Poll: almost 1/3 of Americans think a second civil war is coming soon (1 Viewer)

SaintsInDome2006 said:

I'm just going to be honest with you. I think this whole constant line of argument FOR - because that's what it is - and militating FOR civil war, fascism and divisions is actually awful. It's not a serious discussion.

Click to expand...

Riversco said:

This is not clickbait or anything else.  This is a genuine article and a genuine discussion.  We need to properly discuss this issue.  I'll try to respond to respectful comments.

I think we need MASSIVE compromise from the left immediately.  I think we're at a point where building a wall would no longer be enough to stop it.  We need to revamp our systems to be more representative of conservative thought otherwise right-wing disenfranchisement will tear the nation apart.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

I really do want to be respectful but- everytime you post the nonsense about the civil war or uprising or Nazi revolt etc., part 2 is always that liberals need to SURRENDER IMMEDIATELY!

Click to expand...

Riversco said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/27/civil-war-likely-voters-say-rasmussen-poll/740731002/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=amp&utm_campaign=speakabl

A war may be brewing within the United States, almost a third of voters say in a poll released Wednesday. 

Amid widespread political polarization on issues like immigration and recent public confrontations of Trump administration officials, 31 percent of probable U.S. voters surveyed said they think "it's likely that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years."

Democrats at 37 percent were slightly more fearful of a second civil war than Republicans at 32 percent, the poll from Rasmussen Reports found.

While more than half thought it was unlikely the USA would see a second civil war soon, 59 percent of voters were still concerned that opponents of President Donald Trump's policies would resort to violence.

During former President Barack Obama's second year in office, a similar 53% of voters thought those who did not support his policies would turn to violence, according to Rasmussen.

Wednesday's poll also found 53 percent of voters were worried that those critical of the news media's Trump coverage would become violent. 

More: Texas border chaos: Courts, families, government collide in zero tolerance debacle

More: Trump administration's 'zero tolerance' border prosecutions led to time served, $10 fees

More: DOJ: Trump's immigration crackdown 'diverting' resources from drug cases

The poll comes as the Trump administration faces harsh backlash over a "zero tolerance" immigration policy that separated more than 2,000 children from their parents who stand accused of entering the United States illegally. Trump signed an executive order last week that aimed to end family separations while maintaining a his strict policy of criminally prosecuting immigrants crossing the border illegally.

Trump administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and White House adviser Stephen Miller, have faced public confrontation from political opponents protesting the immigration policy and others.

The survey by Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 likely U.S. voters from June 21 to June 24 with a sampling error of 3 percentage points.

Click to expand...

Riversco said:

Its not the liberals that are giving up on the system.  Liberals by and large trust the press and trust the system.  Appeasing them does not fix the problem.  That's not hard to understand.  There's never been a poll showing widespread loss of trust among democrats.  The core of the problem is loss of trust among republicans.  Effectively 0% of republicans trust the press. That's a disaster!  It can't get worse in terms of loss of trust.

You watch the radicalization of the right and your solution is what?  For republicans to compromise to the left?  You realize that's stupid, right?

Click to expand...

knowledge dropper said:

Well there has been a mass shooting at a newspaper office in Maryland today. 

Click to expand...

TobiasFunke said:

I've seen a lot of absurd logic and arguments around here. But claiming that the people who control all three branches of the federal government and a clear majority of state governments are the angry ones?  And the people who don't control any the three branches even though they've won 6 of the last 7 popular votes for president and who are joined by a clear majority of Americans thinking the current Administration sucks ###, people who literally call themselves "the Resistance" ... those people are complacent and trust the system?  That might take the cake, my friend.

Click to expand...

Riversco said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/27/civil-war-likely-voters-say-rasmussen-poll/740731002/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=amp&utm_campaign=speakabl

The survey by Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 likely U.S. voters from June 21 to June 24 with a sampling error of 3 percentage points.

Click to expand...

Riversco said:

Its been in the polls.  It doesn't matter who controls what.  The polls clearly show widespread disenfranchisement among republicans.

Click to expand...

Hawkeye21 said:

This is really stupid.

Click to expand...

Riversco said:

Its been in the polls.  It doesn't matter who controls what.  The polls clearly show widespread disenfranchisement among republicans.  I think the best way to sum up their growing view is that controlling government does nothing because they feel the other side controls the schools, the media, and globalist corporations.  In effect, that takes way their vote.  They can win all 3 branches and the democrats still control everything.  So they are giving up.  They are starting to believe revolution is needed.

Click to expand...

