…will be worse than the last one.
Yes. This time it is a war between those who revere the Constitution, and those who hate it.
[Evening update]
OK, let me amend that. It’s a war between those who revere the principles underlying the document (limited government), and those who hate them. Because they are totalitarians. Anyone who thinks (like Elena Kagen) that it would be a “bad idea” (it would actually be a good one, nutritionally) to compel the American people to purchase and eat broccoli, but constitutional, is completely clueless about the philosophy and principles of the document. “Totalitarian” doesn’t have to mean concentration camps. What it means is that there are no limiting principles, and that the personal is political.
It’s still a struggle between those who believe that people own themselves and have a right to the fruits of their labor, and those who believe that their inborn superiority gives them a right to the unpaid labor of others.
Ha! Well done! Your comment is a nice Rorschach test.
Democrats always get angry and start wars when we try to take away their slaves.
My praise was directed at Jeff Greason.
Rand, I was going to say that while the headline is unnecessarily inflammatory, if there is a divide over the Constitution, we can see it in the difference between those who believe Americans must not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (5th Amendment), and those who chant “Lock her up!”
People are entitled to chant whatever they want, and they are entitled to their own opinions as to innocence or guilt. Your side wants people jailed or killed for insufficient obeisance to the climate religion.
“People are entitled to chant whatever they want, and they are entitled to their own opinions as to innocence or guilt. ”
Of course! The masses are entitled to not revere the Constitution. But it is sad that they don’t.
Trump and Jeff Sessoins have both said “lock her up.” Yesterday, Sessions apologized for it. Nearly every time the Attorney General or the President opens their mouth, their comments ought to contain an civics lesson (implicitly or explicilyt). Many people in power in Washington, on both sides of the aisle, do exactly that, and it is because it comes naturally to someone in their position who reveres the Constitution.
As for people getting jailed or killed because of any kind of religion, what are you referring to? While I don’t know what you are talking about, such people certainly are not on “my side”, nor are such people typical Democrats or typical Americans. Go into any community where 80% or more of the voters voted for Hillary — what percent of those people want anyone jailed or killed for their beliefs about climate change? I’m guessing it is significantly less than 1%.
I have no idea what the percentage is, but some pretty prominent people seem to believe it.
What Robert Kennedy Jr and Bill Nye said about jail time was reprehensible. Neither called for anyone to be killed, although what they said was horrible. To their minor credit, they were calling for due process (albeit via the Hague rather than by the American justice system).
Here’s the context https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlk4Lt__Sn0
I don’t see their extreme comments (which I completely disagree with) as an indictment of the Democrats. They might be prominent, but they aren’t typical. 44% of American voters identify as Democrats — I think you shouldn’t assume that two celebrities who have never been elected by the voters can speak for millions of Democrats.
Btw, when I think of Robert Kennedy Jr, I think of the damage he may have caused regarding vaccine skepticism. Sadly, Donald Trump invited him to serve on a vaccine safety task force (a task force which I would much rather see composed of medical researchers.)
In contrast, “lock her up” was chanted at the Republican National Convention, which makes me feel sick to my stomach, and yes, I’d feel just as sick if such as spectacle had occurred at the DNC.
Take an antacid.
Those chants were not indicative of a lack of respect for the Constitution; they were the natural result of years of frustration about the lack of respect of the DC establishment in general, and the Democrat Party particularly, for the rule and equal application of the law. She (and the other members of the Clinton crime family) should have been locked up years ago. Anyone who’s ever held a clearance knows that they’d have a very long vacation in Club Fed for a small fraction of what she did with that server (not to mention all the other corruption).
“Innocent until proven guilty” is for the court of law, not the court of public opinion. And you know what else resulted beside those chants? Trump. Your party’s lack of respect for the law got you Trump.
Yes, during the campaign Trump said Hillary belonged in prison, and the MSM had a fainting spell.
Question: It’s been almost 2 years since then. How long has Hillary been in prison?
