All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Kirby101]

He started his post by noting her tendency to wear unusual stuff. I don't think he would mention it if she had the voting record of a generic Democratic senator.

[babyblob]

McConnell would be happiest if Walker weren't running, and there were a generic Republican instead.

This is category creep. There's plenty on this on the left as well.

Should there be posts about every time someone learns about a left-wing rando saying something dumb.

When did McCarthy say he will not certify an election in 2024 in which a Republican candidate lost? I'm having trouble finding links.

He started his post by noting her tendency to wear unusual stuff. I don't think he would mention it if she had the voting record of a generic Democratic senator.

It was about a year ago on Fox News. I am having Trouble finding the link also sadly. But he was a guest on Tucker and Tucker asked him about 2024. And Kevin M said that he has a lot of trouble seeing himself certifying a 2024 election where Trump or if not Trump the GOP candidate did not win because that would be a clear case of fraud due to Biden and the Democrats approval rating. And when pressed He said no I wont certify that election.

[hyped78]

You joke, but 23 of our states have some form of a state-sanctioned militia and I'd wager every state has one or more private militia groups. Many of these militias share membership with nationwide groups like the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers or the Boogaloo Boys.

I wasn't joking - and obviously I hope it doesn't come to that! Unless gun laws are severely restricted, that's always going to be a big risk.

I don't think the US will ever have another Civil War, I mean that's just... too much to envision. But I guess stranger things have happened?

[hyped78]

https://youtu.be/WWLbI9KUZKs

“Amazing” haha

[WestPhillyPunisher]

That is your take on what WPP said about her? Maybe he can come back and slowly and clearly explain what she is and how she has behaved so you won't misconstrue what the actual problem with he is.

I’m not going to waste time trying to explain things about Klownish Krysten to Mets because chances are it’ll go in one ear and out the other. He damn well knows what Sinema is, if he wants to plead ignorance, that’s his bag.

[Dalak]

They are also training election workers in certain Democratic-leaning districts on how to flag individual votes that they think don't 100% comply with local specifications and providing them with phone number for "friendly" election attorneys and judges who are primed to take swift action and investigate.
The plan is to throw the voting process into a turmoil in these districts and cast doubt on the entire process in certain states. If the election officials in those states happen to be pro-Trump then all that is needed is the assertion of fraud as an excuse for them to halt the process. It could very well make the difference in close races and throw Congress and the Senate to the GOP.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...tapes-00035758

Yet more evidence of them preparing to sabotage the election from within, however I'm scaremongering.

You joke, but 23 of our states have some form of a state-sanctioned militia and I'd wager every state has one or more private militia groups. Many of these militias share membership with nationwide groups like the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers or the Boogaloo Boys.

Between these violent people and the mass of protests across the nation should the majority actually have their votes nullified, I'd think a civil war is not inconceivable should the winner be declared the loser in the way we've described. How else do you think the US would handle a demonstrable power grab of that magnitude? Other than submit to apathy and do absolutely nothing I suppose

[AnakinFlair]

All this talk about a potential Civil War has gotten me thinking.

While I pray that it doesn't happen, I'd be lying if I said I hadn't considered that we were heading in that direction. But the more I think about it, the more I question just how effective a new Confederacy would be?

In the last civil war, both sides were essentially equal, with the Union maybe being better equipped. But if we have a new civil war- unless there are massive defections from the military, I'd say those fighting to keep the country united would have a serious tactical advantage over a new Confederacy. The Union would have overwhelming air and sea power at its disposal, which could make quick work of the militias that rise up against the government.

Of course, I do realize that overwhelming force doesn't always equal victory- I just have to look at Vietnam or Afghanistan to prove that. But I can't see there being enough people in this country that want to break away that could form that kind of long-term insurgency. And the ones that do want to do that aren't exactly the cream of the crop.

Anyways, that's just my two cents. What do you all think?

[godisawesome]

All this talk about a potential Civil War has gotten me thinking.

