NationStates

The United Lands of Ash wrote:

Holy Tedalonia wrote:I could see it happening in the future, present? Nah, this is merely the build up to the climax if anything.

I highly doubt it will come to anything. Unless the people in power start to crack down on opposition or other warning signs and I mean more than some angry tweets and taking verbal shots at the press.

People here are talking like a civil war is inevitable and the point of no return is way behind us.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I only said there was a chance, and not a very big one at that. Admittedly, I could see Trump trying to crack down if he were desperate, but I don't see it going very well if something like that were to happen.

The United States is bound to last another 300 years

Can't say that Im not excited to see the future where U.S fall into chaos, it will be interesting to live in that period at the very least.

Badassistanian wrote:The United States is bound to last another 300 years

I don't even give it 50 years at best, let alone 300 years.

In 300 years, too much will have changed for the US to still be either stable or an hegemony.

Badassistanian wrote:The United States is bound to last another 300 years

Based on what exactly?

Badassistanian wrote:The United States is bound to last another 300 years

Last? Maybe. Even if its demoted to a lesser number of member-states and a normal country rather than a world power.
Remain as it is? Heh. No way in hell.

The United States as we know it is dying thanks to the internet, the people are once again questioning the legitimacy of the government because of the access to information the internet affords us. That's why collectivism is on the rise, not only because they can now prove to themselves if individualism works, and they participate more in the collective when they can talk anonymously leading them to begin identifying with it. Who would've thought that the greatest creation of Capitalism would be its greatest threat.

You guys are making Alex Jones look sane. These crackpot conspiracy theories about how "America will fall because some edgy teens say that ideology I disagree with is good" are nothing but laughable at best.

The United Lands of Ash wrote:

Holy Tedalonia wrote:I could see it happening in the future, present? Nah, this is merely the build up to the climax if anything.

I highly doubt it will come to anything. Unless the people in power start to crack down on opposition or other warning signs and I mean more than some angry tweets and taking verbal shots at the press.

People here are talking like a civil war is inevitable and the point of no return is way behind us.

Agreed, which is why it would doubly bad if we end up with a “Gaius Marius” in the presidency. What bolsters America is stability and civility. Americans tend to follow the rules, keeping things relatively calm, but it doesn’t make them angels, nor does it make them invulnerable to culture shifts.

Frievolk wrote:

Badassistanian wrote:The United States is bound to last another 300 years

Last? Maybe. Even if its demoted to a lesser number of member-states and a normal country rather than a world power.
Remain as it is? Heh. No way in hell.

Oh the opposite actually, the United States will be more likely to expand if anything... yall act like this nation has never managed to survive countless eras of political instability

Badassistanian wrote:

Frievolk wrote:Last? Maybe. Even if its demoted to a lesser number of member-states and a normal country rather than a world power.
Remain as it is? Heh. No way in hell.

Oh the opposite actually, the United States will be more likely to expand if anything... yall act like this nation has never managed to survive countless eras of political instability

We've essentially been living in one continuous political crisis.

Valrifell wrote:

Badassistanian wrote:Oh the opposite actually, the United States will be more likely to expand if anything... yall act like this nation has never managed to survive countless eras of political instability

We've essentially been living in one continuous political crisis.

America, the nation where we've been bi-polar and hateful for over 200 years, but just now we're gonna cause the nation to collapse into a nation about as powerful as the average European Nation

Hammer Britannia wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
We've essentially been living in one continuous political crisis.

America, the nation where we've been bi-polar and hateful for over 200 years, but just now we're gonna cause the nation to collapse into a nation about as powerful as the average European Nation

I think people mainly think that civil wars these days, are so devasting now, that recovery almost seems impossible. With the devastating capabilities that weapons can do now. Collaspe, probably not, but if a civil war were to break out, it’d certainly would make one lick its wounds for a longer period of time.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Badassistanian wrote:The United States is bound to last another 300 years

I don't even give it 50 years at best, let alone 300 years.

In 300 years, too much will have changed for the US to still be either stable or an hegemony.

Even if American global hegemony collapses, it doesn't mean the US will fall into chaos. If the American military were reduced by 3 quarters, it would still be a country that no other country would ever attempt to invade, because 1) No one invades a country with nukes and 2) America is impossible to occupy, the civilian population is armed to the teeth and every American town would be Fallujah a thousandfold. So American sovereignty is guaranteed for a long, long time.

There could be economic decline, but even an economically weakened America is still powerful. The US will never run out of food, and has more than enough energy resources.

And I doubt that any kind of balkanization is possible, because regional cultural differences aren't that significant. The Soviet Union for example was a collective of very different countries. Estonia, Russia, and Turkmenistan just to name a few all had their own ethnic and cultural identities. America is not this way. There may be political differences between Texas and California, the religious and ethnic demographics are not quite the same, but there is a shared overall American culture and Americans tend to identify more with the entire country than their state or region.

So no, America is not going to collapse in 50 years. And don't mistake my words as inspired by some delusional patriotism, I am not a patriot at all, I say this because I understand geopolitics.

Don't people from South Dakota really hate those bastards from North Dakota - or have I been misinformed?

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:Don't people from South Dakota really hate those bastards from North Dakota - or have I been misinformed?

The American Civil War ended in unity, the Dakotan Civil War never ended.

