DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus US ‘closer to civil war’ than most would like to believe, new book says

scary...


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ays/ar-AARYU5v?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

The US is “closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe”, a member of a key CIA advisory panel has said.


The analysis by Barbara F Walter, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego who sits on the Political Instability Task Force, is contained in a book due out next year and first reported by the Washington Post.

At the same time, three retired generals wrote in the Post that they were “increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military”.

Such concerns are growing around jagged political divisions deepened by former president Donald Trump’s refusal to accept defeat in the 2020 election.

Trump’s lie that his defeat by Joe Biden was caused by electoral fraud stoked the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January, over which Trump was impeached and acquitted a second time, leaving him free to run for office.

The “big lie” is also fueling moves among Republicans to restrict voting by groups that lean Democratic and to make it easier to overturn elections.

Such moves remain without counter from Democrats stymied by the filibuster, the Senate rule that demands supermajorities for most legislation.

In addition, though Republican presidential nominees have won the popular vote only once since 1988, the GOP has by playing political hardball stocked the supreme court with conservatives, who outnumber liberals 6-3.

All such factors and more, including a pandemic which has stoked resistance to government, have contributed to Walter’s analysis.

Last month, she tweeted: “The CIA actually has a taskforce designed to try to predict where and when political instability and conflict is likely to break out around the world. It’s just not legally allowed to look at the US. That means we are blind to the risk factors that are rapidly emerging here.”

The book in which Walter looks at those risk factors in the US, How Civil Wars Start, will be published in January. According to the Post, she writes: “No one wants to believe that their beloved democracy is in decline, or headed toward war.

But “if you were an analyst in a foreign country looking at events in America – the same way you’d look at events in Ukraine or Ivory Coast or Venezuela – you would go down a checklist, assessing each of the conditions that make civil war likely”.

“And what you would find is that the United States, a democracy founded more than two centuries ago, has entered very dangerous territory.”


Walter, the Post said, concludes that the US has passed through stages of “pre-insurgency” and “incipient conflict” and may now be in “open conflict”, beginning with the Capitol riot.

Citing analytics used by the Center for Systemic Peace, Walter also says the US has become an “anocracy” – “somewhere between a democracy and an autocratic state”.

Related: Capitol attack panel will determine if Trump committed crime – Republican

The US has fought a civil war, from 1861 to 1865 and against states which seceded in an attempt to maintain slavery.

Estimates of the death toll vary. The American Battlefield Trust puts it at 620,000 and says: “Taken as a percentage of today’s population, the toll would have risen as high as 6 million souls.”

Sidney Blumenthal, a former Clinton adviser turned biographer of Abraham Lincoln and Guardian contributor, said: “The secessionists in 1861 accepted Lincoln’s election as fair and legitimate.”

The current situation, he said, “is the opposite. Trump’s questioning of the election … has led to a genuine crisis of legitimacy.”

With Republicans’ hold on the levers of power while in the electoral minority a contributing factor, Blumenthal said, “This crisis metastasises, throughout the system over time, so that it’s possible any close election will be claimed to be false and fraudulent.”

Blumenthal said he did not expect the US to pitch into outright civil war, “section against section” and involving the fielding of armies.

If rightwing militia groups were to seek to mimic the secessionists of the 1860s and attempt to “seize federal forts and offices by force”, he said, “I think you’d have quite a confidence it would be over very, very quickly [given] a very strong and firm sense at the top of the US military of its constitutional, non-political role.

“… But given the proliferation of guns, there could be any number of seemingly random acts of violence that come from these organised militias, which are really vigilantes and with partisan agendas, and we haven’t entered that phase.

“The real nightmare would be that kind of low-intensity conflict.”

Members of the Oath Keepers, a far-right group, on the East Front of the US Capitol on 6 January. Photograph: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
© Provided by The Guardian
Members of the Oath Keepers, a far-right group, on the East Front of the US Capitol on 6 January. Photograph: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
The retired generals who warned of conflict around the next election – Paul Eaton, Antonio Taguba and Steven Anderson – were less sanguine about the army.

Related: Republicans are shamelessly working to subvert democracy. Are Democrats paying attention?

“As we approach the first anniversary of the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol,” they wrote, “we … are increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military, which would put all Americans at severe risk.

“In short: We are chilled to our bones at the thought of a coup succeeding next time.”

Citing the presence at the Capitol riot of “a disturbing number of veterans and active-duty members of the military”, they pointed out that “more than one in 10 of those charged in the attacks had a service record”.

