4036
Comments (761)
sorted by:
627
IAFF4TRUMP 627 points ago +628 / -1

Say when.

339
deleted 339 points ago +339 / -0
206
Please_Clap 206 points ago +230 / -24

Those faggots tried that shit in 1861. Didn't turn out too well.

162
FreeBased1 162 points ago +180 / -18

Woah buddy. That was a different thing altogether. Yeah, "democrats" were mainly in the South, but I still contend that it was mostly state's rights. It wasn't commies and loony lefties; they had actually principles that they didn't make up during a bad meth binge while taking a shit.

The civil War was like the American revolution part II.


Anyways, I'm saying you didn't have commies wearing grey in 1861. They had real causes and reasons to fight.

This is totally different. This is the Uniparty, globalists, political class, power-hungry bastards wanting to squeeze every bit of freedom out of our country.

Like the guy up a few said "Say When". I'm all about that.

The South definitely wasn't a bunch of faggots in the civil War; we're (in the South) going to be a big part of fighting back if "it" goes down.

I'm on your side; I probably didn't express myself well.

Thanks, from one faggot to another! Lol, jk.

👌

114
grndmrshlgando 114 points ago +117 / -3

the first civil war (god why do I have to clarify that now) both sides did have legitimate causes to go to war with each other. now its the lefties that are absolutely in the wrong. people are absolute fed up with their draconian fascism with political correctness, social justice and forced equality.

just like everything the democrats do: they say one thing and do entirely another. not even the nazis were as self-righteous as these pricks, and they haven't even started sticking people in ovens yet. they're letting china do it for themthey're letting china do it for themthey're letting china do it for them

26
CelesteD 26 points ago +26 / -0

They're just gonna stick 'em in the arm with a vaccine. Soft kill. Slower, more plausible deniability.

6
V_exodus 6 points ago +6 / -0

Let all the Democrats voluntarily test out the vaccine.

7
CelesteD 7 points ago +7 / -0

Starting with Bill Gates and his wife.

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
1
Fitblue 1 point ago +1 / -0

He means equality under the law. Everyone should be treated the same when it comes to the application of laws.

85
Keln 85 points ago +93 / -8

I used to see the civil war in the same way as you. Not too terribly long ago, in an effort to defend the states rights argument, I did a deeper dive into it, reading what people of that time period had to say about it leading up to the war and during it.

Frankly, there is no question that the Civil War was entirely a construct of the Southern Democrats and the pseudo aristocracy of the antebellum South whom they served.

Of course hardly any confederate soldier fought in it thinking they were protecting the Southern elite. The elite had to push the idea of "states rights" to get the people on board with secession.

It was "never about slavery" but about states rights was the propaganda of the time (which is still echoed even today).

The Democrats haven't changed at all. They use the same tattered playbook. It's not about abortion, it's about "women's health". It's not about Marxism, it's about "black lives". It's not rioting, it's "peaceful protests".

Sure, their "soldiers" are completely amoral and on the surface very different from their 19th century counterparts, and the cause du jour is different.

But the Democrats haven't changed. The reasons are the same. Power, wealth, and control. The cause of the Civil War, the cause of any potential Civil War in the future.

63
clearsighted 63 points ago +70 / -7

You're absolutely right. And Sam Houston would have agreed with you.

It's unfortunate that so many pedes are beguiled by the Confederacy. Which was one of the most wasteful and colossally incompetent institutions in American history.

Although I respect the hell out of the common soldiers of both sides, and see them both as Americans. The Democrats royally fucked the South with their secession hysteria. Just like they might do a second time.

46
deekarmy 46 points ago +46 / -0

Alright. When this kicks off, let’s finish the Democrat party and all of the three letter orgs that have sided with them.

24
clearsighted 24 points ago +24 / -0

Absolutely.

24
TrumpDirigo 24 points ago +26 / -2

It was a battle for control and political power, as things always are. For as much as the antebellum south bamboozled poor non-slave-owning farmers to fight for the Confederacy, so too did non-classical liberal elites in the north justify their aggression with abolition. Look up the New York City draft riots of 1863 to gauge public support for war in the north:

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

Were all these northern anti-war folks secretly racist? Doubtful. More understanding of straight supply and demand labor-wise.

Check the standard stories of rural mountain men of the north who didn't have a dog in the fight, who opposed the Lincoln administration, its conduct of the war, and the new draft laws.

Don't forget it was the northern states who only wanted to count slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of congressional apportionment.

Recall also the northern states were importing immigrants en masse from Europe to boost their state numbers for the very same reason (political power), and were using slavery / minority issues to garner support for their party (sound familiar today?)

We're back in the same boat today with these sanctuary cities and accepting criminal aliens. They affect apportionment on a national level, and fix elections on a state and local level.

14
ProfessorOak 14 points ago +14 / -0

It's crazy to think how many major historical events happened just because there was money to be made.

10
deleted 10 points ago +12 / -2
9
deleted 9 points ago +10 / -1
6
gamephreak5 6 points ago +8 / -2

You're wrong about the 3/5 clause (which was written in the constitution a hundred years earlier).

That clause was written so the South couldn't make slavery a thing forever. If the South wanted their slaves to count as full people, they needed to be freed, which they refused.

The 3/5 clause was a way to abolish slavery over time, not oppress black folk. Even Fredrick Douglas saw this and became Republican right after he came to this realization!

The North was definitely good in all they did.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
17
deleted 17 points ago +17 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +5 / -1
1
clearsighted 1 point ago +1 / -0 (edited)

I don't disagree with you, but I will never be on the side that wants to take territory away from America, for any reason. I am down for revolution if need be - but never secession.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
6
strykrpinoy 6 points ago +6 / -0

Reconstruction didn't work for one reason Confederate errrr Democrat leaders were allowed back into positions of power in the south and created the Jim Crow laws. That is the one major Mistake IMO of both Lincoln and US Grant. Confederate leadership should of been made to pay for the 750k dead but for the most part were given amnesty in the name of "healing" they didn't even wait for Lincoln's corpse to get cold.

13
glow-operator-2-0 13 points ago +14 / -1

We learned & archived history much better now.

This time, the Reconstruction Program 2.0 will include terrorist detention facilities, along with "processing".

5
Reclaim_NYC 5 points ago +8 / -3

Reconstruction 2.0 can’t have a RINO in charge that is sympathetic to the secessionists, as 1.0 did. It’s a shame that Lincoln got killed, because the South wouldn’t have even attempted the disenfranchisement of blacks, as they did under Johnson. And if they did attempt it, the Federal Army would have been there in days to set shit straight.

19
deleted 19 points ago +21 / -2
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
1
glow-operator-2-0 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hey, so what do you want me to do?

