There was some discussion last week about the prospects of civil war. There’s a movie on the subject. (I have not seen it, but I caught a bit of the trailer.) Its not that uncommon of a sentiment to hear expressed:
Other than the prospect of eliminating the types of voters you generally don’t agree with by force of arms, what gets solved exactly? What does the peace look like after?
What line is at risk of being crossed that must not be crossed? Is the sentiment inspired by typical shifts over time in voting patterns? One party has garnered more votes in 7 of the last 8 national elections than the other. That’s over 32 years. Why the sudden urgency? Other than demographic shifts which seems a pretty thin basis to start killing folks over.
(While I can’t stop anyone delving into “it was rigged and if we lose it was rigged, but if we win it was fair but if elections are rigged we gotta go to war!” OR “the illegals are voting in Presidential elections!” I’m just not interested in that nonsense.)
What does interest me are two things:
First, why do the same people:
-who insist upon respect for law and order and institutions,
-who insist that the police and courts must be respected,
-whose response to seemingly every instance of civil unrest is to minimize or attack the rationale, motives or patriotism of the protesters,
are the same people who tell us that they’re ready to go to literal war if they don’t get the political outcome they desire? Seems patently hypocritical to me. Watching George Floyd murdered, objectively, seems a better candidate to me for civil unrest than a politician who lost an election whining that he was cheated.
That is not to say that I am a pacifist. I recognize the role political violence, of all types, has played in history and that looking back you can find justified political violence and unjust political violence.
We are after all a revolutionary nation. We shot British soldiers when their King refused to allow us to leave. Good. There are other examples around the world, not all of which have turned out great. There are also examples where non-violent resistance achieved change in government leadership.
My personal view is that one’s options to take a physical fight to this government, beyond achieving some degree of fame/infamy, are nil. Good luck being a modern-day Guy Fawkes. You’ll no doubt be treated kinder than he once caught.
Due to the various surveillance capabilities the government has you cannot organize nor can you coordinate without being quickly ensnared. If you find yourself in a group of two people talking about the overthrow of the US government you are likely talking to a federal agent. Nor can you win against the massive assets of the US military. You will end up dead or in a deep dark hole in a very unpleasant prison.
My belief is that individual political power in this country, at this point in history, is limited to participating in democracy in whatever way you choose. Outside of that you can be a nuisance. You can cause turmoil. You can shed blood and destroy property, but the only real power you have is at the ballot box, period. That can be your single vote or the votes of those you have persuaded who otherwise may not have voted or voted the other way.
The government is simply too powerful to be toppled by an armed citizenry. The same strength we require to be protected from foreign adversaries protects the government from us.
Second, what are the appropriate moral considerations when deciding whether or not to join a group of armed men and start shooting people and/or destroying property?
Sorry, but I don’t agree about the riots after Floyd just as it would have been wrong for Trump voters to do something similar if the assassin’s bullet had struck true. It was not an exercise of the right to peaceably assemble. Burning people’s businesses and looting stores had nothing to do with the horror of what happened in Minneapolis. I’m not going to debate you on the subject.
I believe the vote is the only way to settle our differences. I also believe the appropriate use of federalism would solve a lot of the problems we have as a country. If you don’t like the way your state does things, you have the freedom to leave to go somewhere that does, but that genie is out of the bottle and has already granted our 3 wishes.
The hostilities of 1861-1865 were about whether this experiment in a republican form of government was going to last, and it also began the slow march for liberty for a large group of people who were brought to this continent involuntarily as slaves. The current political situation isn’t a reason to go down that bloody path again to incur the equivalent of 6-7m people dead.
I don’t know what the answer is, but getting back to Constitutional principles would be a pretty darn good start.
Making a comparison and finding one circumstance more understandable than another is NOT the same thing as justification. I am simply a bit more sympathetic to a reaction based upon reality than a reaction founded upon bullshit. As for the rest, I think we are in accord. I definitely think that there are significant benefits to diffuse power. Unfortunately, far too many state actors in history abused that autonomy leading to permanent modifications to the constitutional structure. It seems to me that commerce and civil rights are two where pulling back are either impractical or unwise. I would be interested to hear about situations where a state actor finds itself materially constrained by Washington. My impression, and I am open to being wrong, is that the main effect of federal government has upon the states is sending them lots of money. If there is some independent, self-funded innovations that are being constrained from on high, my ears are open. I do know of circumstances where supposed “federalists” and “state’s rights” proponents in state houses have deliberately interfered with local governmental policies. A hypocrisy I find pretty ironic.
