NationStates

Torrocca wrote:

Kash Island wrote:
wow...I can't even....

you understand that traditional american conservatives and christian conservatives in the United States are FAR differen't than "islamic" ones right?

Islamic Conservatives in America are still Conservatives, therefore putting them on the Conservative side of this hypothetical civil war, therefore making the Conservative side less united than you first claimed.

I'm pretty damn certain that the term "conservative" that is being used for this thread is for those on the christian slate, not islamic one...

Do you even American politics bro?

Kash Island wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Islamic Conservatives in America are still Conservatives, therefore putting them on the Conservative side of this hypothetical civil war, therefore making the Conservative side less united than you first claimed.

I'm pretty damn certain that the term "conservative" that is being used for this thread is for those on the christian slate, not islamic one...

Do you even American politics bro?

Very well, actually. Nonetheless, this hypothetical civil war deals with Liberals and Conservatives, not "pick and choose who's actually a Liberal and who's actually a Conservative!" If they have Conservative in the name, they're Conservative.

Torrocca wrote:

Kash Island wrote:
I'm pretty damn certain that the term "conservative" that is being used for this thread is for those on the christian slate, not islamic one...

Do you even American politics bro?

Very well, actually. Nonetheless, this hypothetical civil war deals with Liberals and Conservatives, not "pick and choose who's actually a Liberal and who's actually a Conservative!" If they have Conservative in the name, they're Conservative.

"epic face palm"

you know what...you just do your thing man...

Kash Island wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Very well, actually. Nonetheless, this hypothetical civil war deals with Liberals and Conservatives, not "pick and choose who's actually a Liberal and who's actually a Conservative!" If they have Conservative in the name, they're Conservative.

"epic face palm"

you know what...you just do your thing man...

Brilliant argument for why I'm wrong right there.

Torrocca wrote:

Kash Island wrote:
"epic face palm"

you know what...you just do your thing man...

Brilliant argument for why I'm wrong right there.

Oh trust me, I'm not arguing with you , I've already given up

When you think Islamists are going to be with christians just because the title of the thread says "conservative" I have nothing else to offer you.

Kash Island wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Brilliant argument for why I'm wrong right there.

Oh trust me, I'm not arguing with you , I've already given up

When you think Islamists are going to be with christians just because the title of the thread says "conservative" I have nothing else to offer you.

Well they sure as hell aren't going to fight for the Liberal side. They'll fight for the Conservative side, but they won't fight alongside Christian Conservatives. It's as simple as that. The Conservative side would have just as much infighting in this civil war as the Liberals would.

Torrocca wrote:

Kash Island wrote:
wow...I can't even....

you understand that traditional american conservatives and christian conservatives in the United States are FAR differen't than "islamic" ones right?

Islamic Conservatives in America are still Conservatives, therefore putting them on the Conservative side of this hypothetical civil war, therefore making the Conservative side less united than you first claimed.

All terms applied to politics can be ambiguous. The conservative muslims might be shunned by other types of conservatives. Or people viewed as radical by the plurality of the people. During wars not everyone is fighting.

Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Liberal vs. conservative, not left vs. right.

oh boy there's no left wing in the united states

my favorite meme

Just pointing out what the sides of this civil war supposedly are.

---

Kash Island wrote:

Ifreann wrote:So Muslims are neither conservative nor liberal?

They are conservative, but there ideals will directly butt heads with Christians.

Well surely they'll put aside their differences to do battle with the liberal scourge.

Or maybe this hypothetical is stupid because neither side are especially united beyond the vaguely similar bent to their politics.

Torrocca wrote:

Kash Island wrote:
I'm pretty damn certain that the term "conservative" that is being used for this thread is for those on the christian slate, not islamic one...

Do you even American politics bro?

Very well, actually. Nonetheless, this hypothetical civil war deals with Liberals and Conservatives, not "pick and choose who's actually a Liberal and who's actually a Conservative!" If they have Conservative in the name, they're Conservative.