Calvin, Trump famously decreed that Hillary had suffered enough. More disregard for due process from the executive branch. Have a link from Breitbart which makes this point:
https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/11/23/peter-schweizer-letting-hillary-off-hook-definition-rigged-system/
If I were a Trump fan, I might care.
If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. Most of your fellow Democrats don’t.
I’m a fan of the Constitution, so I do care. Isn’t that what this thread is all about – who reveres the Constitution and who does not?
I must say it’s truly hilarious to see the Democrats yelling ‘But muh Constitution!’ after decades of attacking it at every opportunity.
“In contrast, “lock her up” was chanted at the Republican National Convention, which makes me feel sick to my stomach,..”
I loved it. Welcome to the New Rules.
Go watch reactions right after Hillary was beaten in the election. Not the newscasters but personal youtubes. See how those people thought of people who voted for Trump.
Go into any community where 80% or more of the voters voted for Hillary
That is pretty risky considering how many Trump supporters Democrats have tried to lynch. Why don’t you wear a MAGA hat and walk around in those areas and see how businesses and people treat you?
I’m a fan of the Constitution, so I do care.
So you want Hillary locked up because otherwise its a rigged system?
You get upset about the chant but just ignore the behavior that caused it.
Bob-1 said,
“Many people in power in Washington, on both sides of the aisle, do exactly that, and it is because it comes naturally to someone in their position who reveres the Constitution.’
Nobody reveres the Constitution in Washington DC.
https://foseti.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/mencius-moldbug-lawrence-auster-and-the-futility-of-conservatism/
Bob-1
“*I’m a fan of the Constitution*, so I do care. Isn’t that what this thread is all about – who reveres the Constitution and who does not?”
Okay Bob-1, then you’ll have no problem with me building a man portable machine gun and carrying hand grenades, right? You’ll just be a-okay with me setting up a private business that excludes Jews and Blacks, amirite?
Because the US Constitution, written in plain and simple fifth-grade English, allows me to do those things.
And don’t tell me the Courts with their “Constitutional” Law says otherwise. Because if the Judiciary says otherwise, then all Trump has to do to crown himself Caesar Augustus is to pack the Judiciary and court America’s Praetorian class.
Guess what? Imperator Trump has been giving all sorts of goodies to the Military, Police and Second Amendment supporters. And the God-Emperor has been packing the courts too.
R7Rocket said “Okay Bob-1, then you’ll have no problem with me building a man portable machine gun and carrying hand grenades, right? You’ll just be a-okay with me setting up a private business that excludes Jews and Blacks, amirite?
Because the US Constitution, written in plain and simple fifth-grade English, allows me to do those things.”
The Constitution says nothing specifically about driving through red lights, but as you later acknowledge, the Constitution allocates power to the states and to the Congress to make various laws, when those laws don’t violate the Constitution.
The legality of personal ownership of hand-held machine guns and hand grenades (and warships and even nuclear weapons) has been discussed on this blog many times. Since I started reading this blog, the Supreme Court has handed down a variety of pro-gun-ownership decisions which clarified, at least for the forseeable future, some of the questions of gun ownership. I’d like to see a carefully crafted constitutional amendment to restrict gun ownership, but I respect the constitutionally prescribed process for getting that done. But I’ll note this: the 2nd Ammendment is one example of why the Constitution was not “written in plain and simple fifth-grade English”, because people of good faith can’t agree on how the words ” a well regulated militia” is supposed to be interpreted.
The civil rights act was judged by the Supreme Court to be constitutional. The ruling centered on the Commerce Clause (and the Necessary and Proper Clause). Unfortunately, the unending arguments over the scope of these clauses once again demonstrates why the Constitution was not “written in plain and simple fifth-grade English”.
people of good faith can’t agree on how the words ” a well regulated militia” is supposed to be interpreted.
