279
Newsmax Airs Alarming Discussion of Civil War With Federal Government
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
279 points (97.6% liked)
politics
18883 readers
4247 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Fuck around & find out, Texas.
And once again, it's a racist piece of shit that is stirring up trouble.
Lincoln should have hanged every single Confederate officer & politician.
Their obvious goal now is to desensitize R's to the idea of another civil war. Most R's likely wouldn't be on board with that atm but, after months/years of propaganda, they could be programmed to believe it's the only way — the same way 99% of them (including the "never" trumpers) have fallen in line, bent the knee, and supported the team no matter what.
I disagree. The people funding the party would lose too much money if there were a civil war. Well, not the military industrial complex, but they're not the only ones with their fingers in the pie. No one is buying the latest doodad if they're fighting for their life.
They need to be mad enough to keep them rage watching, but not mad enough to try shooting their neighbors all at once.
I think this is a good point. Stirring up the base to the idea of a civil war is very profitable to religion leaders. Actually conducting said war is not.
Hard disagree.
Arms manufacturers would be high level targets in any version of a civil war, not just by any sect of us, but foreign subversive agents would be keen to initiate as well. The MI complex has just about everything to lose.
And 6our other point, the rich have too much to lose, again HARD HARD Disagree. Fascism is rising...who do you think is paying for it?
Once you have more money than you can ever spend the only thing left to buy is power. They've captured almost every means of production. They control a disproportionate amount of our foreign policy. Apple activity threatens economic warfare whenever any talk of regulation comes up. WHY ELSE would a company hold onto a TRILLION dollars? (To threaten security of a currency, that's why). The Billionaires are a national security threat. And they almost have the final nail, total, complete information control. They're trying to regulate the internet, with their multiple "think of the children" campaigns. Their wet dream is us having to scan our license to log in, then everything we do is tracked, every question asked, every dissent in a forum met moments later with a real life knock on the door. Thought police.
Monopolies are the logical conclusion of capitalism. Once wealth is attained, all effort is spent securing that wealth. They'll sacrifice any and all of us. They chair multinational companies, it's naive to think they have any kind of national patriotism (unless it's them that's in charge). They're a tumor to our species.
Rome survived for almost 2000 years and they had 5 benevolent dictators. That's one every 400 years. We don't have time to spare like that. I don't think authoritarianism is the answer, and for those who do, I question your rational capabilities.
I'd like to remind everyone that the protagonists in 1984, fahrenheit, brave new world...they don't live thru the story. And the machines they're raging against keep on keeping on. Our job is to end the hate BEFORE it starts building bases.
Killing people does not kill ideologies.
True, but not every person that holds an ideology is a leader that can or is willing to take up the torch.
For example, if Trump died tomorrow from a stroke, the maga ideology would survive, but there are few in the cult who can be the new Donald Trump; they simply don't have the charisma needed (not that they wouldn't try, of course).
Fundigelicalism and white supremacy would still exist, as they have for a long time, but the glue that's held them together is their deification of Trump. Without him, they lose that cohesion.
Yes but those officers and leaders went on to positions of power that shaped the resultant decades, leading to many inequalities and issues we see today. (not all).
Leading an insurrection and civil war should at minimum bar you from any public or political action from then on.
It would if the 14th amendment was taken as more than a polite suggestion.
He would've but they shot him first and his replacement decided to let them keep power while preventing the former slaves from getting it.