Polling has revealed similar worries – and warnings. In November, the Public Religion Research Institute asked voters if they agreed with a statement: “Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”

The poll found that 18% of respondents agreed. Among Republicans, however, the figure was 30%.

On Twitter, Walter thanked the Post for covering her book. She also said: “I wish I had better news for the world but I couldn’t stay silent knowing what I know.”

I could write a doomsday dramatic divisive book too. Especially if it pays well.

And people might read it and newspapers might cover it... IF you had a bio that gave you some level of legitimacy... like this author has....

One in ten were vets? That surprises me because the number is not higher. Vets tend to be more conservative.

And I don't doubt a lot of people out there think this way. Hell, I think this way. If the right overturns a fair election at the state level to steal another presidency, the riots of 2020 will seem like child's play.

While you are laughing at me, remember that I saw the 6th coming and y'all laughed then too.

Like I said before, imagine wanting to start a civil war because trump convinced you everything is rigged.

Or that teaching real history is bad.

What a bunch of snowflakes.

I am always amazed at how the left uses fear to distract from the real problems going on.
Their people eat it up.

Truth is, all these small groups of troublemakers are just that, small groups. They can cause some problems but nothing the rest of America can't overcome.

The actual Civil War involved the entirety of the Southern States fighting for their independence from a Federal Government!
That was no small group. That was a Civil War.

*Thinking to myself* When was war ever civil?

It sounds better than ‘domestic’ war. That would sound like we’re fighting over farm animals.

Though I’m sure some dumb ass group of humans somewhere in history fought over that, too.

I'm always amazed that no matter what the extreme right wing does their persistent answer is "There's nothing to see here", in hopes people will turn a blind eye to what's going on.

ikr. It's like, no insurrectionist fascists criminals here, LOOK Joe Biden stuttered!

Hey leave my family out of this. That was our favorite sheep.

Except this Chapter in American History was written by Trump.. He is the root of the evil that is building in this country.. No, he's not the father of it, he's not even the founder of it. This hate was already here. Trump exploited it and he used it to get elected. Trump made it OK to be a Bigot.. He made it ok to sound stupid to the rest of the world..

So for me, he's the flag that these nut jobs are following and that makes him a criminal in my eyes.. And a traitor as well. I'm gonna say this and it's going to tick some folks off,, FACT IS, if you follow trump, you are a traitor as well. Traitor to your country., You aren't doing what's best for the MAJORITY of Americans.. Just the ones that think like Trump.

FYI, if you are interested, I have a sale going on for the latest in Rectal lighting that helps kill COVID.. Let me know...

47 will have you behind bars for saying these things!

No she won't.

Your argument is lousy. I agree that following "Trump" is not a good thing, but your first paragraph is full of contradictions. I also think you've got the cart in front of the horse in the Trump making things okay portion. I think a culture that largely ignored bigotry and at times goes so far as to applaud sounding stupid led to Trump. He's a paper tiger that's distracting from and somehow also giving focus to problems that were already there.

If you want to call Trump followers traitors, I'd argue the other party has just as many. The whole doing what's best for the majority doesn't have one size fits all answers For everything. Different things work in different locations amidst different communities. Trying to force people to do one 'best for everybody/"the majority" way' completely spits in the face of individual liberty, and many of the "best for everyone" ideas lead to unintended consequences that actually end up making things worse for everyone. The whole foundation of this country was based on not wanting the government to dictate things to all the people.

The nihilistic rush for conformity kills me. Especially, the people that are such jerks about insisting everyone else should agree with them. People who think they know what is best for everyone else are the worst. People have different priorities and see things in different ways.

We could use some empathy, patience, and understanding of possible differences instead of arrogance, "zero-sum tribalism/partyism", and rushing to judgment. (But leave my sarcasm and snark alone, though I'm not really using any here.)

So you're saying that the president of our country making excuses for and in some ways acting like white supremacists and Nazi sympathizers are "good people" doesn't bolster and embolden their cause? That it doesn't add to people who may have stayed silent and not been vocal and active about it before now seem to feel like it's more acceptable?

We agree that the problem existed long before now. But it sounds as if you're indicating that hooking up an amplifier to a guitar doesn't make the guitar louder.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. That's what you wished I had said so you could feel better about someone on your side of the "debate" having made a poor case in his post.

And I've got no hard feelings towards Daman. I agree with the emotions of his post for the most part, I believe, just not the logic of the way he expressed it. Unfortunately, emotional responses lead to lots of knee jerk reactions that aren't fully thought out.

