I see revolution before civil war. Sectionalism exist within our states moreso than the entire country. I could see militarism stem from a group like Antifa, a right wing grouod or the military overthrowing government. Each of those is unlikely but more likely than Civil War.

Sent from my SM-N900P using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-27-2018 04:01 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(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.

The healthcare and workers' rights are both mainly provincial. They wouldn't have to give up either. The prairie provinces without direct access to the sea (except Manitoba through Churchill in summer) would be vulnerable economically. Alberta is probably the only one that could stand alone. And they really have better transportation connections south through the states than either east or west through Canada.

(06-27-2018 07:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 04:01 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(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.

The healthcare and workers' rights are both mainly provincial. They wouldn't have to give up either. The prairie provinces without direct access to the sea (except Manitoba through Churchill in summer) would be vulnerable economically. Alberta is probably the only one that could stand alone. And they really have better transportation connections south through the states than either east or west through Canada.

It's mainly provincial, but there is portability. If they can't get portability guaranteed, they ain't joining us just to be with Montana.

(06-27-2018 07:48 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 07:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 04:01 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(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.

The healthcare and workers' rights are both mainly provincial. They wouldn't have to give up either. The prairie provinces without direct access to the sea (except Manitoba through Churchill in summer) would be vulnerable economically. Alberta is probably the only one that could stand alone. And they really have better transportation connections south through the states than either east or west through Canada.

It's mainly provincial, but there is portability. If they can't get portability guaranteed, they ain't joining us just to be with Montana.

Ours is portable now. No reason it wouldn't stay that way. And I don't think Montana is the major appeal. Just getting Ontario and Quebec to stop robbing them would be an improvement.

(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...

Another +3!!! You are on a roll, dude.

for generic purposes......it's still Junebugs baby......

this is gonna be a laugh a min.......

(06-27-2018 12:42 PM)Side Show Joe 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.

There will be no civil war and there will be no exiting the union either. If liberals are intent on violence, then we will have another period of unrest, like the late 60's. Sadly, the liberal issues we have today are a direct result of the liberals of the 60's. Those 1960's liberals are now around 68-80 years old and the leaders of the dem party. The lunatics are actually running the asylum that is the dem party.

The dem party is dying. They are losing on every important front; national security, foreign policy, and economic policy. Add in the mounting loses with the Supreme Courts ruling on redistricting, business owners' rights, the travel ban, and now state government unions, and all the dem leadership can do is whine and turn to calling for violence. None of it will help them in November. I haven't heard much about their blue wave lately either. I guess they see the writing on the wall.

To be clear---I dont think there will be a split of the US. I was just pointing out that if it happened---I dont think there would be shooting war. Politically, who would vote to fight the war? Lets say an unhappy decidedly liberal California voted to become an independent nation---the Republicans would have a massive advantage in the electorial college left behind. Half the left behind Democrats would probably support the California move---the other half would fight knowing what it would mean to their party. Half the Democrat Party isnt going to be near enough votes to get a declaration of war. Politically, I question if there would be all that much resistance to a breakaway by the most liberal states.

If it happened other countries would insure the shooting starts.

(06-27-2018 10:22 PM)Claw Wrote:  If it happened other countries would insure the shooting starts.

Great point and I don’t doubt it.
But, the war between the states was fought over a real atrocity. All we have today is mommy’s little morons wanting something for free. They are about to get Trumped.

(06-27-2018 04:55 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I see revolution before civil war. Sectionalism exist within our states moreso than the entire country. I could see militarism stem from a group like Antifa, a right wing grouod or the military overthrowing government. Each of those is unlikely but more likely than Civil War.

Sent from my SM-N900P using CSNbbs mobile app

Well look at that. Where the hell have you been and how you doing?

(06-27-2018 10:43 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 10:22 PM)Claw Wrote:  If it happened other countries would insure the shooting starts.

Great point and I don’t doubt it.
But, the war between the states was fought over a real atrocity. All we have today is mommy’s little morons wanting something for free. They are about to get Trumped.

History is filled with wars that started for stupid reasons.

(06-27-2018 09:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 07:48 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 07:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 04:01 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(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.

The healthcare and workers' rights are both mainly provincial. They wouldn't have to give up either. The prairie provinces without direct access to the sea (except Manitoba through Churchill in summer) would be vulnerable economically. Alberta is probably the only one that could stand alone. And they really have better transportation connections south through the states than either east or west through Canada.

It's mainly provincial, but there is portability. If they can't get portability guaranteed, they ain't joining us just to be with Montana.

Ours is portable now. No reason it wouldn't stay that way. And I don't think Montana is the major appeal. Just getting Ontario and Quebec to stop robbing them would be an improvement.

Alberta has so much natural wealth. It’s almost like a Saudi Arabia in Colorado. They see themselves aligned more with Texas, as their economies are similar, but diversified. The BC anti pipeline problem combined with Ontario and Quebec are having real impacts on their growth.

Saskatchewan has immense wealth too, as it the worlds foremost producer of potassium fertilizers, and it’s companies have branched into nitrogen and phosphorus too. Almost the entire world depends on potash from SK, and it’s companies have grown massively. Arguably, SK is a key factor in feeding the world. That province formerly used to be formerly socialist orientated like the Maritime provinces but it is changing rapidly to be more like Alberta politics. Manitoba is more like the Saskatchewan or Minnesota of a more recent past, as most are residents of Winnipeg, which so dominates that province and is much more liberal/progressive.

