People keep talking about “Federalizing the National Guard” and now you’ve got other States pledging their NG to Texas in defiance of the Supreme Court (see image).
So is this what CW2 looks like?
P.S. I’m a Brit
No this is all Republican division. It’s their only playbook to rally their base. The take home message for everyone is VOTE, VOTE, VOTE. Before the election started up we had a nice quiet 2-1/2 years. This kind of shit only appeals to those that love the chaos that Trump will bring back.
It’s very tiresome. This also feels a lot more agro than interrogating a president about getting a BJ.
Why are your lunatics so energetic, crazy and numerous? They seem to be getting worse. Some BJ obsessions in the 90s. Then tea parties in the 00s. Now it’s full-blown inssurection with Texas wanting to secede.
Now that all the crazies have joined their “god army” and trundled down to the border would it be a good time to nuke them? Just wipe out all the lunatics in one go. Problem solved.
Why are your lunatics so energetic, crazy and numerous?
Simple, Russian and Chinese bots on social media designed to foment division, anger, and the destruction of western democracy. It’s the exact same thing that led to Brexit and the election of Trump. And it will get worse until we get a handle on blocking bad actors on social media.
It’s not Republican division. A lot of Americans are disgusted with the open border and the gross inaction of our government.
Why?
lol. Every additional illegal immigrant makes Texas SAFER. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
deleted by creator
No, the civil war 2 looks like mass shootings and terrorists attacks. It started with the Oklahoma City Bombing. Liberals just refuse to acknowledge it’s existence.
There’s an argument to be made, though, tha the US has always been in a state of civil war. The Spartans would symbolically declare war on their slaves every year. That’s kind of what slavery is: a constant war on a portion of the population. That’s aside from the whole genocide of native folks. Since the 13th amendment didn’t actually ban slavery, it never ended and if you look at standing rock, you know that whole native genocide thing never ended either.
Then when you contextualize all this with stuff like the Red Summer, you realize the recent violence is just the normal terrorism that white supremacists do every now and then to get control back. There probably won’t be a war with two side, more just escalation violence from one side leading to the systematic murder a huge chunk of the population. The question is if it will be officially sanctioned like the Holocaust, or continue with the ad-hoc stochastic terrorism like the Rwandan genocide and the Serbian ethnic cleansing.
I expected more snipers, bombings, and attacks on infrastructure but if Trump wins it’s definitely gas chambers.
Democrats are too afraid of “real war” to actually do something about this. If they did they might have to deal with the mess for real and open themselves up to political challengers from the left.
A good portion of Democrat voters are boomers who created this reality by selling off everybody’s futures to corporations. It’s not that they’re afraid, this is precisely what they had in mind.
Those states are going to be in a rude awakening when they realize they are broke because the blue states are by far the largest contributors to federal funding. When they cut that off, the welfare state will come crawling back quickly.
Texas gets $53,000,000,000 in federal funding every year. They’ll cave.
The welfare states regularly turn down federal funding because they do not care about the lower income portions of their state. Alabama will just have fewer people able to feed their selves.
I mean, isn’t this kind of keeping with the theme of US civil wars so far?
If I was creating a civil war bingo card based on history of civil wars in the US, “starts over how people with darker skin can be abused or not” would certainly have been on it.
There was a very real economic driver for slavery. Totally morally bankrupt, but it’s a reason. This is pure malice for the sake of a culture war.
This all have a strong brexit vibe, but taken to the next level in a very MURICA! style.
Why not Arizona? That’s surprising.
Not enough cousin fucking to cause genetic mutations?
As far as I can tell, it’s a purple state. The right republican would have to come along to pull moderates/libertarians in the state and Trump will only lose the state again - he talked a lot of shit about John McCain; that’s not going to go well. Don’t get me wrong, every state has it’s Trump cultists, but there’s just not enough.
42% of Arizona is federal land, they know it wouldn’t end well.
What is curious to me is these are state departments disagreeing, though the previous civil war was fought between federal and state governments with raised armies.
This time I was expecting the police vs. militants. Uncontrolled civil unrest. Portland and Minneapolis but spread across the nation, cranked to eleven.
Portland and Minneapolis? So like, a protest/campout in one or two square blocks while everyone else goes about their normal business?
And the same footage of that one or two blocks being ran for over 6 months on loop
We thought we were getting a proper class war and instead we get fascist versus not fascists but they still hate you
Dumbasses once again saying, “Now is the time!” when they’re clearly outnumbered and outgunned.
We can beat them! The US Army, Navy, Air Force, and that other one that no one cares about, they don’t stand a chance!
Like, we can all joke about civil war and splitting up the red and blue, but, like, when it comes down to deciding who gets the nukes in the divorce, it becomes pretty obvious that it’s just super dumb to think about realistically.
From what I’ve heard, the supreme court decision was mostly about the feds having access to the border, and the ability to cut down the razor wire, rather than any specific opposition to the razor wire existing in and of itself. I would wager this whole deal is mostly just a kind of political play, to try and egg biden into doing something stupid, while simultaneously keeping up the appearance that everyone at the head of these states is doing something dangerous, anti-institutional, and counter-cultural, even though they’re all kind of inherently unable to do anything along those lines just as a matter of their positions.
Everybody’s correct when they say that the political divides in this country are less clear-cut, but I also don’t think that the radicalization that we’ve seen, as a matter of perspective from being in online space, necessarily reflects reality. I think if you look at most people, most people want social security of some kind, and want healthcare of some kind, and want drug legalization of some kind, and want us to stop fighting wars in some form. Those are all kind of generalities, because the specific mechanism by which people want those things achieved differs from person to person. It’s very fractured as a matter of course, as a matter of how our political system and society is set up, and the ruling class has taken advantage of this to enact a divide and conquer strategy, where they can selectively promote whatever ideological positions benefit them the most, and cordon everyone off into a relatively small set of solutions over which they have a high amount of control. Rather than, you know, what a good democracy might do, which is come to a compromise solution, that everyone but the most extreme propagandized radicals might be kind of okay with. There is a reason why lots of conservatives like communism, as long as you use the right words. Both parties attempt to be mostly “populist” parties. This is all kind of obvious, right, but people understate the degree to which it’s a deliberate thing, and the overstate the degree to which it’s been successful, you know, which isn’t surprising, because, again, serves the interests of the powerful. People aren’t, broadly, morons, people have realized that this is all the case. That’s mostly what the “radicalization” that you’ve seen online has been, people just realizing that they hate these shitass solutions that aren’t really compromise solutions. See how everyone is cripplingly disappointed with the democratic party, and also how, likewise, conservatives are consistently disappointed with their own party, as well, and for many of the same reasons, barring the extreme radicals.
Most people are focused on how the internet divides people into radicalized swaths and conspiracy theorists, which is true, but even the mainstream monopolized internet is kind of a good tool for mass mobilization. See the occupy movement and the arab spring for older examples, for more recent examples, maybe the george floyd protests, or the french retirement protests. The only risk of these is kind of that they more easily get co-opted as a result of their visibility, i.e. “defund the police” gets turned into an argument for “fund the police”. If you were an asshole, you could cite charlottesville, or jan 6th, for examples of internet mobilization, but those are relatively smaller scales of things, compared to the others, which were more popular, they just got disproportionate media attention relative to their size, and had disproportionate political effects.
I think if we’re looking at the true, extreme political radicals, we’re seeing them come about as a result of a kind of well-oiled engine. I’m not gonna say that this is an institutional kind of thing, and it’s maybe more of a third level effect of active decisions, but it’s still something that, nonetheless, has been deliberately constructed. 4chan is funded by a japanese toy company and a hands off japanese internet techbro, and is administrated by some former american military freak who’s deliberately organized the site. The more radical offshoots, that use the same source code, tend to be funded by oil money, and political action committees, but through second-level effects, where they fund some small level conservative actor, and then they prop up the space. Which churns out some radical terrorists that are capable of your more fucked up bombings, and shootings, and controlled and coordinated protests. And then you kind of get military people at almost every level of this, in lower numbers, who act to control the space.
I dunno what I mean to extrapolate from all of this, but yeah. There’s probably not going to be a civil war.
There’s probably not going to be a civil war.
So… there’s still a chance then…
If you read the popular opinions around 1860, we have the same “we are right and we’ll show them” attitude building up in the new poor-people-and-women slave states.
Yeah I see it (as a not American looking in from outside the country). Every time I visit the USA, the changes in things are more and more visible.
did we even have a federal military back then tho? because we have one now and no state could prevail over it.
The US Regular Army (RA) was founded in 1775. State militias supported the RA through the various wars fought on what is now US soil (including the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812). In the Civil War, the RA was supported by volunteers and fought on the side that ultimately won. The Confederate Army was similar to the RA at the time. Currently, the RA has been absorbed into the US Army (including Army Reserve and National Guard).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_Army_(United_States) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Army
So… yes there was a federal military, but it was a different thing than the US Army is now. How that would play out if things went bonkers in 2025… who knows. There are a LOT of people around the world watching VERY closely though… and really hoping (not that confidently though) that sanity will prevail.
Apologies, but too verbose and meandering to gain insight/understanding from (and I tried). Also, its murder trying to read that on a phone (vs PC monitor) to boot.
Appreciate the attempt though, thank you for that.
Wait. The first civil war ended? /s
— enslaved person being emancipated an extra two years late in Texas on Juneteenth
— enslaved person being emancipated in 1942 Beeville, Texas
enslaved person being emancipated in 1942 Beeville, Texas
From the Wiki article…
In September 1942, Alfred Irving, who is believed to be one of the final chattel slaves in the United States, was freed at a farm near Beeville. Alex L. Skrobarcek and his daughter, Susie, were indicted by a federal grand jury in Laredo, Texas on November 9, 1942.[11][12][13][14] The pair were found guilty in Federal court in Corpus Christi, Texas on Thursday, March 18th, 1943. Alex L. Skrobarcek was sentenced to only four years in prison, while his daughter, Susie Skrobarcek, received two years. [15]
Bruh, 4 years for doing Chattel Slavery in 1942??? I didn’t even know that part. That’s so crazy yet somehow not super surprising 💀
Holy MFin’ Jim Crow, Batman :o
I said this in another thread-
Most Americans aren’t interested or even capable of fighting in a civil war. When you live paycheck-to-paycheck, you’re not going to abandon your family to fight on the front lines.
And a huge percentage of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck.
Texas would have to have a draft.
Good luck with that.
The only kind of draft they’d take is the beer kind.
You’re wrong though. The general public is more likely to engage in civil unrest when they’re struggling. The reality though is that while many Americans might be living paycheck to paycheck, they’re not poor and not struggling. They are just bad at managing their finances and they have a lot to lose.
If you have more to lose than to gain, you won’t participate in a civil war. But when you’re a slave working in a cotton field, you have nothing to lose, only something to gain.
The idea that your average American is so poor is just laughable.
Bad at managing their finances
Either you’re being purposefully deceitful, or you have a horrible understanding of macroeconomics. But please, let’s just continue to ignore the elephants named record-inflation, rent records and housing crisis in the room.
over half a million live on the streets. flat out homeless. and then, the working poor, which you are if you live paycheck to paycheck. also, if you can’t live unless you work, you’re the working class.
I’m just imagining the sales of golf carts or those scooters going through the roof because Americans cant run a couple of miles during a civil war.
Ahaha! That’s a good one!
There is a term for this called the “Valley of revolt” basically a people need enough empowerment to revolt but not enough to feel heard.
Also it’s not necessarily just “bad with finances” it’s that our expected standard of living doesn’t match our actual standard of living. Rising cost and stagnant wages and all that.
The tech bros in Austin are not going to the front lines. Front line at airport, maybe.
Not to mention states themselves are never more than 60%/40% leaning either way. It’s not like the more homogeneous populations of the 1800s.
Bingo. If Texas tried to leave, a HUGE chunk of the population would revolt against the State of Texas. Many more would just leave. Very little good would remain.
Not to mention that most of them are probably too unfit to even be a soldier xd
All of the recent news surrounding Texas tells me we need to return to a more literal reading of the 10th Amendment. Bring back dual federalism.
Neither an American nor knowledgeable about constitutional and amendment law - would you mind elaborating please?
Context: The United States government has a federal structure, unlike most governments. This means that the federal/national government and the state governments have distinct divisions in power and responsibility. For example, the highest level of law enforcement that can legally exist is at the state level. Rogue Supreme Courts have made illegitimate and tyrannical rulings to grant the federal government some police power, even though the Constitution and Bill of Rights clearly reserve police power to the states.
That only the states have police power was implicitly understood prior to the ratification of the Tenth Amendment, the final amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment states that whatever powers and rights are not expressly granted to the federal government in the Constitution shall be reserved to the states or to the people. Since police powers are not expressly granted to the federal government, only the states may enforce laws. Again, illegitimate rulings by rogue Supreme Courts have granted this power to the federal government with no legal basis.
Dual federalism is this divide between the power of the federal government and the state governments. Over time, especially since the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, dual federalism has been eroded without meaningful constitutional amendments. Most people are generally satisfied with this, but when a state has significant differences with the federal government on the enforcement of the law or on matters of authority, the easy solution without having a civil war is to return to the state that which rightfully belongs to it: The powers implicitly reserved to it by the Constitution.
Other than those illegitimate Supreme Court rulings, only Texas has the authority to enforce border laws in Texas. The federal government, technically speaking, has no authority to enforce border laws anywhere, unless a constitutional amendment is ratified granting it such power.
The United States government has a federal structure, unlike most governments.
Most large countries have a federal structure. Just from my memory, Canada, Mexico, Brasil, Germany, Spain, Italy, Nigeria, South Africa, the UAE, Russia, China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia at least.
Dual federalism is this divide between the power of the federal government and the state governments.
Isn’t this just normal federalism?
Ey may have referred to how this federal structure is implemented, some countries may only have federation formally because they give zero decision freedom to their parts
The vast majority of governments around the world are not federal. However, it is a popular system in countries that have diverse territory and demographics.
From Wikipedia:
Dual federalism, also known as layer-cake federalism or divided sovereignty, is a political arrangement in which power is divided between the federal and state governments in clearly defined terms, with state governments exercising those powers accorded to them without interference from the federal government. Dual federalism is defined in contrast to cooperative federalism (“marble-cake federalism”), in which federal and state governments collaborate on policy.
If you grew up in the United States, it stands to reason that dual federalism would be the default form of federalism to you. Also, since the 1930s, the 10th Amendment has been largely (and illegally) ignored, so today we mostly experience “marble cake federalism”. The way the Constitution is written, however, does not legitimize any form other than dual federalism with distinct and separate powers granted to the federal government and the states.
Thanks for explaining this. Your wording has a distinct bias of American exceptionalism, since your first sentence is patently incorrect - federal and unitary governments are roughly evenly represented across the world’s 200-odd governments. Not an attack, just a reasoned criticism, which may help explain the downvotes.
I was interested to learn about dual federalism and Eisenhower’s layer- and marble-cake metaphors. I didn’t realise that dual federalism was distinct, as I’m not a constitutional lawyer and am primarily familiar with Australian federalism and secondarily those of the US and Canada. In retrospect it’s unsurprising that the Australian federal system can be described with the layer cake metaphor, since our federation in 1901 was based on the American model!
It’s an interesting observation about the layer cake system, where states have primacy, becoming a marble cake, where constitutional law has been (probably deliberately) overlooked in the US over the years. It reminds me a bit of the gerrymandering and malapportionment issues, not to mention the electoral college systems affecting fair and open democracy in your country.
Good luck with it all - your insights will help me keep a keener eye on Australian developments to slow Australia’s slide towards the corruption of the fine American model. As seen in the (alarmist and fearful) question posed by the OP, the decay of democracy happens slowly until it becomes utterly obvious to most that the rot has spread throughout.
Thanks for explaining this. Your wording has a distinct bias of American exceptionalism, since your first sentence is patently incorrect - federal and unitary governments are roughly evenly represented across the world’s 200-odd governments. Not an attack, just a reasoned criticism, which may help explain the downvotes.
Thanks for your response. I am currently taking an American government course in my university and in the class it was explained that relatively few countries have federal systems. The Wikipedia page on the topic only lists 20 countries that currently have federal systems.
I’m always looking for more knowledge and information, so I’m curious what your source is that around 100 countries have federal systems of government. It seems like a large discrepancy from the information that I am aware of.
Good luck with it all - your insights will help me keep a keener eye on Australian developments to slow Australia’s slide towards the corruption of the fine American model. As seen in the (alarmist and fearful) question posed by the OP, the decay of democracy happens slowly until it becomes utterly obvious to most that the rot has spread throughout.
