Knowing everything you know now, would you have voted differently in 2016?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

This applies to anything or anyone you voted on. Knowing everything you now know, would you have voted differently in 2016?

This assumes you could vote differently in 2016 knowing what you now know.

If so, what or who would you have voted differently on. Primaries? Presidential election? Local bills? Please discuss.

Epyc Wynn:
This applies to anything or anyone you voted on. Knowing everything you now know, would you have voted differently in 2016?

This assumes you could vote differently in 2016 knowing what you now know.

If so, what or who would you have voted differently on. Primaries? Presidential election? Local bills? Please discuss.

I voted for Trump in the GOP primary and in the general election.

Give the chance, I would do it all over again. No regrets.

I voted for a Casino themed Christmas party. Given that no real money was involved, I would most certainly not vote that way again.

Also, best give it 4 years and ask that question again. The shit has hit the fan but is still in mid-air at the moment.

I wouldn't have voted for Republicans on the State and Local Level if I had known Trump was going to win. Being in Northern Alabama, however, my vote for Democrats wouldn't have changed much. I don't regret my vote for Gary Johnson in the slightest, though.

Voted for Gary Johnson then, would vote for him now. If I had my ID like I do now I'd have voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary since I am a registered democrat.

Voted for Sanders in the Primary, Clinton in the General.

Wouldn't change a thing, given how it played out. But the Primaries were rigged in Clinton's favor from the beginning.

Well, I figured that my Vote wouldn't matter. So I didn't bother with the US Election, not to mention that I would have considered it morally wrong to vote.

Nope. I voted for my gal Jill and I would do it again. Clinton won my state so I get to keep my "this two party system sucks donkey" vote and not feel bad that Trump won. It's perfect!

No, but I would have tried to compromise LESS in my arguing why people should vote Clinton. Trying to appeal to reason did not work, so I guess next time I need to not bother.

tippy2k2:
Nope. I voted for my gal Jill and I would do it again. Clinton won my state so I get to keep my "this two party system sucks donkey" vote and not feel bad that Trump won. It's perfect!

According to my super secret sources that still makes you a Trump supporter. :B

OT: voted Clinton. Wanna guess?

Nope.

I was a realist and vote for Hillary.

She won the popular vote.

Trump started his cross burning reign as illegitimate as the last half-monkeyman, W.

Tanis:

Trump started his cross burning reign as illegitimate as the last half-monkeyman, W.

How is winning through the system which has been in place since the creation of the country that exists to balance population with the reality of urbanisation to prevent someone from focusing 100% of policy on only the largest cities (and thus risking the entire legitimacy of the foundation of what the Union is built upon) illegitimate?

I didn't see people complaining in 2008 when Berry won the nomination for his party but Clinton won the popular vote. Though given the edit war that page has I don't know if the Ministry of Truth currently acknowledges that or pretends it was never the case.

Zontar:

Tanis:

Trump started his cross burning reign as illegitimate as the last half-monkeyman, W.

How is winning through the system which has been in place since the creation of the country that exists to balance population with the reality of urbanisation to prevent someone from focusing 100% of policy on only the largest cities (and thus risking the entire legitimacy of the foundation of what the Union is built upon) illegitimate?

I didn't see people complaining in 2008 when Berry won the nomination for his party but Clinton won the popular vote. Though given the edit war that page has I don't know if the Ministry of Truth currently acknowledges that or pretends it was never the case.

You mean besides the fact that it was designed for a country that has changed a heck of a lot? I'd like to remind you that we came up with that system around the same time that we decided slaves counted as 3/5ths of a vote but they couldn't personally vote. That being changed by itself kind of upset the "balance" you claim has been there since the start of the country. Also it was passed during a time when farmers made up the majority of the work force, as opposed to the minority that they are now.

Yes, we get it, you referenced 1984. Everyone and their dog does it and it kind of loses its edge because it's become a low hanging fruit way of saying "person has political views I disagree with and they are bad." Also, even Trump was talking about how stupid the nomination process works. He just stopped caring once he won. He flat out said that he didn't care now that he won.

Nope.

I'd still be British and thus unable to vote in the American election.

erttheking:

Zontar:

Tanis:

Trump started his cross burning reign as illegitimate as the last half-monkeyman, W.

How is winning through the system which has been in place since the creation of the country that exists to balance population with the reality of urbanisation to prevent someone from focusing 100% of policy on only the largest cities (and thus risking the entire legitimacy of the foundation of what the Union is built upon) illegitimate?