Then sometimes people start making things up to defend the results of those emotional responses because of misguided feelings related to group identity/solidarity.

can somebody explain to me what this cawthorn guy is doing? why is he one of the main ones talking about going to war?

is somebody gonna put off road tires on his wheelchair so he can roll to the middle of the battlefield?

Is he the one that got caught claiming fake valor or something? There are so many nut jobs on that side of the aisle, it's hard to keep them straight.

EDIT: Never mind, he lies a lot, and he lied about the Naval Academy, not fake valor. He lied about other crap too, for NO reason at all. Check it out:

The Ignominious Deceits of Congressman Cawthorn

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/madison-cawthorn-paralympics/

tank treads.
definitely tank treads.
mas macho.

'cause that's how he roll.

Q1. I'm guessing the simple answer is that he's trying to set himself up to get re-elected.

Q2. I'm guessing because he's young and he's never actually been to war.

Q3. It's probably easier to actually shoot accurately while rolling than it is while running. (and I thought poking fun at the disabled was more of a "Trump" thing?)

On the serious side, I'm not sure what he's doing with regards to "civil war" because Google seems to think his divorce is more important, and I don't see any mention of "war" on his Twitter (though he does seem to Tweet a lot, so I might have missed something while quickly scrolling through. -I'm definitely not going to give him a follow.)

j/c:

So.....someone is trying to promote a book again?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5662711001

When you lie about naval academy, and then turn around and start threatening crap like this, every aspect of your life becomes free game.

And so I can’t help but wonder if people are honestly willing to follow a guy who WONT be on the front lines with them in a hypothetical civil war. Senator duckworth is in a wheelchair because she lost her legs in ACTUAL combat, not because of some drunken night in a car accident. She’s more of a bad ass and likely to still shoot when crap hits the fan.

So again, when clowns like cawthorn start running their mouths and threatening violence, their physical stature becomes free game. Actual combat veterans like myself are gonna wanna see if he’s really about that life or not.

Is that a guy you would follow into civil war? Do you actually think he’d be on the frontlines with others in an actual civil war?

If the answer is no, then why do you care what I say about him?

No, he amplified a problem that was already there.


Only one side try to overthrow the election.


Yes, a clean environment, helping working families with childcare costs, negotiating prescription costs and expanding health care coverage aren't good for America.


That's true because you didn't mention false equivalencies and hyperbole.

.

1. You say, "no," but amplifying and giving focus to are synonymous. So don't you mean, yes, he amplified a problem? That doesn't contradict what I wrote.

2. But the other side wants to give more power to the government which is "traitorous" to the ideals the country was founded upon. It was more a commentary on the low bar he had for considering someone a traitor than actually saying they were traitors. But, then, you were focused on being right/wanting everyone to agree with you rather than trying to understand what I was saying. That's a big part of why our country is such a cluster....I believe.

3. The ideas sound good. The execution is excrement. Another example of people putting too much credence in symbols over substance. If Hitler were to run as a Democrat in the next election, a bunch of Democrats would probably vote for him. ...If he ran as a Republican, Republicans probably would. People are lousy at looking for the reality beneath labels that sound good to them (and bad to them, so people suck at looking beyond labels/ "the surface" in general really.)

We've become a tweeting, TikTok-ing, headline skimming, soundbyte believing society, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise that stability is disappearing and "civil war" seems impending. That or someone thought they could get more hits using words from a recent movie title.

4. False equivalencies, hyperbole, and just generally completely misrepresenting what other people say are your department.

I'm not especially trusting of the government to implement a lot of these programs either. The problem becomes when healthcare and the drug makers decide to charge Americans two and sometimes three times as much for prescriptions and services as other nations, there comes a point when there becomes no choice.

The country was founded on free and fair elections and the people who win those elections are to be placed in office. No amount of excuses or "feelings" excuse that.

Focusing on something is to bring attention to an issue or to draw interest in it. Amplifying an issue expands it. Amplifying something causes it to be louder and more intense.


Pot meet kettle.

Yep, the Naval Academy thing tells me all I need to know about him. Lying trash.

1. You say you're not trusting of the government but your actions say otherwise. There's always a choice. Unfortunately, most people can't see past the depth of a mud puddle in a freshly paved parking lot when the issue is really more equivalent of the depths of the Marianas trench. People seem to be happy arguing over what shade of lipstick to put on the fat, nasty, cancer-riddled pig instead of trying to figure out how to take bad pork out of their diet or at least how to make the pig healthy. Picking from only lousy choices doesn't lead to good results. It's not that there's no choice, it's that people accept bad choices because they're too lazy/comfortable to figure out better ones.

