• Donate and support Agora Road's Macintosh Cafe to keep the forum alive and make any necessary upgrades to have a more pleasant experience! Update: I configured the site with Brave Browser, so you can send tips to the site with BAT.

    - Upgrade now for supporter only awards! In Three Tiers

    -- Agora Gold

    -- Agora Silver

    -- Agora Bronze

    Upgrades like "moods" username customization, profile customization, custom backgrounds, banners and much more!

    It will be under Account Upgrades

    Submissions for Tales of Agora Road Issue #4 is OPEN! MAKE AGORA CHAN ART BY CLICKING HERE

Pondering a 2nd U.S. "Civil War" - Speculating contributing factors, potential effects, issues with the narrative, and misc thoughts

If the US/West is to spiral into irreversible civil unrest, when (if ever) will it occur?


  • Total voters
    107

imacop

Bronze
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
83
Reaction score
159
Awards
53
I think for one, the founding fathers were mistaken in trusting representational democracy and its something that should be corrected. With a very high threshold of course 90% approval for something to pass and 70% participation. The politicians do too much shit while you have your back turned and oops they abridged some right or other. Oops we accidentally snuck in legislation while everyone was reading this massive stack of legislation.
What would you replace representational democracy with? Direct democracy (read: mob rule) certainly isn't a better option, though I wouldn't mind the occasional referendum.

Congress has a hard enough time passing laws as it is—with our political climate (the duopoly of competing corporate parties), requiring of 90% would ensure nothing ever got done. No ObamaCare, no infrastructure bill—just tax cuts for corps. The Freedom Caucus has one thing right, and that's transparency in bills brought before the house. You're right that there's lots of things that get stuffed into these bills behind closed doors, but I'm not sure how to fix that. Maybe have a maximum page limit for bills? Or a finite amount of amendments? I'm clueless enough about legislation that they might already have these in place.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
What would you replace representational democracy with? Direct democracy (read: mob rule) certainly isn't a better option, though I wouldn't mind the occasional referendum.

Congress has a hard enough time passing laws as it is—with our political climate (the duopoly of competing corporate parties), requiring of 90% would ensure nothing ever got done. No ObamaCare, no infrastructure bill—just tax cuts for corps. The Freedom Caucus has one thing right, and that's transparency in bills brought before the house. You're right that there's lots of things that get stuffed into these bills behind closed doors, but I'm not sure how to fix that. Maybe have a maximum page limit for bills? Or a finite amount of amendments? I'm clueless enough about legislation that they might already have these in place.
Congress has a hard time passing laws that benefit you and I. But laws to benefit the wealthy who fund their campaigns always seem to sail through no problem. Money for extra war in Ukraine -> no problem. Tax cuts for the wealthy and temporary tax cuts for the 99%. No problem as well. Bills that have essentially 100% support like that daylight savings bill languish in obscurity. In summary the system only works if you are wealthy and can buy Congress.

Money to fix our nations lead pipes That can wait. Regulation to fix the medical system, broken immigration system, legal system. Nah these can all wait. The military is the first priority.

What real options do you have to demand the government fix itself? Voting in 4-6 years. Yeah right nobody cares about current thing in 4-6 years. You can't remove them because there's no legal way to do so.

Mob rule or 99% rule? This is why I set the threshold so high at 70% participation with 90% of the vote for any legislation. It ensures that only things with mass support happen while also protecting minorities from the majority. With power close to home at the city/county level.

Representative democracy is a failure unless you are wealthy and that I think is the true reason why it'll never go away.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

imacop

Bronze
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
83
Reaction score
159
Awards
53
Mob rule or 99% rule? This is why I set the threshold so high at 70% participation with 90% of the vote for any legislation. It ensures that only things with mass support happen while also protecting minorities from the majority. With power close to home at the city/county level.

Representative democracy is a failure unless you are wealthy and that I think is the true reason why it'll never go away.
Ah, I misunderstood earlier. The 90% threshold is for public referendums, not congress. Got it.

I agree with everything you've said!
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
Ah, I misunderstood earlier. The 90% threshold is for public referendums, not congress. Got it.

I agree with everything you've said!
Also it would eliminate the whole elderly politician problem, and the lobbyist problem, and remove a lot of sources of corruption.

Of course it all hinges on people not being stupid and easily manipulated. Maybe some sort of trial period on legislation. One year to try it out and then another vote to keep it.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

imacop

Bronze
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
83
Reaction score
159
Awards
53
Also it would eliminate the whole elderly politician problem, and the lobbyist problem, and remove a lot of sources of corruption.

Of course it all hinges on people not being stupid and easily manipulated. Maybe some sort of trial period on legislation. One year to try it out and then another vote to keep it.
Brexit passed with a very narrow margin, but the 90% marker might be a good "check" on idiocy.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
Brexit passed with a very narrow margin, but the 90% marker might be a good "check" on idiocy.
Looks like brexit met the first criteria of enough participation but fell very short on the leave at 51% when I would've wanted 90%. Hilariously Brexiteers are now having to find visas and permissions to remain in the various European countries they have settled in. In a strange twist of luck, most of these policies were spearheaded by the UK.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

SolidStateSurvivor

This is Extremely Dangerous to Our Democracy
Joined
Feb 15, 2022
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
5,207
Awards
245
Website
youtuube.neocities.org
The Texas border situation is getting a little spicy. Seems like more and more governors are pledging state troopers/national guardsmen to the scene (every red state with the exception of Vermont.)

