Second American Civil War

>>2415733
If California were to secede today, perhaps to protect undocumented immigrants from mass deportations or something of the sort, could we see other states secede alongside it? New York seems too entrenched in the establishment to leave, especially considering its territorial differences, but perhaps New Mexico? If Arizona weren’t so fucking conservative I would mention them, but any other areas?

>1850s: National enforcement of fugitive slave codes pisses off anti-slavery Northerners
>2017: National enforcement of mass deportations pisses off pro-immigration folks

A major issue in the 1850s was the national enforcement of the fugitive slave code after the Compromise of 1850. The creation of slave catcher organizations that were on the road to becoming secret police was especially egregious and many Northerners refuse to cooperate. Though in this case the sides are switched (if we’re comparing Hispanic undocumented migrants to slaves), the point still stands that Trump choosing to do mass deportations and also going after sanctuary cities could engulf similar tensions between Republican and Democrat America that plagued America in the 1850s.

>Senators built various Compromises (Missouri, 1850, Crittenden, etc) to balance the slave and free states influence in national policy
>Senators building compromises on immigration today that constantly need reform

We can see with groups like the Gang of Eight that they are trying to play to both sides. I'm not saying that making compromises is inherent to a Civil War, but considering how polarized both the Democrats and Republicans have become on the issue of immigration, all it would take is one bad compromise for whoever wasn’t in power to go walking.

What do you guys think?

LARPing, you ain't succeeding for shit.

>b-b-b-ut muh rebel huurrrritage

>>2415744
>muh rebel heritage
lol I'm from New York and in no way support the Confederates. I'm just pointing out that we are technically at a point of regional divide that we haven't seen since the American Civil War.

It's not just about the political party divide. If you read Martin Van Buren's writings on political division, you'd find that having Democrats and Republicans actually makes the nation more united. By having Republicans in Massachusetts and Republicans in South Carolina, you cultivate a political environment in which the political parties have to appeal to all sectors of the country. But as we can see with both sides today, that clearly isn't the case.

I'm not a Trump supporter, but it's clear that if Hillary didn't win the Midwest, she isn't appealing to their interests. And the fact that she was able to win the popular vote without winning vast swathes of the country mirrors Southern fears that if they didn't secede, they would simply get outvoted and lose parity in the Senate to anti-slavery Republicans.

>>2415733
>>2415735
Watch the Spanish revolution if you want a possible route for the 2nd ACW. Basically a bunch of urban leftists pushing for a more radical government in the face of the uncertainty of the new republic, and the rural traditionalists and military getting more and more sick of their shit. Really kicked off after a breakdown in order and a left aligned police force executing a rightwing general.

I'm from NY and was frankly just thinking about how much happier the northeast would be if it split off from the rest of the country, just a shame things will have to get a whole lot worse before anything that revolutionary could happen

>>2416217
>I'm from NY and was frankly just thinking about how much happier the megalopolises would be if they split off from the rest of the country,

You're nuts if you think upstate New York would let the hipsters and homosexuals in NYC drag them out of the union. I wouldn't be surprised if other non-urban areas of the NorthEast would feel similarly.

>>2416212
Assuming that premise, wouldn't international players get involved if America fell into a Civil War? Russia has said they'd back a Texan independence movement and it seems like they'd back any separatist group to try and divide the United States' resources and perhaps establish client state proxies.

>>2416217
I think I speak on behalf of Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire when I say that we don't want anything to do with Massachusetts or NYC.

>>2415735
>Arizona
Why the fuck would we?

>>2416251
>>2416266
I've spent a lot of time in the Adirondacks and from what I can tell the only real political difference is on the issue of gun control, outside of that both sides realistically want the same things, economic opportunity that helps the working and middle class rather than just the upper class. Its quite sad to look at the state of affairs in upstate NY, such deep economic decline. There's hardly any jobs there at all.

>>2416273
I'm just saying, the counties of a state that voted Trump aren't going to go along with secession just because the counties that voted Hillary are upset that Trump is president.

>>2416291
Perhaps not, although Trump's wins were pretty slim in a lot of upstate counties. It was just an idle fantasy anyway.

Mainly its born out of frustration with the state of American politics. I don't understand how someone could look at a person like Trump and think he's going to change things for the better. But on the other hand I REALLY don't understand how anyone could have thought nominating Clinton was a good idea. The 2016 election felt like a race between a complete idiot and the least inspiring politician in living memory, how did it come to this?

>>2415733
Well, it ain't gonna happen. CA would have to seize Federal property and that was basically what Lincoln used as pretext to declare an insurrection. Like Jackson told South Carolina (paraphrasing) "Sure, you got a right to revolution, and I got right to crush it." Just like 1860, a bunch of whiny Democrats can't deal with the outcome of an election.

File: 8th Michigan Infantry.jpg (71KB, 516x900px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 516x900px

>>2415733
>Most of the anti-slavery movement in the United States was not built off of the abolitionist concern for the welfare of blacks, but more so built off of the skeptical Northern white working class, who saw the Mexican-American war as a slave lobby war to expand the land open to slavery, and saw the expansion of slavery into the territories as the removal of areas for free labor to compete in

I’d add that many Northern working class Whites were also concerned about comments made in the run up to the Civil War by Northern industrialists that “capital should OWN labor” based on a philosophy that the White working class was just as poor and ignorant as Black slaves and usually lived in worse conditions then Black slaves.

The fear among poor Whites busting their asses in Northern factories, was that Northern industrialists would ally with Southern plantation owners to enslave _anybody_ regardless of race who was poor, all for their "own good" of course...

>>2416307
> I don't understand how someone could look at a person like Trump and think he's going to change things for the better.

Because once you strip away the media character assassination he's not anymore competent or incompetent than any other politician that's run for office, and at least his campaign gives the impression of caring about this country, as opposed to the people whose response to the slogan "Make America Great Again" is "America was never great".

>>2416262
It's very hard to say what international groups would do. You'd have to first look at the goals of other nations and extrapolate from there.

Pretty much every major player in the world would like to see a weaker America. For most, it means that suddenly one of the only inhibitors to a nation's ambition is gone: China would be free to pressure other Asian nations within its sphere of influence as there are no other nations capable of meaningfully opposing them, Russia could do the same for its satellite countries, and NATO nations in general are somewhat more free to make their own decisions without an overbearing force essentially able to overrule them all (Well, until France or England or Germany assumed dominance, but their overall strength is close enough that it'd be more difficult for any single member to achieve the same majority power that the US had.). In that large power vacuum, you can expect not only the US to go through turmoil, but the entire world to lose their collective shit and gear up for conflict. I know some people love to talk about how the US is probably the biggest threat to world stability, but that's not quite accurate. Their major concern is the US is the biggest threat to world self-determination; world stability, sometimes at the expense of regional stability, is one of the chief aims of the US foreign policy.

But assuming everyone else keeps things together throughout the course of another civil war, pretty much all focus will be kept on a few considerations:
>How do we ensure the US is weakened as much as possible throughout this war?
>What side do we support in order to gain as much favor with them as possible?
>If unsure, how do we ensure our contributions paint us as neutral as possible to prevent the winning side from seeing us as an enemy?