Go back in time, kidnap John Wilkes Booth & use radical hormone treatment to turn him into a shemale pornstar & drop 'her' ass off on Christian X's doorstep in 2015 so Lincoln won't be taken out?

I wonder if his face would be on the $5 if that happened 🤔 and if shemale John Wilkes Booth would be successful 😐

1
Marshall 1 point ago +2 / -1

No we don't. We only archive the propaganda and eliminate any positive mention of the adversaries now.

1
glow-operator-2-0 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's Wikipedia. I collect history books.

8
Reclaim_NYC 8 points ago +14 / -6

Fucking well said. The actions of the southern aristocracy were fucking deplorable (that’s right), and they were 100% fighting to preserve slavery, and were willing to tear apart the nation to do so. We all spit on the Nike’s of the world for their third world sweatshops, but so many are willing to give the Confederacy a pass for worse. If they want to secede, which I kind of doubt, but if they do, then they should not receive the same mercy that Jeff Davis and co-conspirators did, because the secessionists didn’t deserve it then, and they don’t deserve it now. Any American politician that moves towards succession should be executed, no ands, its, or buts about it.

7
TopKeksWithFerns 7 points ago +8 / -1

I'm pretty sure that people give the south a pass because many Americans have actual blood history dating back to the south. Even the ones who don't are attached to or against the removal of statues monuments etc because it is our shared history. Can't say that about Nike

5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
4
Marshall 4 points ago +12 / -8

Congratulations. You've been hoodwinked by revisionist historians. But it should be apparent that it's happening at this moment in time as well.

11
Keln 11 points ago +15 / -4

Well considering my change in views were a result of reading the words of people 160 years ago, I'm not sure what revisionist historians have to do with it.

3
Marshall 3 points ago +7 / -4

The literature of the day is like twitter today, a distorted view of a vocal minority with the time and ability to write their opinions.

1
deleted 1 point ago +5 / -4
2
MaAzGrA 2 points ago +12 / -10

Boom. Facts. The civil war was really about the Antebellum south, and protecting slavery. That’s really it.

20
NostalgicFuturist 20 points ago +21 / -1

As one faggot to another: you said it well.

3
TopKeksWithFerns 3 points ago +4 / -1

Lots of homosexuals on the board lately. No Chang jannies here though.

15
Smurfection 15 points ago +41 / -26

Saying the Civil War is about state's rights is about as obtuse as saying Hustler Magazine a la 1970's was about free speech. The South seceded because they top 5% didn't want anything infringing on their rights to use and abuse other human beings for profit.

49
Ragnar_Danneskjold 49 points ago +59 / -10 (edited)

And why did hundreds of thousands of lower class non slave owning farmers volunteer to fight? They sure as shit weren't getting a steady paycheck, paid room board, healthcare, job training, and paid college in exchange. They were marching hundreds of miles on hard bread with no shoes in the snow with no medical care of any kind in order to fight, for years and years. Now why do you think they were willing to do that?

Whatever the reason why certain states decided to leave the Union, the fact is that these United States as founded should have allowed them to do so. It was supposed to be a voluntary union between several semi-autonomous nations. That's why they were called states in the first place. State is a synonym for nation.

And it still should be. In fact, if states were still able to leave if they felt they were getting a raw deal, we likely wouldn't have as many problems with the Federal government as we do now. There's no threat to them if they keep doing things wrong. If a portion of the population could decide to leave and go it on their own, and keep all of their tax money, the Federal government would have an actual incentive to make sure the Union was still a functioning body that was a more attractive option than leaving.

EDIT: I'll go further.

Did the UK have the right to leave the EU? Why or why not?

A group of sovereign peoples/nations agree to come together and form a pact for mutual defense and benefit. They retain their identities and internal governments and their own way of doing things, but they establish an organization above each of them that runs the affairs of mutual interest to all of them. They each send some of their people to represent them, vote in their name, they all pay some money to fund that organization, and delegate a small list of tasks to that organization that are better handled as a unified group than individually, but state that other than those things, they want to be left alone. Over time that organization grows and grows, takes more and more money, makes more and more rules that tell the members what to do, and after a while, one or more decide that it's not worth it anymore and want to call it quits and go back to being on their own. Are they and should they be allowed to do so? Why or why not?

One thing I've noticed is that the extreme majority of people don't seem to be capable of differentiating between high-level abstract concepts and low level examples of those concepts. For instance, why is communism evil? Most would say that it's because it doesn't work and it results in failure every time it's tried. While that is true, it's not the reason it's evil. It's evil because the ideology itself requires the subjugation of individual rights and liberties for the benefit of the collective. The fact that is also doesn't work is a byproduct of that. Communism isn't evil because it fails every time, it's evil because it violate basic natural law, which in turn is the reason why it keeps failing. The examples of communism failing aren't why it's evil. They're examples of it being evil, but the why is in the abstract ideology itself.

So when looking at the Civil War, people who can't differentiate between high-level abstract concepts and low level examples of those concepts say "Secession is wrong because the South wanted to keep slavery". No, that is an example of a group of people trying it and doing it for the wrong reason. That doesn't mean the idea itself is inherently bad, just that we happen to have a sample size of 1 for when it's been tried, and 100% of that sample size happened to be people doing it for bad reasons.

If Bob, Jim, Roger, and Dale decide to terminate their membership at a local range because of Fudd rules, come together to buy an acre or two of land they can shoot on, that's their choice. Maybe Bob has a riding mower and can mow the lawn, Dale is a carpenter so he can make some lanes. Roger has an earthmover so he can make a berm. They all contribute something and make something great for all of them. But at what point did any of them lose the right to leave if they want? What if Jim gets a job 2000 miles away? Can he leave? That's a good reason. But what if Roger fucked Dale's wife and now Dale wants to leave so that the rest can't afford the land anymore in order to screw over Roger? That also harms the other two dudes who didn't do anything, likely a shitty reason. But what does any of that have to do with them losing the right to leave if they want? It doesn't. The reason can be good or bad, but it has nothing to do with the fact that they still each have the right to choose to leave if they want. So did the UK when they left the EU for good reasons. And yes, so did the South when they left the Union for bad reasons.

The United States was founded as a voluntary union of free and independent states. They literally said that on day 1. And that means that a state has the right to leave if it wants. The Civil War may have done a lot of good in ending slavery a couple of decades before it would have ended anyways, but it also destroyed the United States as it was founded and replaced it with a one-size-fits-all mega-nation that all previously free and independent states have been trapped in ever since. And looking back, that is likely a more grievous result than if slavery had been allowed to continue for another couple of decades. The Industrial Revolution was going to kill off slavery anyways, and it was right around the corner. We're still dealing with the damage of losing our independence.