I don’t agree that people arguing that “well-regulated militia” means that the government can and should regulate guns are arguing in good faith. They are, generally, simply trying to find a loophole to allow them to disarm us.
“because people of good faith can’t agree on how the words ” a well regulated militia” is supposed to be interpreted.”
Those who want to ban guns by any means other than changing the Constitution are most certainly not ‘people of good faith,’ and never have been. The fact that they true to use the militia clause as an excuse for infringing the right to keep and bear arms is clear proof of that.
The Constitution explicitly assumes the existence of private WARSHIPS to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal too. You think the founders would give two hoots about people owning an AR-15, M203 or M134?
Americans are never going to give up their guns after seeing the left red in tooth and claw in the last few years. The only thing continual attempts to disarm them will achieve is to trigger the civil war we’re talking about: which is why the left keep pushing it.
Bob-1 said:
“The civil rights act was judged by the Supreme Court to be constitutional. The ruling centered on the Commerce Clause (and the Necessary and Proper Clause). Unfortunately, the unending arguments over the scope of these clauses once again demonstrates why the Constitution was not “written in plain and simple fifth-grade English”.”
You are not tall enough for this ride.
Did you even bother to read what I just posted?
Me:
“And don’t tell me the Courts with their “Constitutional” Law says otherwise. Because if the Judiciary says otherwise, then all Trump has to do to crown himself Caesar Augustus is to pack the Judiciary and court America’s Praetorian class.”
So all Imperator Trump has to do is pack the Supreme Court with his loyalists and anything Trump Caesar does will be deemed “Constitutional” by the Trump Supreme Court.
What a dumbass you are.
Bob-1 said:
“The legality of personal ownership of hand-held machine guns and hand grenades (and warships and even nuclear weapons)”
If I had my own personal nuclear weapons, I wouldn’t need a constitution to protect my rights. In fact, personal nukes are a better guarantee of my personal rights than a stupid piece of paper.
Bob-1 (it’s almost like having Jim back!) said:
“I think you shouldn’t assume that two celebrities who have never been elected by the voters can speak for millions of Democrats.”
Well, those two celebrities think they speak for millions. And the Left is all about lauding them and others who behave the same way. I haven’t heard many round denunciations of them by folks on your side. On the contrary: the Loony Left cheers them on and doubles down. In Santa Barbara, they were planning on jailing people who gave out straws (and had to backtrack, I guess, merely fining people hundreds of dollars).
By “picking on” celebs, we’re just following the rules your side uses: “pick a target, personalize it, freeze it.”
@Bob-1 “I’m a fan of the Constitution.” What part? I’m having trouble seeing it.
MfK,
I am the only commenter here who is quoting the Constitution. I’m quoting it without disapproval. I don’t think your comment is justified.
MfK, I guess strictly speaking, to be a fan, I should quote the Constitution with approval rather than “without disapproval”.
So: ” No person shall… …be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” Hip Hip Hooray!
Ok?
That said, I think the Takings Clause of the 5th amendment is puzzling. Consider: ” ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” We can all agree that proper compensation is important, but why focus on “just compensation,” and not on “just cause”?
Keep in mind that Bob-1 just admitted that he wants to gut the Second Amendment.
He lies when he claims he “loves muh constitution.”
“He lies when he claims he “loves muh constitution.”
Article 5 provides the mechanism for amending the Constitution. Congress has at least considered amending the constitution over 11,600 times. (Bigger number than you expected? Here’s my source: https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/three_column_table/measures_proposed_to_amend_constitution.htm
Anyway, it happens frequently. It is part of the Constitutional process that patriotic congressman engage in, in response to proposals from their patriotic constituents. Don’t call me a liar.
@Bob-1
You lie when you claim that you want, in good faith, to ban guns. Your side’s support for MS-13 gives the game away.
And Trump is realizing that your side wants to bring harm to his family after you try to remove him or after he retires from a second term.
The results would be interesting.