State constitutions generally don’t have the same constraints that the US Constitution had originally built in. I would agree … government should be localized as much as possible.
http://www.tacticalcivics.com is the best path back to the original tenets of the Constitution. And the only way to put the power back in the hands of the people, as it was meant to be. This is the best way to take it out of the hands of career politicians, and can set enforceable term limits.
I definitely agree to getting back to constitutional principle. Abuse of power in my opinion is a problem in this country. If the SCOTUS makes a ruling, they say fuck it we’re going to do it anyway. Who’s to enforce it.
Abuse of power is the result of career politicians who created this monster. Most of the people who sit in the 538 seats of elected “public servants” are people who have done nothing of significance or contributed much of anything of value to society. The problem is too many of us believe “throw the bums out except for my bum.”
Separation of powers and checks and balances are so 19th century. 😉
I agree with the 19th century thing but that is also one of the constitutional principles.
That’s exactly my point. 😉
The thing they’ve done is won the most votes. That is how it should be. We need a better electorate.
Also, name the guy/gal who stayed for decades but didn’t serve their constituency OR would have voted differently than any replacement? I mean Strom Thurmond was essentially a corpse for a time, but if he had remained among the living and was still there is their one vote of any significance that Lindsey Graham would have gone the other way on? Doubtful. This career politician complaint withstands no scrutiny. What people don’t appreciate are the voters who keep sending them back. Well too damn bad. If SC wants to send Strom and MA wants to send Ted for 50 years or more, I say so be it.
If the President and Vice President are term limited by constitutional amendment, the rest of them should be as well. That’s all I have to say about that.
I’m against that as well. The idea that we’d have been better off with a brand new president when the Japanese struck pearl harbor always seemed nonsensical to me. I get the tradition and the rationale. A single representative of one-third of the government has more concerns than 1/535ths to be sure. But the 1940 election was a sensitive time and obviously we had the right guy in place. If that circumstance arose again and we have an 8 year president with 65% approval rating, the world is on fire and the election is clown vs sackashit I think we might say wtf were we thinking? Besides since fdr did it who would have been another willing and able? Clinton is about it. Does anyone think we were better off 4/8 years later with who we got? All the arguments I hear in support of term limits seem very superficial to me.
You mean like hoisting the Confederate Battle Flag over every southern state capital after Brown v Education and then making every effort to resist implementation of desegregation? Yeah, that is pretty shameful. How did the republic survive that shit? What Scotus decision is being defied now that has your drawers in a bunch?
I think we all should elect Derek for president. He could get this thing straightened out fast, I’m sure. Hell, I would vote for you just to see how you do.
Being universally loved is kinda my thing ya know. It just might work….
It would comfort me to know that basic competence is no longer a prerequisite for the job.
If y’all want to pass the hat and send me to New Hampshire & Iowa in 2026, I’ll consider an exploratory committee… It wouldn’t be a traditional campaign where you try to gain friends and allies and political favors or even votes. It would be more of a scorched Earth approach until the money ran out. I’d be happy to share the resulting book revenue: How I told the people of two states to go fuck themselves and received zero votes along the way. The exclusive inside story!
I would never vote for rubbish to occupy the office if the President.
I agree. That’s why I would never vote for a low-information career criminal and convicted felon.
This nonsense is always spouted by people who have never been near a war. They have no idea what they’re talking about. None of them would last very long and they would be hating life until they got killed. It’s almost like they think it would be fun. It wouldn’t be. And most people are chicken shit. Your average man now has never even been in a fist fight. But he thinks he’s going to kill people and break stuff cause politics? Fuck off. None of them want to get away from their TV shows and air conditioning long enough to even do anything that’s very hard much less have what it takes to be in a war. It’s all online gamer talk. And I personally don’t want a civil war at all even as shot out as I think a lot of people in this country are.