22
baconandolives 22 points ago +24 / -2 (edited)

In answer to why non-slave owners volunteered as the post above was edited -- I asked a family member who's written on the CW - it's complicated, they believed they were being invaded by the North, and they tended to follow the upper classes. They believed their rights were being violated.

I'm quoting here, so the words above aren't mine.

19
bigmikespen15 19 points ago +19 / -0

So manipulated by powerful elites? Makes sense.

Also, more than slave owners benefited from slavery: if you needed cheap labor, slaves could be rented or contracted out. Not unlike dropping by the hardware store and picking up illegals for $50.

12
Marshall 12 points ago +14 / -2 (edited)

Think of it this way. If NATO decided we couldn't withdraw from NATO and they sent in troops to enforce that Tyranny, would you support them?

That, in essence, is the Southern view of the War of Northern Aggression. It was another WAR for LIBERTY.

It might be presented as being all about slavery up north, but it certainly wasn't in the South.

And it wasn't only southerners who benefited from the Slave trade. Yankee shippers did as well.

8
GBA4ever 8 points ago +8 / -0

I had ancestors fighting on both sides. I’ve heard the boys from rural areas thought it would be a glorious adventure like fighting in the Crusades. They were poor farmers. Certainly not fighting for or against slavery. They had nothing to do with it.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
15
Preacher_of_the_Woke 15 points ago +24 / -9

They didn’t volunteer, they were conscripted. The confederacy passed 3 different conscription laws because they severely lacked manpower. Even then, they had massive trouble with deserters. This is a foolish narrative that revisionists Democrats have tried to pull on you. Be a better pede

12
murderhornet 12 points ago +13 / -1 (edited)

Be a better Pede. Freedom of thought is fundamental.

-2
Ragnar_Danneskjold -2 points ago +7 / -9 (edited)

You be a better pede and address the rest of the post. No dodging here. Don't be like CNN. Stand up and address all of it.

Lol I noticed you can throw out downvotes but you can't come up with an answer. How very MSM of you.

12
Smurfection 12 points ago +15 / -3

Because Democrats were just as stupid then as they are now.

7
clearsighted 7 points ago +8 / -1

The lower and middle class Southerners were fighting for state's rights, by and large.

The Southern elite however (who were colossally incompetent, btw) were fighting for economic reasons.

If you want a good perspective on the Civil War, look at Sam Houston in Texas, who was against it.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
4
Neophilus 4 points ago +4 / -0

If any of that is true then attacking Fort Sumter was the dumbest thing the South could do.

12
Spirit_of_Resistance 12 points ago +13 / -1

because they top 5% didn't want anything infringing on their rights to use and abuse other human beings for profit

Woah Woah cool it with the anti-semitism

5
guitarmastershredder 5 points ago +6 / -1

There is power in the truth

0
ThePowerOfPrayer 0 points ago +1 / -1 (edited)

The people who assassinated Lincoln were Catholics. Look at who hung after his death.

https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-Abraham-Lincoln

John Surratt, one of the co-conspirators, was even found hiding out at the Vatican.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-12-31-mn-222-story.html

-3
deleted -3 points ago +4 / -7
-4
deleted -4 points ago +3 / -7 (edited)
3
Spirit_of_Resistance 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thanks I'll be here all week

9
clearsighted 9 points ago +10 / -1 (edited)

The Civil War was a gigantic blunder by the southern elite. They should have just won the next election. Which they very well could have.

They were only a decade or so from technology displacing the economic need for slavery anyways.

Also. To those downvoting this pede: It's true that many Southerners - the vast majority of which did not own slaves - were fighting for state's rights. But the Southern elite were definitely fighting for economic reasons.

Regardless, that conflict is past. It helped make America what it became.

0
babyface 0 points ago +1 / -1

You could make the same argument about the Northerners - the vast majority for fighting against slavery and to preserve the union, but the elite were in it for economic reasons.

9
deleted 9 points ago +12 / -3
7
Smurfection 7 points ago +14 / -7

Let's get something clear - the South wasn't just defending the right to own slaves in Southern slave states. By enacting the Fugitive Slave Law and the SCOTUS decision of Dred Scott, the South was creating a legal framework by which slavery would have expanded to all American states but the buying, selling and breeding of slaves would be limited to Southern States. That's called expansionism.

Then Lincoln got elected as the First Republican President and Republicans at that time were a coalition of largely abolitionists and a Northern industrial owners combined with moderate Americans that didn't want slavery in their backyard.

The South was the first "slave state" that tried to legally expand slavery into places that flatly rejected slavery and impose slavery as a legitimate institution using pseudo scientific and theological arguments. And no, most places were not trying to get rid of slavery before the American Civil War. In fact, it's because the North won the war that most European nations starting definitively ending the practice.

Slavery may not have been able to be abolished over night but let me tell ya how stupid the Southern Democrats were - 1) The Constitution of the U.S. eliminated the importation of slaves by 1820 for the express purpose of trying to end the influx of slaves and thus limiting the number enough so that the South could gradually diminish and then end slavery. Instead the South started raping black women to produce more slaves and started kidnapping free blacks in the North and subjecting to them to slavery. 2) The South tried to expand slavery by Fugitive Slave Laws, SCOTUS' Dred Scott decision and Bleeding Kansas in direct defiance of they knew the majority of in the North opposed. The South had a 100 years from the signing of the Constitution to get rid of slavery. They had a hundred years from the end of the Civil War to the midcentury of 20th century to end their racism and discrimination. Both times, the South doubled down on the dumb. It was not a question anymore of "trying to get rid of slavery overnight". It became a question of the Southern Democrats' stubborness in trying to expand, defend and promote slavery By Any Means Necessary that got Abraham Lincoln elected and empowered Republicans. It's because the Democrat South couldn't learn a flippin' lesson without being hit over the head with a war or a popular Civil Rights movement.

No human being that has a proper moral formation and concerns themselves with virtue would or could ever defend slavery as an institution. That goes for even our slave owning Founding Fathers who all became convinced at some point of their lives that slavery was very incompatible with a free and open society.

9
clearsighted 9 points ago +9 / -0

Sam Houston was the premier Southern Unionist in Texas. While he argued for slave property rights and deplored the election of the Lincoln Administration, he considered secession unconstitutional and thought secession at that moment in time was a "rash action" that was certain to lead to a conflict favoring the industrial and populated North. He predicted: "Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South."

3
kd5ywa 3 points ago +4 / -1

Amen.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +5 / -6 (edited)
3
Volvoman1 3 points ago +3 / -0

1.4%

1
Smurfection 1 point ago +4 / -3

It wasn't just the owners of slaves that had occupations based on the use and abuse of other human beings in the south.

