# Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424
**Category:** Society, Government, and Economics
**Created:** [May 12, 2019, 4:45pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424 "2019-05-12T16:45:09Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Ecmandu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ecmandu)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2019, 12:14am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/21 "2019-05-17T00:14:44Z")
The right wing is not a real party in the United States, it is a control group that panders to blok groups to win elections. Tax cuts for the rich doesn’t win elections, appealing to evangelical Christians and displaced whites does.
Actually, I take most of that back. The United States in a brainwashing program has actually convinced people that their votes are even being counted…
Oh _gasp_, the Russians hacked two districts in Florida … that’s called a straw man, the government in conjunction with mind control programs has hacked its own elections for over 20 years, but yeah, we should focus on Russians … what a fucking joke!
---
### Author:  [@barbarianhorde](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/barbarianhorde)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2019, 9:16am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/22 "2019-05-17T09:16:37Z")
> [@Del Ivers](#):
>
> I think 90 percent on the right are in fundamental agreement about the purpose of not having a social order that controls our thinking, and an absolute readiness to do whatever it takes, because we have seen how little reason is worth to the others.
>
> You do know that if I were to take your quote and replace ‘right’ with ‘left’ that it would also accurately express what the left feels about the situation in general? That we don’t want the Right’s idea of a social order to control our thinking as it seems intent on doing? That addedly we don’t want to go back to things of the past like racism, Christian authoritarianism, the taking away of women’s rights, the taking away of voting rights and a whole lot more?
No, I see leftists as snakes with no loyalty.
> [@](#):
>
> From my point of view, I do not wish to convert your views to mine. I do not wish to tell women on the right who are pro-life that they should have abortions. I do not wish to tell you to dismiss your religious beliefs. What I do declare is that there is that if freedom of expression is to be a reality for everyone, then everyone has to recognize that it means allowing the space for that freedom.
Then you ought to come to the right.
Its the people on the left who prevent expression.
> [@](#):
>
> But the Right does not think of it that way. The right wants their views enforced overall as LAW, it wants those who do not accede to those views to be punished. The Right is not interested in equal space, it wants DOMINION.
Oh my … youve been been reading too many Facebook posts and newspapers.
What you think the right is is precisely what the right is not.
The left projects its own shadow.
> [@](#):
>
> You may see all of that as a political view but I and many others see it as logical with respect to cooperation, the cooperation which without it there would be no civilization. I don’t want to tell the right what they should do in their acre of endeavor. Why is the Right so intent on telling the entire acreage of a country what to do, how to behave, and who to believe?
See above.
> [@](#):
>
> Why does the Right not realize that the more things are fucked up between ourselves, that it makes it easier for outsiders to come in and attempt to fuck us over permanently?
See above.
> [@](#):
>
> Why are the reasons from the Right better than the reasons from the Left? Why can’t there be, CENTER REASONS?
>
> Why is that, Mr. Horde?
Ask your hyena hordes that, mr Ivers.
People could have just respected American democracy and worked with the president. But instead news networks threatened to kill him. That was the end of civil society, and the beginning of the civil war.
Unless the left finds some self-criticism, some notion of how it has threatened us into war-readiness, it will find the consequences of its actions in the old ways.
The lefts seem to have no idea what they’ve done to us yet.
(I changed “you” to “they” as I have no beef with you personally at all and Id welcome any reasonable person into the moderate right, of which I see myself as an extension, after finally having left the left after it had shown its true face to me personally.)
Moderate left is very rare. It would require the leftist to condemn the fascistic FBI bureaucracy, the fascistic CNN machinery, and a lot more stuff which seems perfectly normal to all leftists.
All in all it is cruelty which brings down the left. Savages who bring down whole nations (such as Libya) while virtue designating to their own electorate, this is something nature simply won’t be able to support for very much longer.
I work a lot with bodycount. I simply count the corpses that a regime has on its conscience. Ive yet to talk to a leftist who even considers this a factor. They’re more concerned with the immense personal hurt of not being addressed with the proper pronoun.
---
### Author:  [@Pedro\_I\_Rengel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pedro_I_Rengel)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2019, 12:43pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/23 "2019-05-17T12:43:16Z")
Regarding one of the questions:
There is no case ever in which civil war has led to resolution, where one side wins. In this sense, the US civil war really wasn’t so much a civil war as a war between to distinct alliances of states. The country USA didn’t quite properly exist. This was the achievement of Lincoln. People forget just how independent all these different states were. Texans considered themselves Texans, not United Stateseans.