As for the Constitution, you guys don’t need to propose new amendments, your judges already ignore it… But Imperator Trump is packing the courts.
Imagine:
English only ballots!
Voting restricted to third or more generation Americans.
1965 immigration act ruled “unconstitutional.”
ICE agents posted at voting sites ruled “constitutional.”
And finally, the Trump courts rule that Bob-1’s Democrat voter registration gets thrown in a shredder.
And to further emphasize the failure of Constitutional Conservatives to conserve the girls’ bathroom in contrast with Imperator Trump’s growing success as He packs the courts and gathers support among the military, police, and Second Amendment supporters… here is this blog post:
https://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/2010/08/return-to-europe.html
In politics the powerful, not the constitutionally or morally correct, rule. And increasingly, Imperator Trump understands this. Either He rules… or the Deep State does.
You keep using the phrase “packing the courts.” I don’t think that means what you think it means.
Hillary broke a lot of laws and was saved by a corrupt DOJ at the orders of Obama. That investigation was as rigged as the Democrat primary. The outcome was determined before the investigation took place. Immunities were handed out for nothing in exchange, participants in the crimes were allowed to act as lawyers to shield actions, evidence was destroyed, and the investigators all had strong conflicts of interest.
Besides all that, chanting, “Lock her up!” pales in comparison to the things Democrats chants at their daily protests. You want to see racism, bigotry, hatred, and anti-American speech? Just listen to the Democrat’s militant protesters at their party organized events.
Seriously, any Democrat trying to lecture others about what people say really needs to check themselves. Its like the cookie monster telling people they eat too many cookies.
Rand, I was going to say that while the headline is unnecessarily inflammatory, if there is a divide over the Constitution, we can see it in the difference between those who believe Americans must not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (5th Amendment), and those who chant “Lock her up!”
Why do you think Clinton would not be in jail, if due process of law were applied? Remember it’s not about letting the guilty go free.
“Why do you think Clinton would not be in jail”
I have no idea what would have happened had there been a trial. I think people concerned about Clinton’s actions should have been calling for a trial. I think anyone in government should have been careful to not presuppose or prejudice the outcome of that trial.
So you think that a trial should settle the issue in the mind of the public forevermore? That everyone should have believed, after OJ’s “trial,” and acquittal, that everyone should have considered him innocent? That it is not allowed to have a different opinion as to guilt or innocence after a trial? Or…?
Rand, that’s not what I said. I’m not talking about what people are “allowed” to believe! I’m simply saying that calling for a trial would show reverence for the 5th amendment, and calling for someone to be locked up shows disrespect for the 5th amendment.
You are the one who framed the question of who reveres the Constitution and who doesn’t. My comments are working within your framework. I don’t know why you keep ignoring your own dichotomy.
The Attorney General showed that he understood that it was inappropriate for him to say “lock her up”. I don’t know why you don’t share that understanding.
I’m not saying it’s “appropriate” to chant “locker her up.” I’m saying it’s completely understandably after her decades of unaccounted lawlessness. And continue to think Jefferson Sessions an idiot, even when he cluelessly attempts to defend the Constitution.
Just because you revere the Constitution doesn’t mean your fellow Democrats do. Certainly Barack Obama didn’t and doesn’t. As I said, if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.
@Rand Simberg
Bob-1, the liar, just admitted in one of his responses to my posts that he wanted to gut the Second Amendment. Some “fan of the Constitution” he is…
Please see my above reply to this assertion.
I have no idea what would have happened had there been a trial. I think people concerned about Clinton’s actions should have been calling for a trial. I think anyone in government should have been careful to not presuppose or prejudice the outcome of that trial.
Yet those people in government weren’t careful, going out of their way to whitewash her actions – which include multiple felonies. Why is it that people on the street are supposed to respect the protections of the Constitution and the legal process, but you won’t extend that same demand to government?
I’m simply saying that calling for a trial would show reverence for the 5th amendment, and calling for someone to be locked up shows disrespect for the 5th amendment.