>>2416373
Along with that, you now have to attempt to guess how exactly this war is going to come about. What is the triggering cause? What is the predicted military might of the opposing sides? How does each sides' ideology resonate with the world community at large? All of these details will affect the compositions and size of each force, which will determine not only who's more likely to win, but also who's going to be backed by more opportunistic foreign powers (For example, if it seems like a leftist coalition is more likely to achieve victory, it's likely European powers will attempt to send token support in order to curry more favor with that faction under the pretense they'll win the war and be in better relations with them afterwards.). At best, foreign powers will only send token aid to either side; at worst, Americans going at it on their homeland will unite WW3 by drawing in all sorts of foreign powers looking to be on the winning side.

Russia has always made remarks about supporting a seperatist movement in the US, but it's not about altruism or the right of self-determination, but rather because a fragmented US is less able to exert pressure over their own actions.

>>2416291
>just because the counties that voted Hillary are upset that Trump is president.
All right well how about if Trump sent 200k soldiers into LA and SF?

>>2416353
and yet if you take one real look past the slogans it becomes painfully obvious that the only thing he's interested in making great is his bank account

>a bunch of people who are hurt by mere words and against gun ownership waging war against law enforcement, the military, and a bunch of pissed off people who are just plain sick of their bullshit
It's a pretty unrealistic premise.

>>2416419
I wouldn't count on much sympathy.

>>2416456
This

Modern liberals don't start fucking revolutions, are you all mad?

>>2416420
No, shit.

>hurr political slogans designed to appeal to the masses of morons should reflect muh personality in a TRUE and HONEST manner

It's like saying "politicians lie" "businessmen lie". Do you want a medal?

>>2416481
Why not? They're Americans.

>>2416420
His bank account is already great, and a man with his ego is not going assume a position of historical relevance like the presidency just to make a few extra billion at the end of his life that he'll never be able to spend, in exchange for going down in history as "the guy who sold out America for a cheap buck".

Only an idiot, or a young man who sees the presidency as a stepping stone to greater power would do that. The only stepping stone an old wealthy man in his seventies is looking for is one that leads to the immortality of history. Which leads me to believe that even if he is misguided his motivations are sincere.

Unless you believe in conspiracy theories of how Trump is a Manchurian candidate controlled by Putin in which case all bets are off.

>>2416503
So they claim...

File: bill clinton NAFTA.jpg (31KB, 560x375px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 560x375px

>>2416513
>going down in history as "the guy who sold out America for a cheap buck".

What's that again?...

File: typical gun owner.jpg (136KB, 1370x914px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1370x914px

>>2416485
>Modern liberals don't start fucking revolutions, are you all mad?

They don't have the balls, as they know full well that modern Rightwingers literally dream of the day the Left tries to launch a revolution.

>>2416353
>not anymore competent or incompetent than any other politician that's run for office,
That is very apparent to be wrong the moment you look at topics like law or foreign affairs.

I highly doubt Trump knows anything about public law, methodology of interpretation or the big three schools of international relations. Presidents without a background in legal education tend to not know, but past ones at least have gotten prepared by having to go through prior institutions like congress.

>>2416529
Bill Clinton was a young man who saw the presidency as a stepping stone to greater power. To put things in perspective Trump and Clinton are the same age, and Trump is only running for president now while Clinton was in his forties when he first ran for president.

>>2416541
None of those things are prerequisites for a competent presidency. They might make things slide more easily through the system but they're not necessary to be a successful chief executive.

>>2416574
I don't understand what definition of "competence" you're using then.

>>2415733
>no one remembers the bonus army

not even close op

>but like there'll totally be a second american civil war because shit's all polarized :^)

None of that matters. There is a huge and powerful federal army this time, and no state militias that could feasibly challenge it. In /pol/speak, liberals can't mount a rebellion because they don't have enough guns.

Only if there's signs of fracturing inside of the US military itself is there a snowball's chance in hell of civil war. As it stands, there's just going to be 4 years of liberal whining and butthurt until Trump loses his next election.

>>2416582
One that doesn't rest on the implicit assumption that a lawyer is inherently the best person suited to serve as chief executive of a country.

>>2416624
Seems more like you're operating under a definition where no skill matters at all, if he's equally competent and incompetent to all other politicians that have ever existed.

File: bill-clinton-nafta-jobs.jpg (156KB, 1038x927px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1038x927px

>>2416548

What the hell does Clinton’s age have to do with selling out America for a cheep buck, by not only signing NAFTA into law but actively campaigning for it (while accepting millions in donations from labor unions)?

Trump is calling for an end to NAFTA and forcing the return of all those jobs back to the U.S. - how is that "selling out America"?

>>2416379
Now, there a zillion different scenarios on how exactly all of this could go down. I think we should first start looking at the different factions within the US who are ultimately the feuding majorities that are likely to cause problems. I'll start by simply grouping them into Republican and Democrat sides, though I'd imagine by the time we got to our who "let's ignite a civil war for dominance" phase, it's very likely these two sides could be calling themselves something different.

DEMOCRATS
>Urban based workers, laborers, etc.
Members of this group are primarily concerned over working conditions, unions, pensions, healthcare, anything that ensures they have the material means to live. They may or may not share the egalitarian ideals traditionally espoused by the left. They consider themselves as enemies of the right because they see the right's plans as the reduction or removal of the things that allow them to continue to draw a steady paycheck and afford services.

>Immigrants, undocumented workers, the poor
All of these people rely on the state services endorsed by the democratic party to the extent they simply cannot exist otherwise without them. In addition, in the case of immigrants who would face deportation in a more conservative society, they have no choice but to support a party that would see to their continued existence. Opposes the right both on grounds of reduction of welfare and because of a desire to actually, you know, remain in the US.

>>2416693
>Intelligentsia, college students, academics, etc.
Can't really find a good word that quite describes the entire group very well, but this is the group that pushes social issues as the forefront of their agenda. Identity politics, that sort of thing. While their numbers may actually be a minority within the left, their influence is often one of the most felt due to their ability to "get their voice heard" the most. By that, I mean this is the faction of people most adept at using art, media, and whatever else that lies at the cutting edge to push their message across the most amount of people (Or sometimes, the right people) with the least amount of manpower. This isn't a huge voting block in and of itself, but the ability to drum up support among the previous two groups essentially makes them one of the most influential. At war with the right because of the opposition of social reforms and protection of specific identities.


REPUBLICANS
>Rural workers and populations in general
Despite often having low or even lower income than some of their city counterparts, rural people are often more satisfied with their status in life for reasons not quite understood. Be it lower cost of living, better natural working conditions than their urban counterparts, or just local social pressure or patriotism, this faction tends to vote to towards what they see as the party that preserves their way of life, both somewhat economic and somewhat social, to which it sees the left as threatening to destroy their way of life.

>The military
Often drawn from a similar stock of people as above, which somewhat explains their line of thinking as to why they vote the way they do. In the grand scheme of voting, the military makes up a smaller chunk of the population sort of like the intellectuals of the left do, but what they lack in numbers, they make up for by being probably the most dangerous force in the advent of conflict.

>>2416695
>Christians and traditionalists
Grouped because there's actually a lot of people who might've grown up Christian but don't really espouse a particular church, merely follow similar guidelines. These guys are pretty much the social antithesis of the intellectuals' platform in the sense they advocate for mostly moral values before everything else. Unlike the intellectuals, pound for pound, they don't really have the influence of pushing their message out to people, at least anymore compared to decades past. They're still a larger population of people however and have a lot of overlap from the first Republican group above. Opposes the left for what they see as a lack of morals and social values. Note that some support the left however for their focus on social services in the economic sense, especially in urban centers.