Thats like saying all countries with the word "Republic" in their names are republics, when the people's republic of China isn't much of a republic.

Conservatives would most definitely win. Before I go into this further, here's a map of more blue vs more red counties.



The have a much larger land area, so they can afford to lose land in a pinch while many liberal/left leaning strongholds reside on concentrated points, such as cities. I.e A city being lost is worse than twenty counties being lost.

Second, a much larger food and resource stockpile. Most raw resources and farming industries come from conservative rural areas of the country.

Third, armament. I'm not saying left leaning liberals don't have guns, but I am saying conservatives have much more firepower at their disposal. Whether it be people with guns themselves, army bases, and other misc. weaponry.

Lastly, the amount of infighting. I would honestly say that infighting would effect the left leaning side more because of the sheer concentration of their landmasses. Since the right side is more spread out, less chances for infighting, however it still does occur.

Conservatives would likely win.

Republic Of Varra wrote:Conservatives would most definitely win. Before I go into this further, here's a map of more blue vs more red counties.

(Image)

The have a much larger land area, so they can afford to lose land in a pinch while many liberal/left leaning strongholds reside on concentrated points, such as cities. I.e A city being lost is worse than twenty counties being lost.

Second, a much larger food and resource stockpile. Most raw resources and farming industries come from conservative rural areas of the country.

Third, armament. I'm not saying left leaning liberals don't have guns, but I am saying conservatives have much more firepower at their disposal. Whether it be people with guns themselves, army bases, and other misc. weaponry.

Lastly, the amount of infighting. I would honestly say that infighting would effect the left leaning side more because of the sheer concentration of their landmasses. Since the right side is more spread out, less chances for infighting, however it still does occur.

Conservatives would likely win.

And where do you get this image from? Because I can supply fancy images with colors too!

The brianverse wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Very well, actually. Nonetheless, this hypothetical civil war deals with Liberals and Conservatives, not "pick and choose who's actually a Liberal and who's actually a Conservative!" If they have Conservative in the name, they're Conservative.

Thats like saying all countries with the word "Republic" in their names are republics, when the people's republic of China isn't much of a republic.

If all the Conservatives aren't fighting all the Liberals, then this hypothetical can't really be called a Liberal vs Conservative Civil War, can it?

Republic Of Varra wrote:Conservatives would most definitely win. Before I go into this further, here's a map of more blue vs more red counties.

(Image)

The have a much larger land area, so they can afford to lose land in a pinch while many liberal/left leaning strongholds reside on concentrated points, such as cities. I.e A city being lost is worse than twenty counties being lost.

Second, a much larger food and resource stockpile. Most raw resources and farming industries come from conservative rural areas of the country.

Third, armament. I'm not saying left leaning liberals don't have guns, but I am saying conservatives have much more firepower at their disposal. Whether it be people with guns themselves, army bases, and other misc. weaponry.

Lastly, the amount of infighting. I would honestly say that infighting would effect the left leaning side more because of the sheer concentration of their landmasses. Since the right side is more spread out, less chances for infighting, however it still does occur.

Conservatives would likely win.

More land to defend with less people to defend it plus Liberal enclaves in Red territory would have to be dealt with, allowing for the far more industrialized Liberal areas to take as much land as they want with Conservatives likely unable to maintain their holdings. It's just too much for a significant minority to deal with (assuming that its Conservative Area vs Liberal Area and not down to a literal individual basis)

Then they have really run out of things to have a civil war for.

Come on, America. Best waifus are a better reason.

Torrocca wrote:

Republic Of Varra wrote:Conservatives would most definitely win. Before I go into this further, here's a map of more blue vs more red counties.

(Image)

The have a much larger land area, so they can afford to lose land in a pinch while many liberal/left leaning strongholds reside on concentrated points, such as cities. I.e A city being lost is worse than twenty counties being lost.

