America's Uncertain Future

[Manokan Republic]

No I assumed the majority were left-wing because it's a left-wing idea; I didn't think nor say all were left-wing. To be fair though something like the majority of black people vote democrat, but that wasn't why I assumed it.

Then you were wrong on both accounts. It is not a left wing idea and not all were liberals, if you can even prove something like that.

I never said they were all liberals, I said the protesters were predominately supporting left-wing ideas, which they were, and that the left-wing is the side that tends to support them, even mainstream news outlets like the Huffington post or New York times.

It's not a very difficult thing to understand that the side most preoccupied with police violence and that is mostly supporting riots is on the left. But, if you want to dig deeper, here is what some politicians had to say on it at the time. Clearly, the mainstream left had one opinion, and the mainstream right had another, and we can see which side they fell on. This isn't to say all liberals and conservatives, or Democrats and Republicans, thought a certain way, only showing that a good volume of mainstream individuals did.


"Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton said that the violence resulted from the breakdown of economic opportunities and social institutions in the inner city. He also berated both major political parties for failing to address urban issues, especially the Republican Administration for its presiding over "more than a decade of urban decay" generated by their spending cuts.[144] He maintained that the King verdicts could not be avenged by the "savage behavior" of "lawless vandals". He also stated that people "are looting because ... [t]hey do not share our values, and their children are growing up in a culture alien from ours, without family, without neighborhood, without church, without support."[144] While Los Angeles was mostly unaffected by the urban decay the other metropolitan areas of the nation faced since the 1960s, racial tensions had been present since the late 1970s, becoming increasingly violent as the 1980s progressed.[citation needed]

Democrat Maxine Waters, the African-American Congressional representative of South Central Los Angeles, said that the events in L.A. constituted a "rebellion" or "insurrection", caused by the underlying reality of poverty and despair existing in the inner city. This state of affairs, she asserted, were brought about by a government that had all but abandoned the poor and failed to help compensate for the loss of local jobs, and by the institutional discrimination encountered by racial minorities, especially at the hands of the police and financial institutions.[145][146]

Conversely, President Bush argued that the unrest was "purely criminal". Though he acknowledged that the King verdicts were plainly unjust, he said that "we simply cannot condone violence as a way of changing the system ... Mob brutality, the total loss of respect for human life was sickeningly sad ... What we saw last night and the night before in Los Angeles is not about civil rights. It's not about the great cause of equality that all Americans must uphold. It's not a message of protest. It's been the brutality of a mob, pure and simple.""

[Manokan Republic]

The point is not everyone and it never was, it was just that it is more mainstream for the left. Also the riots were about the same thing BLM riots are about today, a supposed cop doing a bad thing, so go and kill 10 young more black men to make up for it in a riot.

Sounds like you are trying to link personal crimes against people and property committed during riots to politics. I don't think you quite understand how riots work. They are not organized actions. A political protest can contribute to the climate that leads to a riot, but when the riot starts and someone decides "this is a great opportunity to steal the TV I always wanted from the store around the corner", that has nothing to do with protest or politics. That is opportunism.

The causes for the riots were political, you don't need political organizers for that to happen. You can also read the various responses by politicians of the time, such as Maxine waters, Bill Clinton, and so on. In general, the mainstream left and right-wing opinion's on the issue were obvious, with the left largely in favor or downplaying the riots, and the right being against it. There are media outlets which justify violence, today, like in Ferguson with the New York times, or the huffington post generally condoning violence to resist trump. It's not that difficult to see which side of the political spectrum certain issues lay on. It doesn't mean all, it doesn't even mean majority, but it doesn't mean major individuals, like presidents and long term congressmen, media outlets and so on.



"Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton said that the violence resulted from the breakdown of economic opportunities and social institutions in the inner city. He also berated both major political parties for failing to address urban issues, especially the Republican Administration for its presiding over "more than a decade of urban decay" generated by their spending cuts.[144] He maintained that the King verdicts could not be avenged by the "savage behavior" of "lawless vandals". He also stated that people "are looting because ... [t]hey do not share our values, and their children are growing up in a culture alien from ours, without family, without neighborhood, without church, without support."[144] While Los Angeles was mostly unaffected by the urban decay the other metropolitan areas of the nation faced since the 1960s, racial tensions had been present since the late 1970s, becoming increasingly violent as the 1980s progressed.[citation needed]

Democrat Maxine Waters, the African-American Congressional representative of South Central Los Angeles, said that the events in L.A. constituted a "rebellion" or "insurrection", caused by the underlying reality of poverty and despair existing in the inner city. This state of affairs, she asserted, were brought about by a government that had all but abandoned the poor and failed to help compensate for the loss of local jobs, and by the institutional discrimination encountered by racial minorities, especially at the hands of the police and financial institutions.[145][146]

Conversely, President Bush argued that the unrest was "purely criminal". Though he acknowledged that the King verdicts were plainly unjust, he said that "we simply cannot condone violence as a way of changing the system ... Mob brutality, the total loss of respect for human life was sickeningly sad ... What we saw last night and the night before in Los Angeles is not about civil rights. It's not about the great cause of equality that all Americans must uphold. It's not a message of protest. It's been the brutality of a mob, pure and simple."

[Shrillland]

Sounds like you are trying to link personal crimes against people and property committed during riots to politics. I don't think you quite understand how riots work. They are not organized actions. A political protest can contribute to the climate that leads to a riot, but when the riot starts and someone decides "this is a great opportunity to steal the TV I always wanted from the store around the corner", that has nothing to do with protest or politics. That is opportunism.

The causes for the riots were political, you don't need political organizers for that to happen. You can also read the various responses by politicians of the time, such as Maxine waters, Bill Clinton, and so on. In general, the mainstream left and right-wing opinion's on the issue were obvious, with the left largely in favor or downplaying the riots, and the right being against it. There are media outlets which justify violence, today, like in Ferguson with the New York times, or the huffington post generally condoning violence to resist trump. It's not that difficult to see which side of the political spectrum certain issues lay on. It doesn't mean all, it doesn't even mean majority, but it doesn't mean major individuals, like presidents and long term congressmen, media outlets and so on.



"Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton said that the violence resulted from the breakdown of economic opportunities and social institutions in the inner city. He also berated both major political parties for failing to address urban issues, especially the Republican Administration for its presiding over "more than a decade of urban decay" generated by their spending cuts.[144] He maintained that the King verdicts could not be avenged by the "savage behavior" of "lawless vandals". He also stated that people "are looting because ... [t]hey do not share our values, and their children are growing up in a culture alien from ours, without family, without neighborhood, without church, without support."[144] While Los Angeles was mostly unaffected by the urban decay the other metropolitan areas of the nation faced since the 1960s, racial tensions had been present since the late 1970s, becoming increasingly violent as the 1980s progressed.[citation needed]

Democrat Maxine Waters, the African-American Congressional representative of South Central Los Angeles, said that the events in L.A. constituted a "rebellion" or "insurrection", caused by the underlying reality of poverty and despair existing in the inner city. This state of affairs, she asserted, were brought about by a government that had all but abandoned the poor and failed to help compensate for the loss of local jobs, and by the institutional discrimination encountered by racial minorities, especially at the hands of the police and financial institutions.[145][146]

Conversely, President Bush argued that the unrest was "purely criminal". Though he acknowledged that the King verdicts were plainly unjust, he said that "we simply cannot condone violence as a way of changing the system ... Mob brutality, the total loss of respect for human life was sickeningly sad ... What we saw last night and the night before in Los Angeles is not about civil rights. It's not about the great cause of equality that all Americans must uphold. It's not a message of protest. It's been the brutality of a mob, pure and simple."

Trying to understand why riots happen, besides the obvious advantage-takers taking advantage, and understanding that people are angry and upset, isn't the same as actively supporting and encouraging riots in every major city. They weren't trying to justify violence, merely trying to understand it and having other people understand it. Understanding is not defence, and it's unwise to mistake the two for each other.

I would, however, note from that that even Bush the Elder condemned the verdicts as unjust. No GOP leader would do that today, another example of how far apart and hostile we're getting.

[Mystic Warriors]

Then you were wrong on both accounts. It is not a left wing idea and not all were liberals, if you can even prove something like that.

I never said they were all liberals, I said the protesters were predominately supporting left-wing ideas, which they were, and that the left-wing is the side that tends to support them, even mainstream news outlets like the Huffington post or New York times.