2
Volvoman1 2 points ago +2 / -0

well ....WASNT any of my blood line .

9
clearsighted 9 points ago +11 / -2

The first civil war was a gigantic mistake - it ensured the South would fall behind economically and killed hundreds of thousands of our best.

Beyond that. I'm sorry, but I'm an American first. I will fight anyone who wants to remove a star from our flag.

1
Marshall 1 point ago +2 / -1

On Gard.

1
deleted 1 point ago +3 / -2
3
rooftoptendie 3 points ago +3 / -0

we do not cede territory to communists or terrorists. Or terrorist communists. We are not ceding the entire west coastline, american soil, military infrastructure, resources and a shitton of patriots to a bunch of commies who want us dead. That would be a disastrous strategic mistake.

Play out that scenario in your mind. What happens after they get that land and make their own country? Why they use it to keep fighting America and trying to take it down. You know they will NEVER STOP, right? And you know giving them ANYTHING only makes them bolder, right?

The liberal faggots are free to leave, but they aint taking American territory with them. They can fucking emigrate to Greenland or some shit. They have two options, GTFO or FIND OUT. Thats it.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
0
clearsighted 0 points ago +1 / -1

There are good people in those states too, friend. We should not abandon them. Nor let them take our coastline or resources.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
9
grndmrshlgando 9 points ago +10 / -1

well they had an actual army in 1861. now they have violent mobs that turn into quivering cowards the moment the guns turn on them.

6
DearCow 6 points ago +6 / -0

The difference today is that more than 90% of gun owners are Republicans, the police are now backing Republicans, and a majority of the military are Republicans

5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
7
Ferrous_Tarkus 7 points ago +7 / -0

So it is High Treason then...

2
DoYouBelieveInMAGA 2 points ago +2 / -0

China and Ukraine

4
DaLaohu 4 points ago +4 / -0

I'm old enough to remember back when Republicans were saying the Confederates were Constitutionalists and Christians.

6
ThomasJefferson1776 6 points ago +6 / -0

I am ready when you are.

3
Salt-N-Pepe 3 points ago +3 / -0

Skin that smokewagon and see what happens

2
FluffiPuff 2 points ago +2 / -0

You're a Daisy ir you do

56
2KEK_Chigurh 56 points ago +56 / -0

Why Joe Biden, you look like someone just walked over your grave

30
trauncher 30 points ago +30 / -0

He was just fooling around..... I Wasn't

17
Ithrowawaay 17 points ago +17 / -0

I was just foolin about.

4
Philhelm 4 points ago +4 / -0

I wasn't.

15
50blessings 15 points ago +15 / -0

Lol I’m ready to strike from the heart of the traitor states if they think this is a smart idea. California thinks it’s a bastion of leftism but it doesn’t realize it’ll be devoured from the inside out by millions of gun owners; this would absolutely be the tipping point for even some left-leaning Americans. The Neo-Confederacy would immediately be fighting the the worst guerilla war the world has ever seen straight from the outset.

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0 (edited)
4
BeefyBelisarius 4 points ago +4 / -0

And they're all in isolated urban islands in a sea of red, which would promptly cut their power and water.

5
Kekistan_my_homeland 5 points ago +5 / -0

who would the us military back if it came to civil war. I mean I get it fuck commies but there are dems in the military and if a second civil war happened whose to say the us military would be involved. also I know many a pede has ammo and guns and is ready but has anyone thought about drone strikes in a civil war or tanks helicopters the fact that the military would jump in before a civil war started. I think most people think they are going to go to portland with an AR and fight antifa but I really don't see that happening.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
12
deleted 12 points ago +12 / -0
2
GrizzlyT55 2 points ago +2 / -0

PT and range time, brother. Blackpillers have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

1
Philhelm 1 point ago +1 / -0

Let this be the hour we draw swords together!

217
Deezy 217 points ago +217 / -0

We have motherfucking bears on our side. Do it.

104
deleted 104 points ago +104 / -0 (edited)
62
deleted 62 points ago +62 / -0
9
TrumpTrain 9 points ago +9 / -0

Everyone needs to remember, we are a Union. If the West Coast were to secede, it would be the Nations obligation to compel them back in by force. We don’t allow them to leave on their own terms and rip the fabric of our nation. Our Military would take over and attempt to go in and force them to come back in the Union.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
5
Cadastral 5 points ago +5 / -0

"for the specific reason that the government should be afraid of its people, and not the other way around. And also for a militia, to backup or contest against the armed services."

1
Scroon 1 point ago +1 / -0

"...and also because owning and using firearms, weapons, and armed bears is fun as well as useful. We know that this is dangerous and will result in injuries and death, but the advantages as previously stated far outweigh all drawbacks in the present, past, or any future date."

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
4
monk_of_trump 4 points ago +4 / -0

The right to bearitos shall not be infringed!

11
joebob23_us 11 points ago +11 / -0

Heads, or... Other heads. Patriots don't turn tail..

31
gnomenclature 31 points ago +31 / -0

Lol. Top kek.

7
Easter_Bunny 7 points ago +7 / -0

And we've got burritos too!

4
Tellman125 4 points ago +4 / -0

That bear ordered that sticker on his phone and put it on himself.

4
HuggableBear 4 points ago +4 / -0

I'm here. Say the word.

141
4cdarth 141 points ago +142 / -1

Civil war 2: electric Boogaloo?

64
WhersMyFuckngJetpack 64 points ago +64 / -0

Whoa, calm down with those Hawaiian shirts there.

29
Kekintosh2020 29 points ago +29 / -0

They still got creases and the tags on em

8
guitarmastershredder 8 points ago +8 / -0

I ordered mine on amazon

6
bloodyminded 6 points ago +6 / -0

I support the right to bear arms!

22
Brucesky420 22 points ago +28 / -6 (edited)

Nah fuck that. Let them fucking leave. Why the hell would we want them back in our elections?

and since they're on "stolen Indian land", they must leave - they have to go live on Epstein island

29
ADAM_SCHITT 29 points ago +29 / -0

Because commies must be defeated. If not, then more states will follow their lead and the country will be destroyed. Stop it early and it'll be easier and we can end the democrat party forever, as should have happened after the civil war.

13
Ferrous_Tarkus 13 points ago +14 / -1

It won't stop with secession. They'll continue spreading communism through the free States until they conquer all.

7
Major_Nutt 7 points ago +8 / -1

Nice sentiment, but communism must be culled completely. It's too dangerous to be allowed to live, same with Islam.

1
sub-collector 1 point ago +1 / -0

Scum like this is worse than open enemy.