Riversco said:

In the 1960s, you had riots.  They were big riots.  But polling showed that the overwhelming majority of the nation trusted its government and the system.  So those riots went nowhere.  They died out and we moved on.  That's how I see the left wing side of this.  The left might riot.  They might have some big riots.  But they still trust the system.  It won't go further than that.  The right wing has given up on the system.  They would go beyond rioting.  They are at risk of staging a rebellion.  Apparently, the left does not see the risk.  But that's the reason why I need to make these threads and these posts.  Its a critical discussion to have.

Click to expand...

Riversco said:

Its not the liberals that are giving up on the system.  Liberals by and large trust the press and trust the system.  Appeasing them does not fix the problem.  That's not hard to understand.  There's never been a poll showing widespread loss of trust among democrats.  The core of the problem is loss of trust among republicans.  Effectively 0% of republicans trust the press. That's a disaster!  It can't get worse in terms of loss of trust.

You watch the radicalization of the right and your solution is what?  For republicans to compromise to the left?  You realize that's stupid, right?  You trot out republican leaders in the house and senate and have them end the wall, ban guns, socialize healthcare, etc., and you will get civil unrest.

Click to expand...

Riversco said:

Its been in the polls.  It doesn't matter who controls what.  The polls clearly show widespread disenfranchisement among republicans.  I think the best way to sum up their growing view is that controlling government does nothing because they feel the other side controls the schools, the media, and globalist corporations.  In effect, that takes way their vote.  They can win all 3 branches and the democrats still control everything.  So they are giving up.  They are starting to believe revolution is needed.

Click to expand...

Matthias said:

Instead of babying the Republicans, it's time for the Democrats to tell them to stop being such whiny #####es.

Click to expand...

Riversco said:

In the 1960s, you had riots.  They were big riots.  But polling showed that the overwhelming majority of the nation trusted its government and the system.  So those riots went nowhere.  They died out and we moved on.  That's how I see the left wing side of this.  The left might riot.  They might have some big riots.  But they still trust the system.  It won't go further than that.  The right wing has given up on the system.  They would go beyond rioting.  They are at risk of staging a rebellion.  Apparently, the left does not see the risk.  But that's the reason why I need to make these threads and these posts.  Its a critical discussion to have.

Click to expand...

msommer said:

You know, apart from the innocent casualties (civilians on both sides and those fighting for the Union)  a civil war could bring some longer term benefits. As the ar-15 armed rebels yell against the abrahams battle tank at least we can get away from the myth about gun ownership ensuring the possibility of insurrection against tyrranny.

Also, the Darwin award show that year would be massive.

Click to expand...

Johnnymac said:

I'm ready for it.  Long overdue imo

Click to expand...

Opie said:

The first (and hopefully, last) civil war occured because the Democrats lost an election in 1860.

I wonder how different our country would be if the Democrats had won either the election of 1860 or the war they started shortly after that.

Click to expand...

Matthias said:

Are we at war yet?

Click to expand...

Lutherman2112 said:

Matthias said:

Are we at war yet?

Click to expand...

Two more days: 

BREAKING: DEMOCRATS PLAN TO LAUNCH CIVIL WAR ON JULY 4TH

President Trump bringing America back infuriating the left

Click to expand...

Riversco said:

In the 1960s, you had riots.  They were big riots.  But polling showed that the overwhelming majority of the nation trusted its government and the system.  So those riots went nowhere.  They died out and we moved on.  

Click to expand...

Opie said:

The first (and hopefully, last) civil war occured because the Democrats lost an election in 1860.

I wonder how different our country would be if the Democrats had won either the election of 1860 or the war they started shortly after that.

Click to expand...

Nullification crisis

Main article: Nullification Crisis

In 1828, Congress had approved the "Tariff of Abominations", which set the tariff at an historically high rate. Southern planters, who sold their cotton on the world market, strongly opposed this tariff, which they saw as favoring northern interests. The South now had to pay more for goods it did not produce locally; and other countries would have more difficulty affording southern cotton. The issue came to a head during Jackson's presidency, resulting in the Nullification Crisis, in which South Carolina threatened disunion.[192]

The South Carolina Exposition and Protest of 1828, secretly written by Calhoun, asserted that their state had the right to "nullify"—declare void—the tariff legislation of 1828. Although Jackson sympathized with the South in the tariff debate, he also vigorously supported a strong union, with effective powers for the central government. Jackson attempted to face down Calhoun over the issue, which developed into a bitter rivalry between the two men. One incident came at the April 13, 1830, Jefferson Day dinner, involving after-dinner toasts. Robert Hayne began by toasting to "The Union of the States, and the Sovereignty of the States." Jackson then rose, and in a booming voice added "Our federal Union: It must be preserved!" – a clear challenge to Calhoun. Calhoun clarified his position by responding "The Union: Next to our Liberty, the most dear!"[193]