>Business and wealthy
A tiny voting base, but large wealth helps to finance various campaigns to push their agenda out there, be it influencing the voting public or lobbying for specific platforms. While it's made up of various types of people, most of a vested interest in ensuring that their business interests and profits are protected first, which naturally pits them against the left.

>Libertarians and other radicals
A pretty small minority on the republican side, but one of the loudest. In a sense, they somewhat function like the sounding board of the right like the intellectuals of the left. However, more like their conservative breathern, they're often slower to adopt new methods and stratagems that would aid them in this. Even if a lot of their ideas are too controversial to be espoused by the masses, they do get people talking about various issues and help to solidify groups to less radical causes.

>>2416639
>skill
"Skill" is not one of the qualifications required to run for the office of president, beyond the skill of running a successful campaign at least, and I can't think of a single president in modern history who could be considered particularly "skillful" anyway upon considering their legacies.

>>2416648
>What does Clinton's age have to do with it?

see
>in exchange for going down in history as "the guy who sold out America for a cheap buck".
>Only an idiot, or a young man who sees the presidency as a stepping stone to greater power would do that.

Trump is 70 years old, the oldest man to become president in US history, his next big step in life is the grave. As compared to Clinton who could reasonably consider the presidency as just another step in the road upon becoming elected at 46 years of age. Clinton could realistically believe he would be able to spend the money he gets from selling out America, Trump on the other hand could realistically die of natural causes before he even finishes his first term.

>>2416266
>I think I speak on behalf of Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire when I say that we don't want anything to do with Massachusetts or NYC.

You only say that because you know Massachusetts is the leader of the New England States and your economies are too tied to MA to have an independent policy.

Stay buttblasted, but you know it.

>>2416697
These groups may change and move over time, but right now, they're pretty much on the sides listed. Even though social issues get lumped with economic ones due to the two party nature, there's a lot of people who could go either way on issues because neither side represents a complete picture of what they want unlike the smaller parties in European politics.

With the sides as they are, in the event of war, the Republican side of things once again winds up with the lion's share of the military and military assets, large swathes of sparsely populated land, and the biggest bankroll of either side due to the wealthies' interests mainly lying there. The Democratic side would wind up in control of the cities, of more industrialized areas, the majority of goods production, and many of the major ports. Also of note is that many of these cities function as the center of government for regions within the US, which would help to maintain order, or in this case, a sense of normalcy throughout their regions. The Republican side would have to recreate these institutions out of whole cloth or revert to military law.

The amount of military standing on both sides would be greatly affected by the circumstance of the outbreak of conflict. By default, we assume soldiers will follow commands and maintain order, meaning that in small, isolated events, even conservative soldiers will attempt to put down rebellion in territories until they reach critical mass, assuming a populist rebellion among the conservative citizenry. If the rebellion starts in the military itself at higher eschalons of command, a large portion of the military structure will remain in hands of the conservatives, which will greatly reduce the liberals chance of victory by denying them the most effective tools of waging war: soldiers and military structure.

>>2416775
Due to the military's tendency to want to maintain order, there are no avenues available for the left to instigate the civil war. In the same way soldiers tend to value order over personal politics (To some degree at least), many would have no problem quelling a liberal rebellion before it got out of hand, using their revolt as a just cause to strike back. What this means in practical terms is that as long as the right continues to win things legalistically, the left has no ability to contest them in a force of arms; rebellion will solely come from members of conservative parties, or it won't come at all.

Assuming, however, that somehow the military's command structure, supplies, and other important aspects somehow manage to split 50-50, America will be thrown into much longer conflict. The Republican aims will be to siege the cities and retake them, cutting off their supply lines and ports and starving the Democrat held territories until surrender. The Democrat side would probably include an offensive campaign to prevent a siege by fighting a conflict outside the general boarders of cities, attempting to press Republican armies away from vital territories and continue their war effort. Keeping the ports in working order to allow for trade for supplies and uninterrupted commerce would be another top priority. Assuming the right cannot recapture cities fast enough, it's very possible that the right would eventually, similar to the first civil war, run out of equipment to actually conduct a proper war. Once this happens, the Republican side will start losing ground quickly, leading to a surrender.

No matter what side gains an advantage, both are going to be subject to guerrilla warfare for much longer; terrorist acts on both sides similar to the current state of the US armies securing towns in the middle east or Britain in Ireland would become common for many years until there is no more hope of concessions for that side.

>>2416714
>to run for the office of president
I don't think anyone was talking about the skill to get to the office, but rather the skills that impact your decisions when you're already IN office.

Do you genuinely believe that it wouldn't make a difference to someone's decision making and outcomes whether that someone is capable or not capable of, for example, noticing when one's positions are logically inconsistent, or whether one's capable of hiring the right people, or whether one's capable of dealing with the bureaucratic apparatus in such a way that it actually does what one wants it to do?

>>2416695
>Can't really find a good word that quite describes the entire group very well
Communist fifth column.

>>2416786
Aside from not being a part of the corrupt Washington establishment machine aka. "capable of dealing with the bureaucratic apparatus", I don't see how any other politician that has run for president in recent memory has given any indicator being more " logically consistent " or prone to hiring "competent people" than Trump does. Certainly not when considering the current state of the country or international relations.

It was the "experts" after all who created this environment in which a man like Trump could successfully become president, perhaps it's time we reconsidered just what exactly qualifies someone as being an "expert" in the first place.

I don't see a civil war happening while Trump is President. If it happens, it will be after he leaves office.

I do, however, see the Blue states be less willing to give the feds money that many of the red states need to stay afloat.

Asides from a few Red states like Texas, many more of the blue states pay more to the Feds than what they get back, while many of the red states take more than they give. New York and Cali can be all like 'Louisiana can pay for its own roads'.

Maine would be forced to become closer to MA to pay for its own maintenance, or just accept greater levels of poverty. That Canadian border and forests can get expensive.

I don't see a realistic chance of civil war within the next four to eight years, but I do see a potential for fast and dramatic ramp-ups in parallelism and paramilitarism, particularly as the liberals and left loosen their anuses over gun rights.

We see this already in the ANTIFA movements, (whatever you may think of their members or methods) armed opposition-by-presence to conservative and far-right elements, including conservative elements of law enforcement. It is at the moment fairly defanged and directionless, but that could change easily and quickly into a far more coordinated, ideologically defined method. We could even see alignment between these groups and conservatives now oppositional to mainstream Republican support for Trump (think the naturalist and fundamentalist segments of the conservative/right voterbase, people who are already voicing opposition and discontent) as it becomes more and more clear what the administration's goals are. This general distrust in public institutions' ability to protect the peace could, especially combined with deregulation and expanded corporate influences, spiral into a general distrust of *all* public institutions, on a scale that we haven't seen since the civil rights era.

I'd fear an inter-party civil war a-la McCain and Graham vs Trump and Rand Paul before I'd worry about some pansy ass leftists. Deep State cronyism vs the Trump administration could have global ramifications.

>>2416820
It's times like these where the flux of change and breakdown of order allows our society to once again become malleable. These are the times when men can forge their own ideas on what path the nation should take and rally others to their cause.

