What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The next "civil war" - A Liberal backlash against the conservative backlash? (2 Viewers)

This election was the culmination of the conservative backlash to progress made on any number of issues that offended their sensibilities while simultaneously overlooking legitimate concerns of the declining (white and non-urban) middle class.

That said, the popular vote was clearly in favor of the electoral loser. 

At the state level, you have near 50-50 purple states dominated by Red legislatures. 

Both of these results, especially the latter, demonstrate a disconnect with the majority will of the populace and the makeup of the governmental bodies that represent them.

Finally, both of the above results are a clear result of a very successful strategy to deny Dem blocks from voting... be it gerrymandering or prohibitively discriminatory voter ID regulations (called out by the courts, but too late to remedy before the last election).

The Supreme Court seems as partisan as ever, as does much of an overly polorized and politicised DC, even by the swamps illustrious standards.

Finally the Republicans lack of caring for anything but their own selfish interests coupled with the Dems utter malfeasance has led to Gorsuch now being names to the Court. It's quite possible 2 and possibly three even more conservative (and beholden to one party) judges are named in the coming years... all the while all demographics show the nation moving somewhat left on many issues... including the very issues that are at risk of going anachronistically backward in terms of progress through policy.  Finally, we may soon have a court that has as much disregard for the individual including their right to vote so long as it serves a political purpose. 

ALL these factors could coalesce to move the nation's legislation and government even further to the right while the nation's likely moves somewhat left at least on many social issues.  

SO... what happens in the perfect Conservative storm? What happens if/when more actions are taken to disenfranchise minorities, the poor and those on the left and very left of the spectrum? When corporations continue to obliterate the rights of the individuals, the environment etc? 

For a decade we've heard the cries of the south, the soft rural middle and other bastions of conservative thinking threaten to secede, how the country no longer represents their views. It was hollow rhetoric but strong nonetheless.

So now those voices hold control and may very well expand that grip on power expansively in the coming decade. All the while representing an even smaller majority of Americans than they Do today. 

Anti-city and pro rural fights will be slanted all the more to the latter not only within 50-50 states like NC but perhaps the nation.

At what point does the entire North East corridor and West Coast, with huge urban centrers that provide a vast majority of productivity and economic activity as compared with their rural brethren, say #### this ####.  It's bad enough NY for example sends multitudes on taxes more to the Fed govt than it receives back. Now you may have a fed govt that forces MORE restrictions on these liberal areas that are the absolute key economic base and powerhouse of our nation, all the moreso with a world economy more and more based on the knowledge worker and high skilled manufacturing?

Could we see 20 years down the road NY, CA and other states just say #### this ####... we are no longer going to financially support a nation that not only doesn't support us but takes continual active measures to infringe on our local governance while simultaneously harming economic competitiveness?

LETS PLAY THIS OUT:

The Northeast and west coast states band together and withhold all payments to the Feds. Totally cut the Feds off. Don't declare a secession but just say we won't support those who in turn use those resources to not only not tend to our needs but actively harm the local preferred way of living and even moreso perhaps, urban economies?

Do you think the Feds will send in the guards? Literally... what would the end game be. What if residents on these states had just too much and were willing to fight and die to protect their FREEDOM (it's how our nation was founded , let's not pretend it could never happen again)?

Seriously.. if the ruling class is more and more conservative while the nation progresses along expected trends with millennials and more diverse populations, when does that divide become so stark a step to force action by states to protect their residents, way of life, and economy?

maybe this sounds ridiculous, but a true some point enough could be enough. Why not just hand together and withhold funds and let the "states rights" crowd look to what... invade? 

Seriously could there be at least an economic civil war and how might that look and what might the reprucussions be for the nation as a whole?

I'll take some callers on the subject...
Couldn't make it past the 3rd paragraph.  Here's what you need to know about this past election:

- By and large most people were satisfied with the real Progressive accomplishments that were achieved under Obama (i.e. - universal healthcare, gay marriage, getting us out of Iraq)

- What was being repudiated was Liberalism that had gotten too intolerant and too Radical. The nonsense at colleges, the riots, the incessant race baiting, the SJW bull ####, censorship, media bias...  People had enough of it.