9
christianknight 9 points ago +9 / -0

Im fairly certain that was a glow op. I keep seeing them in BLM marches.

6
monk_of_trump 6 points ago +6 / -0

It was definitely infiltrated but it started organically. The thing is, its a divided movement. There are those that support blm because theyre at least "doing something" and those that realize that blm are communists and deserve nobody's help. This alone has essentially destroyed it as a movement because every conversation is people fighting about that issue alone. The only issue theyre in total unison on is throwing pedos into woodchippers.

9
trauncher 9 points ago +9 / -0

stocked, locked, and loaded. say when....

7
publ1us 7 points ago +7 / -0

*Electoral Boogaloo

124
KAG_2020_BB 124 points ago +127 / -3

Civil war? Bring it on. I'm armed, ready and aching for a reason to pull the trigger.

58
deleted 58 points ago +61 / -3
40
ThomasJefferson1776 40 points ago +41 / -1

subhuman? Commies are just state property. They can't even be considered in any form a human or subhuman.

12
deleted 12 points ago +13 / -1
11
Snake 11 points ago +11 / -0

*pedos

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
7
RPD2 7 points ago +8 / -1

I think the commie whites are brainwashed personally. I think Molymeme did a video series where he showed how everyone has left and right-wing traits in them at birth, and they're triggered by various circumstances. Not saying it's totally environmental, but I think at least a good chunk of it is.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
0
kalokagathia 0 points ago +1 / -1 (edited)

I don't like dehumanization done by either side.

Edit: I made this edit but apparently it got lost. Specifically, I'm opposed to this because dehumanization is demonic in origin. It stands in opposition to the gospel which says all humanity has access to salvation through the cross of Christ.

1
RPD2 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not Christian, but I like the idea too of keeping people as 'human' and being compassionate, despite my views that most non-whites should be deported to save whites from becoming a minority.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
113
deleted 113 points ago +117 / -4
137
horus_falke 137 points ago +137 / -0

Imagine the night of, or day after, election day. Dems prematurely call that Biden won. But in truth, Trump wins. Instead of accept reality, the Dems stay adamant that they won.

How do you expect the news to present this? You surely can see where this leads. The news talks about how Trump is lying and won't give up even though he lost, and that he needs to be forcefully removed. What will happen then? Not only will antifa and the like be emboldened, but more normies will join the cause because the media told them. Riots and terrorism will sky rocket so fast. Civil war is a lot closer than you think.

126
ProfessorRomendev 126 points ago +126 / -0

What I expect to happen is that, on election night, in person ballots are MASSIVE for Trump, maybe 80%. Then cheat in ballots start turning out. Boxes of ballots found everywhere, and Trumps massive lead starts to slip, and the democrats keeping going with it until their cheating reflects the fake polls.

75
Jaqen 75 points ago +75 / -0

This is the prediction to remember folks. All indicators point to this being their exact plan.

47
deleted 47 points ago +47 / -0
12
LurkNoMore 12 points ago +12 / -0

Exactly. Though, I’d make the date the 14th or the 24th, there’s no way we will have any results on the fourth.

22
deleted 22 points ago +22 / -0
6
LurkNoMore 6 points ago +6 / -0

Good point.

23
AndyCuomoIsAMobster 23 points ago +23 / -0

Just look T the Midterms. That was the primer. I've never seen an election go on for two weeks to "count" votes.

23
kratomlol 23 points ago +23 / -0

Yeah considering they are barely campaigning outside of a couple Biden commercials i'm almost certain there is going to be unprecedented mail in fraud with the media on their side.

17
Cyer6 17 points ago +17 / -0

Think about it. The Dems don't seem to be worried about Biden, their primary, their convention or anything related to the upcoming election. That's how we know this election is gearing up to be the biggest cluster fuck in the history of modern democracy. Trump is signaling this and I think the campaign is genuinely and rightfully worried about it. The dems will throw so many wrenches into the vote with the aid of the media that neither side will be able to declare a clean victory. Neither side will accept the results under those conditions.

Then what? Let the courts sort it out? That's not how it works because "The People" are supposed to decide. No court ruling will be accepted by either side. The real question comes down to what OUR side is willing to do because we know what the left is capable of and the steps they're willing to take to get their way.

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
1
ProfessorRomendev 1 point ago +1 / -0

I disagree. While Trump winning is paramount, he needs to win in a landslide. He needs to win by such a stunning margin that NOBODY can contest it, that’s the only way we can save ohr country. Presidency, house, senate, a supermajority in congress, popular vote as well as electoral college.

If Trump ‘loses’ the popular vote, then in the minds of millions of idiots, he lost and things won’t get better.

4
RocketSurgeon22 4 points ago +4 / -0

Not if our Republicans stand up and set parameters.

5
monk_of_trump 5 points ago +6 / -1

SNOOOOOOORT

Yeah thats totally gonna happen. I bet lindsay graham will lead the charge.

38
Samuel_L_Bronkowitz 38 points ago +38 / -0

This is what I see happening too. The writing is on the wall. I will not accept a Democrat victory.

32
spezisacuckold 32 points ago +33 / -1 (edited)

I would accept it if Democrats agreed to the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM needed to ensure election integrity. 100% taxpayer funded Voter ID.

They steadfastly REFUSE and are instead hellbent on destroying what little integrity our elections have left. The writing is on the wall that they plan to cheat.

16
kag-2020- 16 points ago +16 / -0

Dem victory means full blown Communism regardless of whether it's Democratically chosen or not. Hard pass on that.

14
deleted 14 points ago +15 / -1
10
Carry_Your_Name 10 points ago +11 / -1

I don't think so. When it comes to a crucial state, FOX usually will call first. In 2016 that was Pennsylvania. At that point Trump already had 256 elector votes. They struggled for like two hours to discover, verify and report the result that Trump had passed 270 and made history. Other networks waited for a long while, but reluctantly and yet eventually they all accepted. I don't think it will happen that when FOX calls such a state for Trump, others call it for Biden. If Trump's leading in several points, then it's more unlikely, because then they can't even argue that's too close to call.

9
MakePizzaGreatAgain 9 points ago +9 / -0

Yes, totally agree. Look at how quickly and ferociously people have bought into the mask doctrines. It didn't take long at all for the media to convince people that those not wearing masks were putting other people's lives in danger.

Lots of non-confrontational people very quickly became aggressive about mask wearing, and so you know it won't take much to get them turning in trump supporting neighbors, and then physical violence won't be far behind.

48
deleted 48 points ago +48 / -0
12
Slick_Willy 12 points ago +12 / -0

The Congress gets 1 vote per state, we would win in the Congress unless RINOs revolted.