I have also seen rumors of volunteer militias and an organized trucker's convoy making their way down as well.
maxresdefault.jpg

Biden's in a tough spot, he could've maybe gotten away with seizing control/federalizing Texas's forces, but if he tries doing this with over a dozen other state's forces he's going to unleash a can of worms. If Biden doesn't intend to backdown then I really don't know what's next.

I'm still unsure if this is all just a show or if there's potential for something here, but it'll be interesting to watch playout.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

no_chill

Anti-Globalist Taskforce 8 "Florian Geyer"
Silver
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Messages
604
Reaction score
3,005
Awards
197
The Texas border situation is getting a little spicy. Seems like more and more governors are pledging state troopers/national guardsmen to the scene (every red state with the exception of Vermont.)

I have also seen rumors of volunteer militias and an organized trucker's convoy making their way down as well.
maxresdefault.jpg

Biden's in a tough spot, he could've maybe gotten away with seizing control/federalizing Texas's forces, but if he tries doing this with over a dozen other state's forces he's going to unleash a can of worms. If Biden doesn't intend to backdown then I really don't know what's next.

I'm still unsure if this is all just a show or if there's potential for something here, but it'll be interesting to watch playout.


I somehow really doubt something will happen. Someone will hold a speech on how important it is to stick together and advocates for unity and everyone just cucks out and goes back home. I wonder, perhaps the British should have tried this in 1776.

Advocate for unity and that you are only stronger together.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Polonius

Traveler
Joined
Jul 19, 2023
Messages
62
Reaction score
138
Awards
26
Let's see...

-Alliance of states against a federal breach of the constitution,
-Gathering of states' troops possibly against federal forces
-Longstanding regional divisions over constitution and rule of law
-Possible outcomes, though perhaps unlikely, include excuse for either side to take up arms against the other.

Seems familiar, but like No Chill said,
I somehow really doubt something will happen. Someone will hold a speech on how important it is to stick together and advocates for unity and everyone just cucks out and goes back home.
This has been the schtick for quite a while it feels like. Not someone who wants violence, but considering how much of the 'right' got cold feet on vaccine mandates, this feels like a bit of theater.

Or it could be the same script as 1861 (or was sumter 1860?) either way, something to keep an eye on, and stay skeptical if you're in an involved state, which I guess is all of them, since history seems to demonstrate similar hands holding the strings of either party, for them to get this agitated at one another, for the right to oh-so-suddenly sprout a pair of testacles and 'hold the line' after decades of surrender, it feels very odd. Maybe I'm wrong to be so suspicious of it all, but with that 'Civil War' movie coming out (predictive programming?), the weak history of the right, the oncoming election, this all feels very questionable. Surely not everything can be a psyop, but damn have the last twenty+ years been weird.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

SolidStateSurvivor

This is Extremely Dangerous to Our Democracy
Joined
Feb 15, 2022
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
5,207
Awards
245
Website
youtuube.neocities.org
for the right to oh-so-suddenly sprout a pair of testacles and 'hold the line' after decades of surrender, it feels very odd.
My feeling on this is that the political class knows Texas is on the brink of going blue (if they haven't lost their status as a white majority state they're probably on the brink) and this is their last ditch effort to at least try and preserve it as a red/white state.
The US should've had this going on at the border ten fold years ago. But nah of course TPTB gotta keep pumping in tons of able bodied laborers to keep wages low, gotta get the third world to come in and sign up for American credit cards and enter the debt slavery system because it's good for the shareholders. They live in gated communities anyhow so who cares where they dump these people from lord knows where

but with that 'Civil War' movie coming out (predictive programming?), the weak history of the right, the oncoming election, this all feels very questionable.
I don't buy into the notion of predictive programing but I think by simply putting those sorts of messages out on a mass scale it does have an effect on the public conscious. This is going to sound corny, but I do think this is a "dangerous" movie to be putting out right now. But it's not as if they're entirely planting the idea, I've heard rumblings from every day people in the streets about a potential civil war/revolution for almost 2 and a half years now. Of course talk is talk and I'm in a red state, but I stand by my assertation that 2024 is the make or break year for it.

As a side note to your "predictive programming" aspect, the Barack Obama produced movie "Leave the World Behind" is a good glimpse into the elite's fears. It's not just you and I as the commoners that are getting a little uneasy these days...the real leaders of the US, the modern kings of the world, still have their castles from which they command the serfs from. The only thing that's changed since medieval times is that they have personal jetliners to book it out of here on a moment's notice should the serfs get a bit too unruly.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

dorgon

Violently Peaceful
Bronze
Joined
Feb 28, 2022
Messages
319
Reaction score
2,617
Awards
183
Website
dorgon.neocities.org
I somehow really doubt something will happen. Someone will hold a speech on how important it is to stick together and advocates for unity and everyone just cucks out and goes back home. I wonder, perhaps the British should have tried this in 1776.