- Trump brilliantly reached out to blue collar workers who had been abandoned by both parties.  This more than anything else swung the election.  Trump did this through a message of nationalism and America First.  The Dems tried to play this off as bigotry and xenophobia, further alienating these people and working right into Trump's strategy.  "Deplorables" became a rallying cry.

- The Supreme Court was a huge factor for many on the Right - allowing many to vote for Trump while pinching their nose.

The Dems never should have lost this election.  They couldn't have screwed it up more if they tried.  Their bullying behaviors and overall obnoxiousness made a backlash inevitable.  I warned about it in here and flatly predicted Trump would be our next President.  Predictably my words were met with further scorn, laughter and dismissiveness.

It has been an absolute joy watching Lefties in here go into complete meltdown mode after the election.  That too was predictable - like spoiled little brats not getting their way.  Now we have threats of resistance and a new backlash coming.   :lmao:

Here's what Lefties need to do... quit your belly-aching, accept reality, learn honestly from the mistakes that were made, quit with the identity politics, and focus instead on leveling the playing field economically.  Bernie was onto something  - the very wealthy in this country have gotten way too rich over the years.  Redistribute some of that wealth to the lower and middle class.  And don't do it by saying divisive #### like "You didn't build that".  Instead try appealing to people's better angels.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Couldn't make it past the 3rd paragraph.  Here's what you need to know about this past election:

blah blah blah
Meh, you don't want to read it but then comment as if it means something, who the #### cares? 

Moreover, I'm not a Liberal, though I have a liberal enough mind to play around with some fanciful scenarios that some of you may not be able to get your head around. Keep your smilie faces and move along, your voice literally has no meaning here.

Others, Liked @jonessed are providing some good points of discussion though. That was the intent of this thread. 

 
LOL at a civil war.  People did not show up to vote in huge numbers.  I am sure they are anxious to interrupt their lives and fight a civil war.

 
During the civil war, can we all take a time out when Dancing with the Stars is on?  Or if Kylie Jenner has a meaningful tweet.  We need time to reflect on those.

 
Koya said:
Meh, you don't want to read it but then comment as if it means something, who the #### cares? 

Moreover, I'm not a Liberal, though I have a liberal enough mind to play around with some fanciful scenarios that some of you may not be able to get your head around. Keep your smilie faces and move along, your voice literally has no meaning here.

Others, Liked @jonessed are providing some good points of discussion though. That was the intent of this thread
Civil War?  That's a good point of discussion for you?   :lmao:

Dude - you and the other Lefties have gone completely insane the last 4 months.  You go from losing an election to talk of Civil War.  I'm just trying to talk some sense into you.  We on the Right had to suffer through a lot of nonsense in the last 8 years.  Suck it up like a man and move on with your life.

 
Koya said:
But, at some point every nation that has entered into one had a group of people that felt so threatened/disenfranchised, the war progressed anyway.

Are we to be so foolish as to think we are immune?

BTW, if indeed the states I mentioned all banded together to not pay into the fed coffers, my guess is it would trigger a constitutional crisis and that would be worked out through governmental and political channels to avoid an actual war. 
I don't think we are immune.  I just don't believe we are even remotely close to that point.  There's a real possibility that it results in a civil war.  

I know a lot of pretty yappy liberals in the Bay Area.  Not a single one would be willing to put everything they own on the line and pick up a gun.  They would, without a doubt,  blink first.

 
During the civil war, can we all take a time out when Dancing with the Stars is on?  Or if Kylie Jenner has a meaningful tweet.  We need time to reflect on those.
This Civil War brought to you by Geico...for all your Civil War insurance needs...

 
I don't think we are immune.  I just don't believe we are even remotely close to that point.  There's a real possibility that it results in a civil war.  

I know a lot of pretty yappy liberals in the Bay Area.  Not a single one would be willing to put everything they own on the line and pick up a gun.  They would, without a doubt,  blink first.
Participation trophies and safe spaces are definitely not a good way to train for a Civil War...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think we are immune.  I just don't believe we are even remotely close to that point.  There's a real possibility that it results in a civil war.  

I know a lot of pretty yappy liberals in the Bay Area.  Not a single one would be willing to put everything they own on the line and pick up a gun.  They would, without a doubt,  blink first.
I agree then disagree.  

