- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:00 pm to troyt37
The empty rural sea of red vs the economic center of urban blue. This logic is terrible. Wars don't work that way at all.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:01 pm to Revelator
Postulate the outcome.
"Dont get any on you."
Just having a civil war means death and destruction and expenses going to negativity.
Its just as easy to imagine all you christians loving your neighbors as you love yourselves, as your teacher said. Do it more and really and you will be transformed. Your civil war talk is pathetic. Be a man, love and serve.
"Dont get any on you."
Just having a civil war means death and destruction and expenses going to negativity.
Its just as easy to imagine all you christians loving your neighbors as you love yourselves, as your teacher said. Do it more and really and you will be transformed. Your civil war talk is pathetic. Be a man, love and serve.
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:03 pm to troyt37
I love how you just ignore right-wing protesters yelling about Jews, beating people, and committing acts of terrorism. Hell, since Trump's inauguration the only side that's committed murder has been the right. Why are they so angry?
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:03 pm to troyt37
Nah
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:10 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
you think that?
I know that.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:18 pm to Tactical1
quote:
I know that.
i would like to hear how you "know" that. 
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:27 pm to CelticDog
quote:
Be a man, love and serve
How did that work out for John?
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:27 pm to Revelator
I don't think of this in terms of civil war involving R's and Ds or Christian v non Christian. We can disagree politically, that's cool.
I think of this more so as a need to eliminate (and I mean eliminate) true terroristic opposition be it BLM, Antifa, skin heads, nazis, KKK, etc. The rest we can continue to argue over like the good patriots we all are....
I think of this more so as a need to eliminate (and I mean eliminate) true terroristic opposition be it BLM, Antifa, skin heads, nazis, KKK, etc. The rest we can continue to argue over like the good patriots we all are....
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:31 pm to CarRamrod
Look at our history...
In 1824, 1888, and 2000 the candidate for POTUS who received the most popular vote was not elected by the Electoral College. Politically, the winners of those elections had problems because of the manner of their elections EXCEPT Bush whose 9/11 response and the country's 9/11 response negated any real political problem Bush might have had in his first term.
In 2016, 54% of the voters did NOT vote for Donald Trump. His election was perfectly legal under our Constitution, but don't think a majority of Americans think he has any kind of mandate for his agenda. By the nature of his election, Trump is gonna have some political problems and his opponents are going to be bold in their opposition.
To overcome this, DT needs to win reelection with a majority of the voters or at the very least, a plurality of the voters.
IMHO, the absolute worst thing that could happen in 2020 (for social and political stability) is for DT to be reelected by the EC but lose the popular vote by even a larger margin than he did in 2016. If Dem voters in the huge urban areas actually turn out in record numbers, DT could win the EC while losing to the Dem in the popular vote by 4-5% instead of the 2% of 2016.
In 1824, 1888, and 2000 the candidate for POTUS who received the most popular vote was not elected by the Electoral College. Politically, the winners of those elections had problems because of the manner of their elections EXCEPT Bush whose 9/11 response and the country's 9/11 response negated any real political problem Bush might have had in his first term.
In 2016, 54% of the voters did NOT vote for Donald Trump. His election was perfectly legal under our Constitution, but don't think a majority of Americans think he has any kind of mandate for his agenda. By the nature of his election, Trump is gonna have some political problems and his opponents are going to be bold in their opposition.
To overcome this, DT needs to win reelection with a majority of the voters or at the very least, a plurality of the voters.
IMHO, the absolute worst thing that could happen in 2020 (for social and political stability) is for DT to be reelected by the EC but lose the popular vote by even a larger margin than he did in 2016. If Dem voters in the huge urban areas actually turn out in record numbers, DT could win the EC while losing to the Dem in the popular vote by 4-5% instead of the 2% of 2016.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:33 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
would like to hear how you "know" that.
Common sense.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:48 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
The empty rural sea of red vs the economic center of urban blue.
Nothing empty about the sea of red. It's what makes this country work, and contains 150 million or so armed citizens.
quote:
This logic is terrible.
It's just one man's opinion. Feel free to disagree. I don't see the two most opposed factions going to war as that much of a stretch.
quote:
Wars don't work that way at all.
Well that's like, your opinion, man. I see quite a few similarities to the Civil War, the French Revolution, and our own Revolutionary War, but whatever.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:54 pm to VOLhalla
quote:
Hell, since Trump's inauguration the only side that's committed murder has been the right.
Nazis, and neo-Nazis are not the right, genius.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:57 pm to Revelator
A civil war in today's times would lead to several factions, not the clear "North vs South" it was the first time around.
You'd likely have the Deep South on one side, and the West Coast on another. The upper North East on another, Texas probably going mostly solo, the Mid West, etc.
That said, this isn't like the days of muskets and canons. If the military remains with the primary government, it would be a very short war. The only way it pans out in a different way is if the military either loses a lot of soldiers as they try to go back home, or the different local bases side with whatever states they are in.
You'd likely have the Deep South on one side, and the West Coast on another. The upper North East on another, Texas probably going mostly solo, the Mid West, etc.
That said, this isn't like the days of muskets and canons. If the military remains with the primary government, it would be a very short war. The only way it pans out in a different way is if the military either loses a lot of soldiers as they try to go back home, or the different local bases side with whatever states they are in.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:58 pm to Revelator
With the way Obama had the country going it's worth it. I civil war seems to favor the right because the take up most of the United States . The left owns the big cities where they will be killing each other to get the little amount of food available. Plus if the left did eliminate the right then the left Would still lose. They have to many people who depend on the government. If it gets to a point of civil war it would be better to try a purge to let the crazy people just kill each other.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 1:05 pm to Revelator
quote:
Would you have preferred that Trump not be elected and everything remain as it's always been, or would it be worth it even if change has to be accomplished through civil conflict and even war?
I think that the strategy here is to make sure that the US electorate is punished and made to suffer in order to teach a lesson about electing another Outsider: don't fricking do it again, Plebes, or you will rue the day. Stick with the UniParty-approved POTUS candidates or else.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 1:07 pm to Tactical1
quote:
Seeing as the South would go 0-2, Probably not.
It wouldn't be a states vs states. It would be Americans vs leftists.
The left would lose and lose badly.
Even if it was a North vs South States type fight the North would be absolutely annihilated this time around.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 1:09 pm to Loserman
quote:
Even if it was a North vs South States type fight the North would be absolutely annihilated this time around.
This is 100% Southern Pride fiction.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 1:11 pm to Champagne
quote:
I think that the strategy here is to make sure that the US electorate is punished and made to suffer in order to teach a lesson about electing another Outsider: don't fricking do it again, Plebes, or you will rue the day. Stick with the UniParty-approved POTUS candidates or else.
I think you are right.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 1:12 pm to Loserman
quote:
Even if it was a North vs South States type fight the North would be absolutely annihilated this time around.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News