I'm sure this is one of those thing people say and exaggerate. There will be no actual civil war where the union will be threatened by states within the union. Do people with a couple of sniper rifles and assault rifles think they can actually take on the US military? You know... tanks and fighter aircraft.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong or just missing the point but this is all just a bar story if you ask me.

(06-27-2018 11:00 PM)gdunn Wrote:  [quote='ClairtonPanther' pid='15362346' dateline='1530136530']
I see revolution before civil war. Sectionalism exist within our states moreso than the entire country. I could see militarism stem from a group like Antifa, a right wing grouod or the military overthrowing government. Each of those is unlikely but more likely than Civil War.

Sent from my SM-N900P using CSNbbs mobile app

You do know that the military would be on Trumps side, right? I'd venture to say 98% of the military agree with the Trump agenda of MAGA. Besides, I don't think the left would stomach getting bloody. You do know that most of them have never been in the military and that's because they know that they might be killed.

Heck no, they say, let's just protest.

(06-28-2018 10:25 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 11:00 PM)gdunn Wrote:  [quote='ClairtonPanther' pid='15362346' dateline='1530136530']
I see revolution before civil war. Sectionalism exist within our states moreso than the entire country. I could see militarism stem from a group like Antifa, a right wing grouod or the military overthrowing government. Each of those is unlikely but more likely than Civil War.

Sent from my SM-N900P using CSNbbs mobile app

You do know that the military would be on Trumps side, right? I'd venture to say 98% of the military agree with the Trump agenda of MAGA. Besides, I don't think the left would stomach getting bloody. You do know that most of them have never been in the military and that's because they know that they might be killed.

Heck no, they say, let's just protest.

Like the numbnuts walking around armed with ARs all the time. There is a reason many of them were not in the military. Cause they only wanted to play solider and they could not hack actual service. The idea that either side would crumble and would not point up a fight is dumb. People do amazing things when pushed far enough.

(06-28-2018 12:34 PM)JTiger Wrote:  I'm sure this is one of those thing people say and exaggerate. There will be no actual civil war where the union will be threatened by states within the union. Do people with a couple of sniper rifles and assault rifles think they can actually take on the US military? You know... tanks and fighter aircraft.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong or just missing the point but this is all just a bar story if you ask me.

It will be started... if one really is to come, by states refusing to comply with some federal law or regulation. Like, let's say Trump wins a second term, and California says no, we will not allow your contractors into California to build the border wall. Trump says "the hell you won't." and sends some troops to "ensure" his government contractors have safe passage to the boarder to do their job. Then the Governor of Cali gets the bright idea of sending the Cali-national guard to oppose those forces.

Or lets say the Trumpster gets upset in 2020, but the map looks pretty much like it did in 2016, and just a few left coast and right coast states end up electing a socialist who ends up writing EOs to dismantle the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments. The major swath of flyover country goes 90% for Trump, but are outnumbered by the more highly populated and liberal coastal regions, and their more numerous electoral votes. And a group of 20 or 30 governors have big enough brass ones to band together and secede.

(06-29-2018 12:17 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 12:34 PM)JTiger Wrote:  I'm sure this is one of those thing people say and exaggerate. There will be no actual civil war where the union will be threatened by states within the union. Do people with a couple of sniper rifles and assault rifles think they can actually take on the US military? You know... tanks and fighter aircraft.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong or just missing the point but this is all just a bar story if you ask me.

It will be started... if one really is to come, by states refusing to comply with some federal law or regulation. Like, let's say Trump wins a second term, and California says no, we will not allow your contractors into California to build the border wall. Trump says "the hell you won't." and sends some troops to "ensure" his government contractors have safe passage to the boarder to do their job. Then the Governor of Cali gets the bright idea of sending the Cali-national guard to oppose those forces.

Or lets say the Trumpster gets upset in 2020, but the map looks pretty much like it did in 2016, and just a few left coast and right coast states end up electing a socialist who ends up writing EOs to dismantle the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments. The major swath of flyover country goes 90% for Trump, but are outnumbered by the more highly populated and liberal coastal regions, and their more numerous electoral votes. And a group of 20 or 30 governors have big enough brass ones to band together and secede.

Using US military troops withing the borders of the US can be done legally but it's very rare for a reason.

I can see it escalating for the reasons you stated but to transition into an all out civil war is just not going to happen. If it does and we all make it though it, the drinks are on me.

We're past the days of another military civil war in the U.S. but some type of political breakup of the Union is probably inevitable. The only thing that will bring the sides back together is a future in which all new humans are genetically engineered for high intelligence, and that's probably still a ways off.

(06-29-2018 07:35 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  We're past the days of another military civil war in the U.S. but some type of political breakup of the Union is probably inevitable. The only thing that will bring the sides back together is a future in which all new humans are genetically engineered for high intelligence, and that's probably still a ways off.

The left will never allow their constituency to be genetically engineered out of existence.

(06-29-2018 07:35 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  We're past the days of another military civil war in the U.S. but some type of political breakup of the Union is probably inevitable. The only thing that will bring the sides back together is a future in which all new humans are genetically engineered for high intelligence, and that's probably still a ways off.

What makes you think that will make a difference? You don’t think there are plenty of people, like half, on both sides of the aisle with both high and relatively low(er) intelligence?

Can only assume you’re joking to get some kind of reaction. I hope.