try a chess metaphor

Any peaceful settlement of this difference is unlikely, it just ain't in the position.

This. Race relations on September 12, 2001 were peaceful, amicable, nearly perfect--as long as you weren't Arabic. Since then, it has been like the powers that be and their lapdog media woke up that day and said, 'Holy $#@!! Americans are united! How do we get them divided again?!'

And they've been constantly working at it ever since. Even to the point of painting blacks who join the wrong group or attend the wrong gathering as racist against themselves.

[Philhelm]

Been saying this for years.

If you can't pass a simple test on US civics, economics and history, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a voting booth.

But that would deny the diverse cultural experiences and wisdom of our intersectional population.

[bv3]

This. Race relations on September 12, 2001 were peaceful, amicable, nearly perfect--as long as you weren't Arabic. Since then, it has been like the powers that be and their lapdog media woke up that day and said, 'Holy $#@!! Americans are united! How do we get them divided again?!'

And they've been constantly working at it ever since. Even to the point of painting blacks who join the wrong group or attend the wrong gathering as racist against themselves.

Its been pretty distinct in some areas all along. It may be that the war, and everything it entailed, was a way to put off this moment--or perhaps it was just a vast burn of resources that could have been rightfully used in those areas. I mean, if the US government through its constitutional powers gathered a surplus of monies who would really begrudge it investing that money? Of course, any talk of surplus is ridiculous now until the end of time so I'm talking about that pretend world before all those windows got busted, if you will.

So everything has this unpleasant fait accompli flavor to it. The lever of power is 22 trillion dollars in debt. Whoever winds up holding the lever of power will wind up owing that debt. Human nature has shown itself willing, even eager, to satisfy debts (however accrued) by sacrificing some part of another human (labor included but not limited too).

Whats the other option? Declare the debt illegitimate? What would happen if the country just decided to say, "Yeah, were not putting that in our debit column...sorry--it doesn't exist..." Hmmm? I mean, who owns the debt? They say China... but I don't know. The federal reserve? They make at least some of the debt, or at least increase its relative costs by diminishing the worth of the dollars people have to earn to diminish the debt, forcing them to earn more.

Its strange, you ever see two parties compete so stridently for 22 trillion in debt?! 22 trillion. Yup. We have entered scientific notation.

22,000,000,000,000 = 2.2e13 dollars.

[Philhelm]

This. Race relations on September 12, 2001 were peaceful, amicable, nearly perfect--as long as you weren't Arabic. Since then, it has been like the powers that be and their lapdog media woke up that day and said, 'Holy $#@!! Americans are united! How do we get them divided again?!'

And they've been constantly working at it ever since. Even to the point of painting blacks who join the wrong group or attend the wrong gathering as racist against themselves.

People also forgot about Blade, Spawn, and Storm.

[Anti Globalist]

They aren't trying to start a civil war between liberty lovers and non-liberty lovers. That would be too risky. Liberty lovers might win.

This will be just like U.S. elections of late. You know. Socialists v. fascists. That way, they win or they win.

Who won the Spanish civil war? It wasn't the Spanish. It was never going to be the Spanish.

So basically no matter who wins we still end up with a corrupt government.

[bv3]

So basically no matter who wins we still end up with a corrupt government.

Yes, because so much value has been consolidated in that entity, government, the artificially emphasized groups that compete for that government will do so at any means necessary. Enacted law is just another artificial means--and the ability to create de-facto or otherwise is worth at least as much as the sum of most of the candidates campaign costs.

I hear that not caring about who makes the laws quote around a lot, its a bad quote. The exclusive, monopolized, right to create money must be a result of law.

[Zippyjuan]

So those in the suburbs are going to attack the cities? Who is going to be fighting whom in this "civil war" and where will the battle lines be? Is either group interested in occupying the other group's space?

[Philhelm]

So those in the suburbs are going to attack the cities? Who is going to be fighting whom in this "civil war" and where will the battle lines be? Is either group interested in occupying the other group's space?

I would imagine that it would start off with assassinations, group clashes (as already seen with Antifa vs. Proud Boys, but with more violence), attacks against government facilities, attacks against law enforcement, attacks against the media, etc. Just because there are no battle lines doesn't mean that people won't adapt to the new nature of warfare.

Any group or individual can come up with their own personal "missions."

[acptulsa]

So those in the suburbs are going to attack the cities? Who is going to be fighting whom in this "civil war" and where will the battle lines be? Is either group interested in occupying the other group's space?

