America's Cold Civil War

Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 weeks ago to Culture
31 comments | Share | Flag

Excellent summation of the condition this country is in and why. This is a Conservative publication but it has value that I thought transcends out differences.
SOURCE URL: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/americas-cold-civil-war/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 week, 5 days ago
    It is ironic, and sad, to see a vibrant republic, built on the idea of uniting for the benefit of individual freedom, descend into mindless tribalism. Far from being "progressive," leftist radicals have regressed back beyond monarchy to unthinking followers of tribal chieftains.

    I see discussions of how the Mueller plan is not to provide evidence of Trump's impeachable crimes, but to undermine his character so much that he loses the support of his own party and is forced to resign. IMHO, that goes nowhere. Nixon resigned because the alternative was in fact impeachment and conviction. Trump faces no such choice, and simple embarrassment is nearly impossible for him as a motivator. The GOP will support him, if for no other reason than the fact that with the Kavanaugh confirmation, he's built a conservative wall against progressive judicial legislation. His lower court appointments have buttressed that, and will proceed at least for another two years now that the GOP Senate majority is more solid.

    The more radical the Democrats choose to become, the more support they will lose. For that reason alone, I'm highly skeptical that any call to violent "revolution" goes nowhere, or ends in a disaster of federal martial law imposed on the rebellious (most likely"blue") states.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 week, 5 days ago
      I think Mueller's purpose is to keep Trump from getting anything done that he can use as a basis for re-election in 2020. Trump hijacked the Repub Party, but most repubs are RINO- which was shown in this mid-term. 2016 voted FOR Trump, but 2018 didnt vote for the repub party.

      In 2020, the dems will put up there Beto O'Rourke as the new face of the party- the replacement for Sanders who is just too old. Trump might get re-elected, but he wont get the congress
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 week, 5 days ago
        O'Rourke may be getting touted as the "new Kennedy," but there's a substantial number of young Democrats who say they don't want another "stale, pale, male" candidate. Kamala Harris keeps hoping that's her ticket to the nomination.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 week, 5 days ago
          Kamala Harris is a typical arrogant black entitled Bit&%. She will never be president, nor would Booker or that Cortez creature in New York. It will be O'Rourke or Biden that runs as the democrat in 2020. Hillary will try in the primary, but wont win because she always gets kicked out at the last minute after she has spent the donors money. They wont be stupid this time.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 week, 5 days ago
            I think a lot of people are underestimating Hillary. She has a money machine, and secrets on too many people. Remember, she is a Saul Alinsky student, and will be far more at ease spouting the Marxist line, channeling her college days, than she was trying to be more centrist the last time. Don't be shocked when she again captures the nomination.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 week, 5 days ago
              Interesting argument and I would agree she will run again, but just as she lost against the no-name Obama in 2008, and against someone people dont "like" who came out of the woodwork in 2016, SOMEONE will come out of the woodwork and knock her out in 2020.

              Hillary's problem is that she IS a vicious Bit*& covered over by a thin veneer of civility and that pasted on smile. I say that in the QUIET of the voting booth, a lot of people just have trouble pushing the button for her- so long as no one finds out what they did.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 1 week, 4 days ago
              While that all may be true, her physical health isn't going to assist her in any way. The campaign trail is physically demanding and she's already fallen several times and been taken to the hospital. While I agree with you that she wants it and has plenty of people to back her up financially, I'd love to see her dodder onto stage against Trump again in a debate. Game over.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  25n56il4 1 week, 5 days ago
              I don't think I can be shocked any more. Good comment DrZarkov99. I am really amazed at the ignorance of some people. Who buys all this baloney? How did they get so brainwashed?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 week, 5 days ago
                The public that's latching on to all of the Utopian fantasies being spouted by the left, are those who were raised in an environment of being "special" and receiving participation trophies. Reality has hit them in the face, and scared the bejabbers out of them, with the idea they might actually have to strive to achieve, instead of having everything handed to them without effort on their part.

                This is why we hear the word "inequality" so often from the left. It's all about greed and envy. It's not good enough to not be poor, when someone else has been successful in gaining more wealth than you, because they worked harder, or smarter. It's not fair that a CEO earns 100 times as much as his secretary, even if his personal decisions made the company 100,000 times as much wealth as her actions.