Some see these times of unrest as an unraveling of a nation, but I'd rather see it as a renewal. A chance to become something better than what we once were.

>>2416693
>undocumented workers
>rely on the state services endorsed by the democratic party to the extent they simply cannot exist otherwise without them.
They dont use welfare for themselves their american children do.

nice to see retards looking forward to a live version of the turner diaries

>>2415733
Any Californian Anons wanna weigh in on weather or not the sheer ass-pain and autistic screeching in the Sunshine state is enough to make secession a possibility?

>>2417034
California (and pretty much every state for that matter) has far more to gain by staying in the union and deeply protesting/state-level countering actions they find unsuitable than seceding.

>>2417034
As a Texan, I sure hope not. It would make us feel entirely inadequate if someone else were to leave the union first.

>>2417039
This is true for just about every union of states, not just the US. Everyone gains more working together than attempting to compete for the most part. We'd have to really, really hate each other to split apart, because at the end of the day, we still enjoy each other more than the rest of the world.

>>2415771
>I'm just pointing out that we are technically at a point of regional divide that we haven't seen since the American Civil War.
The East Coast won't support the west coast in this instance, New Englanders and New Yorkers don't actually care enough to leave or even support Cali should they leave the union

>>2416325
>White working class was just as poor and ignorant as Black slaves and usually lived in worse conditions then Black slaves.

You're either insane or down right retarded.

>>2416419
He wouldn't need to. Californian secession is a huge meme and non-possibility solely because every one of the state's industrial/financial centers is ludicrously militarized. There are three military bases within twenty miles of my house *alone*, and I live at the fringes.

>>2416820
>"capable of dealing with the bureaucratic apparatus"
There doesn't need to be corruption involved at all for someone who is knowledgeable about the intricacies of public institutions to have an advantage in actualizing one's goals to someone who isn't. Even in a fully functioning bureaucracy full of only the most virtuous people in the country that are 100% loyal to the principal, which is never the case, a dumb president that doesn't know how public bureaucracy works and can work won't see his goals actualized as efficiently - if at all - compared to one who isn't.

Do you genuinely believe that being able or not even being able to solve a game theoretical problem like finding a pareto optimum in a national security crisis would have zero impact on outcomes?

>>2417051
>You're either insane or down right retarded.

I don't know, who had it worse, agrarian black slaves or the poor sons of bitches in mines and factories in England/wales?

Hard to tell who actually had it worse.

>>2416420
>the only thing he's interested in making great is his bank account
Literally unless the man is literally embezzling money from the government, odds are what's good for the Trump brand business will be largely good for the American public. His business model exists on the basis of licensing over priced merch and hotels to middle class people who want to feel as if their gaudy high class nuevo rich. Those types of people need money.

>>2417068
downright retarded it is

>>2417069
>odds are what's good for the Trump brand business will be largely good for the American public

this is how people actually think

>>2416786
>, noticing when one's positions are logically inconsistent,
Logical inconsistency is meaningless in the realm of politics. Policies are decided first by feeling then by rationalization later. If you critically anylized the positions of the major parties there is no rational framework behind them. Merely a set of random planks gathered and assorted together to obtain votes.

As for hiring people, any successful business man of any kind, will have that skill. It isn't magic to know when the person you hired is shit and needs to be fired. If anything he has more experience in this field than some two-bit partner in a law firm who decided politics was an easy path to money and power.

And for the bureaucracy, as President, you are the head of the bureaucracy. You can reorganize it, however, the fuck you please so that operates the way you want it too. The president isn't some glorified manager.

>>2417068
An Irish factory worker can leave everything behind and go jerk off in the rockies, black slaves can't without having one eye looking out for slave catchers. There's a difference between coercion and outright oppression.

>>2417063
>Do you genuinely believe that being able or not even being able to solve a game theoretical problem like finding a pareto optimum in a national security crisis would have zero impact on outcomes?

Something which almost none of our previous President's have ever done. America is not some sort technocracy where High level academic degrees confer power.

>>2417080
>this is how people actually think
>Everything is zero sum

>>2415735

Thing is... If the Federal Government crushes a California secession when the Californians voted overwhelming to leave, then the rest of world would consider the United States a dictatorship. Not sure how that would turn out if the US got embargo'd. China and Russia wouldn't care other than making themselves look good, but Europe and the rest of the Americas would throw a shit fit.

>>2417091
Where did he imply that it was zero sum?

>>2417094
China would collapse in about 10 fucking days if they stopped selling cheap products to the US

>>2417091
>strawman

>>2417094
Nah, that's bullshit. Crimeans OVERWHELMINGLY voted to join Russia yet the USA and entire Europe threw a bitchfit about it. Nobody actually gives a flying fuck about democracy, countries only care about their allies and their masters and their interests.

>>2417101

Your a fucking autist. If tens a million of Chinese can starve and not bother to even protest in the streets, what makes you think them being unemployed will make them overthrow the Chinese government.

>>2417081
>Logical inconsistency is meaningless in the realm of politics. Policies are decided first by feeling then by rationalization later. If you critically anylized the positions of the major parties there is no rational framework behind them. Merely a set of random planks gathered and assorted together to obtain votes.
And yet, if you want to have success, rather than just appearing to be successful, it'd serve you to know when policies you pursue are literally impossible to reconcile.

>It isn't magic to know when the person you hired is shit and needs to be fired.
It literally is magic to _know_ that a person needs to be fired, if you aren't capable of analyzing the parameters that decide whether that person needs to be fired. So, skills like being able to read statistics about the success or failure of that person and knowing whom to trust lead to a comparative advantage.

>nd for the bureaucracy, as President, you are the head of the bureaucracy. You can reorganize it, however, the fuck you please so that operates the way you want it too. The president isn't some glorified manager.
The president is a glorified manager. Being able to restructure the whole apparatus however you want, which he actually can't because of constraints on time, money and the personnel pool, doesn't clear bureaucracy of fundamental problems such as the asymmetric information between the president and his agents.

>>2417110
They weren't starving when the kids were willing to get run over by Deng "Chinese Characteristics" Xiaoping, not to mention Hong Kong are westaboo

>>2417109

Last I checked most US allies were wary of us.

>>2417118
Last time I checked countries aren't going to ditch NATO membership and vital economic connections over some horseshit like California. Not to mention that unilateral secession is ILLEGAL as per Texas v. White so the US would only be enforcing its constitutional law.

>>2417042

I'm sure there's a plan to fast-track that legislation if it looks likely that CA is able to follow through.

>>2417089
You are saying it yourself: Almost none.

Keyword: Almost, which is already enough to disprove his claim that skills don't matter.

>>2417109

Those elections are plagued with pervasive questions about their legitimacy, voter fraud, intimidation and outright fudging to get the desired result. I personally think cultural repatriation is a fine goal, but we don't have all the info here, even if Ukraine joining NATO is bad for everyone except Ukraine.

>>2417138
>pervasive questions about their legitimacy, voter fraud, intimidation and outright fudging to get the desired result
In other words, the US establishment didn't like the results, so it's not legitimate.

>>2417068
No, it's not. In the plantations around New Orleans almost all slaves died by the time they turned 20, they worked in Malaria infested swamps with live crocodiles in them, if someone died work continued, and only stopped for public executions/whippings,etc. One of the worst punishments was for trying to escape and a slave would the tendons in your legs slashed so you could never run again and every step you would take for the rest of your life would be pure agony, and they still expected you to work after that. What the Bongs went through doesn't even compare.

>>2417151
>live crocodiles
You mean alligators? Crocodiles never lived in New Orleans.

File: American-alligators-in-Everglades-National-Park-as-seen-from-Anhinga-Trail.jpg (380KB, 990x743px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 990x743px

>>2417180
What's the difference even.

>>2417250
>being a fucking retard

>>2417034
The secession "movement" is stupid and no one in my (lefty) political circles actually takes it seriously.

We still loathe Trump, but most of us would rather stay and fight for our country.

File: 1472411174539.jpg (41KB, 490x600px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 490x600px

>>2417254
It's a water lizard Anon, but tell us your knowledge.

>>2417298
Not him, but crocs are salt water dwellers and alligators freshwater. There's also structural differences between crocs and gators' jaws and bones, and if memory serves, crocs tend to be much bigger than gators.

Not that the original post isn't correct in meaning (There's dangerous shit in the swamp that can kill and eat a man), but it's important to know the difference between the two. It'd be like calling an SUV a pickup truck.

>>2417331
>crocs are salt water dwellers

They can be they're not exclusively salt water, not even the salt water crocodile.

>>2417298
Gators have U snout, crocodiles have V snout. Also crocs are much bigger on average.

File: child labor.jpg (89KB, 907x597px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 907x597px

>>2417051
>>2417079
>>2417082

Don't get me wrong, I'll take being free over slavery any day but the fact is that White factory workers were on par with Black slaves, the only exception was that Whites could quit their job (and starve...)

But the Northern industrialists who employed them had absolutely no requirement or compulsion to care for their workers in any way beyond a shitty paycheck for grueling and monotonous labor; get your arm ripped off by ridiculously unsafe machinery? You're fired and replaced by a new worker (and starve...)

As the Industrial Revolution rolled along and craftsmen became interchangeable robotic workers, they became completely disposable, whereas Black slaves were an investment and had a relationship with their owners.

For instance, Blacks slaves could actually retire when they got old live out their lives on the plantation while old White workers just got kicked to the curb (and starved...)

>>2417151
>In the plantations around New Orleans almost all slaves died by the time they turned 20

Sure is militant Black historical revisionist in here.

>>2417477
>reddit spacing

File: old-people-using-computer.jpg (56KB, 500x429px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x429px

>>2417495

Son, I was posting to Usenet 20 years ago when you were still in diapers and nobody had heard the terms Reddit or "social media".

That's in fact the proper way to make a post.

>>2417528

Its also the proper way to email your boss, but I don't think the people who keep going "REEE REDDIT SPACING" have jobs.

>>2417528
Not him, but posts technically have no rules. Some people, however, want to follow literary guidelines in paragraph structure, in which one does not write four separate paragraphs for four sentences. The idea is that each paragraph annunciation a specific topic, and when the topic changes or moves in to another "phase," another paragraph begins.

I'm assuming people call it "reddit spacing" because reddit users probably most often lack that basic structure with their posts.

File: 1affd6e368e9044d0703591bdcc59a7e9921579c012a7ca43c25360417e4f4d6.jpg (46KB, 480x266px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 480x266px

>>2416537
>it is another right winger pretends that liberals want a revolution so that they can get even madder at them
This is stupid on so many levels. No states threatened to secede if Trump was elected and California isn't taking secession seriously

>>2417550

Look. I read 4chan on a goddamn phone. I usually don't read blocks of text unless they break it up with line spacing.

>>2417477
Nigga you best be a pro labour unionist or a socialist or you are one massive hippocrite

>>2417069
>>2416574
>>2416624
>>2416714
>>2416820
>>2417081
>>2417089
Trump fanbois

>>2417528
>Usenet
>20 years ago
Really nigger? Nobody used usenet past the 80s.

>>2417564
That's usually the other end of the spectrum. Someone writing a 2000 character paragraph isn't acceptable either. It's all about proper spacing to convey ideas such that the reader makes a very brief, nearly unnoticeable pause after a paragraph, reflects on what's written, and moves on to the next. Containing only one sentence in each paragraph isn't great for creating a concise point since it leaves the reader wondering where each line is going.

>>2417574

Humans don't talk in paragraphs.

Also English is an evolutionary language.

We don't use the grammar they used in the 1600's.

File: ChildLabor.jpg (38KB, 418x272px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 418x272px

>>2417566

I am pro-union and White laborers in fact worked and lived in horrible conditions, as bad or worse then Black slaves.

Which is one of the reasons poor White Northerners joined up to fight the Civil War; not because they gave two shits about nigger slaves down South but because their bosses here in the North were openly discussing the “benefits to society” of official and legal enslavement poor White people.

>>2417095
It is implied that if Trump obtains profits it will automatically be bad for the American people. That him gaining will be the public's loss. This seems pretty zero sum to me.

File: old1338915802813.jpg (32KB, 280x185px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 280x185px

>>2417573

I still post to Usenet.

>>2417581
T. Dumb faggot who can't write in a logically consistent and organized manner

File: 1449939343722.jpg (204KB, 1400x1786px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1400x1786px

>>2417568
The concept that Trump could only have come up in an environment that fetishized the policy wonk and liberal capitalism is hardly a fanboy position.

>>2417595
>pro-union
Just we aren't miscommunicating, I mean union as in the organization of workers to collectively fight for their rights and not the north part of USA that fought the confederacy.

I guess you are right about White workers being screwed over, however the rights given to them as citizens meant that they could and did in the future fought for better working conditions (helps when the based Roosevelts JUSTed the capitalists) where slaves or even blacks that got Jim Crowed can't really do.

Again which do you pefer? Being a slightly less shitty position that will never improve or being a slightly more shitty position that can improve if you fight for it? You can guess which i would pick

>>2417271
>fight for our country.
You mean fight for foreigners and act as America's fifth column.

>>2417674
> I mean union as in the organization of workers to collectively fight for their rights

Yes, that’s a labor union and I support them. Where are you going with this?

> Again which do you pefer?

As I said up-thread; I’ll take freedom over slavery but that’s not the point I was making way up here >>2416325 which is that the shitty life of the White working class in the North (as bad or worse then for Blacks) and the threat of it becoming much worse, was a part of why the Civil War happened.

>>2417604

Dumb fucker. I wrote goddamn college course essay papers in college with As and write report papers for work.

If I wanted an educated PHD course level writing, I wouldn't go to 4chan.

How far up mensa do you have to be to post on a fucking anime image web board?

You think too highly of yourself.

Fucking autist.

>>2417081

>The president isn't some glorified manager.

Lol, nigga you what? The presidency and by extension the executive branch in general is LITERALLY just a glorified manager.

The legislature creates the laws, the judicial branch interprets the laws and the executive branch enforces them in the manner they see fit. The notion that any president can cut through the bueracracy is insane, as it's embedded in all three branches.

As the Obama administration showed, Congress and the courts don't have to give a single fuck about what the president wants if they don't feel inclined too.

The delusion from Trumpettes is nauseating.

>>2417782
>Where are you going with this?
Nah senpai i was afraid you didn't catch what i said

I wasn't in full disagreement with you, only wanted to point out that the white Northerners were in better position or at least the potential to be better than Black Southerners even after emancipation. You are right to point that out and I agree with you about the shit conditions in factories. And the fact that you are pro-unions means you aren't indulging in whataboutism to prop up the South as I feared you would.

