I think that this site needs a common definition of "civil war," because it seems to me that various folks are running with very different ideas of what will constitute a "civil war."
The most common imagined scenario seems to be a repeat of 1861-1865. Personally, I can't see this happening, because the original version was along sectional lines, and our current dissatisfaction isn't.
What I would envision is widespread violence breaking out in and around our cities, surpassing anything we've yet seen. When our side starts shooting back in any significant numbers, that is the kind of "civil war" I think could actually happen.
Others may have different ideas of what they would call a "civil war," and I'm open to hearing them. But until we're all on the same page about what "civil war" means, any talk about one starting is fairly pointless.
Time for civil war. Nothing else will change shit until we put some fear into these faggots.
I don't want them scared, I want them dead.
I like your idea better, ngl
I think that this site needs a common definition of "civil war," because it seems to me that various folks are running with very different ideas of what will constitute a "civil war."
The most common imagined scenario seems to be a repeat of 1861-1865. Personally, I can't see this happening, because the original version was along sectional lines, and our current dissatisfaction isn't.
What I would envision is widespread violence breaking out in and around our cities, surpassing anything we've yet seen. When our side starts shooting back in any significant numbers, that is the kind of "civil war" I think could actually happen.
Others may have different ideas of what they would call a "civil war," and I'm open to hearing them. But until we're all on the same page about what "civil war" means, any talk about one starting is fairly pointless.
Something between the Northern Irish Troubles and Central American commie militia vs non-cmmie Militia seems most likely to me.