Advocate for unity and that you are only stronger together.
I think this is only partly true. The media wants to warrant enough division amongst the blue and red teams to prevent any sort of national unity against the establishment from happening, but will stop short at any Democrat vs Republican civil war from happening because a civil war where people are dying and not consooming is bad for business. Of course, it is only the beginning of 2024, and so far the elections of 2016 and 2020, post-Gamergate and BLM mind us, tensions have only gotten worse. But yeah, I doubt anything crazy would happen, although I would prefer dying here in a civil war instead of getting conscripted and dying in some shithole in the middle east.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Sketch Relics

Quiet Traveller
Joined
Sep 28, 2022
Messages
410
Reaction score
1,057
Awards
120
I don't think it will occur under the current circumstances. I think the left has taken a lot more damage than people give credit for and will most likely implode on itself within the next 2~4 years. I have no idea what sort of backlash will result, but it is going to be immensely damaging to many of the positions and ideals of the last 50 or so years.

My feeling on this is that the political class knows Texas is on the brink of going blue (if they haven't lost their status as a white majority state they're probably on the brink) and this is their last ditch effort to at least try and preserve it as a red/white state.

Eh not really, ironically enough the Hispanic voting block is actually rather conservative politically and the momentum of voting Dem for several decades has been wearing down over the past few election cycles(don't quote me cause I'm too lazy to go look up what the shift has been, but I believe it went from something like 10% R to 40% R over the last two presidential cycles) . Once the backlash really kicks in, they will probably become a very solid R voting block, and since that is where the Texas population is currently heading it should solidify the state red.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

grap

Traveler
Joined
Aug 1, 2022
Messages
55
Reaction score
108
Awards
25
The Supreme Court case which will decide whether it was legal for Colorado to take Trump off the ballot is heating up in ways that might be relevant to this thread. The Court will likely rule in Trump's favor, which seems like a good thing -- can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if both red and blue states had a precedent for taking a candidate off the ballot?

But the really interesting thing is the theory of the case presented by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer, which several of the Justices seem intrigued by.

The case revolves around section three of the fourteenth amendment, which was intended to safeguard against Confederate politicians holding elected offices without the proper safeguards. The section reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This section was the basis for taking Trump off the ballot in Colorado. But, as Mitchell argues, if "Congress" can "remove" an insurrectionist's inability to hold office, we can infer that an insurrectionist can run for office, even if Congress eventually decides not to allow them to hold it.

The argument is apparently a perfectly serviceable one, but if the Justices buy into it, their decision will completely bracket the question of Trump's fitness to hold office, making it anyone else's problem. Maybe it should be. But how will they handle that question when it comes?

An amicus brief filed by a bipartisan trio of law profs outlines the possible outcomes of such a decision:

The possible scenarios if the Court fails to resolve the Section 3 question once and for all are alarming. If Mr. Trump wins an electoral-vote majority, it is a virtual certainty that some Members of Congress will assert his disqualification under Section 3. That prospect alone will fan the flames of public conflict. But even worse for the political stability of the Nation is the prospect that Congress may actually vote in favor of his disqualification after he has apparently won election in the Electoral College. Neither Mr. Trump nor his supporters, whose votes effectively will have been discarded as void, are likely to take such a declaration lying down.

Even if Mr. Trump did willingly stand aside, it is wholly unclear who would be inaugurated as President on January 20, 2025—would it be Mr. Trump's running mate, pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment? Would it be Mr. Biden, pursuant to a Twelfth Amendment election in the House? Or would it be some alternate candidate thrown into the mix in the heat of the political battle? The chance that there would be no clear answer come Inauguration Day 2025—and that the country thereby would be thrown into a possibly catastrophic constitutional crisis—is disturbingly high.

It's an amicus, so no doubt this is somewhat overstating the case. But it sounds pretty reasonable to me.
 

Polonius

Traveler
Joined
Jul 19, 2023
Messages
62
Reaction score
138
Awards
26
The Supreme Court case which will decide whether it was legal for Colorado to take Trump off the ballot is heating up in ways that might be relevant to this thread. The Court will likely rule in Trump's favor, which seems like a good thing -- can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if both red and blue states had a precedent for taking a candidate off the ballot?

But the really interesting thing is the theory of the case presented by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer, which several of the Justices seem intrigued by.

The case revolves around section three of the fourteenth amendment, which was intended to safeguard against Confederate politicians holding elected offices without the proper safeguards. (...) But, as Mitchell argues, if "Congress" can "remove" an insurrectionist's inability to hold office, we can infer that an insurrectionist can run for office, even if Congress eventually decides not to allow them to hold it.

The argument is apparently a perfectly serviceable one, but if the Justices buy into it, their decision will completely bracket the question of Trump's fitness to hold office, making it anyone else's problem. Maybe it should be. But how will they handle that question when it comes?
American politics is such a tangled web of B.S. Spiders on drugs could not weave a nastier web.

John Marshall is a name to live in infamy and indignity forever.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Similar threads