Second, a much larger food and resource stockpile. Most raw resources and farming industries come from conservative rural areas of the country.

Third, armament. I'm not saying left leaning liberals don't have guns, but I am saying conservatives have much more firepower at their disposal. Whether it be people with guns themselves, army bases, and other misc. weaponry.

Lastly, the amount of infighting. I would honestly say that infighting would effect the left leaning side more because of the sheer concentration of their landmasses. Since the right side is more spread out, less chances for infighting, however it still does occur.

Conservatives would likely win.

And where do you get this image from? Because I can supply fancy images with colors too!

The brianverse wrote:
Thats like saying all countries with the word "Republic" in their names are republics, when the people's republic of China isn't much of a republic.

If all the Conservatives aren't fighting all the Liberals, then this hypothetical can't really be called a Liberal vs Conservative Civil War, can it?

It's nice to know you wont provide an argument and just call my map "Fancy colors" even though a five second Google search can prove you otherwise.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

The NYTimes doesn't provide Alaska but the rest are there.

Stormwrath wrote:Then they have really run out of things to have a civil war for.

Come on, America. Best waifus are a better reason.

We have to get more autistic.

1995 Motoko Kusanagi, SAC Kusanagi, or Arise.

Spoiler alert: the OGs and SAC fans team up to march the Arise fans to the sea.

Stormwrath wrote:Then they have really run out of things to have a civil war for.

Come on, America. Best waifus are a better reason.

A terrible voice echoed across the land, and then all was war.

Your waifu is shit! Shiiiiiiiiit!

Republic Of Varra wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
And where do you get this image from? Because I can supply fancy images with colors too!





If all the Conservatives aren't fighting all the Liberals, then this hypothetical can't really be called a Liberal vs Conservative Civil War, can it?

It's nice to know you wont provide an argument and just call my map "Fancy colors" even though a five second Google search can prove you otherwise.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

The NYTimes doesn't provide Alaska but the rest are there.

1) That NYTimes source doesn't provide the map you provided, still bringing that map into skepticism.
2) How those states voted isn't an accurate indicator of the leanings of their populations. Florida, for instance, voted blue twice before this election. Try harder.

I can not imagine that a liberal vs conservative civil war would actually play out between civis. Unless there was a complete breakdown of order within our military and police, then there is no way that we would see the kind of warfare between civilians that we see in some third world nations.

If there were a real civil war in this country, it would probably play out over competing interests within the military and security forces, and a complete breakdown of the republic would have to be a precursor to that. Civilians would naturally get caught up in that disaster, but from that point forward the war will be driven more by territorial warlords and less by what politics trigger you on the Internet.

The friction between liberal and conservative civilians will definitely continue to grow and create violence, but we simply can not get to the scale of what some people are fantasizing without prompting very serious intervention from extremely powerful and well-armed forces that will exploit the power vacuum. At that point, we will likely be thrown into a very long process of bloody entanglements that I shudder to think too much about.

Torrocca wrote:

Republic Of Varra wrote:
It's nice to know you wont provide an argument and just call my map "Fancy colors" even though a five second Google search can prove you otherwise.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

The NYTimes doesn't provide Alaska but the rest are there.

1) That NYTimes source doesn't provide the map you provided, still bringing that map into skepticism.
2) How those states voted isn't an accurate indicator of the leanings of their populations. Florida, for instance, voted blue twice before this election. Try harder.

1) I have already checked to make sure all of the counties present match the NYTimes (which it does) if I remember correctly this is an older map from a website right after all the votes were tallied. Can't seem to find it now. So yeah, exactly the same map, different look to it.

2) Try harder? No I have already proved my point where you're just running your mouth off not actually providing any evidence yourself. When did I say anything about populations? I provided a map to which areas were more conservative or not. Maybe actually read my original post before making up your own false version of my post? Also, you know, providing a map from the past two elections is completely false to the current mindset of the nation. I could care less how they voted in the past. This election was from there here and now.