>>2417131
>Almost, which is already enough to disprove his claim that skills don't matter.

No, but they are irrelevant. This nation has well endured some 200 years of operation with people well under equipped to take on the Presidency and will continue to do so for years to come.

>>2417114
>And yet, if you want to have success, rather than just appearing to be successful, it'd serve you to know when policies you pursue are literally impossible to reconcile.

The appearance of success is the same of success, as success, barring total dissolution of the nation state, is completely subjective in the first place.

Secondly when your policies are completely impossible to reconcile from a practical standpoint, people will tell you they are and why they are in 10 seconds. Half the time they'll be wrong anyway. If your concerned with ideological incompatibles such things are meaningless. Ideology is worthless. What matters are results.

>It literally is magic
If you're a moron who doesn't pay attention. Learning to fire people is a skill like any other, and can be learned easily in the field of management. Which is why I said any reasonably successful business man.

>doesn't clear bureaucracy of fundamental problems such as the asymmetric information between the president and his agents.

Yes it does. Even a complete ignoramus on running large organizations could play find the missing link in the structure and clean up where orders and memos are being misinterpreted.

>>2417842
>The notion that any president can cut through the bueracracy is insane, as it's embedded in all three branches

Literally fire everyone in the bureaucracy and you've restructured it. Just because President's are too fearful to touch the mammoth beast that is bureaucratic state doesn't mean it can't be done. Even Obama several times during his administration rearranged and moved to streamline the government and was successful in doing so.

>>2417786
>I'm just pretending to be retarded!

>>2417863
> white Northerners were in better position

It was wholly academic. Sure, Whites could quit their job but then they'd simply starve to death, as there was no social safety net outside the family and if they tried to strike, the industrialists who owned the government would call in the state militia to crack heads and imprison strikers as "anarchists".

> or at least the potential to be better than Black Southerners even after emancipation.

Oh indeed, the conditions for Blacks post-Civil War got a _lot_ worse, as now they were in the same economic boat as poor Whites (no plantation support system to keep them alive) but were still at the bottom of the social ladder.

File: Trump Giving Gettysburg Address.jpg (606KB, 1200x917px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 1200x917px

>>2415733

In the army of Trump's Union,
we are marching in the van,
And will do the work before us,

if the bravest shitposters can;
We will drive the Social Justice Warriors
from their Safe Spaces to the sea,
And will live and die together
in the Army of the Free!

Army of the Free!
The Army of the Free!
We will live and die together
in the Army of the Free!

We may rust beneath inaction,
We may sink beneath degenerates,
The Bernie shills may scorch us,
Or Hillary's witch teet may freeze
But whatever may befall us, we will let the Merchants see,
That unconquered, we will still remain the Army of the Free!

SING ALONG WITH ME /HIS/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShW3TPR5zqY

>>2417923
>The appearance of success is the same of success, as success, barring total dissolution of the nation state, is completely subjective in the first place.
Reaching one's goals is success. If I want to be cured of cancer, I wouldn't be content to appear to have been cured of cancer and then die a week later.

>Secondly when your policies are completely impossible to reconcile from a practical standpoint, people will tell you they are and why they are in 10 seconds.
That may be true for the most obvious things, but the devil lies in the details, and understanding the details requires skills.

>Learning to fire people is a skill like any other,
A skill that can be learned, but needs to be learned, which results in varying degrees of success. Anyone can say that someone needs to be replaced. Knowing when that is actually the case requires more.

>Yes it does. Even a complete ignoramus on running large organizations could play find the missing link in the structure and clean up where orders and memos are being misinterpreted.
That is extremely wrong on both levels: Not everyone will be able to find out where in the organization everything really goes wrong, and knowing how to fix it, especially fixing it well, is also not something everyone can do.

File: 151st Pennsylvannia retreat Dale Gallon.jpg (427KB, 1400x831px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1400x831px

>>2417034

Californian here,

It's not gonna happen. It's a bunch of Silicon Valley-type circle jerking to each other. They talk of voting for secession but never of fighting for it. Unlike like-minded types in the South or in the Mid-West who are driven in part by a desire to avenge the 1st Civil War are unified by a belief in traditionalism, Christianity, and to a lesser extent (compared to previous generations), race. California's secessionists are not (yet) radicalized to the point where they would be willing to take up arms against the United States en masse. This is because the movement is relatively new, is not motivated by a historical precedent and revenge, and the state of California lacks the sort of a truly unified culture.

They seem to have disregarded the fact that President Trump (or any US President in the past 150 years for that matter) would never tolerate secession if it appeared to be a credible possibility. He would denounce it as an insurrection, declare a state of emergency, federalize the National Guard (taking them out of the hands of the California legislature), and possibly mobilize the national Army to crush armed opposition.

>>2417081
>And for the bureaucracy, as President, you are the head of the bureaucracy. You can reorganize it, however, the fuck you please so that operates the way you want it too.
No, the president literally cannot do that. The American bureaucracy is far more deeply entrenched than you realize.

>>2415733
>>>/pol/ take your bullshit fantasies where they belong.

>>2415733
>California is going out and making radical moves, like South Carolina did.
We've been grousing about that for years and years, just as Texas has.

>>2417101
China's largest market is China.

>>2416456
>>a bunch of people who are hurt by mere words
I was prepared to give Trump the benefit of the doubt until his nominations made it plain that he intends to gut the EPA, the FDA, public schools, net neutrality, and anything resembling banking regulation
>hangs picture of Jackson in office
>colludes with Jackson's most hated enemy

>>2416777
>>2416775
>>2416693
>>2416695
>>2416697
That's a lot of effort for an unread series of posts.

File: Flag_of_Key_West,_Florida.png (49KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x300px

Already happened in 1982.

>>2415733
>spoiled, unarmed weak "men" and ugly feminists from indoctrination universities and the globalists vs the military, the current presidency and the gun owners

wonder who would win

File: image_20.jpg (50KB, 699x679px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 699x679px

>>2416589

>>2419254
more like 8 months lol

>>2415733
>muh cibil war

>California declares independence from the US
>1 hour after that, special forces storm all government buildings in Sacramento
>everybody involved is either sentenced to death or send to life in Gitmo for treason
>hispanics and the left riot for several day (a la 1992), getting consequently swept away by the NG
>people bitch on twitter and literally nothing happens, 200-300 people die at max and Dow Jones drops some 1k-2k points
Whoa, it's literally nothing

>>2419182
>the richest parts of the nation vs. utterly crippled and deeply poor rural and suburban areas
wonder who would win

>>2417142

I get the temptation to boil everything down to that, but it's overly simplistic and indicative of you just applying your worldview to everything more than using the actual information we have available.

>>2417758

Globalism isn't going away without taking all your toys buddy.

>>2419254

Here's your (You)

>>2419280
hehe

>>2419441
>cities synthesize food, water and electricity from thin air
All it takes is for Cletus to occupy/destroy your power station and stop the 18-wheelers and your city becomes Leningrad-tier in 2 weeks.

>>2417059
Couldn't you say the same thing about South Carolina? Even when they seceded in 1860 with 6 other states, VA/TN/AR/NC all laughed them off. South Carolina passed its first secession ordinance in 1852.