2. ...free and fair elections where African Americans weren't considered people. I'm not sure that bringing up the founders with regards to elections was your best choice. But then, you do seem drawn towards bad choices. I also don't think the founders foresaw what lousy choices the people would be presented with in the future. Though, perhaps the possibility of such lousy choices being presented by the government is why they insisted on the right to bear arms being so early in the list of rights.

3. When you focus light with a magnifying glass it sets things on fire. It seemed an appropriate analogy. But I should know better than to expect you to consider what I'm saying when that might require thinking outside your limited focus. Maybe you should try amplifying your mind- in the expanding sense, you don't need any more "noise" or intensity. I don't typically deal in mud puddles, so you might have to look a bit deeper if you're trying to understand my posts. Sadly, I get that trying to understand someone else is an activity that doesn't seem to get much practice.

4. Well, at least you're admitting your department, and it's just like you to rely upon a false equivalency to express that.

...Well, he is a politician. Just saying.

1. So since you seem to think there's a better choice, what is that choice? Unless you think being charged two and three times as much for healthcare services and prescription drugs than countries like Canada by leaving it in the hands of private business is also a bad idea, that would take the government to at the very least regulate them. If not, what is this better choice you speak of?

2. So since some people were eliminated from voting it means that the voting system and methods changed? That we aren't supposed to honor the votes of those who voted? That somehow that gives people the right to overturn the electoral college in a presidential election or the popular vote in other elections?

3.The only mud puddle created here is your own.


No hyperbole there!


I'm pretty sure the founding fathers didn't envision guns that would fire thirty to fifty rounds in less than a minute and people committing mass murder in our schools either. But then when you speak on one topic you mention what they didn't forsee and in a topic you feel differently about you pretend that principal no longer applies.

1. The options I'd look into would be putting more focus on keeping people healthy before they become sick, so they don't have to rely on corrupt and profit-seeking systems. Pumping more money into corrupt and profit-seeking systems would seem to exacerbate existing issues instead of fixing them. More lipstick on pigs.

2. Nope, it just means you used a bad example. When the people that voted don't even like their choice, there is an issue. I don't like the violence, but it does somewhat seem an expected outcome of the second amendment. Our government is pretty messed up. The symbolism/ideal is good. The reality blows. I don't know how it gets fixed. Picking between the craptastic options we're presented is unlikely to ever do it.

3. Your only seeing mud puddles is exactly what I've been talking about. You seem unwilling or unable to look deeper. I do hyperbole, analogy, and other linguistic devices, but the false equivalency I leave to you.

4. Again, you're looking at the surface layer. Yes, there are specific things that they didn't foresee. But, they did foresee that there would be things that they couldn't foresee. They set in place certain rights that they believed would allow future peoples to address the unforeseeable. Again, your specific focus is obscuring an underlying general principle.

That sounds great in theory and I don't disagree with that in principal. But "looking into it" has already been a focus of many. The information to a healthy diet is readily available. Yet as a society we can see that this will not be the outcome. The fact that you can get a burger on the value menu costs $1.50 and a salad costs $5.00 doesn't help matters. Food deserts in our cities only exasperates this. Teaching children the food groups and a healthy diet has been taught in schools for decades now. So maybe we need to do more than "look into it".


No, honoring election results is not a bad example. Do you really think that during the history of our nation that voters were "happy with their options"? People for generations have complained about the politicians, the government and the candidates. Pretending this is some new phenomenon is nothing more than an excuse for favoring fascism over democracy. I wasn't happy with my choices either but hundreds of millions of Americans such as you and myself understood that's no excuse for trying to overthrow our election results.


Only there is no false equivalency. That's something you have made up in your own mind.


On one hand you make excuses for overthrowing our democracy and then claim the forefathers could not forsee our poor choices. On the other hand you ignore the "A regulated militia" part of the second amendment and act as though they could envision the weapons of today when they wrote the constitution. It's only a false equivalency in your mind when it doesn't suit your purpose.

Yet January 6th had nothing to do with "lousy choices". I mean if we want to talk about a false equivalency. Those people weren't wearing red hats that said, "We Want Better choices". You see, using a bait and switch con game to try to divert the discussion in another direction isn't going to address the actual discussion we were having.

What we saw in an attempt to inflict fascism as our form of government was one side being convinced an election was stolen through every conspiracy theory imaginable to see what would stick. By being lied to and convinced their side is right and the other side is wrong. By people being convinced that if somehow the other party won America would be forever changed as they know it. What happened on Jan. 6th was the result of a propaganda campaign permeated on the part of the extremists in the Republican party. It had nothing to do with "lousy choices". But nice deflection on your part.