                I am definitely afraid for the future of our country, given that we have reared so many weaklings, saturated with hate, greed, and envy. If they succeed at instituting their insane visions, they won't recognize why their dreams didn't come true, and will seek someone else to blame.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 2 weeks ago
    Thanks for posting, AJA. +1 ;^)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 week, 5 days ago
      I agree, it was well thought out. I would choose the re-emergence of federalism, which essentially forces the states to compete for citizens, based on what the citizens want. Competition is good I think, even in government.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 1 week, 5 days ago
        I agree. More legal currencies could be a big improvement, too, by breaking up the banksters monopoly on money creation. (If any group deserves to have a conspiracy, restraint of trade, and an anti-trust action against them it would be banking and the federal government.;^)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 week, 5 days ago
          I had not thought of each state having a different currency. That would be cool, unless ALL of them just printed money at the same rate, in which case we get what we have now. But I could have a savings account in one that didnt print money, and they would wind up as a banking center !! California would not get any savings accounts !!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 1 week, 5 days ago
    AJA i should like to remind you that the countries march towards socialism was observed and written about many years ago by Miss Ayn Rand.
    All who write about it today are simply supporting what she said oh so many years ago.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 week, 5 days ago
    Always said, we are faced with idiologies 180 degrees opposed. Time tested naturally derived principles or an untimely lack of principles, reversing course back to the dark ages where anything goes...this time without the fear of unseen forces...sounds just like a demonocracy gone wild...were we not warned about that?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 week, 5 days ago
    A simple way to define the two sides: The producers and the takers. The takers wont give up trying to get goodies from the producers, and the producers dont want to have their stuff taken from them
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 1 week, 5 days ago
    Great article! My fear that this coming Dimms House of Representatives will further attack the validity of the Constitution. In particular the First Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, etc. The will try to bend it to their perceived Social evolutionary concepts. I foresee that there will further persecution of Christianity to be politically correct. There are news reports that some states are proceeding along those lines of Christmas displays on personal property. I have a very uneasy feeling about 2019!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rex_Little 1 week, 5 days ago
    From the link: "Prior to 1968, Americans would almost always (the exceptions proved the rule) entrust the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Presidency to the same party in each election. They would occasionally change the party, but still they would vote for a party to run the government. Not so for the last 50 years."

    We can thank our lucky stars! The exceptions (when the President's party also controls Congress) are when we get big new agencies and spending programs.

    That's why Trump is a win for us. If he ever did have a plan for a new agency, he wouldn't be able to get it through Congress no matter which party was in control, because he's despised by the Establishment of both.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 1 week, 5 days ago
    Excellent summary. I too fear that the "cold" civil war will indeed become a "hot" civil war in the not-so-distant future. Indeed, we've already seen minor incursions in the mob violence which has surrounded the arrests of certain individuals. You can bet that if there is a general economic downturn in the near future (read while a Republican controls the Presidency) that the Democrats will attempt to stoke it into a general revolt and real bloodshed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rex_Little 1 week, 5 days ago
      It could get really messy this time around, because the two sides aren't geographically separated like last time. Sure, liberals dominate in the Northeast and on the West Coast, and conservatives dominate the Midwest, but both have lots of people in the other's territory.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 1 week, 5 days ago
        The one thing the Progressives don't have on their side is the military. You don't go into the military in the first place if you don't believe in American Values and literally laying your life on the line for them. Plus, the Progressives don't believe in firearms.

        If there is a shooting war, it will be a very short one.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rex_Little 1 week, 5 days ago
          What if the Commander In Chief is a Progressive? Which side does the military fight on then?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by TheRealBill 1 week, 5 days ago
            This topic came up when I was in the Army decades. It came up often. It also came up in the Guard. The consensus in the Army from Private to Generals was "we're not fighting other Americans, period.". The consensus, and indeed the "unofficial official policy", in the Guard was "we would stand with the state against the Fed.

            Today? Hard to say.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 1 week, 5 days ago
            And that is the question, isn't it. I'm sure there will be some - especially those at the higher echelons (generals, aspiring generals, etc.) who will do whatever the President wants because theirs are largely political - not military - positions. As one descends the ranks (and closes with the actual fray) one will find that personal convictions come out heavily, especially when those same infantry and lower-ranking officers are forced with confronting their own friends and neighbors in trying to justify a use of force against one's own in stark rebuttal of the Constitution.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rex_Little 1 week, 4 days ago
              I rather doubt that the President, no matter who (s)he was, would order the military to attack American citizens. So in the shooting war we're talking about, neither side has the military. So it's not going to be one-sided. Most Progressives might not have guns, but street gangs do.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 1 week, 4 days ago
                I hope we never have to find out, to be honest. This I will say: you are looking at things from a rational point of view (kudos btw). Progressives abandoned reason long ago; they have to to persuade themselves of their ideology. I have long since given up attempting to guess what a Progressive will do in a given situation according to logic. What I have seen is that they will do almost anything to hold on to power.

                As for the street gangs, they mostly infest Progressively-controlled cities, so you're mostly going to have the criminals vs the criminals in those cases. ;)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo