Possibility for Second American Civil War

[Washington Resistance Army]

It doesn't matter what he would be in France because we aren't France. Not using America's metrics when discussing America's politics makes your statements inherently worthless.

Inherently worthless?

I can certainly understand that putting the US Republican party on the French political spectrum is annoying, but I would hardly call it impossible to understand what someone means so long as they are being clear with their definitions.

Yes, inherently worthless. Just like trying to describe French political parties using the South Korean political spectrum would be worthless. If you're talking about X political party from X nation you should use X's political spectrum, not Z's. That's just nonsense.

[United Dependencies]

Yes, inherently worthless. Just like trying to describe French political parties using the South Korean political spectrum would be worthless. If you're talking about X political party from X nation you should use X's political spectrum, not Z's. That's just nonsense.

Ok, now I'm curious:

1)What about that exercise is nonsense?

2) By calling it inherently worthless, are you telling me that describing the political parties of one nation as they relate to the political spectrum of another nation has no value whatsoever?

[The Parkus Empire]

Democrats are radicals and have been since Woodrow Wilson.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalism_(historical)

... Huh? We have a radical party in France. They're of the center too. Oldest party in France, they recently merged with the Radicals of the Left who split in the 1970s but... it was irrelevant.
Anyway, "left-wing" Democrats could very comfortably fit in Macron's party (just look at the physical and psychosexual rapture they experienced when he graced them with his presence), or if they are particularly left, in the MoDem. Centrist (so center-right) Democrats would feel more comfortable in the UDI; and what's left of the right-wing Democrats can find their place in Agir.

France's political environment is very diverse. We can accommodate almost every other developed country's politics somewhere in our spectrum. Well, except for the Republicans in America.

France only has two political poles: "It's gimmedat time!" and "No, dad, no!"

[Olerand]

Again, I'm not using America's metrics; I won't normalize the far-right. In France

It doesn't matter what he would be in France because we aren't France. Not using America's metrics when discussing America's politics makes your statements inherently worthless.

Did you ignore the rest of my comment on purpose or did you suddenly find yourself incapable of continuing to read a sentence?

Even in other Anglo-Saxon countries, Romney is not of the soft right.

I will not normalize far-right behavior, in America or otherwise. I refuse this cultural relativism that the Anglo-Saxon left has imposed. I refuse the Muslim Brotherhood, and I refuse the Republican Party. I refuse American preachers, and I refuse the hijab.

Inherently worthless?

I can certainly understand that putting the US Republican party on the French political spectrum is annoying, but I would hardly call it impossible to understand what someone means so long as they are being clear with their definitions.

Yes, inherently worthless. Just like trying to describe French political parties using the South Korean political spectrum would be worthless. If you're talking about X political party from X nation you should use X's political spectrum, not Z's. That's just nonsense.

Why can't you put French political parties on the South Korean spectrum? South Korea being more right-wing than us, particularly on societal issues, but even on social and economic issues, it would actually be a fascinating study in comparative politics.

... Huh? We have a radical party in France. They're of the center too. Oldest party in France, they recently merged with the Radicals of the Left who split in the 1970s but... it was irrelevant.
Anyway, "left-wing" Democrats could very comfortably fit in Macron's party (just look at the physical and psychosexual rapture they experienced when he graced them with his presence), or if they are particularly left, in the MoDem. Centrist (so center-right) Democrats would feel more comfortable in the UDI; and what's left of the right-wing Democrats can find their place in Agir.

France's political environment is very diverse. We can accommodate almost every other developed country's politics somewhere in our spectrum. Well, except for the Republicans in America.

France only has two political poles: "It's gimmedat time!" and "No, dad, no!"

I googled what gimmedat is and I don't know what that means.

[The Parkus Empire]

It doesn't matter what he would be in France because we aren't France. Not using America's metrics when discussing America's politics makes your statements inherently worthless.

Did you ignore the rest of my comment on purpose or did you suddenly find yourself incapable of continuing to read a sentence?

Even in other Anglo-Saxon countries, Romney is not of the soft right.

I will not normalize far-right behavior, in America or otherwise. I refuse this cultural relativism that the Anglo-Saxon left has imposed. I refuse the Muslim Brotherhood, and I refuse the Republican Party. I refuse American preachers, and I refuse the hijab.

Yes, inherently worthless. Just like trying to describe French political parties using the South Korean political spectrum would be worthless. If you're talking about X political party from X nation you should use X's political spectrum, not Z's. That's just nonsense.

Why can't you put French political parties on the South Korean spectrum? South Korea being more right-wing than us, particularly on societal issues, but even on social and economic issues, it would actually be a fascinating study in comparative politics.

France only has two political poles: "It's gimmedat time!" and "No, dad, no!"

I googled what gimmedat is and I don't know what that means.

"Give me that", a phrase we use for wealth redistribution.

[Olerand]

Did you ignore the rest of my comment on purpose or did you suddenly find yourself incapable of continuing to read a sentence?