10
ADAM_SCHITT 10 points ago +10 / -0

RINOs gonna RINO.

4
Marshall 4 points ago +4 / -0

The problem is that the New Congress won't be decided either. Mail-in Voting still works for Pelosi.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
9
deleted 9 points ago +10 / -1
45
IntergalacticWalrus 45 points ago +47 / -2

I wish I had complete confidence that we have the military.

28
Kekintosh2020 28 points ago +28 / -0

I trust the military, not the Pentagon

13
CommieCucker 13 points ago +13 / -0

The military follows the commander in chief

28
turdinthepunch 28 points ago +28 / -0

I imagine it would split.

12
KekistanPM 12 points ago +12 / -0

I do as well. Who knows how many more Vindmans and Mattis' are lurking in the ranks.

2
grndmrshlgando 2 points ago +2 / -0

what would it take to even do that? unless some highly elaborate chinese scheme to fracture the US military happens there's no way

6
monk_of_trump 6 points ago +6 / -0

The higher ups are dems the grunts are mostly on the right. Not all though. They would have a lot of the tech while we had the manpower. Unfortunately that could easily go either way depending how desperate they are.

3
Spikeball 3 points ago +4 / -1

It's what both sides are realizing is needed. Left and Right simply want fundamentally different kinds of worlds.

Preventing the Left from leaving would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. All the Left has to do is bring in more and more immigrants and they will become stronger and stronger. They'll do to the nation what they've done to Virginia: one purple, now solidly blue from huge numbers of immigrants

A split will be a good thing for us

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
8
CommieCucker 8 points ago +8 / -0

Ya. I can't see a large enough number of the military to side with the whiny side, or to choose the side of secessionists over the side of the constitution.

3
IntergalacticWalrus 3 points ago +3 / -0

The officers are supposed to follow the constitution. The officer oath doesn’t pledge loyalty to the executive.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
FreedomCrayon 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's gonna be rough. Most officers across all the branches are very cucked--with exception of combat arms. Intel has been infiltrated by leftists, but guarantee most grunts would be on the side of America.

5
IntergalacticWalrus 5 points ago +5 / -0

The reason for this is the prerequisite college degree and the inevitable indoctrination that you must endure to get it.

5
FreedomCrayon 5 points ago +5 / -0

Oh absolutely. It was so apparent in their entitled attitudes. The only good officer I ever had in my CoC was a prior-enlisted. And even he eventually got caught up in the rat race and fucked us over. The funny thing was, myself and most of my sergeants actually had more college education than them, but they still felt like they had the right to treat us as if we were brain-dead monkeys.

3
IntergalacticWalrus 3 points ago +3 / -0

I am an officer. We’re not all bad. But I know the ones you speak of.

3
FreedomCrayon 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah, there are far too few of the good ones (which I'm guessing you are since you're on here lol). Most of the bad ones were raging liberal/leftists which seemed to be the common denominator. The same can definitely also be said for the enlisted side--it was always the liberal/leftists that would throw anyone under the bus if there was a chance of making themselves look good. But that's human nature I suppose.

2
IntergalacticWalrus 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think the weasels take over during times of relative peace and establish their slimy bureaucracy. When the real stuff happens, the warfighters rise to the top.

Ex: Dwight Eisenhower started WWII as a LtCol and finished as a five star general.

12
deleted 12 points ago +12 / -0
17
Jonald_Trump 17 points ago +17 / -0

This....let’s take the state of NY for example. They are projected to run something like a $20BILLION state deficit next two years and will need to rely on a federal bailout to make that happen. What happens when they don’t HAVE the feds to bail them out? NYC is already turning into a shithole while NY is part of the Union with the affluent moving out in droves. What happens when the financial institutions start pulling out when the country of New York starts imposing draconian tax rates to cover their budgets? They’re going to pack up and head oversees or somewhere in the United Stages of America.

7
Marshall 7 points ago +7 / -0

Shutting down big cities doesn't even take much effort. Cut off the electricity, water and pipelines to the city and the communication towers and cable companies and the Libturds would go crazy without firing a shot. No truckers is just a bonus.

3
Cyer6 3 points ago +3 / -0

And a lot of them back up to the coast and only have a few interstates and train lines coming in. Yes, cut off those blue cities and you effectively create an atmosphere where lefties go into complete chaos eating each other. The national guard and police would only have enough resources to focus on containing the inner city chaos. This would also affect the big media as they're located in these cities and their ability to produce propaganda is diminished. Bringing the left to their knees would just be a matter of isolating their strongholds that are completely dependent on outside resources coming in at a steady rate.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
10
deleted 10 points ago +11 / -1
5
JeremiahKassin 5 points ago +5 / -0

They can have NYC, too, as far as I'm concerned.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
2
grenades_and_ham 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nice plan, consolidate them then glass them all.

2
TheNatureOfBobo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nope, they don't want to leave. They want tear down America and to take what YOU have. They don't give a shit about their precious social justice or perfect commie hippie society. They want power, power over YOU.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
UpTrump 2 points ago +2 / -0

How nice it would be right now to be able to write a brand new constitution with everything we want in it

1
OnlyAmerica 1 point ago +1 / -0

Don't forget we also need to sue them for peace. They and their commie states must pay.

77
Kekintosh2020 77 points ago +78 / -1

Ah shit, here we go again

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
57
Chalupamancer 57 points ago +57 / -0

They pull that stunt there will be no prisoners taken, they can leave and find their own country to bankrupt imo.

57
riverc 57 points ago +58 / -1

it's a good scenario for us; if they try it when we control the military, it will absolutely not at all go well for them.

86
IntergalacticWalrus 86 points ago +90 / -4

I’m not positive we control the military.

35
Imransgarage 35 points ago +35 / -0

Agreed, sounds like some sleepers in the military. There's a couple more vindman's out there no doubt.

12
Kekintosh2020 12 points ago +12 / -0

Pink Triangles

2
grndmrshlgando 2 points ago +5 / -3

what do you mean? military generals are some of the most red-pilled people on the planet, why would they support this obvious communist agenda?

8
kag-2020- 8 points ago +10 / -2

Barry Soweto went around asking the brass if they'd betray the American people and fired everyone who said no. His call sign was Renegade for a reason.

2
grndmrshlgando 2 points ago +2 / -0

got a source? I'm finding nothing

7
sfmaga 7 points ago +7 / -0

Even General Milley humiliatingly apologized for simply clearing the way for Trump to walk to the church the mob had burned down back in June.

2
grndmrshlgando 2 points ago +2 / -0

must have been a PR thing. me myself I'm done apologizing to these nutjobs. get the f**k out of the country or get fucking shot if you're trying to destroy it

1
IntergalacticWalrus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Obama purged most of the good generals.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
33
Chick-fill-eh 33 points ago +33 / -0

Any major move involves blue helmets. Don't forget that.