But it’s good, that was a righteous war, to end slavery. There were other goals and things at stake, but that was the only one that mattered. All others were noise. All due respect to Texans, who I like better than almost any other gringo.
But anyway, no, civil war is not a means. It is an end.
---
### Author:  [@barbarianhorde](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/barbarianhorde)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2019, 12:59pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/24 "2019-05-17T12:59:27Z")
I wonder in todays case if the left has any idea why the right is preparing for war.
They seem to think it is because we want to dictate peoples minds. Whereas I don’t think we’ve ever expressed any desire in this direction. It is foremost because we have been classified as legitimate targets for attacks, because we’ve been dehumanized and thus severely threatened in mainstream media.
There is no one on the right now who trusts the lefts will to uphold the social contract, and there is no one on the left who speaks out on behalf of respecting democracy. All is about overthrowing our president and making sure we will never again get to elect one. Thus we are prepared.
---
### Author:  [@barbarianhorde](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/barbarianhorde)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2019, 1:08pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/25 "2019-05-17T13:08:05Z")
> [@Pedro I Rengel](#):
>
> Regarding one of the questions:
>
> There is no case ever in which civil war has led to resolution, where one side wins. In this sense, the US civil war really wasn’t so much a civil war as a war between to distinct alliances of states. The country USA didn’t quite properly exist. This was the achievement of Lincoln. People forget just how independent all these different states were. Texans considered themselves Texans, not United Stateseans.
>
> But it’s good, that was a righteous war, to end slavery. There were other goals and things at stake, but that was the only one that mattered. All others were noise. All due respect to Texans, who I like better than almost any other gringo.
>
> But anyway, no, civil war is not a means. It is an end.
The worst civil war on record is said to be the 30 year war of Germany, of which our 80 year against the Spanish is considered a part. Go figure with these numbers.
Anyway the bad reputation of this 30 year war is always tied to the fact that it came into families. Families got divided by this war, where this isn’t normally the case as much, not even in civil war.
So this war we’ve got brewing right here has at least this characteristic in common with the 30 year war, that it cuts right through families.
---
### Author:  [@Pedro\_I\_Rengel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pedro_I_Rengel)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 1:03am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/26 "2019-05-18T01:03:37Z")
> [@barbarianhorde](#):
>
> Families got divided by this war, where this isn’t normally the case as much, not even in civil war.
Um, actually, it is a hallmark of all civil wars.
I hesitate to accept Germany’s as a civil war, for similar reasons as the US’s. Was there a Germany? If anything, that it split families makes the case that it was in fact.
---
### Author:  [@Pedro\_I\_Rengel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pedro_I_Rengel)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 1:04am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/27 "2019-05-18T01:04:59Z")
I remember my father, in a period where he became obsessed with the Spanish civil war, always highlighted that aspect most. How terrifyingly destructive civil war is, for that very reason.
---
### Author:  [@Pedro\_I\_Rengel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pedro_I_Rengel)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 1:05am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/28 "2019-05-18T01:05:52Z")
“Brothers turn against brothers,” he would always say.
---
### Author:  [@Pedro\_I\_Rengel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pedro_I_Rengel)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 1:13am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/29 "2019-05-18T01:13:02Z")
I agree that things have changed in these last 3 years. We were expecting some resistance, but also perhaps were expecting the clear sanity of the ideas to eventually win over hearts. That the left only dug in, crazyfied, showed a disease we didn’t realize was so progressed.
We, the defectors, the Trump lovers (for this includes defectors from the Republicans, lest you forget), felt like Obama betrayed us by using his good promises to expand the fascist state. We thought this would be made clear to all, or most, but it turns out most people wanted precisely that. It is precisely that which they loved about Obama.
We still haven’t fully wrapped our heads around it.
But I want to be the dude that says it here, there is not even civil war on the horizon. The disease is real, but the “war” is already being fought. They want to destroy Trump politically, as you say. But they haven’t yet. And I put the odds against them, for sanity gives a clear strategic advantage.
Just look. Take a cold look. We have suffered set-backs and disillusionments, but Trump has tectonically shifted the direction of things. He has established a new normal, still imperceptible to most, certainly to leftists. Also to the loonies on the right, who think it will be their time.
Negus.
What Trump is doing will not be fully felt until the earthquake is over and the plates have settled.
---
### Author:  [@Pedro\_I\_Rengel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pedro_I_Rengel)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 1:21am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/30 "2019-05-18T01:21:25Z")
Sorry, did some wikipediaing. Forgive the standard foreigner’s indolence.