OK, this is very interesting. Do you think that chanting, “Lock her up!” means that Hillary wouldn’t get a trial and she would just be thrown in jail like the guy who made the movie they blamed Benghazi on?
It has always been my assumption that the chant is calling for her arrest and prosecution. Maybe your assumption there would be no trial and Republicans assumption there would be a trial is a fundamental difference in how Democrats and Republicans view the power of government? Or is it a fundamental flaw in Democrats stereotypes of others?
In any case, Hillary doesn’t have to worry because all of her co-conspirators got immunity and all of the evidence was destroyed. The prosecution would have to rely on the work of the DOJ, which did find that she abused classified materials, obstructed justice, and that a foreign power (and a pedophile) had access to her server but the DOJ has shown itself to be unreliable because of bias.
It would be very Clintonian to go to trial and then get off by showing the DOJ was corrupt, even if it was corrupt at the direction of Hilary and Obama.
Wodun asks: “Do you think that chanting, “Lock her up!” means that Hillary wouldn’t get a trial […] Maybe your assumption there would be no trial and Republicans assumption there would be a trial is a fundamental difference in how Democrats and Republicans view the power of government?”
The Attorney General appears to agree with me: he was quick to deny that he chanted “lock her up” at his confirmation hearing, and, just last week, when his student audience was chanting “lock her up”, he ackowledged that instead of repeating their chant, he should have treated it as an opportunity to discuss the presumption of innocence.
Now, all that said, there is obviously some degree of ambiguity, because it is a chant and not a paragraph of legal reasoning. If you honestly think “lock her up” is shorthand for “due process”, I can only hope that everyone chanting it agrees with you.
I have no idea what would have happened had there been a trial.
And you won’t since Hillary was protected from even having to face a judge thanks to
prosecutorialinvestigative protection that looked the other way (except when a low level submariner did less).Alas, none of that is in the Constitution. The idea that officers of government don’t have to obey the law is a construct of the Judicial Branch, which absent direct guidance from the Constitution, decided to stake out this dubious territory under common law assertions.
The Second US Civil War will be entirely tribal between two or more incompatible cultures (which was the cause of practically every single civil war in human history). If the mass immigration of the 1965 immigration act continues, the Second Civil War becomes more and more likely.
And if the Civil War happens (instead of Trump just being crowned Caesar), the worst case scenario involves multiple rival factions seizing portions of America’s nuclear arsenal.
And if the Civil War happens (instead of Trump just being crowned Caesar)
It is doubtful this would happen but I wonder what Obama and Hillary were thinking when they tried to rig the election and overthrow Trump in a coup. If successful, they essentially destroy our country. If not successful, wouldn’t we want to put them all in jail?
Having to put a lot of people in jail is also a terrible thing for our country and will cause lasting damage. This is true even if it is only a few people punished and it could be even worse if no one is punished because it erodes faith in the system.
I guess if your goal is to follow critical theory and the KGB playbook to deligitimize and disenfranchise the system, then it doesn’t really matter if the plot was successful or not.
Either the corrupt FBI arrests Trump and his family, or Trump arrests the FBI.
Either way, the results will be… let’s say, historic.
Another point is that a lot of people don’t know that we retroactively call Roman Emperors, “Emperors.” Their position didn’t actually legally exist. “Cæsar” is just some dude’s name. Imagine if Rand Simberg was a powerful super rich charismatic billionaire who has full blown loyalty from the Pentagon and every man with a gun. He gets elected President and then uses that to concentrate power against the establishment. A thousand years pass, and monarchs with sufficient power crown themselves “Simberg.”
What really sealed the deal that Constitutional Conservatism was dead was the pathetic failure of Constitutional Conservatives to conserve the girls’ bathroom.
A more detailed discussion of this is this excerpt of a debate between Moldbug and Auster:
https://foseti.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/mencius-moldbug-lawrence-auster-and-the-futility-of-conservatism/
Revere vs hate. Hmm sounds like a religious war. No thanks.