^^This x 1000. If those knuckleheads had any idea, they would STFU real quick.
As one trained by the US Gvt both to foment and quell rebellions, and having personal experience at ground level with both; I will tell anyone that rebelling is almost always a failure and and when it works results in a worse situation for the group that rebelled; see Bolshevik Revolution for example. There are many more. The US is the exception that proves the rule and even we have proven to be a fractious and violent nation from the very beginning. Living by the sword truly begets dying by the same…
Your view of how civil war gets moving seems rather simplistic. It’s not as though a bunch of guys are going to load up in trucks with guns, attack their local courthouse, and then get hunted down by US miliary drones.(The wars over everybody!!!) No, it would be long and drawn out as local and state governments would air grievances, get rebuked, form alliances with each other and petition for change or else. Pretty much the same as what occurred here before. Probably would take 10 years starting today if it were to happen IMO. I pray it does not, but let’s all face it. Washington is broken. People are broke, pissed, and many are mentally unwell. Anything is possible.
So how is that different or harder than using democratic processes? At some point you win elections to get your way OR you decide you’re not getting your way by democratic means and… what?
How does a separate grievance committee justify its existence if its not winning elections or attempting to? If its entire purpose is to demand what we want! My response is: Or what? Seems to me that while you may be better organized, you’re still fucked.
So your opinion is that if the large population areas tell us all to eat shit and die, we should just go along with it because, hey we tried but that is how this system works?
I mean “majority” not necessarily based upon any geography, but, yes, I think that what you can’t reverse by democratic means is something you’d better get used to as the other option ain’t great.
But the purpose this week is to:
No one is required to accept any of my premises.
Dang. And here all this time I thought our Constitution was supposed to protect the minority. Silly me.
The “rights” of the minority are protected not their opinions or political preferences.
You said “I think that what you can’t reverse by democratic means is something you’d better get used to as the other option.” Majority uber alles right Mein Fuhrer?
Democracy is a helluva concept ain’t it? You’d think that in a free and fair country that 4 fucking people in gd Idaho could write the IRS code for the rest of us, but NO the nazis are in charge so they can’t! Whatever! Where’s my rifle?!? You will be no doubt shocked to find that there are liberals in Alabama and conservatives on NYC who are living in abject tyranny and there ain’t shit they can do about it.
You can’t always get what you want.
In 1957 in Little Rock, President Eisenhower showed how you can put down an insurrection quickly. There were a bunch of neo-confederate racist rednecks who attempted to defy the federal government when it ordered Arkansas to integrate its schools. Ike could easily have sent a couple of battalions of MPs from nearby Fort Chaffee to solve the issue; he instead sent the 101st Airborne to bust some redneck heads and get Arkansans’ minds right. This is what will happen if racist insurrections try that shit again:
https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/f798d83/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2997×2553+0+0/resize/599×510!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstorage.googleapis.com%2Fafs-prod%2Fmedia%2Fafs%3AMedium%3A1388040023%2F2997.jpeg
Too bad Trump didn’t do the same to the savages who rioted in Minnesota over George Floyd.
Doing not a damn thing or making it worse is too on brand.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/html-submitted/ch7.html
Now if you really need some bullshit, he’s there for you.
I hope another civil war never comes to fruition…I never want to see my countrymen fighting each other. I think your second question has a very simple, Pollyanna type answer, but it’s worked well for me. I think some form of adherents to the Golden Rule is a good measuring stick as how to treat people. I have not gotten so riled as to torch my neighbors’ homes or property regardless of yard signs, misunderstandings of property lines, etc. Disagreeing with people is fine…having an open dialogue helps folks come to common ground…it’s when we all silo up and denigrate the other side as evil or irredeemable that we start having serious problems.
The media, imo, has done a horrible job in fomenting this divide…
We need to be mature enough to understand what they’re up to and respond like a responsible citizenry rather than blindly accepting what we see and hear. The media wants $. The color that matters in America is green. The others are there to distract and agitate the people who have no green. I recall one election cycle, I think it was one of Clinton’s wins, but I could be wrong, when folks lost their shit because the media declared Florida before polls closed in the panhandle. The outrage!!