I didn't see people complaining in 2008 when Berry won the nomination for his party but Clinton won the popular vote. Though given the edit war that page has I don't know if the Ministry of Truth currently acknowledges that or pretends it was never the case.

You mean besides the fact that it was designed for a country that has changed a heck of a lot? I'd like to remind you that we came up with that system around the same time that we decided slaves counted as 3/5ths of a vote but they couldn't personally vote. That being changed by itself kind of upset the "balance" you claim has been there since the start of the country.

Yes, we get it, you referenced 1984. Everyone and their dog does it and it kind of loses its edge because it's become a low hanging fruit way of saying "person has political views I disagree with and they are bad." Also, even Trump was talking about how stupid the nomination process works. He just stopped caring once he won. He flat out said that he didn't care now that he won.

Dont you get it? Corn and cows deserve more power in government than people do.

Voted Trump in the primaries and for Trump on November 8. Would do it again.

I didn't realize giving Casus Belli to 30 states so secede with what would be a very easy legal basis to do so in the court of law due to violating the agreement upon which the country is based (each state having a voice in government) is considered a good thing. Why do so many people want to balkanise the US?

Yeah, I'd vote to remain twice rather than once.

Zontar:
I didn't realize giving Casus Belli to 30 states so secede with what would be a very easy legal basis to do so in the court of law due to violating the agreement upon which the country is based (each state having a voice in government) is considered a good thing. Why do so many people want to balkanise the US?

Yeah, succeeding. They tried that before, look where it got them. The US government decided that no, you do not have a right to break away from the country. Ever. They had the same argument then, violating the argument on which the agreement which the country was founded (being allowed to own slaves) That is also not a thing anymore. Because times change and situations changes along with it. You're the one arguing for the US being balkanised, not us. You're the one that keeps going on about red states breaking away when it would be fucking suicidal for them to do so.

Also, either quote me properly or don't bother replying to me at all.

erttheking:

Zontar:
I didn't realize giving Casus Belli to 30 states so secede with what would be a very easy legal basis to do so in the court of law due to violating the agreement upon which the country is based (each state having a voice in government) is considered a good thing. Why do so many people want to balkanise the US?

Yeah, succeeding. They tried that before, look where it got them. The US government decided that no, you do not have a right to break away from the country. Ever. They had the same argument then, violating the argument on which the agreement which the country was founded (being allowed to own slaves) That is also not a thing anymore. Because times change and situations changes along with it. You're the one arguing for the US being balkanised, not us. You're the one that keeps going on about red states breaking away when it would be fucking suicidal for them to do so.

Also, either quote me properly or don't bother replying to me at all.

Misconception. Only reason the war with the South broke out was they attacked Fort Sumter first.

This is actually an interesting question.

At the time, I voted for Gary Johnson. Given the chance, I would do it again. Hillary was no better then Trump, and while I'm currently dismayed by how things have turned out, I'm immensely glad Hillary lost.

I voted Remain in the EU referendum. I would be tempted to change that to a Leave vote so I could feel partly responsible for George Osborne getting fired.

erttheking:

Yeah, succeeding. They tried that before, look where it got them. The US government decided that no, you do not have a right to break away from the country. Ever.

Funny thing is that even back then there was a significant part of the population that was not opposed to the idea in theNorth (to the point where it could be argued that without the Battle of Atlanta the North may have let the South go if Lincoln had not been reelected). While California may love the idea of tyranny of democracy, I have my doubts most of the other blue states would support entire states having the social construct torn apart and giving their people Casus Belli for a UDI.

They had the same argument then, violating the argument on which the agreement which the country was founded (being allowed to own slaves)[

TIL that slavery and having a voice in government are the same thing now.

Because times change and situations changes along with it.

And the current system was, ironically enough, created to deal with the situation we find ourselves in. This is literally the problem it was created to deal with down to the letter.

You're the one arguing for the US being balkanised, not us.

I'm not arguing for it, I'm stating what the result would be.

This is like saying that asking why people want to destroy the economy and bring about an artificial famine is an argument for communism.

You're the one that keeps going on about red states breaking away when it would be fucking suicidal for them to do so.

So net food producers who have raw resources and a moderate level of industry will be dead, but net food importers who have fewer raw resources and are dependent on imports of most goods period will be fine?