Now if you want to have a discussion about a “living” constitution and where we should be taking it, I’m all in….
Note to self: In the war of revere vs hate, I’d settle for “understood”.
One group sees the Constitution as a legitimate document that should be interpreted by what it says and what the founders meant at the time of its creation. They think the Constitution has a good grasp of how power can be abused and places checks on the government.
The other group sees the Constitution as an illegitimate document created by old white men to subjugate women, children, gays, the elderly, and people who don’t have super pale skin. Because the document is illegitimate, the country is illegitimate and both must be torn down and replaced by people who are far more evolved human beings than those old white men that lived in the past. They are upset the Constitution prevents them from using power the way they want to.
Reverence could be taken as respect. One group respects the Constitution and the other has no respect for it other than how it can be twisted situationally to achieve their larger goal of doing away with it.
“living” constitution simply means in prog-speak, the law is whatever a judge says.
Luckily for us who support God-Emperor Trump, Trump understands this as well. He is packing the courts right now.
“…in prog-speak, the law is whatever a judge says.”
Down that road is tyranny, such as a judge having a man drug into his courtroom and sentencing him to 13 months for the “crime” of reporting facts embarrassing to the government.
@peterh
I say: “…in prog-speak, the law is whatever a judge says.”
peterh says: “Down that road is tyranny, such as a judge having a man drug into his courtroom and sentencing him to 13 months for the “crime” of reporting facts embarrassing to the government.”
The current Deep State consists of an alien and hostile ruling class bent on disarming, dispossessing and eventually… disposing the historic American Nation (and given the past behavior of these Bolsheviks, eventually other successful groups as well). Notice that they have endorsed the seizure of White South African farmers’ land and pass a blind eye to the torture executions of South African Whites.
We are now at a point where we should side with Imperator Trump and dispose of our enemies… before our enemies dispose of us.
That’s not what I mean by a “living constitution”. A living constitution means simply one that can change over time as has ours via amendment.
Also one that is still in effect. Unlike say, the Magna Carta.
Me as a purveyor of prog-speak…. That’s rich.
You want prog-speak, check out my commentary here:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=70934
Note: that’s satire….
@David Spain
Will you denounce the ANC’s seizure of farmland from White South African farmers? Will you denounce the ANC’s seizure of houses from Whites?
Will you denounce Obama for endorsing the ANC’s actions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac7wcDmlqLY
The White man seen in this video later committed suicide. What a waste, he should of taken these Black soldiers down with him.
I don’t know how long this video will remain on youtube due to the fact that Bob-1 and David Spain’s buddies keep censoring these videos.
@R7 Rocket
Will you denounce the ANC’s seizure of farmland from White South African farmers? Will you denounce the ANC’s seizure of houses from Whites?
Will you denounce Obama for endorsing the ANC’s actions?
Sure. Just as I did when it happened in Rhodesia decades earlier. We all know how well that worked out for Zimbabweans.
I don’t know how long this video will remain on youtube due to the fact that Bob-1 and David Spain’s buddies keep censoring these videos
I don’t know anyone who works at YouTube. I use Vimeo.
Just curious, what happened with R1-R6 Rockets?
This is America.
This incident should challenged a lot of perceptions. Trump supporters are racist? Here we have Trump supporters of a variety of ethicities who aren’t racist and don’t think Trump is. Democrats are peaceful? Well, just watch the crowd. Not peaceful and also feel entitled to use racial slurs and other racial language against strangers just because they support Trump.
Why do these kids hold these views? Democrats inculcate them through the public education system and popular media. This isn’t isolated behavior, this is America. Will any of these Democrats face hate crime charges or does California think hate crimes are OK if the victims support Trump?