I do agree we are not remotely close.  But, we are also closer than I've witnessed in my life (of course, I didn't live through the 60's, but things still seemed to be progressing forward, if with literal violent fits... and the discord then seemed less along geographic lines and the ideologues seemed less ingrained).  So, while some folks here seem to lack the intellectual acumen to play out an extreme scenario, it's a good exercise in thought imo.

To your second point, and it's one that was expected, I think the internal fortitude of "Liberals" is really overlooked.  It would need come to a huge head, but I think if things got bad enough, and mob rules with numbers (including Liberal mobs), you'd see an uprising.  BUT, that would be only if it got so extreme that say the state stopped sending $$ to DC, and Fed troops actually looked to make a real presence felt.  

Again, it's a VERY unlikely scenario, but I could see a realistic threat of withholding tax payments occurring at some time.  Then... who blinks and how?

 
Participation trophies and safe spaces are definitely not a good way to train for a Civil War...
When the alliance of the bourgeois intellectuals and Chicago gangs are formed though, gonna be trouble! 

 
The civil war would be fought in Northern CA.  The red part of the state would just stop the water flowing to So Cal and the war would be over as fast as it started.  Similarly, all food shipments from the farmland states would derail the East Coast nearly as fast.  The Blue states might have all the money, but they would all be fighting each other at the local 7-11 trying to get the last Aquafina bottle.

 
Liberal snowflakes would get their asses kicked in a Civil War.
Conservative draft dodgers would, too.  It's the masses on both sides who would actually be fighting.  And most of them aren't snowflakes or draft dodgers. 

 
I agree then disagree.  

I do agree we are not remotely close.  But, we are also closer than I've witnessed in my life (of course, I didn't live through the 60's, but things still seemed to be progressing forward, if with literal violent fits... and the discord then seemed less along geographic lines and the ideologues seemed less ingrained).  So, while some folks here seem to lack the intellectual acumen to play out an extreme scenario, it's a good exercise in thought imo.

To your second point, and it's one that was expected, I think the internal fortitude of "Liberals" is really overlooked.  It would need come to a huge head, but I think if things got bad enough, and mob rules with numbers (including Liberal mobs), you'd see an uprising.  BUT, that would be only if it got so extreme that say the state stopped sending $$ to DC, and Fed troops actually looked to make a real presence felt.  

Again, it's a VERY unlikely scenario, but I could see a realistic threat of withholding tax payments occurring at some time.  Then... who blinks and how?
The seceding states obviously.  What leverage do they have?  Their only real means of keeping their government intact is to peel off some portion of the military.

It doesn't matter what you may feel.  When it comes down to it, might makes right.  You have the rights that you can defend.  Nothing more.

 
When the alliance of the bourgeois intellectuals and Chicago gangs are formed though, gonna be trouble! 
That alliance will fall apart as soon as the BI tells the gangs that the war will be fought with words and not guns...

 
Conservative draft dodgers would, too.  It's the masses on both sides who would actually be fighting.  And most of them aren't snowflakes or draft dodgers. 
I'm willing to bet there are a lot more soldiers from red states than blue states.  And a LOT more weapons.

 
The seceding states obviously.  What leverage do they have?  Their only real means of keeping their government intact is to peel off some portion of the military.

It doesn't matter what you may feel.  When it comes down to it, might makes right.  You have the rights that you can defend.  Nothing more.
You'd have to assume the State National Guards stayed with the states or the whole exercise is meaningless. California's National Guard is well equipped, well positioned, and one of the larger and more well trained (and deployed) units in the country and it's still only about 30,000 troops. The U.S. Military is a total of what? 1.25 million?

 
You'd have to assume the State National Guards stayed with the states or the whole exercise is meaningless. California's National Guard is well equipped, well positioned, and one of the larger and more well trained (and deployed) units in the country and it's still only about 30,000 troops. The U.S. Military is a total of what? 1.25 million?
They would probably need most of the federal military installations in CA to even make an argument.  THAT might actually lead to a peaceful end result.  

Without some kind of muscle the federal government would just walk right in.  You aren't going to step them with posters and human chains.

 
The seceding states obviously.  What leverage do they have?  Their only real means of keeping their government intact is to peel off some portion of the military.