Even in other Anglo-Saxon countries, Romney is not of the soft right.

I will not normalize far-right behavior, in America or otherwise. I refuse this cultural relativism that the Anglo-Saxon left has imposed. I refuse the Muslim Brotherhood, and I refuse the Republican Party. I refuse American preachers, and I refuse the hijab.


Why can't you put French political parties on the South Korean spectrum? South Korea being more right-wing than us, particularly on societal issues, but even on social and economic issues, it would actually be a fascinating study in comparative politics.


I googled what gimmedat is and I don't know what that means.

"Give me that", a phrase we use for wealth redistribution.

Ah, I see. And the child screaming at their parent is a reference?

[The Parkus Empire]

"Give me that", a phrase we use for wealth redistribution.

Ah, I see. And the child screaming at their parent is a reference?

An apt analogy really

[Illegal Planets]

Why can't you put French political parties on the South Korean spectrum? South Korea being more right-wing than us, particularly on societal issues, but even on social and economic issues, it would actually be a fascinating study in comparative politics.

You aren't comparing, you are purposely mislabeling the American Republican party as far-right. Obviously, our definitions of "far-right" differ, but when you start with that line about not normalizing "far-right" behavior, particularly Romney, it comes off as nonsense because:

It doesn't matter what he would be in France because we aren't France. Not using America's metrics when discussing America's politics makes your statements inherently worthless.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose to annoy people, out of ignorance, or if it really is some strange, misguided refusal to use American metrics to describe American politics. It really is very simple, but for whatever reason you have made it a point to be difficult and objectively wrong. I wash my hands of the whole thing, though.

[Liriena]

"Approaching"? It's already psychotic.

I mean... the entire meme economy, when combined with the Youtube grift economy and far right propagandists looking for a base to radicalize, it has created a juggernaut of self-fueled insanity and aggression. The way in which these people rile each other and their followers up with the most mundane garbage, and craft these apocalyptic grand narratives about the looming horrors of "SJWs" and feminism, it's like religious fundamentalism. It's a doomsday cult for "skeptics".

Yes it's only the right wingers who are psychotic... all the people crying that the US is literally a Nazi regime are all perfectly sane. :nod:

Reality you can switch a few words around and your statement could also apply to some of the people on the other side just as easily.

If the best counter-argument you can manage is a lazy "no u"... well... that's just sad.

[Liriena]

Yes it's only the right wingers who are psychotic... all the people crying that the US is literally a Nazi regime are all perfectly sane. :nod:

Reality you can switch a few words around and your statement could also apply to some of the people on the other side just as easily.

I just love how he says far right, as if implying that all those people he’s talking about are indeed far right or alt right.

I wasn't trying to imply that. At all. There's also a sizeable number of "classical liberals" and "skeptics" that I'd include in my observations.

Dave Rubin is not a fascist, a nazi, far right or "alt right". He sure loves to enable them... but then again that's kind of a recurring theme with a lot of moderates.

[Illegal Planets]

I just love how he says far right, as if implying that all those people he’s talking about are indeed far right or alt right.

I wasn't trying to imply that. At all. There's also a sizeable number of "classical liberals" and "skeptics" that I'd include in my observations.

Dave Rubin is not a fascist, a nazi, far right or "alt right". He sure loves to enable them... but then again that's kind of a recurring theme with a lot of moderates.

Enable them to what? Have an opinion? As opposed to...

[Benuty]

Being completely unironic here I would probably completely support a reactionary military state led by a paternal autocrat in the post-civil war era. Especially if said autocrat took Shermans message of burning to the rest of North America and Europe. Absent this of course, and should the paternal autocrat fail in the grand reconquest campaign against secessionist states...well post-pax americana here we come.

[Senkaku]

Why can't you put French political parties on the South Korean spectrum? South Korea being more right-wing than us, particularly on societal issues, but even on social and economic issues, it would actually be a fascinating study in comparative politics.

You aren't comparing, you are purposely mislabeling the American Republican party as far-right.

...surely we aren't contesting the idea that the GOP has been and is continuing to drift further and further right?

Being completely unironic here I would probably completely support a reactionary military state led by a paternal autocrat.

Well that can only end well

Especially if said autocrat took Shermans message of burning to the rest of North America and Europe. Absent this of course, and should the paternal autocrat fail in the grand reconquest campaign against secessionist states...well post-pax americana here we come.

Yeah I think I'll stick with the Pax Americana thanks lol

[Benuty]

You aren't comparing, you are purposely mislabeling the American Republican party as far-right.

...surely we aren't contesting the idea that the GOP has been and is continuing to drift further and further right?

Being completely unironic here I would probably completely support a reactionary military state led by a paternal autocrat.

Well that can only end well

Especially if said autocrat took Shermans message of burning to the rest of North America and Europe. Absent this of course, and should the paternal autocrat fail in the grand reconquest campaign against secessionist states...well post-pax americana here we come.