It's not a very difficult thing to understand that the side most preoccupied with police violence and that is mostly supporting riots is on the left. But, if you want to dig deeper, here is what some politicians had to say on it at the time. Clearly, the mainstream left had one opinion, and the mainstream right had another, and we can see which side they fell on. This isn't to say all liberals and conservatives, or Democrats and Republicans, thought a certain way, only showing that a good volume of mainstream individuals did.


"Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton said that the violence resulted from the breakdown of economic opportunities and social institutions in the inner city. He also berated both major political parties for failing to address urban issues, especially the Republican Administration for its presiding over "more than a decade of urban decay" generated by their spending cuts.[144] He maintained that the King verdicts could not be avenged by the "savage behavior" of "lawless vandals". He also stated that people "are looting because ... [t]hey do not share our values, and their children are growing up in a culture alien from ours, without family, without neighborhood, without church, without support."[144] While Los Angeles was mostly unaffected by the urban decay the other metropolitan areas of the nation faced since the 1960s, racial tensions had been present since the late 1970s, becoming increasingly violent as the 1980s progressed.[citation needed]

Democrat Maxine Waters, the African-American Congressional representative of South Central Los Angeles, said that the events in L.A. constituted a "rebellion" or "insurrection", caused by the underlying reality of poverty and despair existing in the inner city. This state of affairs, she asserted, were brought about by a government that had all but abandoned the poor and failed to help compensate for the loss of local jobs, and by the institutional discrimination encountered by racial minorities, especially at the hands of the police and financial institutions.[145][146]

Conversely, President Bush argued that the unrest was "purely criminal". Though he acknowledged that the King verdicts were plainly unjust, he said that "we simply cannot condone violence as a way of changing the system ... Mob brutality, the total loss of respect for human life was sickeningly sad ... What we saw last night and the night before in Los Angeles is not about civil rights. It's not about the great cause of equality that all Americans must uphold. It's not a message of protest. It's been the brutality of a mob, pure and simple.""

Are you even listening to what I am telling you? You are using a few people to paint a picture of the left as a whole. Not once did you provide evidence the left as a whole would back this, just the opinions of a few. The left as a whole rejects these notions, only a few far left people do, but they dont represent the side as a whole.


And Bill Clinton was a conservative Democrat.

[United New England]

This Canadian imperialism... I don't know if I see New England joining Canada. Moderates as they are, the New Englanders still have an affinity for their country.

New Englanders are more liberal than most of the rest of the US. In 2017, Gallup did a poll asking people from each state about their political leanings. If you rank the states by the percentage of respondents who described themselves as liberal, five out of the six New England states are in the top ten and the remaining one is in the top twenty. If you average the liberal percentages for the six states, New England as a whole is equally liberal to Oregon and New York State and more liberal than Washington State and California.

That being said, I don’t think we New Englanders would join Canada even if they asked us to (which I doubt they would). Despite our general admiration for certain aspects of Canadian society, we’re big on self-determination and probably would not want to be part of the British royal realms. I’m sure an independent New England would love to be allies with Canada, though.

[Valrifell]

If New England leaves can you guys take the Mid-Atlantic states with you? P-please?

[Olerand]

This Canadian imperialism... I don't know if I see New England joining Canada. Moderates as they are, the New Englanders still have an affinity for their country.

New Englanders are more liberal than most of the rest of the US. In 2017, Gallup did a poll asking people from each state about their political leanings. If you rank the states by the percentage of respondents who described themselves as liberal, five out of the six New England states are in the top ten and the remaining one is in the top twenty. If you average the liberal percentages for the six states, New England as a whole is equally liberal to Oregon and New York State and more liberal than Washington State and California.

That being said, I don’t think we New Englanders would join Canada even if they asked us to (which I doubt they would). Despite our general admiration for certain aspects of Canadian society, we’re big on self-determination and probably would not want to be part of the British royal realms. I’m sure an independent New England would love to be allies with Canada, though.

I meant moderates in that their political scene is moderate, close to Canada's, and to a lesser degree Europe. A New England Republican isn't like a Republican from elsewhere, no?

Yes, being allies with Canada seems natural.

[Oil exporting People]

I definitely foresee a coming civil conflict, but I'm not sure it'll be a proper "war". In America, the Right has the guns while the Left doesn't; if things do breakdown into direct conflict, you're essentially going to see Rightist militias rapidly clearing the rural areas and then lining people up against walls in the cities.