“People won’t vote now because they think its over!” Now they wait the extra hour. I thought then and think now thats dumb. The lesson is: don’t believe the media. Be a fucking adult. As long as we make the assumption that we need an honest media because people are dumb we’ll get nowhere. We don’t fucking insist upon honest politicians do we? That people can simultaneously vote for a pathological liar while pissing on msnbc for dishonesty is hilarious to me. The media has a responsibility!! Well, so do you and btw the media doesn’t pass, sign or enforce laws. They sell advertising. Get a grip.
That was Bush v Gore
Well then. Do you see what I mean? They were wrong. We should all act accordingly.
I do think people are gullible, not all, but enough to make a difference. And to rile people up to an extent that they want to hurt one another should be and can be in some instances criminal…sort of like coercion.
Not sure if you wrote “Be a fucking adult” or “Get a grip” for a general audience or specifically for me, but it is my understanding that the majority of readers on this and the previous website are a little long in the tooth and are set in their ways. I never come on here thinking I’m going to change the mindset of strangers on the internet. I just state my limited knowledge and typically make an irreverent joke.
I don’t “type” tough, it’s not my gig. I also don’t value irritating and arguing with strangers…from past correspondence with you I know we disagree politically and I gleefully say…you do you and I’ll do me…I’m betting we both view that it’s worked well so far.
That was screamed into the cosmic void. Not directed at any person here. Sorry if I didn’t make sufficient effort to make that clearer.
I think you’d have a helluva time enforcing such a regulation or statute. You can cause a lot of fuss without crossing any clear lines. I wouldn’t mind a law that prevented advertising breaks during news/political opinion shows or on the internet unless they adhered to the “fairness doctrine.” I just don’t know that the political will is there to shove pandora back into the box. I also think we need to get used to a world where the sources of information are so diverse and so often malignant, that our best hope is to instill a general sense of skepticism.
Why are you conversing with this liberal Commie Bastard who thinks he is VERY much smarter than you are, remember you are a stupid right wing person who wants Civil War. Derek, you are a special kind of stupid.
I’m happy to take your word for it.
Thank you, come again!
You will never convince me that Derek is a right-wing person.
Tim, like I wrote above, “Disagreeing with people is fine…having an open dialogue helps folks come to common ground…” Hell, Derek and I may have attributed to the original playpen being banned by the Senator of yore. As I recall, Bluto wasn’t on my political team either, and yet he let me pontificate on about my beliefs on his site, which I thought showed a lot of grace. Derek has demonstrated a deep affinity for UGA over the years…he’s recalled some plays and athletes that triggered happy memories for my old hillbilly ass…knowing we disagree on a couple things doesn’t supersede our common affection for all things Georgia…I’ve been through the mill too many times to give a shit about who’s the smartest ahole in a room. It also doesn’t help I have always been of the make luv not war mentality…if only I could get back a fraction of the time and money I spent chasing poon…that’s what my truncated mind thinks about
Tim, please step back from the edge. The personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Please consider this to be a warning.
Derek can take care of himself.
Anytime someone brings up insurrection I am reminded of the words of my good friend RangerRuss: “Don’t be a Fucking Idiot.”
Good to see you back, Froze…
Uncle Got, my Dawg!
No place to comment on your 3:56 Dawg, but I agree. I’m one of those who thoroughly enjoyed the GTP Playpen and glad to see Derek carrying the torch.
As for poon chasing? Sheeit man, if I had the energy I’d do it all again in a minute, only I’d be way better at it this go-round.
partner, these days I would need a tongue suppressor, some bailing wire, and a pocket full of saltpeter (in case the old ticker starts to overheat)
but I could still light this candle and deliver a solid 90 – 120 seconds of pure euphoria…Bam
The baling wire and saltpeter I get, but I AM curious about the tongue suppressor…:)
Got, I think the tongue depressor would be used as a splint on uhm, a certain midline appendage. Held in place by the baling wire. Sounds rather uncomfortable for the female involved.
Thanks Ghurka. Sure am glad I didn’t google that.
Gurkha is a scholar and a gentleman…the tongue suppressor was the precursor to all the Blue pharmaceuticals…I’m sure you boys remember the ole French ticklers…well the tongue suppressors are wildly known as the Dutch Delight…wooden shoes wasn’t the only thang those snow beasts would slip into
Eethomaswfnc,
Go Fuck yourself as well, if I never comment on this blog, thats fine, You and the Senator are apparently like most Liberals, you can’t take an opposing point of view. We just had the liberal side of Gov’t tried to take out their opponent , But I guess it was Just Gross ” Incompetence”, You Guys are the fucking problem with this country now.
“We just had the liberal side of Gov’t tried to take out their opponent “
What the fuck are you talking about?
You don’t know my politics. If you have read my comments over the years, you can probably infer them.
As one of the admins on this site, I do have the ban hammer at my disposal. I am happy to use it.
Please stop the personal attacks. 2nd warning.
Wouldn’t that be taking away free speech even on a Georgia blog. If not, then ban away.
With free speech comes responsibility … I would assume no one is going to get banned for saying their peace in a way that doesn’t attack others personally. When it moves from content to character, I personally am not going to tolerate it.
I saw the movie. I thought it was mostly hyped to sell tickets, but It was good enough from an acting, production values standpoint.
I want to focus on the question asked: “One party has garnered more votes in 7 of the last 8 national elections than the other. That’s over 32 years. Why the sudden urgency?”
It isn’t that sudden. the status quo is being threatened for certain folks and they know that they could try to persuade others to see that the status quo is a good thing, but they haven’t been able to do so. Maybe they can’t persuade them because arguments for the status quo are flimsy. Perhaps it isn’t a good thing for those who aren’t voting to support the status quo. And as far the Revolutionary War is part of our history I think there is a clear difference when you need to get out from under a King that you can’t vote out. When you can’t persuade people to accept your point of view and you feel threatened by that, you might do crazy things. The one thing I would say that the movie tries to show is that are no winners in civil war in the long run.
I understand the dynamics. I was just curious if anyone thought that it was a serious proposition either as something likely to happen and/or was viable and/or justifiable.
One of the things that has occurred to me since the surveillance apparatus was turned inwards in 2001 or so is that every domestic terrorist action is either a “lone wolf” OR if two people are involved, they live in the same house. Two brothers. Husband and wife teams. While that’s obviously beneficial in a way, it does concern me that the system could also be turned against political dissent if we happened to place that power into irresponsible hands.
One of the big problems that we have is that so may leave HS and have no understanding of how and why our country was founded. WAY too many people think that they have “rights” that don’t actually exist. They have little to no understanding of what the Constitution and The Bill of Rights actually says or means. The don’t understand why we have an Electoral College vs pure democracy. No matter which side of the political spectrum you fall on, you first need to understand how and why our founding fathers did what they did. They may have been a bunch of old white dudes, but history has shown that they were pretty smart. Their masterpiece has served us pretty well for 2.5 centuries.
I’m not sold on the idea that the electoral college has retained any particular wisdom. Catering to Cuban communities in south florida or Muslim communities in MI simply because they are in swing states while broad stretches of the country are ignored every 4 years doesn’t seem like the sort of thing envisioned by the founders. The enduring “republican” aspect of constitution is that Wyoming has the same number of votes in the Senate as CA. That ought in and of itself satisfy the “its a Republic” crowd, but what would in truth, short of a time machine?
If you are going to put you finger on the enduring wisdom of the founders, intentional or accidental, it would be:
I remember hearing about a story where LBJ was confronted by activists to do some such thing because “it was the right thing to do” or whatever. He instructed them that his agreement was irrelevant. “Go out there and get the voters to agree with you and then come back. Make me do it.” That’s how it is supposed to work. You are supposed to be accountable. The term limit folks advocating for half the politicians service to be completely unaccountable to the public for what they do miss that point entirely.
“I’m not sold on the idea that the electoral college has retained any particular wisdom.”
I disagree with this idea completely. Why should the major population centers decide who will lead the executive branch? That’s what we would have under a popular vote system. The entire country outside of the metropolitan areas would have little to no voice in the outcome of a Presidential election. I say this as a person who has lived in both rural and metro areas.
I would advocate for the overall winner of a state to receive the 2 votes representing the senators from that state and each congressional district’s vote is given to the winner of that particular district (the Nebraska and Maine models). The winner take all system is what disenfranchises conservatives in California and liberals in Florida.
Abolishing the electoral college is never going to happen because 3/4 of the states are never going to agree to it.
I just reject that premise. The campaigns would still be fought in suburban America. If you imagine concentric rings around the cities you are going to have blue and then as you move away you will have purple and eventually red. At some point democrats will find diminishing returns as they move away from the city center and like wise Republicans will find diminishing returns as they move closer. All of the independents and undecideds and enthusiasm is going to by fought along those transition lines from blue to red and from red to blue. The advertising purchases won’t change. The rally locations won’t change. What will change is that suburbs of Seattle, NYC, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Boston, Nashville, Sacramento, etc…. will have to be addressed. All of those voters who do not matter today, would matter. You also eliminate the problem of a minority interest within a swing state that has a grossly disproportionate amount of influence.
Does Kemp campaign in Atlanta ONLY? Hell no. Its a straight democratic process and he is going to NOT spend time in the biggest city or at least not trying to win the votes of the residents there. So the GOP is in Canton and the dems are in Snellville. So what? Whoever has the support of the most voters wins. It suffices in every other election for every other office in America. Why treat this one differently? Why should elections be decided by the whims of the voters of WI, MI and PA? Why do they get to be special? Because an archaic system says so? I’m underwhelmed. Btw: you may not know but there is already a law that has passed numerous state legislatures that pledges its electors to the candidate with the most votes. Once passed by a certain number of states, it becomes effective and will skip the whole amendment process.
If state wants to give their electors to the winner of the popular vote nationally, that’s federalism at work. I won’t hold my breath that California and New York will ever award their electors to a popular vote winner that differs from the winner in the individual state.
OK I’ll do it, since it is the Playpen.
Tim in an earlier comment suggests that Trump’s shooting was a government arranged hit. I’m inclined to agree with him because the general level of fuck-uppery screams “Government”. (Not at the “Let’s fuck up a third world country” level but more along the lines of local animal control)
Show of hands: The shooter acted alone or State sponsored hit?
Put me down for “false flag.”
I think it was Derek and his buddies.
I don’t think Herpe Potter (the shooter) was that savvy, and it’s equally amazing how many “missteps “ occurred to allow him to get off those shots…smells like high tide to me
LMAO. “Ree Tardo Oswald” Is my current favorite sobriquet but “Herpe Potter” ain’t bad.
I live in a deep red state (not GA) where the GOP holds every statewide office, has a super-majority in both houses, has 2 GOP Senators, only 1 Dem House member out of 7, and basically runs the entire state with the exception of a few Dem mayors of the larger cities. I have never seen a more miserable group of people over politics. They hate the federal government, but have no problem taking in that $2+ from the feds in exchange for each $1 paid in federal taxes. Now I have to listen to this bunch talk about succession or civil war if Trump loses? Idiocracy at work.
Keep your government hands off my Medicare!!
Dawg Fans on this site: I say get rid of the damn playpen. I’m sure there are a lot of good people on this blog regardless of politics. In my opinion politics is a divider, too much disagreement and most are steadfast in their beliefs so there is no changing anyone’s minds. I would rather see the playpen go than to start banning people. Every Wednesday there is the playpen, and everyone wants to sound off by referencing the 67 comments already. So, Otis and the banners let’s get rid of it.
Think about it this way:
GTPrefugees is a Thanksgiving meal with the family, but instead of Uncle Mike shoving a turkey leg down his nephew’s throat over a disagreement about bud light beer ad at the dinner table ruining everything for everyone, they go down to the basement (The Playpen) where no one can hear them, and the innocent can enjoy their dressing and cranberry sauce in peace.
Now I don’t expect that choking on a dumb stick is going to lead to any philosophical epiphanies no matter where the lesson is taught, but what I do know is that I don’t want it interrupting my meal.
Well, Happy Thanksgiving!!
That’s crazy talk. The playpen is a fountain of information! Why, just yesterday I learned how to splint my wiener! I’ve made it 50 some-odd years without even thinking about it and…Taa-daa! Now I know.
Rock on wit’cho bad self, Derek.