While I pray that it doesn't happen, I'd be lying if I said I hadn't considered that we were heading in that direction. But the more I think about it, the more I question just how effective a new Confederacy would be?

In the last civil war, both sides were essentially equal, with the Union maybe being better equipped. But if we have a new civil war- unless there are massive defections from the military, I'd say those fighting to keep the country united would have a serious tactical advantage over a new Confederacy. The Union would have overwhelming air and sea power at its disposal, which could make quick work of the militias that rise up against the government.

Of course, I do realize that overwhelming force doesn't always equal victory- I just have to look at Vietnam or Afghanistan to prove that. But I can't see there being enough people in this country that want to break away that could form that kind of long-term insurgency. And the ones that do want to do that aren't exactly the cream of the crop.

Anyways, that's just my two cents. What do you all think?

Actually, the North and South weren’t evenly matched at all except in terms of land area - and only when we take away the vast “empty”/occupied-by-indigenous-tribes territories that the Union still by and large controlled. The Union had a massive advantage in population, economy, infrastructure, and even in terms of food supply (the South’s agriculture was far too monopolized by cotton and other cash crops.) The major advantage the South *did* have was that it had solid control of it’s territory by the plantation-owning ruling class, and that it was the 1800’s: invading and controlling large swaths of populated territory was a massive task regardless of whatever advantages or disadvantages one had, and traditionally favored the defense significantly. We often get caught up looking at the Eastern theater of the war around Washington DC and Virginia, but a more accurate view shows the Western theater seeing about the expected rate and consistency of a much more advantaged and powerful polity invading a less advanced one.

The real horror of any hypothetical modern civil war, regardless of its sides and causes, would be the chaos unleashed on a massive interconnected system - not just at home, but worldwide.

[Mister Mets]

I’m not going to waste time trying to explain things about Klownish Krysten to Mets because chances are it’ll go in one ear and out the other. He damn well knows what Sinema is, if he wants to plead ignorance, that’s his bag.

I think I understand your point pretty well.

You don't like Kristen Sinema because she has a habit of voting against what Democrats want, which is especially annoying as she is a swing state Democrat, so there's no obvious strategic reason for her to have a different pattern than Tammy Baldwin, Mark Kelly, Jon Ossoff or Rafael Warnock.

I still don't think you'd mention her clothing if you agreed with her politically. It's a cheap shot.

I'll admit that a pet peeve of mine is people embracing political complaints that they don't care about.

It was about a year ago on Fox News. I am having Trouble finding the link also sadly. But he was a guest on Tucker and Tucker asked him about 2024. And Kevin M said that he has a lot of trouble seeing himself certifying a 2024 election where Trump or if not Trump the GOP candidate did not win because that would be a clear case of fraud due to Biden and the Democrats approval rating. And when pressed He said no I wont certify that election.

This one is annoying to google because the top results are about stuff like whether McCarthy would support a Tucker Carlson presidential bid.

[Dalak]

All this talk about a potential Civil War has gotten me thinking.

While I pray that it doesn't happen, I'd be lying if I said I hadn't considered that we were heading in that direction. But the more I think about it, the more I question just how effective a new Confederacy would be?

In the last civil war, both sides were essentially equal, with the Union maybe being better equipped. But if we have a new civil war- unless there are massive defections from the military, I'd say those fighting to keep the country united would have a serious tactical advantage over a new Confederacy. The Union would have overwhelming air and sea power at its disposal, which could make quick work of the militias that rise up against the government.

Of course, I do realize that overwhelming force doesn't always equal victory- I just have to look at Vietnam or Afghanistan to prove that. But I can't see there being enough people in this country that want to break away that could form that kind of long-term insurgency. And the ones that do want to do that aren't exactly the cream of the crop.

Anyways, that's just my two cents. What do you all think?

What I was envisioning was more fighting to 'retake' the country rather than breaking off a chunk of it to take like the Confederacy was, but i don't see much success for the side rising up against the military. The only hope for any rebel force would be for those military defections you mentioned to be drastic and happen quickly or they'd be wiped out by any serious response that has gotten past the hangups of killing civilians. Still, I can see a wide enough conflict happening between many disgruntled folks on both ends of the political spectrum should an election be clearly stolen for one side or another that Jan 6th would seem as peaceful as the GoP like to portray it as (when they aren't blaming Antifa for it).