Ifreann wrote:Because their strength is not just the number of people with guns. The US military has huge amounts of money keeping it supplied with tanks and planes and ships and materiel in general and nuclear weapons. What does the Michigan Militia have? Hundreds of people with guns and...what else? Faux unit badges? Bumper stickers? Free NRA membership? Wow, clearly these hundreds of amateurs will make the difference in a civil war.

I like how you didn't even dispute the fact you made up copious amounts of bullshit.

As to the one point you did respond to, apply objective thinking. Their opponents would be people who literally don't have guns, have no training with the same, no organization and are relatively contained in non-self supporting areas. Militias don't need tanks or nuclear weapons when they are trained in how to use an AR while their opponents don't even have weapons; the history of the United States shows quite well what happens when poorly armed mobs go up against small groups of trained and decently equipped forces.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:Don't people from South Dakota really hate those bastards from North Dakota - or have I been misinformed?

North Dakota is just pissed that South Dakota got Mount Rushmore.

All North Dakota has is tumbleweeds

Oil exporting People wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Because their strength is not just the number of people with guns. The US military has huge amounts of money keeping it supplied with tanks and planes and ships and materiel in general and nuclear weapons. What does the Michigan Militia have? Hundreds of people with guns and...what else? Faux unit badges? Bumper stickers? Free NRA membership? Wow, clearly these hundreds of amateurs will make the difference in a civil war.

I like how you didn't even dispute the fact you made up copious amounts of bullshit.

I just can't be bothered trying to get you to see the obvious when you've decided you don't want to.

As to the one point you did respond to, apply objective thinking. Their opponents would be people who literally don't have guns, have no training with the same, no organization and are relatively contained in non-self supporting areas. Militias don't need tanks or nuclear weapons when they are trained in how to use an AR while their opponents don't even have weapons; the history of the United States shows quite well what happens when poorly armed mobs go up against small groups of trained and decently equipped forces.

In what possible scenario would the belligerents in a civil war just be unarmed civilians on one side and a militia on the other? The militia would be told to fuck off out of the way of the actual military. Or they'd be shot by the actual military, depending on how the local military split.

Ifreann wrote:I just can't be bothered trying to get you to see the obvious when you've decided you don't want to.

For something so evident as you claim, you have a strange inability to produce evidence of such. Do try to embarrass yourself less with blatant cop outs.

In what possible scenario would the belligerents in a civil war just be unarmed civilians on one side and a militia on the other? The militia would be told to fuck off out of the way of the actual military. Or they'd be shot by the actual military, depending on how the local military split.

Again, a cop out; we were discussing militias vs Leftists and you've decided to change the scenario being discussed despite me talking about exactly this in my opening posts. If you're going to pick fights with me for the hell of it, do at least try to be coherent.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:Don't people from South Dakota really hate those bastards from North Dakota - or have I been misinformed?

North Dakota probably hates themselves, but they could always comfort themselves by saying "We're not Mississippi." I think Mississippi is still the worst state by far, with Alabama a close second.

Ifreann wrote:

Oil exporting People wrote:
I like how you didn't even dispute the fact you made up copious amounts of bullshit.

I just can't be bothered trying to get you to see the obvious when you've decided you don't want to.

As to the one point you did respond to, apply objective thinking. Their opponents would be people who literally don't have guns, have no training with the same, no organization and are relatively contained in non-self supporting areas. Militias don't need tanks or nuclear weapons when they are trained in how to use an AR while their opponents don't even have weapons; the history of the United States shows quite well what happens when poorly armed mobs go up against small groups of trained and decently equipped forces.

In what possible scenario would the belligerents in a civil war just be unarmed civilians on one side and a militia on the other? The militia would be told to fuck off out of the way of the actual military. Or they'd be shot by the actual military, depending on how the local military split.

That's not true at all. See the Peshmerga and Iraqi cooperation with their own tribal militias which have had astounding success in the battlefield.

Oil exporting People wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I just can't be bothered trying to get you to see the obvious when you've decided you don't want to.

For something so evident as you claim, you have a strange inability to produce evidence of such. Do try to embarrass yourself less with blatant cop outs.

In what possible scenario would the belligerents in a civil war just be unarmed civilians on one side and a militia on the other? The militia would be told to fuck off out of the way of the actual military. Or they'd be shot by the actual military, depending on how the local military split.

Again, a cop out; we were discussing militias vs Leftists and you've decided to change the scenario being discussed despite me talking about exactly this in my opening posts. If you're going to pick fights with me for the hell of it, do at least try to be coherent.

I was under the impression that we were discussing a civil war, not some kind of gang war that the authorities apparently ignores.

Page wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:Don't people from South Dakota really hate those bastards from North Dakota - or have I been misinformed?

North Dakota probably hates themselves, but they could always comfort themselves by saying "We're not Mississippi." I think Mississippi is still the worst state by far, with Alabama a close second.

mississippi isn't bad. alabama along with cali however needs to cease to exist.

Uxupox wrote:

Page wrote:
North Dakota probably hates themselves, but they could always comfort themselves by saying "We're not Mississippi." I think Mississippi is still the worst state by far, with Alabama a close second.

mississippi isn't bad. alabama along with cali however needs to cease to exist.

Nah, the only state we need to get rid of is Michigan.

We gotta get rid of it before the disease known as "Detroit Plague" spreads