The red states are the ones best off for dealing with secession. California would rightly be jealous of the position most find themselves in given how comparatively dependent on neighbouring states they are.

erttheking:

Zontar:

Tanis:

Trump started his cross burning reign as illegitimate as the last half-monkeyman, W.

How is winning through the system which has been in place since the creation of the country that exists to balance population with the reality of urbanisation to prevent someone from focusing 100% of policy on only the largest cities (and thus risking the entire legitimacy of the foundation of what the Union is built upon) illegitimate?

I didn't see people complaining in 2008 when Berry won the nomination for his party but Clinton won the popular vote. Though given the edit war that page has I don't know if the Ministry of Truth currently acknowledges that or pretends it was never the case.

You mean besides the fact that it was designed for a country that has changed a heck of a lot? I'd like to remind you that we came up with that system around the same time that we decided slaves counted as 3/5ths of a vote but they couldn't personally vote. That being changed by itself kind of upset the "balance" you claim has been there since the start of the country. Also it was passed during a time when farmers made up the majority of the work force, as opposed to the minority that they are now.

Yes, we get it, you referenced 1984. Everyone and their dog does it and it kind of loses its edge because it's become a low hanging fruit way of saying "person has political views I disagree with and they are bad." Also, even Trump was talking about how stupid the nomination process works. He just stopped caring once he won. He flat out said that he didn't care now that he won.

We don't even have the process the country was founded on, so Zontar's argument is extra pointless. Electoral votes were supposed to be pinned to the number of house representatives, each state gets an electoral vote based on their number of representatives, which was based on population per state.

In 1920 though, our growing population caused us to stop adding new representatives, stalling the electoral college, resulting in a growing inequality as states that should have been getting more electoral votes from their population were left to fight over a stagnant number, a system that our country was NOT founded on. This is specifically something that people like Jefferson wrote about and worried would destroy or undermine the House of representatives and by consequence the electoral college.

Also, the system wasn't set up with urbanization in mind, it was set up with expansionism in mind to balance the creation of new states versus more populous old state, urbanization in the 1700's early 1800's was not a primary consideration, the founding fathers implemented methods to change the system specifically and wrote about changing it to match a theoretical future situation where the population increased massively, in essence we actually broke the system we were founded with, and then did not use the tools to fix it despite being specifically created for us to do so.

Also, primaries, political party primaries are private and under no obligation to accept a popular vote win or delegate vote win, in the 1800's the public did not get really much of a voice at all in selecting candidates during primaries. The comparison of Hillary in 2008 in a primary to a general election is ridiculous as it has nothing to do with the electoral college or how the government works, if the Democrats decide they want the primary to be a beauty pageant to pick the 2020 candidate, they can do so, the general public and registered voters would eat them alive, but they can do it.

Also, yet again, we play the "just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen" game, the primary process almost never gets covered no matter what happens, the thing with Bernie and Trump this year is new, especially in international news. But just for accuracy's sake, a lot of people flipped shit in 2008 when Obama won the nomination, there was a large number of Hillary supporters that got as delusional as the Bernie or bust crowd last year, trying to find ways to sabotage Obama in the general election, switching to third party support, they were also one of the groups that drove the birther conspiracies on the Left, I forget the name of the website, but I think it was Hillary44 or something like that that was a central hub of calling people out as sexist and terrible for Hillary losing the primary. Hillary winning the popular vote was the rallying cry of a large number of Democrats after 2008, and members of party leadership even tried to change rules to prevent a similar situation in the future, though they largely failed.

To be fair, I'm sure I have a lot of spotty knowledge regarding the Canadian political system and history, but I don't try to push my limited knowledge as if its the unvarnished truth.

Epyc Wynn:
Misconception. Only reason the war with the South broke out was they attacked Fort Sumter first.

Um, excuse me? The North started the war when they used their fort's walls to attack innocent Southern cannonballs that were just flying by, minding their own business.

EternallyBored:
Electoral votes were supposed to be pinned to the number of house representatives, each state gets an electoral vote based on their number of representatives, which was based on population per state.

It's based on the number of representatives in the house and the senate, which is why you'll never see less then 3 outside of the rare case of a 3 vote state having one of its votes not cast (re: Mississippi 1820).

In 1920 though, our growing population caused us to stop adding new representatives, stalling the electoral college, resulting in a growing inequality as states that should have been getting more electoral votes from their population were left to fight over a stagnant number, a system that our country was NOT founded on. This is specifically something that people like Jefferson wrote about and worried would destroy or undermine the House of representatives and by consequence the electoral college.