Yeah I think I'll stick with the Pax Americana thanks lol

I mean I just don't see a republic post-civil war actually stabilizing long enough with either becoming hilariously corrupt debating over a new constitution or becoming a military dictatorship. No one in the right mind is going to want to keep the old constitution since it pretty much was rendered useless in the second civil war. Also, you cannot have pax-americana in a hypothetical post civil war anyway without some reactionary state attempting to impose it again globally.

[Liriena]

I wasn't trying to imply that. At all. There's also a sizeable number of "classical liberals" and "skeptics" that I'd include in my observations.

Dave Rubin is not a fascist, a nazi, far right or "alt right". He sure loves to enable them... but then again that's kind of a recurring theme with a lot of moderates.

Enable them to what? Have an opinion? As opposed to...

As opposed to actually challenging them when he's interviewing them. As it stands, what he does is giving them a free platform and act the worst intellectual pushover.

[The Parkus Empire]

Being completely unironic here I would probably completely support a reactionary military state led by a paternal autocrat in the post-civil war era. Especially if said autocrat took Shermans message of burning to the rest of North America and Europe. Absent this of course, and should the paternal autocrat fail in the grand reconquest campaign against secessionist states...well post-pax americana here we come.

I can live with this Lincoln

[Benuty]

Being completely unironic here I would probably completely support a reactionary military state led by a paternal autocrat in the post-civil war era. Especially if said autocrat took Shermans message of burning to the rest of North America and Europe. Absent this of course, and should the paternal autocrat fail in the grand reconquest campaign against secessionist states...well post-pax americana here we come.

I can live with this Lincoln

Hopefully, he can avoid being assassinated in the most over the top way possible while enjoying theater.

[Benuty]

A second American civil war? Unlikely

More probable is that our politics continues to be polarized and divided and the rhetoric grows ever sharper. This may lead to occasional violent outbursts as lone individuals or small groups decide to act on the rhetoric.

Look for more spree shootings, vehicle ramming attacks, and potential bombings. People may also get more specific in their targets besides schools and public areas. For instance, we might see more abortion clinic bombings, church bombings/shootings, or even assassinations of certain political figures.

So the 60s?

I would argue a bit of the '70s as well since it was the golden age of radical left, and right-wing groups engaging in police shootouts, car bombings, hijackings, and the age of the terrorist media star (because terrorism was sexy for some reason).

[The Parkus Empire]

I can live with this Lincoln

Hopefully, he can avoid being assassinated in the most over the top way possible while enjoying theater.

Ever thus to actors.

[The Lone Alliance]

If the best counter-argument you can manage is a lazy "no u"... well... that's just sad.

I wasn't aware I was giving you a counter argument.
I thought I was just stating the obvious because you forgot to mention it and I knew someone was going to bring it up eventually.

I could have done like Illegal Planets and just reposted your post with the terms changed but seemed like over kill.

And unless you seriously believe that Trump is going to implement a Nazi Regime and that he has enough support in order to do so then the "No U" couldn't apply... really I don't think anyone in this thread has reached the point of being part of the "Psychotic" camp of either side simply because if so they wouldn't be able to even talk to the other side because they'd see that side as the "Ultimate Enemy"TM.

I think most of the people on this site are generally not in either camp, they may lean towards one or the other but the "True believers" don't seem to last very long... thankfully for the site, I know a lot of the topics here never go anywhere but back and forth bickering but could you imagine what this place would look like if it was overrun with both sides constantly shouting at one another?

[Benuty]

Hopefully, he can avoid being assassinated in the most over the top way possible while enjoying theater.

Ever thus to actors.

Come to think of it after all the purges there is going to be a lot of room for new acting material. I just don't see Hollywood not being a bombed-out ruin, and Broadway might just survive somewhat intact.

[The Parkus Empire]

Ever thus to actors.

Come to think of it after all the purges there is going to be a lot of room for new acting material. I just don't see Hollywood not being a bombed-out ruin, and Broadway might just survive somewhat intact.

The future is catchy after all

[Illegal Planets]

Enable them to what? Have an opinion? As opposed to...

As opposed to actually challenging them when he's interviewing them. As it stands, what he does is giving them a free platform and act the worst intellectual pushover.

Fair enough.

[Dahon]

Being completely unironic here I would probably completely support a reactionary military state led by a paternal autocrat in the post-civil war era. Especially if said autocrat took Shermans message of burning to the rest of North America and Europe. Absent this of course, and should the paternal autocrat fail in the grand reconquest campaign against secessionist states...well post-pax americana here we come.

I can live with this Lincoln

... yeah, I can see where you'd rather give up on democracy than cater to other people's needs and wants.

[The Parkus Empire]

I can live with this Lincoln

... yeah, I can see where you'd rather give up on democracy than cater to other people's needs and wants.

I do not like universal suffrage to begin with. Democracy is a false god unless suffrage is restricted