(06-27-2018 12:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 12:30 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Unless Twitter releases a war feature, we're just going to have a Civil Minor Annoyance.

+3

Now if Facebook releases a civil war SIM like one of those farm town games, yeah, they'll probably do well at it, lol....

Shhh. Don’t give away a million dollar idea.

(06-27-2018 12:42 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 12:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 12:30 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Unless Twitter releases a war feature, we're just going to have a Civil Minor Annoyance.

+3

Now if Facebook releases a civil war SIM like one of those farm town games, yeah, they'll probably do well at it, lol....

Shhh. Don’t give away a million dollar idea.

Suckerberg will just steal it from me anyway....

(06-27-2018 12:44 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 12:42 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 12:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 12:30 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Unless Twitter releases a war feature, we're just going to have a Civil Minor Annoyance.

+3

Now if Facebook releases a civil war SIM like one of those farm town games, yeah, they'll probably do well at it, lol....

Shhh. Don’t give away a million dollar idea.

Suckerberg will just steal it from me anyway....

Skip Facebook and go straight to the Google Play store.

Not likely...

But, there is definitely growing sectionalism as the needs and wants of various parts of the country diverge.

(06-27-2018 01:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Not likely...

But, there is definitely growing sectionalism as the needs and wants of various parts of the country diverge.

I don't think people's needs/wants are too different from the past.

I just think those needs/wants were kept more private until online social media came into being. So many people are willing to be open books now, and so they are now constantly being "challenged" on their lifestyles, viewpoints, beliefs, etc., which in turns makes them more defensive of those lifestyles, viewpoints, beliefs, etc.

(06-27-2018 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 11:06 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Not surprised in the least bit, especially if people like Maxine "James Brown" Waters keeps up her rhetoric....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...ikely_soon

There wont be a civil war. There will be violence. I fear we are heading toward another late 60's early 70's period of unrest. In the end---there may be a split as some states choose to break away from the rest of the country. I dont think there would be any real desire to fight a war over the idea. The two sides would each probably prefer the idea of being able to rule in the manner they each prefer. So, an amicable split would be far more likley than a civil war. Unfortunately, I do expect a period civil unrest and violence.

I think an amicable split is perhaps the only real solution. Each side just wants a completely different government from the other.

(06-27-2018 01:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 11:06 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Not surprised in the least bit, especially if people like Maxine "James Brown" Waters keeps up her rhetoric....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...ikely_soon

There wont be a civil war. There will be violence. I fear we are heading toward another late 60's early 70's period of unrest. In the end---there may be a split as some states choose to break away from the rest of the country. I dont think there would be any real desire to fight a war over the idea. The two sides would each probably prefer the idea of being able to rule in the manner they each prefer. So, an amicable split would be far more likley than a civil war. Unfortunately, I do expect a period civil unrest and violence.

I think an amicable split is perhaps the only real solution. Each side just wants a completely different government from the other.

If there are ever splits, it would more likely be within-state splits, such as Coastal California vs. Interior California, as opposed to state vs. state.

For most states, political preference can differ county by county, and with the exception of a few states like Vermont and Oklahoma, elections fall within a 60-40 margin.

I know we live under "blue state" (coasts, rust belt) and "red state" (heartland) labels, but in reality, splits by state would be incredibly difficult. It's not like Venezia/Italy, Catalonia/Spain, Scotland/UK, etc., where geographical blocks are more stark.

In all seriousness, we couldn’t have a civil war because neither side has more than a tenuous unity. Black people aren’t going to die for transgenders and Blue collar Union workers aren’t going to die for Billy Bob.

We’re also the world’s most obese people. Unless we come up with war that doesn’t involve going outside...