The federal government had Fort Sumter in South Carolina and I'm sure there were a wide variety of other military installations in the Confederacy that were lost with secession. The Citadel, for instance. I mean for fucks sake, you lose Virginia you lose a huge part of the military establishment of the United States at that time.

>>2416589
It's not just a polarized political system. If you read what Martin Van Buren wrote about political parties, he argued that a party divide is good for the nation, even if things are divided and nothing gets done. What counts is the geographical distribution of the parties. If the parties have national appeal, then there won't be a threat to the integrity of the Union, but when parties become solely regional, as we can see with Republicans taking flyover states and the Democrats taking urban areas, then you start risking a situation where both only appeal to their constituents since they can win elections with that.

>>2419711
>rural areas synthesize food, water, and electricity from thin air
All it takes is for Johnny the mercenary to drop a couple bombs and your small town becomes Africa-tier in 2 weeks.

>>2419757
>rural areas don't produce the food, water and electricity for the +10k/km^2 densly packed energy guzzling coastal monstrosities
Lmao, yuppie fuck. How do you get food after 2 weeks? Answer me just this, if not anything else.

>Johnny the mercenary
Who'd you hire, cityshit? With what? In an event of a full scale civil war, the dollar would collapse overnight and suddenly that 150k$ GDP per capita of Manhattan would deflate to (deserved) eastern europe-levels, since your economy is 95% services, which are mostly useless in a war effort.
Also, a good chunk of the armed forces personell are rural conservatives, who will absolutely switch sides against citysubhumans. It would be funny to see how the NYPD and "urban youth" militias would fare against 155mm artillery and carpet bombing. Jonny the mercenary in his rusty PC-7 bombtruck would get btfo by Avengers and Patriots exactly 10 minutes in.

>>2419926
>rural areas don't produce the food, water and electricity for the +10k/km^2 densly packed energy guzzling coastal monstrosities
They don't. What, you think you "produce" rivers and reservoirs and snowmelt and rain? Good joke. Sure you farm and ranch, so you're self-sufficient foodwise, but you're certainly not economically self-sufficient. You think you're going to pay for your military in cows? Electricity as well isn't a rural monopoly, so I have no idea where you're getting that from.
>suddenly that 150k$ GDP per capita of Manhattan would deflate to (deserved) eastern europe-levels, since your economy is 95% services, which are mostly useless in a war effort.
Oh boy, you actually think the big cities only exist for the sake of a service economy?
You seem to be making some terrible mistakes here, too. You think San Francisco or New York City would secede completely alone? No, New York would take most of the East Coast with them, all the way down to D.C., because its all one big megacity. San Francisco would take the rest of California, with all the resources that come with that. Hell, if liberal Colorado of all places decided to secede, suddenly several states would find themselves completely unable to provide the water necessary for farming and ranching, so good luck there.
And all three of those areas have something your desperately poor, conservative southern and midwestern states dont have: Money and industry. Good luck fueling and funding those Avengers and Patriots.

>>2419978
>You think you're going to pay for your military in cows?
>funding those Avengers and Patriots
>not economically self-sufficient
In a state of total (civil) war, flat currency doesn't matter. Do you think someone would take your hyperinflated dollars, backed by nothing (when the reserve currency status gets revoked)?

>Oh boy, you actually think the big cities only exist for the sake of a service economy?
Considering that ~80% the country's GDP comes from the service sector already (~90 in the urban spraw), This sector would 100% collapse with the collapse of the dollar. Also you have NO FUCKING FOOD. The materials for producing energy come from the interior (coal, uranium and gas). Also, do you think water comes from rivers magically. A single bombing run on the main city water plant would leave damages that would take years to repair and you're done for good. Same goes for electricity, heat and gas. A several strikes on the power substations and you're without electricity for months. This cannot be done against the rural areas since they're heavily decentralized, unlike the BosWash. The west coast suffers crippling droughts even without having its water infrastructure systematically destroyed.

>San Francisco would take the rest of California
Yeah, no.

>Money
>flat currency is money
Ayy

>industry (when 90% the urban economy comes from services)
>starbucks is industry
Lmao

>>2419978
>Appendix
http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/nycdata/employment/gdp-select.htm
Only 12% of the GDP comes from industry in NY-NJ-PA

>>2417483
This a fact provided by the death records you cunt

>>2419978

Dude, I don't have a dog in the race since I'm not american but cities don't survive without rural support. The opposite isn't true.

Rural areas with no city support = you still eat, you're unlikely to get robbed/killed, sanitation doesn't degrade
Urban areas without rural support = famine, crime, epidemics

>>2420067
We get it, Cletus. You've been left behind by the political structures of this country and are very insecure about it. But no matter how desperate you are to prove any sort of relevance for rural areas, they simply just aren't meaningful in any way except for agriculture, and even that won't last much longer with vertical farming and aquaculture.

File: Clinton archipelago.png (412KB, 1600x952px)

412KB, 1600x952px

>>2420793
> left behind by the political structures

Did you miss the latest election? It was the American people who rejected the existing political structures.

> vertical farming and aquaculture.

Hippy-dippy pipe dreams, you ain’t feeding 8+ million people in NYC that way.

File: 1481830823892.jpg (59KB, 522x583px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 522x583px

>>2420793
>vertical farming and aquaculture

Thw way I see it, its far more likely for states to start rivalries with each other and weakening the feds more than actual war.

Say, like downgrading the National guard and building up the state guards.

>>2421067

Trump lost the popular vote

File: 300px-William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg (17KB, 300x381px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x381px

>>2419711

We've already seen what happens when rural hillbillies try to square up against urban overlords.

>>2421638
>Californian illegals didn't vote Trump
Big whoop

>>2421817
>californian illegals vote
I'm going to borrow your terminology and tell you to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

File: we are the resistance.jpg (191KB, 1158x648px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1158x648px

>>2421655
>urban overlords

>>2421638
I know 3 million sounds like a lot of people to you, but out of a voting age population of well over 2 HUNDRED million, it's a neglible lead.

File: ms13.jpg (251KB, 1275x850px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1275x850px

>>2421942
That's not the resistance, this is the resistance, and it's more than ready to handle any bullshit rural "militia" that wants to fuck with the cities

>>2421952
It's still enough to make someone lose a popular vote.

>>2421967
>Libfags are so desperate for help that they think a handful of skinny fat Mexican gangbangers will save them
lol

>>2421974
Which is why no one other than the loser thinks the popular vote matters.

>>2421976
You clearly have no idea what atrocities MS-13 are capable of and have done, they don't put up with bullshit in their own ranks, let alone from you

>>2421983
Read the reply chain. "It was the American people who rejected existing political structures."
It was, in fact, about 1/5 of the American people, and not even half of those who did bother to vote. The American political structure, in essence, abandoned the closest metric of "the American people" we have access to.

>>2421985
>this coastal liberal masturbates to the thought of these niggers savagery

>he dreams of the day they fight the mean old conservatives for him

>>2421985
>atrocities
They didn't help the Nazis win and they had an actual army, why should I be intimidated by a handful of spic thugs whose criminal organization can only function on our society because our judicial system prohibits arresting and executing people with "I'm in a gang" tattoos on sight?

This is why /pol/ calls you cucks by the way, you consider people who will rape your family members at gun-point to be legitimate prospective allies.