Valrifell wrote:

Republic Of Varra wrote:Conservatives would most definitely win. Before I go into this further, here's a map of more blue vs more red counties.

(Image)

The have a much larger land area, so they can afford to lose land in a pinch while many liberal/left leaning strongholds reside on concentrated points, such as cities. I.e A city being lost is worse than twenty counties being lost.

Second, a much larger food and resource stockpile. Most raw resources and farming industries come from conservative rural areas of the country.

Third, armament. I'm not saying left leaning liberals don't have guns, but I am saying conservatives have much more firepower at their disposal. Whether it be people with guns themselves, army bases, and other misc. weaponry.

Lastly, the amount of infighting. I would honestly say that infighting would effect the left leaning side more because of the sheer concentration of their landmasses. Since the right side is more spread out, less chances for infighting, however it still does occur.

Conservatives would likely win.

More land to defend with less people to defend it plus Liberal enclaves in Red territory would have to be dealt with, allowing for the far more industrialized Liberal areas to take as much land as they want with Conservatives likely unable to maintain their holdings. It's just too much for a significant minority to deal with (assuming that its Conservative Area vs Liberal Area and not down to a literal individual basis)

More land mass is always beneficial, just ask Napoleon. As for the Liberal enclaves, they're completely reliant on outside supplies from red areas.

I do think it's disingenuous to say that the liberal cities are industrialized, most of that left overseas twenty years ago. All they have left is a service industry, no real production of physical objects.

If a war broke out there is simply no way the left could keep their citizens fed and watered, there's just to many of them within too dense of an area. Fighting for food and water within those areas would curb any attempt to expand. Hell, even if they did try to expand the right could again take tactics from the Napoleonic war and employ a scorched earth policy.

TL;DR most libs starve to death within a month.

Republic Of Varra wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
1) That NYTimes source doesn't provide the map you provided, still bringing that map into skepticism.
2) How those states voted isn't an accurate indicator of the leanings of their populations. Florida, for instance, voted blue twice before this election. Try harder.

1) I have already checked to make sure all of the counties present match the NYTimes (which it does) if I remember correctly this is an older map from a website right after all the votes were tallied. Can't seem to find it now. So yeah, exactly the same map, different look to it.

2) Try harder? No I have already proved my point where you're just running your mouth off not actually providing any evidence yourself. When did I say anything about populations? I provided a map to which areas were more conservative or not. Maybe actually read my original post before making up your own false version of my post?

I actually did read your post, but I digress, that populations bit was a stretch on my end.

In any case, though, your case about Conservatives winning because they control more land misses the key detail of that land being far more sparsely populated than the Liberal areas, which are generally the cities and their outlying suburbs. Any unified Conservative effort would have to be focused almost entirely on one city to see any degree of success, which would largely mean abandoning much of the countryside with their forces to besiege a city - since only a portion of the Conservatives would actually be fighting, this would probably be their entire fighting force going on this great crusade. The Liberal forces could sweep up their farmland while the Conservatives busied their forces with just one city.

Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
More land to defend with less people to defend it plus Liberal enclaves in Red territory would have to be dealt with, allowing for the far more industrialized Liberal areas to take as much land as they want with Conservatives likely unable to maintain their holdings. It's just too much for a significant minority to deal with (assuming that its Conservative Area vs Liberal Area and not down to a literal individual basis)

More land mass is always beneficial, just ask Napoleon. As for the Liberal enclaves, they're completely reliant on outside supplies from red areas.

I do think it's disingenuous to say that the liberal cities are industrialized, most of that left overseas twenty years ago. All they have left is a service industry, no real production of physical objects.

If a war broke out there is simply no way the left could keep their citizens fed and watered, there's just to many of them within too dense of an area. Fighting for food and water within those areas would curb any attempt to expand. Hell, even if they did try to expand the right could again take tactics from the Napoleonic war and employ a scorched earth policy.

TL;DR most libs starve to death within a month.