(06-27-2018 01:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 11:06 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Not surprised in the least bit, especially if people like Maxine "James Brown" Waters keeps up her rhetoric....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...ikely_soon

There wont be a civil war. There will be violence. I fear we are heading toward another late 60's early 70's period of unrest. In the end---there may be a split as some states choose to break away from the rest of the country. I dont think there would be any real desire to fight a war over the idea. The two sides would each probably prefer the idea of being able to rule in the manner they each prefer. So, an amicable split would be far more likley than a civil war. Unfortunately, I do expect a period civil unrest and violence.

I think an amicable split is perhaps the only real solution. Each side just wants a completely different government from the other.

There is no amicable split. The borders would be wonky as hell.

I also don't think you'd like the results of a split. Our differences are the only things that truly keep us from being a totalitarian country, IMO. You have a split, you'd have two or more one party (de facto at least) countries. I wouldn't trust either of our two sides to come up with a constitution. Would you?

No, the only real solution is for people to get their heads out of their asses and come to the realization that political differences are being blown out of proportion compared to everyday life AND stop tolerating leadership that likes to fan the flames.

(06-27-2018 02:01 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  In all seriousness, we couldn’t have a civil war because neither side has more than a tenuous unity. Black people aren’t going to die for transgenders and Blue collar Union workers aren’t going to die for Billy Bob.

We’re also the world’s most obese people. Unless we come up with war that doesn’t involve going outside...

Maybe it will be a virtual war like from that old Star Trek episode....

(06-27-2018 01:58 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 01:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 11:06 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Not surprised in the least bit, especially if people like Maxine "James Brown" Waters keeps up her rhetoric....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...ikely_soon

There wont be a civil war. There will be violence. I fear we are heading toward another late 60's early 70's period of unrest. In the end---there may be a split as some states choose to break away from the rest of the country. I dont think there would be any real desire to fight a war over the idea. The two sides would each probably prefer the idea of being able to rule in the manner they each prefer. So, an amicable split would be far more likley than a civil war. Unfortunately, I do expect a period civil unrest and violence.

I think an amicable split is perhaps the only real solution. Each side just wants a completely different government from the other.

If there are ever splits, it would more likely be within-state splits, such as Coastal California vs. Interior California, as opposed to state vs. state.

For most states, political preference can differ county by county, and with the exception of a few states like Vermont and Oklahoma, elections fall within a 60-40 margin.

I know we live under "blue state" (coasts, rust belt) and "red state" (heartland) labels, but in reality, splits by state would be incredibly difficult. It's not like Venezia/Italy, Catalonia/Spain, Scotland/UK, etc., where geographical blocks are more stark.

You might be on to something.

I could see Illinois splitting from Chicago/Cook County for example. We'd have Wisconsin separated from the People's Republic of Madison as well. Be interesting to see how it might shake out.

Colonel Shere Khan. Let's get the statue fund started. Hero of the Battle behind the Sonic.

https://youtu.be/uRyIMqXA_o8

We’re also the world’s most obese people. Unless we come up with war that doesn’t involve going outside...
[/quote]

LOL, you took the words right out of my mouth. I thought that but it wouldn't matter to me much. I'm an expert on the M-16 but through a technicality I didn't get my Expert Ribbon. I wouldn't need to do much running. We'll leave the running to the Soy Boy crowd they're the lettuce eaters and are in shape. LOL

(06-27-2018 03:10 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  We’re also the world’s most obese people. Unless we come up with war that doesn’t involve going outside...

LOL, you took the words right out of my mouth. I thought that but it wouldn't matter to me much. I'm an expert on the M-16 but through a technicality I didn't get my Expert Ribbon. I wouldn't need to do much running. We'll leave the running to the Soy Boy crowd they're the lettuce eaters and are in shape. LOL
[/quote]

Meh

Its s lot easier to lose weight than gain guts.

Eh. Unlikely. It's more likely that you'll find Russians depositing funds to Maxine Waters' campaign.

It's not a war a majority wants or needs to have. As much as the joke goes about libs not having guns and such, never underestimate a group that desires change. The last Civil War destroyed the country. I'm not into starting over. I think it's hot air.