The 30 year’s war does constitute civil war, for it was an inward one within the civil society, not between rival kingdoms per se, where ideas split members into bands. It’s hard to describe why, but it is a civil war.
---
### Author:  [@Pedro\_I\_Rengel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pedro_I_Rengel)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 1:25am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/31 "2019-05-18T01:25:57Z")
In Venezuela there is a period, between the fall of the Great Colombia and about 1900, about 100 years give or take, that isn’t even actually studied in school. It is just glossed over as the “Federal Wars,” because the chaos was such that historiography is impossible. It was basically a 100 year civil war, of brothers against brothers. Until it was mostly mothers left. Some say that’s why we are so matriarchal.
I know civil war. It is in my DNA. It is literally not possible to discern sides, much less choose them. There are ideas at the very beginning that split people, federalist vs centrist, conservative vs liberal, democrat vs autocrat. But in very short order it devolves into looting bands and vendettas. Like, fast.
---
### Author:  [@Pedro\_I\_Rengel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pedro_I_Rengel)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 1:28am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/32 "2019-05-18T01:28:11Z")
I’m actually counting from 1810, when the independence war started. That, too, was brothers against brothers. Literally.
Simon Bolivar’s sister was a Spanish loyalist.
---
### Author:  [@Pedro\_I\_Rengel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pedro_I_Rengel)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 1:45am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/33 "2019-05-18T01:45:23Z")
I may have simplified some things, but the literature is out there. On the Spanish war, for example, volumes. From both sides.
In the past, with sabres and black powder rifles, it was easier for chaos to take hold. And in Venezuela, we never had the discipline to constitute an army, which was what gave the fascists in Spain the advantage needed to win. If left to the communists and anarchists, the sheer disorganization and lack of discipline would have ensured the state I described of bands and vendettas.
That is the actually only serious reason to avoid civil war. It is a no brainer win for the military. Some may defect, some always do, but the core always remains intact. And when the coins fall, the army is always on the army’s side. See: Spain, Egypt, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, France.
---
### Author:  [@Pedro\_I\_Rengel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pedro_I_Rengel)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 1:48am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/34 "2019-05-18T01:48:49Z")
Fuck. Even in trying to describe it, civil war is an un-unomelletteable omellette.
Just a… fucking… mess.
---
### Author:  [@Del\_Ivers](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Del_Ivers)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 3:20am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/35 "2019-05-18T03:20:07Z")
> [@barbarianhorde](#):
>
> I see leftists as snakes with no loyalty.
Loyalty to whom? To what?
> [@barbarianhorde](#):
>
> Then you ought to come to the right.
> Its the people on the left who prevent expression.
So you’re saying that if I come to the Right I will find people that will allow me and others to express our right to be, for example, pro-choice? That what just happened in Alabama is nothing more than an bunch of good ol’ boys just having a laugh on those Liberals? That I and others can express whatever religion we wish even if it isn’t Christian? That we can even be atheists? That the Left, or even moderately Left, can have their own space with no worries about legislative incursions from the right? If you really believe that, then you’re not on the same page as the Right. Different chapter maybe, but not on the same page.
> [@barbarianhorde](#):
>
> Oh my … youve been been reading too many Facebook posts and newspapers.
> What you think the right is is precisely what the right is not.
> The left projects its own shadow.
I and many others don’t need Facebook or other social media to inform our opinion, we’ve lived the actual history of many of these concerns before there was an internet.
And please inform me as to precisely what the Right is and how it doesn’t project its own shadow.
> [@barbarianhorde](#):
>
> People could have just respected American democracy and worked with the president. But instead news networks threatened to kill him.
People on the Left do respect American democracy, if they didn’t then the Right wouldn’t encounter opposition. What they’ve learned not to respect is the Right’s support of a president who cares nothing about democracy, who cares only about himself, his “brand”, and his money. Who one moment said he was fine with transparency and whatever investigations reveal because he had nothing to hide, and then later turns around and obstructs all information from those investigations. What is that if not someone trying to suppress the facts? Or do you think like many others on the Right that they are ‘fake’ facts.
Did news networks try to ‘kill’ Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr.? They certainly criticized them but at least the mentioned presidents had the guts to answer the media’s questions directly and stood their ground without resorting to hiding behind the mommy-skirt of Twitter crying out petulant accusations of ‘fake news’, ‘bad people’, ‘liars’, ‘witch-hunt’, ‘alternative facts’, and a long list of other nonsense.