[Hammer Britannia]

I definitely foresee a coming civil conflict, but I'm not sure it'll be a proper "war". In America, the Right has the guns while the Left doesn't; if things do breakdown into direct conflict, you're essentially going to see Rightist militias rapidly clearing the rural areas and then lining people up against walls in the cities.

This would imply that most of the left will do anything besides screech at their computers and kick trashcans.

[Valrifell]

I definitely foresee a coming civil conflict, but I'm not sure it'll be a proper "war". In America, the Right has the guns while the Left doesn't; if things do breakdown into direct conflict, you're essentially going to see Rightist militias rapidly clearing the rural areas and then lining people up against walls in the cities.

Doubtful, Western nations like comfortable living to actually start open conflicts over ideals.

I definitely foresee a coming civil conflict, but I'm not sure it'll be a proper "war". In America, the Right has the guns while the Left doesn't; if things do breakdown into direct conflict, you're essentially going to see Rightist militias rapidly clearing the rural areas and then lining people up against walls in the cities.

This would imply that most of the left will do anything besides screech at their computers and kick trashcans.

Such doublethink from the right: The Left is nothing but a lot of childish ne'er-do-wells who just attack property but also they're infinitely more destructive and harmful than Neo-Nazis and others who have bodycounts.

[Uxupox]

I do enjoy me side is proportionally better than yours since we technically we killed less! this is excellent behavior.

[Valrifell]

I do enjoy me side is proportionally better than yours since we technically we killed less! this is excellent behavior.

I didn't mean to say that/I phrased poorly. I meant to point out how contradictory the points the Right has for the Left are: "Our side is fantastic and their side is lame and smells bad. Also their side has irreparably harmed us and are behind every bad thing that happens and we need revenge."

Granted you could argue that it goes both ways, but I'm decidedly biased in that regard.

[Visionary Union]

That deep polarization rose from the fact that the US has only 2 major parties, so that means you're either with us, or against us mind set which in turns leads to disagreement and then violence. The American political system needs an immediate and unvoluntary overhaul, if only to prevent fighting in the streets during the 2020 presidential election.

[Uxupox]

I do enjoy me side is proportionally better than yours since we technically we killed less! this is excellent behavior.

I didn't mean to say that/I phrased poorly. I meant to point out how contradictory the points the Right has for the Left are: "Our side is fantastic and their side is lame and smells bad. Also their side has irreparably harmed us and are behind every bad thing that happens and we need revenge."

Granted you could argue that it goes both ways, but I'm decidedly biased in that regard.

Well it is certainly true that everybody is biased on the scale of all things but one must always try to see another one's point of view even if it's irrational (in one's own opinion).

[The South Falls]

I definitely foresee a coming civil conflict, but I'm not sure it'll be a proper "war". In America, the Right has the guns while the Left doesn't; if things do breakdown into direct conflict, you're essentially going to see Rightist militias rapidly clearing the rural areas and then lining people up against walls in the cities.

You underestimate the ability of the left to buy guns. The Far-left has more guns, but they're less open about it. If the left are all rich shit like you say, they can buy whatever they want.

[Oil exporting People]

Doubtful, Western nations like comfortable living to actually start open conflicts over ideals.

If you ignore the entirety of the 20th century, of course.

[Olerand]

I definitely foresee a coming civil conflict, but I'm not sure it'll be a proper "war". In America, the Right has the guns while the Left doesn't; if things do breakdown into direct conflict, you're essentially going to see Rightist militias rapidly clearing the rural areas and then lining people up against walls in the cities.

You underestimate the ability of the left to buy guns. The Far-left has more guns, but they're less open about it. If the left are all rich shit like you say, they can buy whatever they want.

The issue of guns won't really be a problem. Once order falls apart, foreign countries and the black market will flood all sides with guns, no doubt about that.

What matters is willingness to commit atrocities, and a willingness to live the conditions of total war. Without reinforcing stereotypes about the mushy American "left" or whatever, I do believe the American right is far more willing.

[Valrifell]

Doubtful, Western nations like comfortable living to actually start open conflicts over ideals.

If you ignore the entirety of the 20th century, of course.

Not quite the same conditions.