It doesn't matter what you may feel.  When it comes down to it, might makes right.  You have the rights that you can defend.  Nothing more.
My contention is the "war" would not be waged merely by states withholding tax revenues.  It would force the hand of the feds, but it's not a full secession. 

 
They would probably need most of the federal military installations in CA to even make an argument.  THAT might actually lead to a peaceful end result.  

Without some kind of muscle the federal government would just walk right in.  You aren't going to step them with posters and human chains.
Well, we do have the over-militarized local police nowadays.  So the States have that going for them. 

 
You can't underestimate how many weapons are in the hands of people who hate conservatives, have grown up basically in war zones, and would gladly kill or die in a civil war where they got to fight for the liberal/anti-racism faction.  You think liberal and think "gay pride parade" but you're forgetting:

a) there are a #### ton of gun-toting homosexuals who would beat you to death in this war, and

b) young black men in inner cities all over America ain't fighting on Mitch McConnell's side on this one.  You give me 100-150 committed Bloods or 18th Streeters, I'll take them in a street war over 100-150 doomsday preppers from Kentucky any day of the week.

You form a Black Lives Matter battalion, and suddenly the U.S. Army is on Vietnam again, but instead of villagers with punji sticks, they're up against converted semi-auto AK weapons in the middle of downtown L.A.

 
Would the gangs fight for the blue states or would they harness their armies to grab everything they could during the chaos?   
People in gangs would die for the right of a 7 year old boy to have a sex change. No way would they be worried about looting here.

 
My contention is the "war" would not be waged merely by states withholding tax revenues.  It would force the hand of the feds, but it's not a full secession. 
Force them to do what?  The states would have no leverage.  

Sure.  There would obviously be some negotiations, but the end result would have to go through the existing federal government.  If it's as oppositional as you are suggesting they aren't going to give a lot.  They certainly aren't going to reform the senate.

 
Would the gangs fight for the blue states or would they harness their armies to grab everything they could during the chaos?   
They would protect their homes and neighborhoods against the invaders. 

The liberal states only need to hold off invaders. Conservatives would need to take and hold territory. And we don't live in an era where Sherman can burn his way through Georgia anymore. 

 
Force them to do what?  The states would have no leverage.  

Sure.  There would obviously be some negotiations, but the end result would have to go through the existing federal government.  If it's as oppositional as you are suggesting they aren't going to give a lot.  They certainly aren't going to reform the senate.
I suppose the desired endgame in such a scenario is twofold... perhaps part bluff, but also a shot across the bow of an increasingly hostile federal government to say look, you've pushed us far enough to risk whatever MIGHT happen next. Not saying will won't stand down if you send troops, but also not saying we will.  SO, ball is in your court.

That could force such a constitutional crisis, that concessions are made whereby blue states won't be continually drained of resources to not only support red states, but to support policies that do real harm to the communities within said blue states.  It's a negotiating tactic, its a bluff, its a potential first shot... hopefully either way, it's enough huff to keep it to the first option. 

 
Humans are still humans.  Animals at our core.  You rip out the core institutions that maintain civil order and #### is going to go down.  You better be willing and able to fight for what is yours.

 
They would protect their homes and neighborhoods against the invaders. 

The liberal states only need to hold off invaders. Conservatives would need to take and hold territory. And we don't live in an era where Sherman can burn his way through Georgia anymore. 
Oh those feeble Libs? HA!

(is what they said, and the feeble Jews held the Warsaw Ghetto against far greater odds for a good long time... I'm telling you, the FEDS would be the escalating force that would begin the violence, and go ahead and laugh at the Libbies, but then try to actually take over their land. Try to invade NYC... when the police force may very align with the local community... try to overtake what is today a purple or slightly blue set of inner suburbs who would be far more blue in this scenario after their state has become a whipping post and wallet to fund policies that hurt the state and harm people across the nation as these are socially liberal folks generally speaking... )

As mentioned a few times before, it aint so cut and dry as NY stops funding the Fed (along with Cali and a half dozen other states). Feds send in troops.  States capitulate and all returns to whatever the new normal was.

 
Humans are still humans.  Animals at our core.  You rip out the core institutions that maintain civil order and #### is going to go down.  You better be willing and able to fight for what is yours.
And, in this case, is an Army Ranger from Virginia going to be willing to kill - and/or be killed by - someone protecting their turf up the coast? 

 
jonessed said:
Not if the Republicans flip the rust belt.  We might see this happen a few more times.

Perhaps if you at least pretended to give a #### about those people they might come back around.  
Trump has already turned his back on these people. The left doesn't have to do a thing to win them back.

 
Bad hombres no doubt.  But lack of discipline would be their undoing.
As opposed to the great toothless masses of rural Louisiana?  At least gang members already understand following orders.  And how to brush their teeth.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I suppose the desired endgame in such a scenario is twofold... perhaps part bluff, but also a shot across the bow of an increasingly hostile federal government to say look, you've pushed us far enough to risk whatever MIGHT happen next. Not saying will won't stand down if you send troops, but also not saying we will.  SO, ball is in your court.

That could force such a constitutional crisis, that concessions are made whereby blue states won't be continually drained of resources to not only support red states, but to support policies that do real harm to the communities within said blue states.  It's a negotiating tactic, its a bluff, its a potential first shot... hopefully either way, it's enough huff to keep it to the first option. 
Your stated objective is a new federal government structured in a way that makes one party hand over control to another party, permanently.

Why would they do that?  You would need a huge majority of the population to back you.  Enough to make the whole thing moot.  That kind of majority could change the system legally.

 
As opposed to the great toothless masses of rural Louisiana?  At least gang members already understand following orders.  And how to brush their teeth.
:lmao:  Good point Henry.  But brushing teeth is over-rated in times of war.

Btw - you'd have to get out of Dodge in a hurry if War broke out, huh?

 
Your stated objective is a new federal government structured in a way that makes one party hand over control to another party, permanently.

Why would they do that?  You would need a huge majority of the population to back you.  Enough to make the whole thing moot.  That kind of majority could change the system legally.
Where did I state that objective? The objective would be to stop an overreach of federal powers that are doing harm to local communities and states that do not align with the party in power, which happens to represent a minority of the nation and a strong minority of that state.  This would be further stressed by the economic reality of funding that government. 

As stated above, the threat of total disorder could at least get the ideologues on the right, who are the minority of the nation but a strong majority in said federal government in this scenario, to take a new look at the policies / legislation in place. It's more a DON'T TREAD ON ME than asking the federal government to hand control to another party. 

 
:lmao:  Good point Henry.  But brushing teeth is over-rated in times of war.

Btw - you'd have to get out of Dodge in a hurry if War broke out, huh?
That's the other thing.  Conservatives leading a resistance in blue states vs. liberals running intelligence operations in red states - who do you think is more likely to pull those off?  I could probably be Governor of Louisiana before anyone realized I wasn't on their side.

 
I suspect they would do what they were ordered to do. 
I suspect that just "listening to orders" might not be so simple in today's day and age, when you are ordered to invade another state and kill civilians there.  Moreso if those on the other side of the line were army members FROM that state who "defected" and/or local police forces.

FWIW, this is one of the reasons Im such a proponent of the right to bear arms.  It's an outrageous scenario... and one that has happened countless times throughout history. 

 
That's the other thing.  Conservatives leading a resistance in blue states vs. liberals running intelligence operations in red states - who do you think is more likely to pull those off?  I could probably be Governor of Louisiana before anyone realized I wasn't on their side.
Robjk and his fellow collaborators are WAY ahead of you GB.

 
Where did I state that objective? The objective would be to stop an overreach of federal powers that are doing harm to local communities and states that do not align with the party in power, which happens to represent a minority of the nation and a strong minority of that state.  This would be further stressed by the economic reality of funding that government. 

As stated above, the threat of total disorder could at least get the ideologues on the right, who are the minority of the nation but a strong majority in said federal government in this scenario, to take a new look at the policies / legislation in place. It's more a DON'T TREAD ON ME than asking the federal government to hand control to another party. 
Your scenario is kind of falling apart.  If they are such a small minority how did they get so much power?

Trump is proving that the checks and balances are stil functioning.  If the majority get pissed off enough they can flip Congress in less than two years.

 
That's the other thing.  Conservatives leading a resistance in blue states vs. liberals running intelligence operations in red states - who do you think is more likely to pull those off?  I could probably be Governor of Louisiana before anyone realized I wasn't on their side.
The former.  The Preppers have been preparing way too long.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top