> [@barbarianhorde](#):
>
> The lefts seem to have no idea what they’ve done to us yet.
The Right seems oblivious as to what the current presidential administration has already done to them. And if you are as you say, an extension of the moderate right, then surely you know that many on the moderate right think said administration is an insult to moderate right principles.
> [@barbarianhorde](#):
>
> …condemn the fascistic FBI bureaucracy, the fascistic CNN machinery…
Yes, condemn anything and anyone that doesn’t show you ‘loyalty’. Reminds me of someone who had the same attitude around 86 years ago.
> [@barbarianhorde](#):
>
> this is something nature simply won’t be able to support for very much longer.
Then extend nature to where sooner or later the ground will be shifting for the Right and its misnomer of a president. It already is in some ways but you won’t hear that on Fox News.
By the way, Mr. Horde, you answered the first question: " If Id live there id be armed".. Does that mean you’re an expat, or a citizen from another country, or what? It helps in the sense of from what vantage point you’re defending the Right. Whether you would be committed to actual participation in a conflict here or if you’re more armchairing it from there. If the latter, that’s fine. But I’m sure you can see why it does matter.
---
### Author:  [@Karpel\_Tunnel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Karpel_Tunnel)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 5:44am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/36 "2019-05-18T05:44:29Z")
> [@Del Ivers](#):
>
> [i]"How would Trump’s hardcore supporters react to the removal of their president for a high crime or misdemeanor that fell somewhat short of a triple ax murder? Not with equanimity, you can be assured. Does that matter? Maybe not. But the “civil war” cited in the New Yorker article was not of armies marching across fields, but of civil unrest — a lot of angry people causing a lot of mayhem.
Civil unrest is not a civil war. I asked because it seems assumed what this war would be. In the previous civil war the federal government did not have the kind of military might that can instantly reach many places. I have no idea what you are thinking of, what it would mena in the modern context. Who the groups fighting are… Etc. And yet it is as if we could answer what we would be doing on the ground.
> [@](#):
>
> Many of your answers are about, “it depends”. Yes, there are many variables to consider in such a scenario of conflict. But whatever they may be the overriding reality would be as the quote says, ‘a lot of angry people causing a lot of mayhem’. If one happens to find themselves dealing with angry people and mayhem then ‘it depends’ would still be an element in your decisions but with very little of the ease which we can discuss it here on a forum in times where the center is still holding.
I’ve been through rioting periods and there have been widespread periods of rioting. That’s not civil war. Adn most people were not directly affected.
> [@](#):
>
> If you see a tornado in the distance and it’s coming in your direction your decisions have to be quick and underlying them there has to be a sense that you will succeed. The strength of that sense is the chance that you give yourself. Some will say 50/50, others will go more in one direction or the other. My bet is that those who keep it at 50/50 or higher in their favor are going to do better than others. If that is wild speculation, then that is what is needed to increase your chances of survival.
I don’t think so. For reasons i don’t need to go into I am very safe in the types of scenarios you are now raising which are not civil war. My answers to the questions if it was civil war are very relevent to making any kind of rational answer.
> [@](#):
>
> In this conflict the only immediate framing would be to stabilize the situation.
No there would be media and government explanations of who the people causing unrest were - criminals, terrorists, rogue factions of the military, etc. Just as in previous unrests and in previous civial wars. All groups will be trying to get people to view the situaion as they frame it. And those who can do this well, especially in relation to the military and law enforcement stand to win. if they do this well fast, there will not be a civilar war. And civil unrest will be something they can put down without watching their backs the whole time. (not saying who is right or wrong here, just ppointing out that framing is important and always done and done in a hurry because it affects costs, outcomes, winning and more.
> [@](#):
>
> As to how much the military, and for that matter the National Guard and police, would follow the framing intended for stability is also of concern. Just because they’re wearing uniforms and badges does not mean that some of them won’t themselves be, “people causing a lot of mayhem.” Look at history and you’ll find numerous examples of the protectors becoming wolves.
Of course, but this is all just air. I hae no idea if this will be unrest, a coup, an actual large split involving military and law enforcement going to two or more sides, etc.
It’s like asking what you would do if problems arise. Well, it depends.
> [@](#):
>
> One can armchair as much as they want about actions depending on this, that, or the other, but when the pilot light triggers the flames it’s time to get up from the chair and act with the sole purpose of survival.
I can’t get up from the chair in a response to a post in the thread. Of course we are armchairing, this is a philosophy discussion forum.