Kansas.

The army will take Kansas and give it to Monsanto, because the real source of power is Flyover Country, formerly known as The Breadbasket of the World, which really does feed half the globe. And the hipsters will cheer them on, because they're hipsters and they wouldn't dream of cheering for deplorable Westboro Baptists who don't want to give them health care.

Eventually they'll be paying $200 for a package of GMO tortillas, and wondering how the hell this happened.

[Ender]

Been saying this for years.

If you can't pass a simple test on US civics, economics and history, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a voting booth.

The answer is getting .gov out of education & allowing students to learn real history. Most the stuff taught in public school is pure BS to keep you indoctrinated.

[pcosmar]

I think there will at least be some false flags tat are designed to start a civil war.

It is obvious to me that there is attempt to start one.
by those unprepared for such.

Those who are prepared ,,, don't want one.

[Anti Federalist]

So those in the suburbs are going to attack the cities? Who is going to be fighting whom in this "civil war" and where will the battle lines be? Is either group interested in occupying the other group's space?

If my guess plays out, just the opposite.

Just as they did in Revolutionary France, the Jacobin leftists will fan out from the cities and march from town to town, killing anybody they deem too "unpure" to be part of the glorious new order.

[Anti Federalist]

The answer is getting .gov out of education & allowing students to learn real history. Most the stuff taught in public school is pure BS to keep you indoctrinated.

I have raised 5 children.

4 of them have been homeschooled.

Beyond that, what more is to be done? Most people want "free" government education. And states like NH that have swung hard left and elected Bolshevik majorities at the state level, will have the right to homeschool severely restricted.

Has anybody been following the "Red for Ed." Marxist uprising and strikes in the teacher's unions?

I don't recall it being posted or discussed.

[kcchiefs6465]

I have raised 5 children.

4 of them have been homeschooled.

Beyond that, what more is to be done? Most people want "free" government education. And states like NH that have swung hard left and elected Bolshevik majorities at the state level, will have the right to homeschool severely restricted.

Has anybody been following the "Red for Ed." Marxist uprising and strikes in the teacher's unions?

I don't recall it being posted or discussed.

I discussed it some a while back.

IIRC we had a couple people who spoke about how hard the teachers have it (with regards to hours worked and compensation).

[Working Poor]

It is obvious to me that there is attempt to start one.
by those unprepared for such.

Those who are prepared ,,, don't want one.

I don't want civil war for sure. Someone does though and it is a shame. I hope we can keep it curbed.

[ProBlue33]

I think this Sheriff shows us where the line is that would trigger it.




If local law enforcement at the county and state level is 100% opposed to new laws that they see violating the constitution.
The national guard for that state would not be for it either, how do they enforce it without major violence against their own armed government officials.
This what these democrats don't seem to get by violating the constitution, they could cause a revolutionary civil war with those expected to enforce it on the front lines, because they don't want to force their fellow Americans into that, and if they threaten them with job loss or worse incarnation, they will just turn their guns on them and say, "no you are going to jail as traitors".
They don't even understand how fast this could flip on them if they push it to far.
But I do think the very last straw would be a liberal supreme court ordering law enforcement, that would be the final trigger.

[tfurrh]

Well....
They did start trashing John Wayne.

[Zippyjuan]

Well....
They did start trashing John Wayne.

[oyarde]

So those in the suburbs are going to attack the cities? Who is going to be fighting whom in this "civil war" and where will the battle lines be? Is either group interested in occupying the other group's space?

I imagine once they consume the host the locusts will try to escape the city to plunder my empire . Obviously we cannot have that .

[Danke]

[devil21]

Been saying this for years.

If you can't pass a simple test on US civics, economics and history, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a voting booth.

Too many people can pass a fake history test. Not many could pass a real history test.

The OP is incorrect. There might be a civil war coming but the War Between the States was NOT a "civil war".

The South had every legal right to leave the confederation of states- it was Lincoln who made the US a corporation, denied the South its rights & completed the turning the US into a corporate franchise for the elite.

A passing history test grade^^^

Unfortunately, it was that secession that dissolved the original constitutional republic established by the founders and made way for what we have ended up with today.

During and after the original Civil War, all records of land ownership were destroyed (see: Sherman's march) and the properties stolen. I'd expect something similar to occur if major conflict broke out again.

[Pauls' Revere]

A civil war would be super illegal.

LOL