• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

American Civil War II ?

Is a civil war on the horizon?

  • yes

    Votes: 3 16.7%

  • no

    Votes: 15 83.3%
  • Total voters
    18
F

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you think, with the divide between the Right and the Left in America, we may be heading toward another civil war ourselves?

If so, why?

And if not. Why?

I meant to add a poll to say yes, no, or I don`t know.:slapme:
 
Last edited:
ThePhoenix said:
Just because? :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what kind of nuanced answer you're looking for... The suggestion is simply ridiculous.
 
There wouldn't be a civil war here because the left is too cowardly to even look at a gun. So, No. No civil war, unfortunately. Although I wish I had a chance to give Kerry a REAL wound worth a Purple Heart, like perhaps a hewn off leg? Buwahahahahahahahaaaaaaa :cool:
 
ThePhoenix said:
Just for you....

The Second American Civil War


PartII
Click to expand...

So you found someone else who parrots the same thing...wow, convincing. :roll:

This suggestion is ludicrous. I haven't heard of one single incident in my entire life of a liberal civilian killing a conservative civilian for political reasons, or vice versa. Rhode Island has no desire to bomb Alabama, or vice versa. The people of those states generally like one another, even if they hold some stereotypes.

The United States today is simply not a sectarian country. If you were dropped in a random American city, it's very unlikely you'd be able to tell where you were based on the political views of its inhabitants. The political differences between Boston and Salt Lake City are miniscule.

The whole "red state" versus "blue state" dichotomy is a gross oversimplification. There are only different shades of purple...and even those shades don't differ that much. In the most Democratic states, Democrats only outnumber Republicans about 2:1. In the most Republican states, Republicans only outnumber Democrats about 3:1. There's nowhere in the country where opposing views are unheard of, or not tolerated.
 
Last edited:
[mod mode]

Poll added. I take checks or cash. :cool:

[/mod mode]
 
It is a metaphorical civil war he is speaking of, yes? I didn't read the whole article, though. I voted no.
 
Kandahar said:
So you found someone else who parrots the same thing...wow, convincing. :roll:

This suggestion is ludicrous. I haven't heard of one single incident in my entire life of a liberal civilian killing a conservative civilian for political reasons, or vice versa. Rhode Island has no desire to bomb Alabama, or vice versa. The people of those states generally like one another, even if they hold some stereotypes.

The United States today is simply not a sectarian country. If you were dropped in a random American city, it's very unlikely you'd be able to tell where you were based on the political views of its inhabitants. The political differences between Boston and Salt Lake City are miniscule.

The whole "red state" versus "blue state" dichotomy is a gross oversimplification. There are only different shades of purple...and even those shades don't differ that much. In the most Democratic states, Democrats only outnumber Republicans about 2:1. In the most Republican states, Republicans only outnumber Democrats about 3:1. There's nowhere in the country where opposing views are unheard of, or not tolerated.
Click to expand...

A Maryland citizen wants the Maryland National Guard to attack New Jersey, just because NJ wants to build some dock the receives oil and the dock extends into Maryland waterways a little bit. But that is just one insignificant example.

The first civil war started over political reasons.
 
ThePhoenix said:
Do you think, with the divide between the Right and the Left in America, we may be heading toward another civil war ourselves?

If so, why?

And if not. Why?

I meant to add a poll to say yes, no, or I don`t know.:slapme:
Click to expand...

No despite the fun we have poking each other with verbal sticks I don't really believe we actually HATE one another as much as the media makes it seem we do. Also the media and your posted article classify people in a simple way when the truth is it's much more complex than that.

It's possible for a democrat to be prolife. It's possible for a Republican to be against the death penalty. It's possible for a democrat to be christian. It's possible for a republican to be an atheist. It would be way too hard to figure out who was on whose side if we were to go to war. The majority of Americans aren't full of hatred for one another. You might think your neighbor is incredibly stupid but you're probably not angry enough to kill him. While some of the issues that divide our people are serious they are not war provoking in my opinion.
 
No, i doubt the Red and Blue are in that kind of position. But i never shun the improbabiltity...
 