However, that being said, much like many people, if my family is in danger, I'll pick up my rifle and take the fight to them.

https://youtu.be/anEuw8F8cpE

I still think a split is possible. Alberta basically hates eastern Canada for what it sees as stealing money to support everything from Ontario east. They have the right to split under Canadian law. Peter Zeihan thinks they are likely to leave. I could see them leaving, and that could be the trigger. I could see that leading to a situation where

1) US flyover country and Alaska would align with the Canadian prairie provinces, Yukon, and NWT.
2) Ontario, Nunavut, and the Maritimes would align with the US northeast and Great Lakes stated.
3) The US west coast and Hawaii would align with BC, and possibly unite with the left coast in a divided nation.
4) Quebec would do whatever Quebec does.

I happen to think that the resulting 2, 3, or 4 nations would each be more compatible internally than was we have now. Each would go its own way, and I frankly think each would be a better place to live than the kind of extremely divided US that we may be facing.

The US has mimicked todays mamas and papas. No discipline at all. That's why we have the Antifas and others. Those people are getting away with stuff that in the old days they'd be eating prison food. Where the heck is the law enforcement. We're talking about a US Senator and these punks got away with harassment? Something stinks here and it's probably a Libturd. No wonder in the latest poll conducted by our tv station only 24% trust the FBI.

(06-27-2018 01:58 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 01:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 11:06 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Not surprised in the least bit, especially if people like Maxine "James Brown" Waters keeps up her rhetoric....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...ikely_soon

There wont be a civil war. There will be violence. I fear we are heading toward another late 60's early 70's period of unrest. In the end---there may be a split as some states choose to break away from the rest of the country. I dont think there would be any real desire to fight a war over the idea. The two sides would each probably prefer the idea of being able to rule in the manner they each prefer. So, an amicable split would be far more likley than a civil war. Unfortunately, I do expect a period civil unrest and violence.

I think an amicable split is perhaps the only real solution. Each side just wants a completely different government from the other.

If there are ever splits, it would more likely be within-state splits, such as Coastal California vs. Interior California, as opposed to state vs. state.

For most states, political preference can differ county by county, and with the exception of a few states like Vermont and Oklahoma, elections fall within a 60-40 margin.

I know we live under "blue state" (coasts, rust belt) and "red state" (heartland) labels, but in reality, splits by state would be incredibly difficult. It's not like Venezia/Italy, Catalonia/Spain, Scotland/UK, etc., where geographical blocks are more stark.

I never said how it would be split or even if it would be split, only that I would hope if one occurs, it would be amicable, and that it might be the only real solution. The two political sides have gotten to the point of incompatibility, as to what they want in a country.

Don't think in terms of divisions breaking as states exist now. It could be divided a number of inventive ways. Hell, you could draw a line from Mexico to Canada through the middle of the country (east to west), give one half to each side, then give everybody 5 years to move to the country of their choice.

Then build a wall, lol.

(06-27-2018 03:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still think a split is possible. Alberta basically hates eastern Canada for what it sees as stealing money to support everything from Ontario east. They have the right to split under Canadian law. Peter Zeihan thinks they are likely to leave. I could see them leaving, and that could be the trigger. I could see that leading to a situation where

1) US flyover country and Alaska would align with the Canadian prairie provinces, Yukon, and NWT.
2) Ontario, Nunavut, and the Maritimes would align with the US northeast and Great Lakes stated.
3) The US west coast and Hawaii would align with BC, and possibly unite with the left coast in a divided nation.
4) Quebec would do whatever Quebec does.

I happen to think that the resulting 2, 3, or 4 nations would each be more compatible internally than was we have now. Each would go its own way, and I frankly think each would be a better place to live than the kind of extremely divided US that we may be facing.

I could see the Canadian provinces wanting to be part of their own standalone countries before joining up with any US states. The big issue would be healthcare. With no guarantee of universal healthcare or their worker's rights demands, I can't see them joining.