> [@](#):
>
> [Here’s an article](https://theintercept.com/2019/03/06/donald-trump-impeachment-2020/) about what might happen if Trump is defeated in 2020. Read it.
>
> “Those who assume otherwise haven’t been paying attention.”
Which also could lead to an incredibly wide range of scenarios.
[/quote]
Look, it’s fine to raise the issue of possible unrest to possible civil war, but you asked a bunch of questions where which particular set of scenarios affects radically what we would do, how we would think. The expectation that we could possibly answer a number of those questions makes me think there is some foundational confusion.
---
### Author:  [@barbarianhorde](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/barbarianhorde)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 7:57am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/37 "2019-05-18T07:57:43Z")
Karpel you show yourself to be utterly inhuman. You’ve taken in nothing about the lives Trump has saved abroad. You don’t care. IM SICKENED.
Im leaving this site for good now.
---
### Author:  [@Karpel\_Tunnel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Karpel_Tunnel)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 8:09am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/38 "2019-05-18T08:09:04Z")
> [@barbarianhorde](#):
>
> Karpel you show yourself to be utterly inhuman. You’ve taken in nothing about the lives Trump has saved abroad. You don’t care. IM SICKENED.
>
> Im leaving this site for good now.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, man. I am responding to ideas about civil war. I have presented no compliments or critiques of Trump here.
I did mess up putting quotes around Ivers link, maybe that’s causing the problem. But if my previous post was the last drop, you are close to fed up…
---
### Author:  [@promethean75](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/promethean75)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 1:38pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/39 "2019-05-18T13:38:41Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Im leaving this site for good now.
Yeah yeah. More empty promises. _sigh_
---
### Author:  [@Del\_Ivers](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Del_Ivers)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2019, 4:15pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424/40 "2019-05-18T16:15:07Z")
> [@Karpel Tunnel](#):
>
> Civil unrest is not a civil war.
>
> The expectation that we could possibly answer a number of those questions makes me think there is some foundational confusion.
Go to Google and input, “will there be a civil war in the united states 2019”. It gives 664 million as results of the search. Even if it were only 664 the basic idea is that as put forth in the Merriam-Webster definition of civil war: ‘A war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.’
You can argue as much as you want about the semantics of it, how it depends which definition is used and which word applies best. But it’s the optics, the actual, palpable scenario of it that will matter to those who would be experiencing the conflict. If a large number of civilians start to throw rocks, bottles, incendiary devices, or send bullets in each other’s direction it won’t matter what it’s called, what will matter is how to survive it.
Let’s look at the facts: I live in Nevada. In 2017 the ATF statistics noted that there were 76,888 registered guns in the state. Remember, that’s only ‘registered’. We don’t have to put on our thinking caps to figure that the number of ‘unregistered’ guns would be enough for, as the article stated, “a lot of angry people causing a lot of mayhem”. And here’s an extra dash of salt: Nevada [does not require](https://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/weaponhub.html) the registration of firearms.
Now, take all of that and read this: [i]"…those who see owning a gun as central to their overall identity are particularly committed to gun ownership. For example, 89% of gun owners who see owning a gun as very or somewhat important to their overall identity say they can’t see themselves ever not owning a gun, compared with 58% of those who say owning a gun is not too important or not at all important their sense of identity.
And while 85% of gun owners who say the right to own guns is essential to their sense of freedom say they can’t see themselves ever not owning a gun at some point, 41% of those who don’t see the right to own guns as essential say the same."[/i] url=https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership[/url]
Take that identity-freedom stance, mix it in with all those whose garbanzo-size brains tell them that Trump is their savior, and you have a recipe for a potentially bitter scenario. Call it civil unrest, rioting, revolt, widespread urban conflict, call it a civil brawl if you like. But whatever you call it make sure it means a scenario where your very life could be on the line.
Do I personally want a scenario like that to happen? No, of course not. Something like, no matter what you call it, would set this country back decades and the damage done on different levels would take decades if not more to repair. In short, you won’t have to worry about the semantics or any “foundational confusion” if any of that shit goes down.
> [@Karpel Tunnel](#):
>
> I can’t get up from the chair in a response to a post in the thread. Of course we are armchairing, this is a philosophy discussion forum.
Then let us hope, for Left, Right, and Center, that the scenario remains nothing more than a thread in a philosophy discussion forum. If someone reads this in the future and say to themselves, “Wow, that Del Ivers was so wrong”. Then I will be a happy man. 🙂
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/hard-questions-civil-war-between-the-left-and-the-right/46424.md?page=3)