1. And yet you're complaining about bad bills not getting passed instead of being upset that we aren't being given options like the actually doing stuff in the direction I'd look into.

2. Honoring election results wasn't the bad example. Invoking the founders on elections, with respect to their being free and fair, was. I never mentioned excuses for overthrowing the elections, that's your intended angle.

3. Stating that we are pot and kettle is a false equivalency.

4. I wasn't making excuses. You're the one conflating everything with January 6, I'm more looking at theoretical impending "civil war." I don't ignore the well regulated militia part, I just think you're interpreting it wrong, as you do many things (most noticeably, me.)

If we weren't given such lousy choices, Trump would never have even been on the ballot. If he hadn't been on the ballot, there would have been no attempt to overturn the election, and therefore there would have been no January 6th. So, it had everything to do with "lousy choices."

If you want to argue that being able to choose your "fascist"/awful leader is actually democracy, then we've got a great democracy going.

Really we've got a faux/foe democracy filled with bad options and infantilized citizens.

The problem here is that out of the several choices available, the man chosen was the most vile human being of the lot. Primitive name calling, persistent lies and divisive rhetoric were his calling cards. It's as if they intended to elect a man in order to throw a tantrum for them. And that is who the people chose to lead their party. Sadly what you describe as a " faux/foe democracy" was achieved by the very guidelines our forefathers established to elect a president. Where you may have nailed the problem is that we have a population of infantilized citizens. But that will only work to exacerbate the problem moving forward, not make it better,

Those options you speak of have been spoke of for years and in some cases decades as I pointed out already. The problems we're seeing are the consequences of what transpires when it's left in the hands of private business and the people. To accomplish the things you speak of, first people would have to be able to afford a healthy diet. As I pointed out there would also have to be made available healthy shopping options in out inner cities. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. What you tend to do here is talk about some "direction to take" with no road map to reach that destination. Lofty goals and endless idealism without a way to reach the solution are nothing more than empty words. So how do you suggest we reach your solution?


You chose to be selective in what part of the constitution you support to try and make your points. "Second amendment good. Election process bad." It's odd that throughout our entire nations history there has been a peaceful transfer of power and now that there isn't you consider it a bad example. It's obvious you're reaching too far here.


Not at all. Throwing out lofty ideas with no plan of how to achieve them is considered rhetoric at its finest.


Yet in your fairy tale it's those that are sick of having poor choices. In real life it's being stoked by those who don't actually seem unhappy about their choices. They're unhappy they didn't get their way with the choice they made. Those are two very different things.

1. The first step is getting people to admit that there's a problem, rather than trying everything they can to ignore the problem. The "you don't have an answer," so let's not change anything approach is how we keep ending up with such garbage.

2. I referenced the founders in a context that made sense logically. You referenced it in a way that didn't. Superficiality is your focus. So maybe I'm a kettle and you're a symbol of a pot. The same thing, but one's actually useful for something other than looking at. (Yeah, that's a bit harsh, I'm more looking at your argument in this case than you in general) I've been fed up with our lousy political system since before I was old enough to vote. It's just now coming to a point where people are dying over it, but it's been a joke for a long time. Ideally it'd be great, as it actually works it's awful. You seem to be the idealist in this case.

3. You've got to start somewhere. As they say, admitting the problem is often the first step. You write as if rhetoric is a bad thing. All rhetoric is is the art of communicating effectively. You should try it

4. Being resigned to a system doesn't mean it's working effectively. We've been conditioned to believe our country is the greatest and everything about it is the best. It's not, and obviously people don't consciously believe that, but they accept the messed up way things are because it's hard to argue with the BS idealistic stories about the country and it's systems that we've been weaned on. Democracy, Liberty, Capitalism: They're good symbols, but all too often they are used to hide monsters. When your choices are Trump and Biden, or insert your currently in office politician, neither are the best possible choices, let alone good choices. They're the types of choices we've come to expect, but if anyone is happy with them- that's a problem to me.



The problem I have is not in thinking up better options, it's figuring out how to implement them without getting snuffed out by those benefiting from current systems. (and yeah, that seems kinda extreme, and it probably is, but tell me that again after you've served overseas.) Heck, I can't even get people to admit problems. 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink' seems all too applicable.

I've been getting into gardening/regenerative agriculture, ecological systems, intentional communities, that sort of stuff because that seems to be a "better", or at least positive, direction without trying to rock the boat too much.