This isn't a problem with the electoral college, it's a problem with the house of representatives. Braking the electoral college will not fix the underlying issue.

the system wasn't set up with urbanization in mind, it was set up with expansionism in mind to balance the creation of new states versus more populous old state, urbanization in the 1700's early 1800's was not a primary consideration, the founding fathers implemented methods to change the system specifically and wrote about changing it to match a theoretical future situation where the population increased massively, in essence we actually broke the system we were founded with, and then did not use the tools to fix it despite being specifically created for us to do so.

I'd like to point out that with how much of the US population was focused in a few cities, as well as the reasons stated for why the EC was created, it's hard to imagine the problems that have arisen from urbanisation (too many people in too few places for the federal system to work properly for those unlucky enough to live outside of those areas) it's hard to believe they where not aware it could become a problem given they built a system that works to mitigate that problem that people only complain about when people they don't even pretend to give a shit about vote in their own interest instead of against their interests for someone who the first person likes.

The comparison of Hillary in 2008 in a primary to a general election is ridiculous as it has nothing to do with the electoral college or how the government works

It's not ridiculous to point out that the people who are complaining about the system for voting for the leader of the country use a similar system for choosing who represents their party for said election in the first place. Especially with how many people pre-election where stating that even if Trump won the popular vote Clinton had the EC in the bag so it was no big deal.

It's just pointing out hypocrisy.

the primary process almost never gets covered no matter what happens, the thing with Bernie and Trump this year is new, especially in international news. But just for accuracy's sake, a lot of people flipped shit in 2008 when Obama won the nomination, there was a large number of Hillary supporters that got as delusional as the Bernie or bust crowd last year, trying to find ways to sabotage Obama in the general election

Up here we've been following the primaries about as long as the American people have given how major the effect US elections has on us. And while I do recall a bit of an uproar against Obama by the Democrats, it was nothing like what happened with Sanders, you didn't see 1 in 10 Democrats voting for the GOP, and you certainly didn't see every swing state and a few Democrat strongholds turning red.

I know that Clinton and Trump didn't really need to be with the party they went with, since both used a platform that could have worked unchanged with the other party, but that's still a shocking upset in terms of the results compared to what most metrics showed was going to happen.

To be fair, I'm sure I have a lot of spotty knowledge regarding the Canadian political system and history, but I don't try to push my limited knowledge as if its the unvarnished truth.

Canada is a rare thing with regards to politics. We're one of the few countries where our people pay attention to foreign politics as much, or even more so, then our own domestic ones. If I'm being honest we actually have a serious problem of people who pay attention to American politics (with being as informed as any American is being the norm) but being completely ignorant of our own local politics. I've actually spoken with many people who didn't even know who our Premier (Governor equivalent) was, or what the party platform for any of the federal parties is.

To say American politics, particularly Federal politics, is effectively an extension of our own in terms of how we view it would be understating things.

Zontar:

erttheking:

Yeah, succeeding. They tried that before, look where it got them. The US government decided that no, you do not have a right to break away from the country. Ever.

Funny thing is that even back then there was a significant part of the population that was not opposed to the idea in theNorth (to the point where it could be argued that without the Battle of Atlanta the North may have let the South go if Lincoln had not been reelected). While California may love the idea of tyranny of democracy, I have my doubts most of the other blue states would support entire states having the social construct torn apart and giving their people Casus Belli for a UDI.

They had the same argument then, violating the argument on which the agreement which the country was founded (being allowed to own slaves)[

TIL that slavery and having a voice in government are the same thing now.

Because times change and situations changes along with it.

And the current system was, ironically enough, created to deal with the situation we find ourselves in. This is literally the problem it was created to deal with down to the letter.

You're the one arguing for the US being balkanised, not us.

I'm not arguing for it, I'm stating what the result would be.

This is like saying that asking why people want to destroy the economy and bring about an artificial famine is an argument for communism.

You're the one that keeps going on about red states breaking away when it would be fucking suicidal for them to do so.

So net food producers who have raw resources and a moderate level of industry will be dead, but net food importers who have fewer raw resources and are dependent on imports of most goods period will be fine?

The red states are the ones best off for dealing with secession. California would rightly be jealous of the position most find themselves in given how comparatively dependent on neighbouring states they are.

