Civil War (Not the 1861 Type)

[CommoGeek]

Let's get a new stick, maybe it is appropriate.

Do you see America facing an internal revolution/ insurgency/ civil war in the next 20 years? 50? 100? Any nation has them as part of it's history and you could argue that America's last occurred in the 60's although that was cultural.

So, if one is to occur what would the conflict be based upon? Republican vs. Democrat politics? Race issues? Economic? Religious?

Remember that our country was founded through a revolution and had smaller, unsuccessful one's (Whiskey rebellion and 1861-1865).

What would it take and is it likely?

[Smokin Joe]

I doubt that a Civil War is in this Nations near future.

However, If it does happen I believe it would have to do with technology or science v religion. Those wanting to better human beings through technology/ science and those against it. I.E. coloning a human. But that is a HUGE stretch. We have become a society that is to adapt to compromise.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally posted by CommoGeek

Do you see America facing an internal revolution/ insurgency/ civil war in the next 20 years? 50? 100?

No, there will be no need. The illegal aliens will soon take over without firing a shot. I figure (from some studies I’ve read) that by 2100 there will be an illegal alien as president of Northern Mexico. There have also been some recent studies indicating that soon I will be in the minority population.

TS

[Para]

If there is a revolution, I would think that it would be reasonable to assume that it will have economic undertones. The divide between the have's and have not's is growing. The middle class is slowly dwindling and many of them are falling into the lower economic class. As America, the gov't, tries to balance the budget, social programs will most certainly fall under the axe. As many who are in the middle class fall into the lower class, their dependence upon gov't assistance is going to increase and our current system is one of enablement, rather then empowerment. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are going to heavily tax the budget in the coming decades. Compound this with seniors living longer and longer through advances in medicine. How many people under 40 honestly believe that Social Security will be there for them when they retire? Our leadership is going to have to make some VERY hard decisions regarding fiscal responsibility. The question becomes will their ever be leadership that will forego their career, support base, that will make those hard decisions? Or, can someone be elected when the majority populace is apart of that enabled working lower class and the elderly dependent upon Social Security?

American's lack financial education and understanding. They have failed to plan for their own future security, believing that someone, be it gov't and/or their career based retirement plans, will be their to take care of them in the end. If, and more like when, this comes to the point of the gov't facing bankruptcy vs. dropping the axe on certain social programs, there will be major unrest creating the perfect breeding grounds. People are quick to lay blame rather then take individual responsibility, and the gov't will be seen as failing to provide for them.

Hopefully it never comes to this and we make those decisions now, like privatize Social Security and create a system of empowering the lower economic class to get back on their feet rather then have a system that allows people to maintain a lifetime supported by the working tax payers. We need to institute financial education within our education system's core curriculum.

[lrd]

Would this be a fight for land?

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by Para
If there is a revolution, I would think that it would be reasonable to assume that it will have economic undertones. The divide between the have's and have not's is growing. The middle class is slowly dwindling and many of them are falling into the lower economic class. ..create a system of empowering the lower economic class to get back on their feet rather then have a system that allows people to maintain a lifetime supported by the working tax payers.

You may be right Para...but

I hear of all the poor and underpriviledged youth of the inner cities constantly harped on by the Dems, yet when I drive through a project in New Orleans I see nothing but name brand clothes, gold jewelry,cell phones, etc. If CNN were to stop and poll these citizens, they would tell you how poor and needy they are. Most if not all are on government assistance in some form if not multiple forms concurrently. FWIW, Don't think that I believe that this isn't the same issue with white trash trailer parks where these idiots own $35,000 trucks, cell phones,etc yet are still on food stamps, having six kids, drawing unemployment and disability from the "back ache" that still allows Ol' Slim to knee-board at the river drunk but not work a job.

IMO, these people have the same access to empowerment that I actually used growing up... free public education and sports, government sponsored college loans(some can even get free grants-not me ), hard work, ambition, and goals.

Do you think it is a true dwindling of the middle class? Or is it that Americans expectations of "minimum standards of living" are so obtuse and warped now?

[Para]

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
IMO, these people have the same access to empowerment that I actually used growing up... free public education and sports, government sponsored college loans(some can even get free grants-not me ), hard work, ambition, and goals.

Yes, they have access to empowerment. Although, empowerment becomes enabling when one can live off the system. By empowerment, I mean limited access to social programs. Sure, changes were made to the welfare system capping benefits to 5 years. But no system was placed in effect that prevents the recipient from changing states and starting all over again. I am all for helping someone down on their luck, but I am severly opposed to allowing them to live down there. get your life in order, your head straight, and get back in the game.

Do you think it is a true dwindling of the middle class? Or is it that Americans expectations of "minimum standards of living" are so obtuse and warped now?