I'm gonna killz me some blue staters yee whooo!


bluevsred_1.gif




You guys are so gonna get your asses kicked.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I'm gonna killz me some blue staters yee whooo!


bluevsred_1.gif




You guys are so gonna get your asses kicked.
Click to expand...
Well, let's see, since the main battery of any force is size of force, which is determined by the amount of individuals, this map based on percentages of voters of Bush vs Kerry would be a much more accurate representation.
countycartlinear.png


Doesn't look too favorable for the reds.
 
jfuh said:
Well, let's see, since the main battery of any force is size of force, which is determined by the amount of individuals, this map based on percentages of voters of Bush vs Kerry would be a much more accurate representation.
countycartlinear.png


Doesn't look too favorable for the reds.
Click to expand...

First off is that supposed to be the U.S.? Second off Bush won the majority vote as well by a few million if I'm not mistaken.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
First off is that supposed to be the U.S.? Second off Bush won the majority vote as well by a few million if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...
It's the US after taking into account of population densities per area. Then it also takes into account of the percentages of voter results, addressing the fact the many "red" areas are red because of slim majorities (hence the purple). All of which are adjusted by the actual percentages of the area.
Here's how the image was created:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/
Few million, though majority, is still a very slim majority, such division is not ideal. Contrast the voter margin Bush won the presidency both times to the margin that nearly all former presidents won thier presidencies.
You also must ask this question, if the US were not at war, would Bush have won the second term? Very questionable since even in time of war, the margin was still very very slim.
 
One more thing to take into account, if we had a second civil war, who would the rest of the world support: the blue staters who hate Bush as much as they do, or red state bumpkins who foisted him on the world in the first place?
 
Befuddled_Stoner said:
One more thing to take into account, if we had a second civil war, who would the rest of the world support: the blue staters who hate Bush as much as they do, or red state bumpkins who foisted him on the world in the first place?
Click to expand...

Umm the rest of the world would do what they always do when it comes to war, nothing.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Umm the rest of the world would do what they always do when it comes to war, nothing.
Click to expand...
Oh? So who started WWI? WWII? Was it the US?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Umm the rest of the world would do what they always do when it comes to war, nothing.
Click to expand...

Are you nuts? If the US gets into another civil war, I can guarantee that not only will the world be willing to take sides, for a price, but at least one side in the US would be out shopping for that assistance.

That's the nature of war. We won't have a gentleman's war, it'll be war, period. And that means win first, count the cost later. You do realize the South was desperately petitioning Britain for help, don't you? Unfortunately for them, Britain decided that it didn't want to lose Canada to the United States, so they stayed out.
 
Reply to poll question:

No.

A civil war requires that the two parties have a difference of opinion. The only difference between the two major parties is that they can't agree on who should live in that old house in Washington. Their policies are as near identical as a couple of castor beans...bland and poisonous.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Are you nuts? If the US gets into another civil war, I can guarantee that not only will the world be willing to take sides, for a price, but at least one side in the US would be out shopping for that assistance.

That's the nature of war. We won't have a gentleman's war, it'll be war, period. And that means win first, count the cost later. You do realize the South was desperately petitioning Britain for help, don't you? Unfortunately for them, Britain decided that it didn't want to lose Canada to the United States, so they stayed out.
Click to expand...

Ya right Europe doesn't even have the balls to stand up to third world dictators, you really think they would want to get involved in a war with the U.S.?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya right Europe doesn't even have the balls to stand up to third world dictators, you really think they would want to get involved in a war with the U.S.?
Click to expand...

Is Europe the only continent on the planet? Besides which, all that means is that Europe didn't see any profit in it. They're the descendants of either Nazis, or the wimps that let Nazism rise to power. Don't ever turn your back on those people.

Mexico would gladly volunteer manpower for a promises of land after. And coalition of states that includes California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas has to keep this in mind.

China wouldn't be averse to playing the game.

Saudi Arabia might see an opportunity for bargains.

Russia would be glad to help dissect it's victor.

France took bribes from Hussein for a few paltry billion. I can see what they'd do for an opportunity to slice up the Big Enchilada...er the Escargot Enorme.

Canada's never shown much in the line of gonads, but you know what they say about when opportunity knocks.

I could imagine Castro slicing off south Floriduh if things got really bad.

You clearly have an idealist's view of the world. That's dangerous.
 
This topic is difficult to even take seriously.

Throughout history, in order for civil war to ensue, there has to be a class or sect of people with the power to severe themselves from the ruling sect and to rebel against them, there have to be grave injustices/oppressions (or at least perceived ones) being committed against the rebelling sect, and/or there has to be a fundamental inability/unwillingness of the ruling sect to meet the needs of the rebelling sect.

None of this exists here, unless you get your news from Move On.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom