Who would win a civil war left vs right

What's the difference between a threat and a warning?

 

Legally, Im not sure.

But if I would have to be able to speak on behalf of conservative America to threaten on their behalf. I don't, so I can't. Im just telling folks how I know they'll respond to a specific situation, in the hopes that situation does not come to pass.

 

I dont see our govt nuking anyone in a civil war. As discussed in the video, not only would that make them appear weak to their opposition and garner sympathy for their opposition, it would also be incredibly difficult to avoid nuking their own sympathizers. In short, nukes are tactically and strategically counterproductive in a civil war.

 

I think the difference is if you are "warning" someone you will use violence against them, then that's a threat, and it's illegal.

So sounds to me like you are issuing a threat.

 

Without a qualifer (if), perhaps.

And perhaps not. You could look up 'threat vs warning' in a legal dictionary, if it means so much to you.

 

Okay:

Legal Definition of threat
: an expression of an intention to injure another

 

We are still the "United States" of America. Any civil war will involve the states. Texas conservatives won't feel near the oppression that a Californian conservative may be feeling. Also, states may end up picking sides. If a state decides to secede, does the rest of the country have the stomach to force them to stay? Will other states decide to join them? There are a lot of unknowns in these scenarios.

 

Yes the facist left.

 

Nope, I just tell it like it is.

 

Since our potential line of warring division is ideological rather than geographical, I'm not sure that state boundaries would actually mean much in this hypothetical new civil war. There are Trumpers and normal people in every state, and they would have no reason to fight only their opponents outside of state lines.

 

Answer his question.

 

Where did you get that? Heres what I found:

What is THREAT?
In criminal law. A menace; a declaration of one’s purpose or intention to work injury to the person, property, or rights of another. A threat has been defined to be any menace of such a nature and extent as to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates, and to take away from his acts that free, voluntary action which alone constitutes consent. Abbott. See State v. Cushing. 17 Wash. 544. 50 Pac. 512; State v. Brownlee, 84 Iowa, 473, 51 N. W. 25; Cote v. Murphy, 159 Pa. 420, 28 Atl. 190, 23 L. R. A. 135, 39 Am. St. Rep. 6S6.

https://thelawdictionary.org/threat/

Regardless, where have I 'expressed an intention to injure' anyone?

 

And so what? There are military members who don't support him either. And frankly, law enforcement sucks at using their weapons.

 

Let's hope there aren't any political economy tests for membership of the left and right armies...

 

You are making a mistake underestimating the other side. How about we keep letting you think that way.

 

Red fist in the air!

 

That is mighty funny stuff right there. Whatever make you sleep better at night.

 

Non sequitur BS.

 

Wolverines!

 

The vast majority of the country would be uninterested in your war of fake values.
Neither side has any.

The bright red states would be unable to support themselves as they are net recipients of federal funds, are the least educated and the least healthy and the bright blue states would starve as they are net importers of food and would suffer much infighting.

Both sides are heavily armed...
Maybe it would be a good thing now that I think about it.
We can rid the nation of extremism and start over

Let me know before y’all start so I can take an extended vacation

 

Unless you live in an urban leftist stronghold, AntiFa isn't going to touch you. They only operate where they are protected by sympathetic, corrupt establishment. They are unabashed cowards, and only attack when they have 10-1 odds or collaborative LE nearby.

There are many more credible threats to warrant defending yourself with a firearm than AntiFa.

 

The strategic position of the right is vastly superior to the left. As a primary example (and Im citing the video here) the right could paralyze the blue megacities (and thus most of the establishment's resources) merely by attacking infrastructure (and without directly killing anyone at all)- power substations, water treatment, disrupting transit hubs... this can be accomplished by long range high powered rifles. There's literally no defense beyond surrounding them all with hardened structures, which isn't going to happen. The military and police, even if they all stayed loyal to the establishment and followed orders, would be needed to restore and maintain order in the panicked cities. The dense metropolises the left primarily inhabit barely maintain order as it is with full grocery stores, lights and TVs and running water. Without those, it will literally take an army to keep them from burning themselves down.

Whats AntiFa/SJWs going to do that even remotely counters just this single crippling vulnerability?

 

Dividing America.

 

They do kind of overestimate the power of their feeble little guns. But I suspect this whole thread is a troll. Even the right wing couldn't possibly be this unrealistic.

 

No one knows the future. What happens in the US will depend on large part on what happens in the world

China's rise, if it continues, and if they develop a military which is capable of taking on and defeating the American military, will be a huge factor. (This will not happen for another fifteen or twenty years.)

The state of the world economy is another huge factor: Hitler owed his victory to the Great Depression.

The quality of leadership of either side is another big factor, and cannot be predicted in advance. Had Lenin not been able to return to Russia from Switzerland, the Russian Revolution would never have happened. The German Communists suffered from defective leaders after the First World War, or else we might have seen a successful socialist revolution in Germany.

What we can say is that American civil war would be a huge disaster, not just for America, but for the world, unless China has evolved into a liberal democracy by then.

The US, despite many actions to the contrary, has been the 'arsenal of democracy' for 80 years -- a near impregnable fortress, except for nuclear weapons, and has inspired oppressed people in many countries. (At the same time, it was far from consistent in this, especially where fear of communism overrode democratic principles. Nor did it fail to enforce the economic interests of its wealthy class abroad. But there are no story-book perfect democracies. We're lucky to have had an imperfect one.)

Most civil wars are along ethnic lines, in countries which have been unlucky enough to have serious ethnic diversity. Although an American civil war is unlikely to be a purely ethnic one, it could take on an ethnic dimension. But the American population has been steeped for fifty years in the doctrine of equality-of-rights, and it will be hard to break this.

As for Left/Right civil wars, as opposed to tribal/ethnic ones, they certainly can happen.

Finland today is a nice social-democratic typical Nordic socialistic country. But after WWI they had a vicious Left/Right civil war, which the Left lost. In one province of Germany, and also in Hungary after WWI, the Left seized power for a period of time, but were eventually defeated. Their conduct in power did not win them friends among the broad middle of society, not that the Right were any better.

The 'classic' Left/Right civil war was in Spain, where the Right attacked, and eventually defeated, the legitimate government. The liberal democracies stood by and watched, whereas Hitler and Mussolini actively aided the fascists. [Again, the Left in power did things that pushed many people towards the fascists.]

All of these civil wars had a very strong class element: the industrial working class, and other groups who were not well off, vs. the well-off. This could happen in the US, but, hopefully, the growth of identity politics on the Left, along with their paralyzing white guilt, will prevent them from making any serious appeal to white workers.

The big temptation of the Right will be to frame the civil war as a Right/Left one, or, worse yet, as a white/non-white one.

This would be a huge mistake. For one thing, it would run counter to the spirit of America, as it has evolved, which is to try, as difficult as it may be, to build a nation which transcends race.

For another, it would be a strategic mistake. In war, you try to maximize the number of your friends and allies, and minimize those of the enemy. Where you can't win open support, you try for neutrality.

A civil war in America would be a fight for the broad middle of society. Hard as it is to accept for committed political partisans, the average American is not a political obsessive. It's this person who will decide the outcome of a civil war -- win him, or win his friendly neutrality, or just his neutrality, and you've won the war.

Therefore, the 'Right' must fight for a restoration of America -- not a conservative America, not a 'white America', but the original Republic, which is a multi-national one, and which embodies liberal democracy and toleration.

Let the Left attack free speech, tear down statues, burn the American flag. In fact, they should be encouraged to do so wherever possible. (It's an ironic reversal of position: for a century, it was the Left who defended free speech, not the Right. But everything changes.) The 'Right' must be seen to be defending, not attacking.

The Bolsheviks did not seize power in Russia out of the blue. They waited -- with a brief blunder during July of 1917, the so-called 'July Days' -- until conditions were right. They utilized an attack on free speech -- the attempt by the Provisional Government of Kerensky to close their newspaper -- before overthowing the government. They did not seize power in the name of the Bolshevik Party. They seized it on behalf of the Soviet, a council of workers, soldiers, and peasants where many political parties (admittedly, all of the Left) were represented. And their first government was a coalition between them and a leftist peasant-based party. They knew how to make 'offense look like defense'.

Similarly, when FDR decided to go to war against Japan, he took steps to force them to, in the words of his Secretary of War, 'fire the first shot', even though as it happened this meant a serious military setback at first. Don't scoff at holding the high moral ground -- it's as important as the real high ground in infantry warfare.

A smart 'Rightist' leadership in a civil war situation will be as broad and inclusive as possible. They will showcase Black and Hispanic and Asian leaders, and even make room for those liberals who don't want to live under an Anti-Fa inspired state. They will point out to the 30% of the military who are non-white, that the Left hate them. And the same for the Black police officers, whose deaths by thugs are cheered by the hard Left. And they will offer the Left the possiblity of a geographic compromise -- seccession for states where the Left has an overwhelming majority of support.

In short, they won't be a 'Right' leadership at all, but an American, ie. democratic, one.

There's no guarantee we'll get a smart 'Rightist' leadership though. So better no civil war in the first place.