32
Isolated_Patriot 32 points ago +32 / -0

People like to pretend that they don't exist or don't matter, but blue helmets is a solution that's been in search of a problem for a very long time. Look how quickly democrat states ran to china for "aid" and sold us out for paper face coverings and useless tests for a the CCP's own virus. They will absolutely start shit by importing foreign troops to "help them save america."

6
HungNavySeal300Kills 6 points ago +6 / -0

Poor fellas will get mugged and carjacked by the locals before they even leave the urban areas.

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
3
monk_of_trump 3 points ago +3 / -0

My god, imagine how the faces of all the long range shooters would light up at the thought of bright blue targets running around that they dont even have to drive a mile to set up and check for hits.

29
deleted 29 points ago +29 / -0
2
Billythecamper 2 points ago +2 / -0

In my opinion, no. They're basically they're own branch of government that runs deep with secrecy.

2
Captain_Cashew 2 points ago +3 / -1

They answer to the President, and the most obvious way to keep their job is to keep following orders that are supported by the President. The officers are on average more leftist (they went to college after all) and the enlisted on average are more right-leaning. There are far more enlisted, especially outside of the Chair Force. I think this leads to the military mostly supporting the president in a short-term conflict, and mostly supporting the right with some in-fighting in a long-term conflict.

16
BirthHole 16 points ago +16 / -0

O-3 and below maybe, but O-6 and above seem to be swamp-shills concerned about keepin that complex fed and greased..

5
HungNavySeal300Kills 5 points ago +5 / -0

I can concur on the O-6+ being c0cksucking commies.

15
Libertysheimdall1 15 points ago +15 / -0

It will shatter like every other institution. The political fools who get promoted to the top ranks will belong to them. The real operators will be on our side.

6
riverc 6 points ago +6 / -0

if it turns statewise, all bets are off. Already, the left-right / D-R divide is obsolete - most just don't quite fully recognize it yet.

57
Skywise 57 points ago +57 / -0

They can’t just WAIT 4 years when they’ll have a decent chance to retake the White House from the GOPe?

No no - they have to destroy the country they claim to honor and support because... communism now?!

The Democrat party is an active and treasonous threat to the Republic and must be destroyed.

33
Covfefe_Crusader 33 points ago +33 / -0

Their reaction is the main thing that gives me hope that Trump is going to fuck up their plans beyond repair during his second term.

6
MooCow1980 6 points ago +6 / -0

I was just thinking this.

16
MooCow1980 16 points ago +16 / -0

Abolition of all public sector unions The unilateral dismissal of thousands of Marxist professors and teachers A moratorium on immigration .... What else

10
human_centipede 10 points ago +10 / -0

can we bring back plastic straws?

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
7
Slapstick86 7 points ago +7 / -0

And it probably won't be outright warfare. It'll be sneaky chicom sabotage using the little nerds they have in every University.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
8
Keln 8 points ago +8 / -0

They're desperate. The slow plan to socialize the US failed. They're simply destroying themselves and everything around them at this point.

Sure, there will be collateral damage, but they aren't in a strong position at all.

6
Captain_Cashew 6 points ago +6 / -0

The DNC is facing a very real threat right now from the far left, they need those votes to keep getting elected in many areas and nationally. They're afraid the alienation of the socialists in their ranks will lead to those socialists not turning out for more moderate dems anymore, and many more moderate/traditional dems don't want to vote for commies. They are banking on securing mail-in voting, no voter ID requirements, illegals voting, and easier immigration to import more leftist voters. They recognize that they could be screwed for decades if they don't get a lot of this done soon.

6
Nameless_Mofo 6 points ago +6 / -0

They can’t just WAIT 4 years when they’ll have a decent chance to retake the White House from the GOPe?

No they can't, because 4 more years of Trump means that most of them will be in jail or hanged. Their corruption is slowly but surely being exposed, and people are slowly but surely waking up.

4 more years of Trump may also mean no more RINOs. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I don't think so.

4
TotesNotKaren 4 points ago +4 / -0

4 more years with outnumbered dems and RINOs means we could legitimately pass voter ID laws, dismantle the DoE, stop government subsidization of student loans, deport a whole bunch of people, etc. We could hamstring all avenues of communist infiltration into the US.

Heck, if we’re really lucky, we’ll seize all Chinese assets and ban foreign land ownership. Maybe China will even collapse and Taiwan can take its place as the real China.

4
Nameless_Mofo 4 points ago +4 / -0

Taiwan can take its place as the real China

Make Taiwan China Again

56
dylanshin 56 points ago +58 / -2

Democrats are just like themselves in 1860. They want to secede because they did not get elected president.

17
ADAM_SCHITT 17 points ago +17 / -0

And they want to keep their illegal alien slaves.

13
deleted 13 points ago +13 / -0
4
Work2gethrBiglyOrDie 4 points ago +4 / -0

AJ mentions Jacobins too.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
3
d_bokk 3 points ago +3 / -0

This time, they wont get a reconciliation.

45
tonightm08 45 points ago +45 / -0

I used to laugh at the idea of a civil war in America. But then I never thought it possible the left would help spread a virus to kill people around the world.

As to what level a civil war would reach and how long it would be I have no idea. Though I do think it's a certain thing that will take place in this half of the 2020s. Either if Trump remains (a socialist lead civil war) or a socialist president opens up "re-education" centers for Trump voters (forcing conservatives to take action).

Though the actions a socialist leader could take that would spark a civil war are many.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +4 / -2
38
Senaleb 38 points ago +38 / -0 (edited)

Once the avocado toast stops flowing, we'll see how committed they are.

4
slashp 4 points ago +6 / -2

Don't hate on avocado toast, it's actually delicious!

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
38
RandoMando2A 38 points ago +38 / -0

Lots of jokes going on and I’m laughing but on a serious note whoever thinks other countries won’t get involved to take advantage while this civil war transpires is not thinking clearly. Without outside influence we mop up them up lickity split and take out country back with ease. However once outside forces start showing up it will a much different story.

33
Covfefe_Crusader 33 points ago +33 / -0

I'm fine with killing foreign enemies as well as domestic.

9
Gulfdream 9 points ago +9 / -0

I've thought about this, my conclusion is that if it were to happen with Trump in office he'd allow the military to remain mostly uninvolved to prevent foreign intervention m carrier groups off both coasts, recall of troops from overseas to stand ready to deter invasion. Allow civilians, LE, and National guard to determine the outcome of "civil war" while the bulk of the military continues to deter international war.