Yeah, it’s definitely alarming. The fact that the US government has basically given itself power that it’s not supposed to have freaks me out a bit whenever I think about it. Something for citizens of any country to watch out for.
The Wikipedia page on the topic only lists 20 countries that currently have federal systems.
Fair enough - I knew I should have supported that claim. An earlier commenter did, listing many - my claim probably represents a lot of countries with larger populations and/or enough wealth to support regional representative government. It may not be the majority - smaller countries like Tonga and Eswatini are notionally unitary monarchies, but I’d still be surprised if there weren’t chiefs on each island or in each significant town or region in most countries. It’s harder to qualify - my claim probably comes from looking at a world map and seeing 50-50, but it’s probably Mercator projection and recognition bias (I may be able to name all countries and their capitals, but not the ins and outs of their government systems, given it gets murky).
The fact that the US government has basically given itself power that it’s not supposed to have freaks me out a bit whenever I think about it.
Again this is an unsupported gut feeling, but this is what corrupt countries do, and I was going to say the US is nearly the only ‘marble cake’ democracy but I suppose people might be able to say “what about the Democratic Republic of the Congo?” which everyone knows is neither democratic nor a proper republic, but a barely-functioning government representing a large and valuable area of land easily manipulated by richer countries for its wealth. I suppose what I mean is that the US has, at least until recently, been the country most others and commentators sycophantically praise as a true democratic marble cake federation, when it is not truly democratic, it’s just wealthy, and that wealth is held by oligarchs in the same way as federations like Russia or Brazil.
Maybe my point wasn’t valid. Maybe it was a gut feeling. I don’t know any more, I’m just a downtrodden man.
Thank you. I guess my country has a mix of these, depending on subject.
“Fuck yeah, secession!” Says the Texan from the comfort of their lounge chair, beer in hand.
These people are too comfortable to ever be willing to die for their stupid ideals. All it took was one MAGA idiot to get blasted on Jan 6th and then they all scattered like roaches. As soon as their lives were on the line, it was no longer a matter of grave importance. They all firmly believed that democracy was at stake, but were unwilling to fight for it to the death because they somehow must have known that it was bullshit, somewhere in the back of their pea-sized brains, they knew.
By the time Texas starts asking people to show up to mustering fields, rifle in hand, the facade will fall apart. Biden doesn’t need to do anything. This sideshow of bluster and saber-rattling will fall apart on it’s own.
You’re thinking first civil war. This civil war is going to be about bombing and terror. And it will be MAGA idiots bombing govt facilities. But they’ll start first with places like gay bars and libraries.
THEN the federal govt will get involved and it will devolve into a shit show from there.
The federal government is already involved. The FBI has been a thing for decades. Are we really going to compare the pathetic levels we have now to the 1950s with the KKK?
Here is the truth to any wannabe terrorist: none of you have gotten smarter but the federal government has. You are one guy, the government is a whole mess of guys spending decades studying ways to stop you. No company has any incentive to help you and has a big incentive to report you. Everyone is tracked now, every transaction recorded, every internet post, heck our very movements.
Random acts are going to happen and it is awful but any kinda coordinated resistance will fail.
Plus you know we are all fat now. Successful resistance movements are led by poor people who can live off the land. That Bundy Ranch ordering takeout thing really illustrated it well. Who do you know in your life that is capable of living in the woods as a revolutionary? Do you really see someone like Hannity or Ted Cruz sitting in a cave somewhere to lead his forces?
texas, or any state, would be crushed forthwith.
Also, millions of people living in Texas are not originally from Texas and have no particular allegiance to Texas.
Also, as a native Texan that still lives here because it’s not feasible to leave, I feel no particular allegiance to Texas. This government doesn’t represent anything I stand for – it’s infuriating. Fuck Texas, and fuck proud Texans.
Also millions of people in Texas and are FROM Texas don’t want this.
Why does everything have to be so political?
I guess politics is modern societies version of how to make rules in society? E.g. it’s all politics, no?
It really is.
Time for bed, grandad.
In a for profit economy; to create an upper class, you have to have an under class. Wealth isn’t created, it’s extracted through exploitation. Rich/Poor. Empire/Colony. Master/Slave.
Wake up! It’s time to wake up America and re-discover our socialist past.