>>2422002
>It was, in fact, about 1/5 of the American people, and not even half of those who did bother to vote.
>The majority of Americans didn't even bother to vote and almost half of the ones that did rejected the establishment
So in other words the majority of Americans rejected the existing political structure, or are you claiming people who don't vote are somehow embracing the current political structure of America?

>>2422017
I'm not a champagne socialist, when the revolution comes I'll be in the shit just like you

>>2421916
Oh yes rhey do.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/01/experts-california-voter-registration-system-highly-susceptible-to-fraud.html

>>2422034
>socialist
>counting on the lumpenproletariat to come through for him in his hour of need
lol

>>2422018
>you consider people who will rape your family members at gun-point to be legitimate prospective allies.
That's why I don't buy drugs or borrow money from them

>>2422028
I didn't vote either. I couldn't bring myself to vote for either of them. I knew too much about Hillary and Trump before they ran for nomination.

File: 1487059196065.jpg (24KB, 384x395px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 384x395px

>>2422035

>Faux News
>valid source

>>2422041
Better dead than a frogposter

>>2422046
>Faux News
Is this Gaia Online?

>>2422043
No, you just think they'll be willing to fight and die for you.
For free.

>>2422046
>no argument

>>2422046
Back to riddit

File: MC5.jpg (11KB, 220x296px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 220x296px

>>2421985
>You clearly have no idea what atrocities MS-13 are capable of and have done

And you gringo Lefties would be the first to go up against the wall.

The fucking Mexicans wouldn't save you in a civil war, they'd purge you and take over themselves.

The days of Leftist being a threat to anybody are long past.

File: pepe poster.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>2422047
I actually don't have many frog meme pictures amazingly enough.

>>2422051
considering their entire existence in this country depends on that war if it were to come, I bet at least a few of them would

File: 1488011988844.jpg (42KB, 510x525px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 510x525px

>>2422034

>>2422061
Oh I'm sure they'd fight for themselves.
I'm just not sure where you think you fit into that.

>>2416695
I imagine the military breaks down approximately along racial lines.

>>2416697
There are some industries (tech for instance) that would side with the "left".

File: laughing-chinese-man-_xk3s.jpg (20KB, 407x428px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 407x428px

Well, Right wing Left wing... Whoever wins the Chinese come out on top.

>>2420793
>We get it, Cletus. You've been left behind by the political structures of this country and are very insecure about it.
Why shouldn't they be upset about it? If I lived there, I'd be pretty upset about it too. Why are you so eager to pathologize that frustration?

>>2419978
NYC is especially vulnerable. I would bet the military could isolate and break any resistance there pretty quickly.

File: 1474500513125.jpg (281KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1280x960px

>>2422207

Hasn't anyone considered destroying the cities on East and West coast would destroy the economic power of the United States. Even if the Government put down a rebellion, wouldn't the US turn into a shit hole Chinese colony because it had to barrow all this money for the military occupation and now has no economic output?

>>2422219
I don't think it would be be necessary to destroy them entirely. A few surgical strikes would probably turn the population against the revolutionary leaders, especially if they've been isolated long enough. There's also the chance that gangs manage to take power from the revolutionaries, and I don't know what would happen then. There's probably plenty of rural people who resent that city enough to gladly help too.

Also, if it got to the point where it's that desperate, I'm not sure if anyone would really care about the greater economy.

>>2422272

What if the Chinese start backing a side and supply them with TOWS and Stingers?

>>2422295
That's where it could get interesting. I argued my point poorly by making it seem like any urban revolution would be quickly shut down. I was just trying to play devil's advocate with someone who asserted the opposite.

My view is that a civil war/revolution in this country would long and result in the deaths of millions of innocents, and no matter which side (as neither is certain to do so) wins, this country wouldn't be worth living in afterwards.

File: Jeep-1284482043730.jpg (150KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1024x683px

>>2422354
>My view is that a civil war/revolution in this country would long and result in the deaths of millions of innocents

I’d say you’re half right; plenty would die but it would be over pretty quick, as the Left abandoned the working class in the 1970s and ivory tower academics and Hollywood celebrities don’t fight revolutions.

The American Left wasn’t much of a threat in the 1960s when they were actually blowing up stuff and killing cops, today’s Left are a bunch of pussies who would get purged in a fortnight.

If you're feeling lucky, identify yourself with the NSF. It'll suck away your bioelectrical energy.

>>2422219
If you went and actually destroyed a lot of US industry in these cities, it'd be some time for it to reestablish itself, sure, but the command structure is still there, and I'm pretty certain no one would call the US on their loans anyway. We'd just barrow more and reinforce our debt even further.

The reason behind this is that other countries are reliant on us throwing money at them to continue growing and functioning, and none of them really have the capability to do anything direct about it either. China, for example, cannot project enough military strength outside of their sphere to rival the US military, as it's very likely our seaborne and foreign assets will continue functioning like normal during rebellion, we're not going to simply recall everything to join the fight since that is going to do us more harm than good. So a Chinese invasion force still has to get through an at least partially functional version of the strongest navy in the world to bring about any credible threat. It's possible they can smuggle through support for local forces with small arms which will certainly be helpful in terms of dragging out the length of the war, but the writing is pretty much on the wall that one side will gain dominance and bleed out the other until surrender comes.

It's most likely that other countries will simply support the winning side in the revolution or none at all, and simply attempt to take advantage of the situation to negotiate more favorable positions when America puts itself back together again. China would be more apt to use the situation to run up our debt further, Europe would use it as a chance to up their bargaining strength at the UN and NATO, maybe try and get the US to play ball with them on more even terms politically.

>>2422400
When you consider that the "left" encompasses nearly all racial minorities, it's a different story. There's also millions of people in cities capable of fighting. Both sides think this is going to be an easy victory, and they're both horribly wrong.

>>2417573
>>2417602
I used Usenet until I became aware of 4chan in the mid 00s and continued to use it until 4chan had specialised boards for everything I like to talk about. Was there anywhere else to use for discussion in the late 90s/early 00s?

>>2422497
>There's also millions of people in cities capable of fighting
They only think they are.
Without foreign advisors to train them, and a constant supply of foreign arms, they're just targets.

>>2422497
Cities are difficult to quantify. I'm certainly not in the camp that they're easy targets; anyone who wants to fight can pick up a gun and start taking shots at another target, and US urban centers would have plenty of enthusiastic participants. That said, those participants might be fighting a defensive war if they're not seeking out the enemy first, and that means there's going to be a lot of collateral damage as they resist.

In the worst case, the fight becomes semi-conventional, and invading armies decide to shell buildings harboring enemy combatants, march non-combatants into interment camps to prevent civilian casualties and weed out the dangerous individuals, and utterly decimate any structure that might be an obstacle to them. Cities deteriorate into smoldering craters incapable of supporting the population that was once there, the invaders are painted as monsters for catching civilians in the crossfire, but are ultimately victorious.

On the other hand, the cities instead might become a hotbed of insurgency, in the sense that terrorist attacks against occupying forces become commonplace, and no one's able to make heads or tails over who's an enemy and who's not. This would probably take years to resolve, and while the occupying force might be victorious in the end, the strain inflicted on them to bring about it would be tremendous, and probably drive them to commit isolated acts of brutality against anyone they suspect of being an enemy.