Since WW1 there's been a dramatic increase in living standards across the globe, since WW2 there's been a decline in competing ideologies from within what is usually considered "Western" barring some homegrown radical Reds.

[Oil exporting People]

You underestimate the ability of the left to buy guns. The Far-left has more guns, but they're less open about it. If the left are all rich shit like you say, they can buy whatever they want.

Some Leftist could go buy a hundred guns and it'd be irrelevant if he's never held one his whole life because he won't understand the basics of how to shoot it or maintain it. Further, you make the assumption that Leftists have ready access to guns; this is not the case, as many cities have few, if any, gun stores. Any civil conflict is going to rapidly see Rightist militias splattering the brains of lefties on walls and clogging drains with their blood.

This would imply that most of the left will do anything besides screech at their computers and kick trashcans.

I'd imagine they'll do quite a bit of screeching when they get lined up along walls by the tens of thousands. The force disparity is far too great in favor of the Right.

[Oil exporting People]

If you ignore the entirety of the 20th century, of course.

Not quite the same conditions.

Since WW1 there's been a dramatic increase in living standards across the globe, since WW2 there's been a decline in competing ideologies from within what is usually considered "Western" barring some homegrown radical Reds.

As I said, if you ignore the entirety of 20th Century. For some recent examples, the Years of Lead in Italy, the entire reason we have the French Fifth Republic, The Troubles in the UK, the Red Army Faction in West Germany and sporadic street violence in the U.S. up until the present.

[Bakery Hill]

I don't see the point in this fantasising really.

[Olerand]

You underestimate the ability of the left to buy guns. The Far-left has more guns, but they're less open about it. If the left are all rich shit like you say, they can buy whatever they want.

Some Leftist could go buy a hundred guns and it'd be irrelevant if he's never held one his whole life because he won't understand the basics of how to shoot it or maintain it. Further, you make the assumption that Leftists have ready access to guns; this is not the case, as many cities have few, if any, gun stores. Any civil conflict is going to rapidly see Rightist militias splattering the brains of lefties on walls and clogging drains with their blood.

This would imply that most of the left will do anything besides screech at their computers and kick trashcans.

I'd imagine they'll do quite a bit of screeching when they get lined up along walls by the tens of thousands. The force disparity is far too great in favor of the Right.

They'll get the guns. It's not that hard, the black market and foreign providers will ensure that. Though training will take time, that also can be acquired. It's not as if the American right is already organized into some highly disciplined paramilitary force ready to spring into the offensive.

Your last sentence is very colorful. You really seem to dread this outcome of the loss of human lives, no?

No such thing. The American right isn't some paramilitary super-force. Again, the American "left" will most likely lose, but that's not because they don't have guns, or because the American right (as much as some deeply wish it was) is manned by some ubermensch.

Not quite the same conditions.

Since WW1 there's been a dramatic increase in living standards across the globe, since WW2 there's been a decline in competing ideologies from within what is usually considered "Western" barring some homegrown radical Reds.

As I said, if you ignore the entirety of 20th Century. For some recent examples, the Years of Lead in Italy, the entire reason we have the French Fifth Republic, The Troubles in the UK, the Red Army Faction in West Germany and sporadic street violence in the U.S. up until the present.

The Fifth Republic did not come about due to any homegrown Troubles or Years of Lead events in France.

EDIT: And nor can the Troubles or the Years of Lead be compared to a full scale civil war in America. Not at all. If anything, they're comparable to the current wave of Islamic terrorism we are experiencing in Europe today.

[Valrifell]

I don't see the point in this fantasising really.

Kind of morbid that people talk about massacring political opponents.

[Olerand]

I don't see the point in this fantasising really.

Kind of morbid that people talk about massacring political opponents.

The other poster's very poetic descriptions are, I believe, a nice example of why the American right will most likely win.

[Bakery Hill]

I don't see the point in this fantasising really.

Kind of morbid that people talk about massacring political opponents.

I don't even think the conditions are anywhere near that at the moment. The divides in America are nowhere near as strong as in the 60s and 70s. People were getting assassinated, activists murdered by cops, people shot in the streets, bombs were going off and still there was no Spanish Civil War. A lot of people on either side of politics want an Armageddon but it'll take a lot more before it happens. And when those conditions do arise, the strengths and weaknesses of opponents will be very different.