You know that supplies can come from outside the US as well, yeah? Or are conservatives somehow going to close America's land borders, blockade every port, and shoot down every plane headed their way?

Ifreann wrote:

Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:
More land mass is always beneficial, just ask Napoleon. As for the Liberal enclaves, they're completely reliant on outside supplies from red areas.

I do think it's disingenuous to say that the liberal cities are industrialized, most of that left overseas twenty years ago. All they have left is a service industry, no real production of physical objects.

If a war broke out there is simply no way the left could keep their citizens fed and watered, there's just to many of them within too dense of an area. Fighting for food and water within those areas would curb any attempt to expand. Hell, even if they did try to expand the right could again take tactics from the Napoleonic war and employ a scorched earth policy.

TL;DR most libs starve to death within a month.

You know that supplies can come from outside the US as well, yeah? Or are conservatives somehow going to close America's land borders, blockade every port, and shoot down every plane headed their way?

They'll blockade all the ports when they themselves have control of less ports, because the Liberals just can't organize themselves cohesively for defense in this hypothetical scenario. Every Californian is gonna be super surprised when the Conservative fleets come in from the Panama Canal and blockade their beaches!

Torrocca wrote:

Republic Of Varra wrote:
1) I have already checked to make sure all of the counties present match the NYTimes (which it does) if I remember correctly this is an older map from a website right after all the votes were tallied. Can't seem to find it now. So yeah, exactly the same map, different look to it.

2) Try harder? No I have already proved my point where you're just running your mouth off not actually providing any evidence yourself. When did I say anything about populations? I provided a map to which areas were more conservative or not. Maybe actually read my original post before making up your own false version of my post?

I actually did read your post, but I digress, that populations bit was a stretch on my end.

In any case, though, your case about Conservatives winning because they control more land misses the key detail of that land being far more sparsely populated than the Liberal areas, which are generally the cities and their outlying suburbs. Any unified Conservative effort would have to be focused almost entirely on one city to see any degree of success, which would largely mean abandoning much of the countryside with their forces to besiege a city - since only a portion of the Conservatives would actually be fighting, this would probably be their entire fighting force going on this great crusade. The Liberal forces could sweep up their farmland while the Conservatives busied their forces with just one city.

There's no need for a massive force, New York for example could have its power lines either physically cut or the coal miners (Yes we still heavily rely on coal and Natural gas) could quit sending shipments. The farmers could do likewise and without electricity they'd have no way to preserve most of their stores of food.

New York also relies on under ground tunnels that connect to freshwater rives some ways away, the openings of those tunnels could be closed off with a little elbow grease and repurposed mining TNT.

It could all be over with a month, it doesn't take long for a population to starve.

It's all about logistics.

Republic of the Roman Nations wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
I actually did read your post, but I digress, that populations bit was a stretch on my end.

In any case, though, your case about Conservatives winning because they control more land misses the key detail of that land being far more sparsely populated than the Liberal areas, which are generally the cities and their outlying suburbs. Any unified Conservative effort would have to be focused almost entirely on one city to see any degree of success, which would largely mean abandoning much of the countryside with their forces to besiege a city - since only a portion of the Conservatives would actually be fighting, this would probably be their entire fighting force going on this great crusade. The Liberal forces could sweep up their farmland while the Conservatives busied their forces with just one city.

There's no need for a massive force, New York for example could have its power lines either physically cut or the coal miners (Yes we still heavily rely on coal and Natural gas) could quit sending shipments. The farmers could do likewise and without electricity they'd have no way to preserve most of their stores of food.

New York also relies on under ground tunnels that connect to freshwater rives some ways away, the openings of those tunnels could be closed off with a little elbow grease and repurposed mining TNT.

It's all about logistics.

Sure, but the Liberal forces dominating a city like New York could just as easily establish a hard defense of things like these to prevent exactly that. The Conservatives would still have to besiege the city either way to force a surrender.