[Mister Mets]

Yet more evidence of them preparing to sabotage the election from within, however I'm scaremongering.



Between these violent people and the mass of protests across the nation should the majority actually have their votes nullified, I'd think a civil war is not inconceivable should the winner be declared the loser in the way we've described. How else do you think the US would handle a demonstrable power grab of that magnitude? Other than submit to apathy and do absolutely nothing I suppose

So you think in a Civil War the first shot might be fired by someone aligned with the left?

All this talk about a potential Civil War has gotten me thinking.

While I pray that it doesn't happen, I'd be lying if I said I hadn't considered that we were heading in that direction. But the more I think about it, the more I question just how effective a new Confederacy would be?

In the last civil war, both sides were essentially equal, with the Union maybe being better equipped. But if we have a new civil war- unless there are massive defections from the military, I'd say those fighting to keep the country united would have a serious tactical advantage over a new Confederacy. The Union would have overwhelming air and sea power at its disposal, which could make quick work of the militias that rise up against the government.

Of course, I do realize that overwhelming force doesn't always equal victory- I just have to look at Vietnam or Afghanistan to prove that. But I can't see there being enough people in this country that want to break away that could form that kind of long-term insurgency. And the ones that do want to do that aren't exactly the cream of the crop.

Anyways, that's just my two cents. What do you all think?

I'm struggling to imagine how a Civil War would go.

Who would start the war, and actively oppose the US government? What resources would they have? Would it be states trying to form their own nation or something else?

A complication is that partisan lines aren't just between red states and blue states, as there are regions within states with different political leanings. The cities and inner suburbs are currently Democratic-leaning, while the outer suburbs and rural areas tend to be Republican-leaning. That's going to complicate efforts at literally splitting the country. If California, Washington and Oregon try to claim that they are the independent nation of Pacifica, they're going to have to deal with regions of the states that went for Trump. Likewise, if Mississippi joins some red states in trying to form a breakaway republic, they'll also have to deal with Democratic party strongholds like Jackson and the rest of the congressional district that keeps electing Bennie Thompson with at least two-thirds of the vote.

Things can get bad, but even if we have 3.5% of the population protesting in the streets (the magic number at which governments consistently collapse) that's well short of a civil war.

[babyblob]

This one is annoying to google because the top results are about stuff like whether McCarthy would support a Tucker Carlson presidential bid.

That is pretty much all I am coming up with. I tried really hard to find the link because I hate false info and dont want to be seen as part of that. My aunt has a ton of Tucker clips so I am going to call her later and see if she has this one?

[Dalak]

So you think in a Civil War the first shot might be fired by someone aligned with the left?

No, I imagine it would be fired by a right-wing protestor who's been enamored by laws that allow people to run over protestors or 'stand your ground'. Maybe someone who idolizes Kyle Rittenhouse who got away with something very similar, or who's a member of one of the MANY 'militias' out there.

Then again it might be a cop who guns down the wrong unarmed protestor, but I doubt that the first shot would be aligned with the left as they have to be worried about the police reacting violently to their unarmed protests while most of the time aggressive people open carrying are looking for the excuse for someone to cause them a problem so they can assert their rights. At least that's what I could tell from the few I have met, as they rarely if ever get hassled by police.

[Catlady in training]

OK, then let's not look at textbook definitions. Who in the leadership of the GOP are we confidently comparing to Mussolini or Hitler?

But didn't you say that we shouldn't go to extremes to call people far-left?

I totally agree with everything you said. But that's still not "fascism" - and I said that fear mongering is always posting about "fascism" and "fascists", unless people clearly identify that they're just using it as a pejorative term (which might be the case!)

Same as calling people far-left and socialists. Lead by example!

[Catlady in training]

Another day of war, another shooting on nuclear power station...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...08cf33fef35efe