Except Lincoln got elected, so it sounds like there wasn't too much support. Tyranny of democracy. I don't think that term means what you think it means. The Confederacy was on board with that towards Blacks. THAT is tyranny of democracy.

Yeah, I suppose throwing a tantrum over losing the election is the same as protesting not having a voice. And here I thought you thought people should accept election results.

Except both sides will continue to criticize it the second they los because of it (or in a trump's case, because they thought that). Hardly seems like enough
Let's be real. There'd be rioting and milita terrorism and that's about it

And then they'd go bankrupt from a lack of federal funds. There's also the fact that the federal government would pull them back. Not that they'd ever have the balls to actually do this.

On phone had to keep it brief

CM156:

Epyc Wynn:
Misconception. Only reason the war with the South broke out was they attacked Fort Sumter first.

Um, excuse me? The North started the war when they used their fort's walls to attack innocent Southern cannonballs that were just flying by, minding their own business.

That damned northern socialism with its regulatory walls crushing the freedom of Southern cannonballs. It's enough to make anyone rebellious!

erttheking:
Except Lincoln got elected, so it sounds like there wasn't too much support. Tyranny of democracy. I don't think that term means what you think it means. The Confederacy was on board with that towards Blacks. THAT is tyranny of democracy.

Yes, Lincoln got reelected, but given how his popularity only rose after the Battle of Atlanta, well there's a reason why there's a legitimate debate to be had over whether that battle was why the war continued given how McClellan likely would have negotiated something.

I'm also not defending the Confederacy, my point is that having entire states have no say at all in how federal politics is handled despite the fact the US is and always has been a union of states legitimises its entire foundation.

Yeah, I suppose throwing a tantrum over losing the election is the same as protesting not having a voice. And here I thought you thought people should accept election results.

Loosing an election and not having any say in politics whatsoever are two laughably different things. There's no comparing rioting over being upset over an election loss and having the complete disenfranchisement of you and those standing around you where it's in your objective best interest to secede.

Except both sides will continue to criticize it the second they los because of it (or in a trump's case, because they thought that). Hardly seems like enough
Let's be real. There'd be rioting and milita terrorism and that's about it

I don't think so. The American people have shown a willingness to riot and burn down their own communities due to a criminal being Darwined, and from the Revolution to the Civil War and every uprising in between and after (which contrary to popular belief did not all result in government victory, such as the Battle of Athens) many instances, I'd dare say most, where over far less then an entire state being reduced to a de facto territory.

riots and militia action would be an understatement. This is one of the few realistic situations where national guardsmen and the army could be at it, and in that situation you're unlikely to find many soldiers willing to follow orders (following illegal orders is itself illegal after all, and the legality of just deploying the Army at all would create a constitutional crisis in itself).

And then they'd go bankrupt from a lack of federal funds. There's also the fact that the federal government would pull them back. Not that they'd ever have the balls to actually do this.

I'd like to point out that states have already once had the balls to do it, but that's beside the point. Federal funding is always a funny thing when you think about it. how much of that deficit would be filled by getting rid of programs the people of those states don't want but are federally mandated to have? Plus the argument also shows a significant problem in understanding the issue: many people, especially in red states, care more about self determination then they do the bottom line. Unless you're going to be flat out broke and completely unable to operate the state (which even the worst off states in the US can't have claimed) it's an irrelevant point. One need only look at pretty much every nationalist group that isn't in China to see this in action. Quebec, Scotland, Catalonia, Brittany, Puerto Rico, all of them would be worst off financially should they secede, but none care because for many self determination and controlling one's own future is more important then imaginary numbers on a computer screen.

Zontar:
Snip

The argument you're putting out there is that some of the north states wanted to give up because the Union wasn't winning the war. And, just me, that wouldn't be a problem in the modern day.

Lincoln was a third party candidate, he didn't even get 40% of the overall vote. The Democrat party of the time had two candidates together that ended up dividing the rest of the vote between them, and put together had more votes than Lincoln had on his own. Plus the unionist party which had 12% of the vote, from southerners who did not want to break away. There are fucking three parties that had power bases in the south and they thought they weren't represented? Spare me. And if the electoral college you're defending is oh, so freaking great, how did the south feel unrepresented? Oh right, because their whole population didn't count because of all those slaves that only counted as 3/5ths as people.

Yeah, I have a hard time swallowing that, if only because as much as citizens of red states like to talk big shit about how they'll be gunning down soldiers and policemen the second America goes tyranny, I've yet to really see any of them doing it. Fuck, they second policemen start abusing their authority, these people are the ones to go and defend the police. It'll be all bark and no bite if anything does happens. Oh, and the second a pissed off rioter kills or seriously harms someone in the national guard or the army, you can bet that the rest of them will get over it. Of course, it won't actually come to that. Police will either get things under control or the rioters will start assaulting and killing police, and at that point they'll get, as you so elegantly put, "Darwined" by the police.

Yeah, they had the balls to go up against an army that had managed to embarrass itself in every major war it had fought, in a period where the weapon a soldier would use and the weapon a civilian would use were practically the same, in a world where globalization wasn't a thing. There's a bit of a difference between the world of the 19th century and the world of the 21st century. Yeah, they can finally get rid of medical care. Fuck poor people who want coverage, every red state's wet dream. They care more about self determination than the bottom line? Well, that makes a lot of sense. No wonder the blue states constantly have to fund them then, they don't know how to handle money. All that self determination stuff sounds nice, until you realize that you kind of need money in the real world. Kind of reminds me of Catch-22 where Major Major Major Major's father remarks how he hates the government handing out money to people...except farmers of course, farmers actually deserve it, because he was a farmer. There's also the problem where red states wouldn't be able to afford that big ass military America has that they seem to love oh so fucking much.

Also, billions go specifically to farmers. I have a funny feeling all their piss and vinegar about self determination will go out the window once that money dries up.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-prices-fall-farmers-grow-subsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers

50 years have passed, still very relevant.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/9/21/1240513/-This-Passage-from-Catch-22-is-Still-Very-Relevant-Over-50-Years-Later

erttheking:

The argument you're putting out there is that some of the north states wanted to give up because the Union wasn't winning the war. And, just me, that wouldn't be a problem in the modern day.

I disagree. Americans for all you people like to believe about yourselves have no stomach for war. One need only look at America's military history, both how its military operates (stopping advancements over the smallest thing compared to other Western militaries) to citizenry (cutting and running out of a war where the US had been undefeated, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan). To put it simply the US military and citizens don't like a war that isn't over quickly and decisively, something that would be impossible in such a scenario without a level of collateral damage that would never be tolerated by either the government or military, and even if it where has to deal with the fact something like a quarter of soldiers don't hid the fact they'd never follow an order to kill American citizens. And all this is on top of the fact the whole thing would put the federal government in a constitutional crisis.

Lincoln was a third party candidate, he didn't even get 40% of the overall vote.

I don't see how the 1860 election is relevant given I made mention f the 1864 one and its potential fallout had Lincoln's "continue the war" campaign lost.

Yeah, I have a hard time swallowing that, if only because as much as citizens of red states like to talk big shit about how they'll be gunning down soldiers and policemen the second America goes tyranny, I've yet to really see any of them doing it.

The Battle of Athens seems to disagree.

Fuck, they second policemen start abusing their authority, these people are the ones to go and defend the police. It'll be all bark and no bite if anything does happens. Oh, and the second a pissed off rioter kills or seriously harms someone in the national guard or the army, you can bet that the rest of them will get over it. Of course, it won't actually come to that. Police will either get things under control or the rioters will start assaulting and killing police, and at that point they'll get, as you so elegantly put, "Darwined" by the police.

You know there are three type of people who get shot by the police. Criminals doing something stupid (at least 90% of cases), innocent people doing something stupid (not sure what the number is), or innocent people gunned down for no reason (again not sure what the number is). For whatever reason those who complain the most about police brutality focus almost exclusively on the first group, give some lip service to the second, and almost none to the third.

As for any secession being put down violently, keep in mind it's unlikely that those seceding would want to be seen as firing the first shot since unlike inner city rioters they're likely to have an actual goal and an understanding of who to achieve that goal. And the Fed sure as hell will not want to look like imperialists putting down those who want to secede due to having their voice in government taken away.

Now granted this whole hypothetical is pointless anyway since California and New York can't strong arm an amendment to the EC through even if they got Texas on their side (who despite being the most screwed over by it doesn't complaint that often).

Yeah, they had the balls to go up against an army that had managed to embarrass itself in every major war it had fought, in a period where the weapon a soldier would use and the weapon a civilian would use were practically the same, in a world where globalization wasn't a thing.

Fighter jets and tanks don't hold territory, boots on the ground do. And given the state of the US and how the left acts, I was under the impression citizens practically had access to military technology.

To be blunt, just the act of seceding puts the federal government in a quagmire where it's pretty much doomed to kill popular support no matter what route it goes down.

Also, billions go specifically to farmers. I have a funny feeling all their piss and vinegar about self determination will go out the window once that money dries up.

You do realise how small those numbers actually are when you get to how much each farmer actually gets, right?

I'd say it's like your power bill going up 2%, but given how much of a typical farmer's revenue stems from those subsidies that'd be overstating it, especially since it assumes that the now independent state won't be filling the void since as previously mentioned leaving the union won't actually cripple any state, just require some downsizing (which in most of the cases of these places is what they want in the first place).

Zontar:
Snip

No, I'm arguing that our problem with the war was that we weren't winning it. We love winning wars. Once we started winning the Civil War, enough people were on board with it to keep it going. The problem people have with the War on Terror is that there's no real way to "win" it. A potential second civil war? So long as we hold the states, we're "winning" that. And red states managing to drag out a long standing conflict with the federal government? Yeah, no.

It's because the 1860 election was what caused the south to throw their tantrum about not being represented, which if you look at the election, you see that that just isn't the case. It was them being mad that they lost.

Well great, they managed to overthrow a local government that had a grand total of 200 people backing it up and one submachinegun that they had to share. The people lashing out against the government had better guns and training than the government. Needless to say, a second American Civil War wouldn't be so neatly cut and dry, as they'd be going up against a fuck of a lot more.

People who complain about police brutality regularly bring up Tamir Rice, who, I would like to remind you, was a twelve year old playing with a toy. I don't see any red states Americans who talk about killing corrupt officials calling that out. Considering that anyone breaking away would eventually try to force federal forces out of the city, as well as seizing all military facilities, I have a funny feeling they WOULD fire the first shot. Wouldn't be the first time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

They can get access to assault rifles and shotguns, but I would like to point out that it tends to be rather behind what the US military itself has, and the US military also has so much more to go with it, armored vehicles and actual freaking training to name the most obvious ones. Best case scenario for civilians who want to pick a fight with the military? They take ten losses for each one they inflict. Best case scenario. Oh, well if they're doomed to be unpopular no matter what happens, why bother not trying to bring the other states back into the fold? A moot point, considering that I seriously doubt any wannabe secessionists would get this far.

Oh, then they can pony up for it themselves if it's such a small number, no skin off my back. Except I don't really hear that many farmers complaining about how they want to downsize their farms, or wanting less federal support to expand. Or maybe if they don't get that much, they can take it all and use it to pay for that wall they want so fucking much.

erttheking:
They can get access to assault rifles and shotguns, but I would like to point out that it tends to be rather behind what the US military itself has, and the US military also has so much more to go with it, armored vehicles and actual freaking training to name the most obvious ones. Best case scenario for civilians who want to pick a fight with the military? They take ten losses for each one they inflict. Best case scenario. Oh, well if they're doomed to be unpopular no matter what happens, why bother not trying to bring the other states back into the fold? A moot point, considering that I seriously doubt any wannabe secessionists would get this far.

They can get easy access to assault weapons, not assault rifles. Not the same thing. They can get access to assault rifles and other automatic weapons, but only ones registered before...1986? Those are rare and much prized. They can also get grenade launchers, though that's a hassle. A modern US fireteam (army of marines) tends to have one M203 and one automatic rifle (not including assault rifles which are automatic and rifles) in a 4 person group.

In any case, the US military has an organisation, with a chain of command. That's something rebels lack, and it's a big deal. Oh, and training, communications, weapons large than small arms etc.

Also, if the US people have no stomach for war (there's some truth in the US getting war weary, but that's in distant wars on foreign soil)...who are the rebels in this situation?

Zontar:
So net food producers who have raw resources and a moderate level of industry will be dead, but net food importers who have fewer raw resources and are dependent on imports of most goods period will be fine?

It depends on the government of those independent red states and on the mentality of the population. I can totally see land owners exporting the majority of their produce to liberal kids in cities while their own people starve.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Zontar:
So net food producers who have raw resources and a moderate level of industry will be dead, but net food importers who have fewer raw resources and are dependent on imports of most goods period will be fine?

It depends on the government of those independent red states and on the mentality of the population. I can totally see land owners exporting the majority of their produce to liberal kids in cities while their own people starve.

Someone's read up on the history of the coal mining industry...

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here