In May 1830, Jackson discovered that Calhoun had asked President Monroe to censure then-General Jackson for his invasion of Spanish Florida in 1818 while Calhoun was serving as Secretary of War. Calhoun's and Jackson's relationship deteriorated further. By February 1831, the break between Calhoun and Jackson was final. Responding to inaccurate press reports about the feud, Calhoun had published letters between him and Jackson detailing the conflict in the United States Telegraph. Jackson and Calhoun began an angry correspondence which lasted until Jackson stopped it in July.[124] The Telegraph, edited by Duff Green, had previously supported Jackson. After it took the side of Calhoun, Jackson needed a new organ for the administration. He enlisted the help of longtime supporter Francis Preston Blair, who in November 1830 established a newspaper known as the Washington Globe, which from then on served as the primary mouthpiece of the Democratic Party.[194]

Jackson supported a revision to tariff rates known as the Tariff of 1832. It was designed to placate the nullifiers by lowering tariff rates. Written by Treasury Secretary Louis McLane, the bill lowered duties from 45% to 27%. In May, Representative John Quincy Adams introduced a slightly revised version of the bill, which Jackson accepted. It passed Congress on July 9 and was signed by the President on July 14. The bill ultimately failed to satisfy extremists on either side.[195] On November 24, the South Carolina legislature officially nullified both the Tariff of 1832 and the Tariff of 1828.[196] In response, Jackson sent U.S. Navy warships to Charleston harbor, and threatened to hang any man who worked to support nullification or secession.[197] On December 28, 1832, with less than two months remaining in his term, Calhoun resigned as vice president to become a U.S. Senator for South Carolina.[124] This was part of a strategy whereby Calhoun, with less than three months remaining on his vice presidential term, would replace Robert Y. Hayne in the Senate, who would then become governor. Hayne had often struggled to defend nullification on the floor of the Senate, especially against fierce criticism from Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts.[198]

In December 1832, Jackson issued a resounding proclamation against the "nullifiers," stating that he considered "the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." South Carolina, the President declared, stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason," and he appealed to the people of the state to reassert their allegiance to that Union for which their ancestors had fought. Jackson also denied the right of secession: "The Constitution ... forms a government not a league ... To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States are not a nation."[199] Jackson tended to personalize the controversy, frequently characterizing nullification as a conspiracy between disappointed and bitter men whose ambitions had been thwarted.[200]

Jackson asked Congress to pass a "Force Bill" explicitly authorizing the use of military force to enforce the tariff. It was introduced by Senator Felix Grundy of Tennessee, and was quickly attacked by Calhoun as "military despotism."[201] At the same time, Calhoun and Clay began to work on a new compromise tariff. A bill sponsored by the administration had been introduced by Representative Gulian C. Verplanck of New York, but it lowered rates more sharply than Clay and other protectionists desired. Clay managed to get Calhoun to agree to a bill with higher rates in exchange for Clay's opposition to Jackson's military threats and, perhaps, with the hope that he could win some Southern votes in his next bid for the presidency.[202] The Compromise Tariff passed on March 1, 1833.[203] The Force Bill passed the same day. Calhoun, Clay, and several others marched out of the chamber in opposition, with the only dissenting vote coming from John Tyler of Virginia.[204] The new tariff was opposed by Webster, who argued that it essentially surrendered to South Carolina's demands.[205] Jackson, despite his anger over the scrapping of the Verplanck bill and the new alliance between Clay and Calhoun, saw it as an efficient way to end the crisis. He signed both bills on March 2, starting with the Force Bill.[206] The South Carolina Convention then met and rescinded its nullification ordinance, but in a final show of defiance, nullified the Force Bill.[203] On May 1, Jackson wrote, "the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."[203]

Click to expand...

badmojo1006 said:

FBG liberals did you get your marching orders?

Check in your spam folder. The email is from MW and it titled "Burn the f***ing Gestapo down!"

Click to expand...

GROOT said:

https://i.redd.it/029ua92xrj711.jpg

Click to expand...

A war may be brewing within the United States, almost a third of voters say in a poll released Wednesday. 

Amid widespread political polarization on issues like immigration and recent public confrontations of Trump administration officials, 31 percent of probable U.S. voters surveyed said they think "it's likely that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years."

Democrats at 37 percent were slightly more fearful of a second civil war than Republicans at 32 percent, the poll from Rasmussen Reports found.

Click to expand...