I think it's a combination of both. I think it is fiscal irresponsibility of citizens who buy electronics instead of food, cars instead of education, etc..., but also economic disparity. With the growing rate of homeless within the US and an increase of 'food insecure' there is signs of the economic divide increasing. Do not get me wrong, I am a capitialist, these are just some of my observations. Not my fault too many people would rather watch TV then read to better educate themselves. You reap what you sow.

[DanUCSB]

It's not very popular to say out here where I live, but I swear, this country has the fattest poor people in the world. And what was that Time magazine statistic? 99% of the households below the poverty line have at least one TV?

--Dan, by the bootstraps

[lrd]

Originally posted by CommoGeek
So, if one is to occur what would the conflict be based upon? Republican vs. Democrat politics? Race issues? Economic? Religious?

Don't we do this every time we have an election?

[CommoGeek]

Originally posted by lrd
Don't we do this every time we have an election?

To a certain extent, yes ma'am. What I was driving at is this: would there be a compelling reason for Americans to take up arms against their countrymen and does anyone see it as likely? I'm not advocating this at all, just trying to spark some discussion.

[lrd]

Originally posted by CommoGeek
To a certain extent, yes ma'am. What I was driving at is this: would there be a compelling reason for Americans to take up arms against their countrymen and does anyone see it as likely? I'm not advocating this at all, just trying to spark some discussion.

Ah. Thank you. That's where I was heading, also. At what point do we feel it is necessary to use violence? This quote was posted in the comments section of Matt Margolis's (pro-Bush) blog after he had been in an altercation with anti-Bush protestors.

Hitler had his beliefs, just like Matt has his. Sometimes violence is the only way to show people how devastatingly bad their ideas are. When society is so distraught about policy that individuals feel the need to take violent action, revolution is not only expected, but neccessary. I’m no union man, but I’d have probably taken a swing at you too.

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014767.php

We have an election coming up. Have these people lost that much faith in the election process that they would try to eliminate voters through violence? They surely don't believe that they'll bring voters over to their party this way. Or do they?

[ktek01]

Originally posted by CommoGeek
To a certain extent, yes ma'am. What I was driving at is this: would there be a compelling reason for Americans to take up arms against their countrymen

Yes, for me it would have to be something rather extreme before I would even consider it.

and does anyone see it as likely? I'm not advocating this at all, just trying to spark some discussion.

I don’t think so, at least not anything large scale. The occasional tin foil hat may take a few shots at the "gubbamint bastages", but I can’t see any kind of organized large-scale revolution any time in the near future.

[Solid]

I'm going to take heat for this, and rightfully so, but one argument that I have heard is that the government will have to become more totalitarian to deal with the expansion of previous 'minority' groups.
As the size of these groups increases due to immigration, so too does their voting capability. They become increasingly politically relevant, and soon politicians will have to specifically target these groups, along with white and maybe black groups, to build up their constituency. Assuming (this seems likely) that each of these groups will have different needs and subgroups with different needs, the result of this will be less defined political platforms and a diminished ability for the government to do its job, as it is left currying favour with more groups than before. The left, which looks to sate political demands (esp of the 'needy') will be left making series of concessions or be stuck in a political quagmire. The right, being more pragmatic, will simply target the largest groups or crack down on voting rights to simplify the process. End result is a totalitarian state, or at least a breakdown of democracy. At this point, I feel that it would be possible for a Civil War to erupt as the government is overthrown.

Of course, this is NOT my argument, may be a poor argument, and assumes ceteris paribus- one might assume that the government would adapt better to the changing political circumstances.

IMO it's an interesting point of view, and I would very much like to see it criticised, as I am not up to speed on US politics. Maybe this deserves another thread, however.

Thanks, please understand that this isn't my view as I don't know enough to have a solid view,

Solid

[Psywar1-0]

We just need to figure out what we will call the places we are going to end up living:

Ethnic Enclaves?
Ghettos?
Reservations? (Thats my Favorite)

As far as my future generations only see 2 courses of action:

1. Marry a Gringa like the last few gens have done and make every attempt possible to hide the native blood that is there.

2. Start the new trend of attemting to hid the Euro blood by marrying a Latina.


Unless someone invents a time machine and lets me go back with a few Hellfires and take out Sr Colombo there is nothing we can do to stop the "Turn about is Fair Play" Re-Colonization of North America.

You can Fight it, but it will only end up with your death, and your villages in ashes.

[Solid]

Psywar, I think we 'euros' can ALL agree on the significant advantages of marrying latinas.

Perhaps the only way to avert political crisis as previously described is a notable decrease in the 'wealth gap'?

Has anybody read The Bell Curve?

Solid