It boggles my mind that people like Bob-1, who are relatively well informed, don’t know anything about what Democrats have been doing in the streets for the last two years. How is it that this constant violence isn’t dominating the national media? Why is it that the poor behavior of racist and bigoted Democrats is always excused?
Anyway, here is the full video. It starts off rather joyful and there are a lot of people who show their support who aren’t white. The troubles don’t start until one of the Democrats starts using racist slurs and then gets called out on it by a woman. But the young man doesn’t care and neither do the other Democrats as they chant, “F Trump!” and even the little girls defend their use of racist slurs. The young man runs away after the disrespect and comes back with his friends, one of them was even like 60 years old.
Put on that MAGA hat Bob-1 and see how you get treated in areas that voted 90% Hillary. Just don’t have any valuables on you and have the ambulance on speed dial. Wait, have your friend watching from a distance with the ambulance on speed dial cause you won’t have a phone when the lynch mob is done with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbMt0Pvpf0Y
In one scenario of America’s next Civil War, if we’re lucky, it will involve President Trump being forced to be crowned America’s Caesar (packing the Judiciary, courting the Pentagon, Fraternal Order of Police, and gun owners) to avoid getting his family murdered by the Left. And then having his heavily armed supporters among gun owners, police and the military making mass arrests against the Leftists in the Civil Service, the propaganda MSM, and Academia.
The other American Civil War scenario involves nuclear weapons.
No. You’re not looking at a civil war between states this time, where both sides might have some kind of access to nukes. You’re looking at civil wars in the majority of states between urban and rural areas: and since the urban areas rely on the rural areas for food, fuel and water… it won’t last long.
Seriously, a ‘just in time’ economy would collapse within a week, and SJWs would be eating each other within a fortnight. It would be the worst disaster the human race has ever seen, possibly even exceeding the Communists’ body count by the time it was over.
No sane person wants to see things come to that. Which is why only the Democrats are pushing for it.
I’m not talking about “between states”
I’m talking about “between tribes.”
It doesn’t take much for a few officers to “misplace” nuclear weapons (see incident with an Airforce plane accidentally carrying nuclear weapons). Or another billionaire (after seeing Trump and his family arrested) build his own nuclear weapons.
Trump crowning himself Caesar is a better scenario than America splitting up via nuclear firepower. And it is certainly better than ending up with an American Hitler/Stalin.
Maybe there are a few SJWs in the military with access to nukes and the smarts to use them. But what are they going to do with them?
The only targets worth a nuke would be big Democrat cities, and they’d be burning within a week, anyway. A nuke would just make the rubble bounce.
LOL!
Tell that to the SJWs.
A nuclear civil war will mean the destruction of NYC, DC, LA , Chicago, Seattle, Cambridge MA, Boston, Austin, San Francisco and other prog strongholds.
And a non-nuclear civil war will destroy those cities, too. You just can’t operate modern cities in the middle of a civil war, unless you have foreigners supporting and supplying you. Particularly modern, diverse cities full of criminals who have guns and want what you have.
Maybe the SJWs think they can just call in the UN to help, but the UN is basically just another a name for the US military. Without them, the UN has no power.
” any non-nuclear civil war”
Any serious civil War in the US will be Nuclear, Baby Boomer.
You’re looking at civil wars in the majority of states between urban and rural areas:
This is sort of true but most places have a mix of Republicans and Democrats, just with one group outnumbering the other enough to win elections. Things would be especially brutal where the mix is 60/40 or whatever the break down is.
The first American Civil War featuring groups of states squaring off against one another with organized uniformed armies fighting pitched battles was an anomaly.
Most civil wars throughout history have consisted of neighbors slaughtering neighbors in a very chaotic and unorganized manner. I think this is what the next American civil war will look like.
Except in this case, one neighbour hates guns and relies on his gun-toting neighbour for food, water and power. And his neighbour on the other side is a criminal family with guns and no morals.
If a war cut off the power, food and water to a big Democrat city, the criminal gangs would be in charge within a couple of days.