Don't forget, we have the nuclear triangle, and nuclear weapons would NEVER be used in the case of civil war anyways, so their focus would remain 100% on deterrence of foreign forces.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
masculinist 3 points ago +3 / -0

What country on earth would have the nerve to invade the us?

12
Pepe 12 points ago +12 / -0

A contested one? Certainly China & Russia would both stand to gain tremendously, and both have plenty of resources to fund opposition.

13
Tophat9000 13 points ago +13 / -0

Yea Russia would roll in to Alaska for sure, China would get invited in the the west coast state by their dem governments

8
grndmrshlgando 8 points ago +8 / -0

I imagine chinese troops marching into portland or LA and the populace welcoming them with open arms, while the media tries to claim its all a myth. November 5th, get to work on clearning this shithole out. and cut all trade ties with china permanently they can't be trusted

3
TotesNotKaren 3 points ago +3 / -0

On some level, I think I’d rather be annexed back to Russia than under new communist rule. Putin seems like he’d go way easier on us than the current branch of commies.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
4
JeremiahKassin 4 points ago +4 / -0

China wants to reduce their population AND is on the verge of bankruptcy. They'd throw everything they had at us, hoping something would stick.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
3
Philhelm 3 points ago +3 / -0

Against generations of actual veterans. What a nightmare.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
HocusLocus 2 points ago +2 / -0 (edited)

What country on earth would have the nerve to invade the us?

The Fourth Reich. In other words, the EU gets the UN to peace-keep-rubber-stamp an invasion to "restore order and the US Constitution" [sic]. There would be an EU coalition (the czars on top of the command chain and the spoils)... a UN coalition that makes up the mass of Occupation Forces -- White Helmets! -- yet is well behaved enough to pose for photo ops.

But what the European press will not show to the citizens of Reich 4.0 will be the guerilla forces recruited from Mexico to Central to South America, given weapons on the sly and lofty promises of land and virgins, like CIA armed the the Taliban fighting the Russians. Maybe some shock troops from African countries too wearing the coveted White Helmets but with their own special rules of engagement, as in, none.

China may have hands in some of it but only through proxies. Russia will be an unexpected ally but lacking the resources to help. Britain might be under seige at this time as well.

After the fracas, there will be a "rebellion" in the ranks and the UN coalition will "turn on" the guerilla shock troops "in defense" of their newly occupied country and wipe them out to the last one -- to remove any witnesses to the brutal rules of engagement, and because they were not ever meant to share the spoils,

Or it could just be a quiet Christmas with plenty of great new Hollywood releases and perky New Year's celebrations.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
TheMediaLies 2 points ago +2 / -0

Also you’d have to imagine defectors coming from the north and south border. I know plenty of snow Mexicans who would hop on the chance to stomp out commies. That being said, there’s probably just as many if not more queers who love commies up here.

31
Lol_Garrus 31 points ago +31 / -0

Well...... bye!

30
keepwinning 30 points ago +30 / -0

Try it and find out commies

17
MikesBigJockstrap 17 points ago +17 / -0

AKA: Fuck around and find out

9
OutcastSeal 9 points ago +15 / -6

I am in favor of a west coast secession. Let 'em split off and become the Republic of Liberal Fantasies. If they want war, fine, we'll just end up winning and taking the land right back

25
Doth 25 points ago +26 / -1

Rofl, NO. That's some of the best land in the country. Why do you think they work so hard to ruin it via taxation and illegals, and why they create legislation that guarantees maximum destruction from wildfires and "fires of peace"?

I won't secede them one fucking acre. If they want land, they can go swimming in international waters and look for some.

16
Covfefe_Crusader 16 points ago +16 / -0

No, they do not get one inch of American soil. In fact, we should roll through and remove every illegal from CA as they are occupying American soil. Every illegal should be considered a hostile invader.

10
sdl5 10 points ago +10 / -0

Damn it man, never cede territory or rights!

And besides, plenty of us converted to T supporter former Dems here as well as the huge numbers of registered T voters and generally hostile to neolib power independents.

4
rockaustin 4 points ago +4 / -0

No way man, I’ve always wanted to go to California but it needs to be drained of liberal swamp sludge.

2
Cyer6 2 points ago +2 / -0

Don't forget, it's not just a couple of "small towns" of patriots living in these places. We're talking MILLIONS of them living out there. There's more pedes in CA, WA and OR than the combined total populations of several states. They won't be left out or forgotten.

28
deleted 28 points ago +28 / -0
26
20KAG20 26 points ago +27 / -1

This is some scary shit. The Dems truly want to destroy America.

10
grndmrshlgando 10 points ago +10 / -0

that's commies for you. they belong in prison. yesterday

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
26
CmonGubMintGibMe 26 points ago +26 / -0

Hahahaha civil war you say? I've fought in iraq for far less at stake...I would gladly pick up my rifles to fight with red blooded Patriots.

23
kek_saved_the_world [S] 23 points ago +24 / -1

MORE CONGRESS ANON SHOWED UP TO ADD MORE INFO

https://media.thedonald.win/post/JGvvDs1P.png

4
rockaustin 4 points ago +4 / -0

This needs to be a stickied post

3
naikala 3 points ago +3 / -0

This needs to get to Tucker.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
21
Scipio_Africanus 21 points ago +21 / -0

Democrats preparing for a civil war? This would be the most one-sided battle in history.

27
Grond999 27 points ago +27 / -0

They may get assistance from EurAfrabia, China and Russia.

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
1
Philhelm 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not against torture.

2
Bilabrin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just like last time.

15
sleepinggiant 15 points ago +15 / -0

They think the people would be behind that? Lol.

15
deleted 15 points ago +15 / -0
14
Azith42 14 points ago +14 / -0

Seriously, if this actually happen this is rock solid evidence of sedition, planned rebellion and treason. Podesta should be arrested for it.

13
swimjim 13 points ago +14 / -1

Bring on round 2! Same results as last time!

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
9
deleted 9 points ago +10 / -1
1
Philhelm 1 point ago +1 / -0 (edited)

No mercy for their women either. They're the ones who got is here.

3
BasedRedPillZeus 3 points ago +3 / -0 (edited)

The tree of liberty will need to be watered at some point. It’s only a mater of time. What people don’t understand is the US is the center of the world. If we go into civil war the ENTIRE world would be galvanized into war. It would be WW3 on a massive scale with invasions, uprisings, and violence in every land

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
12
Whoopies_tds 12 points ago +12 / -0

So....they won’t accept the results of the election....again?

14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0 (edited)
3
FreedomCrayon 3 points ago +3 / -0

This is exactly what I've been telling to my family and friends. Prepare now because odds are it's not going to be pretty either way.

12
Master_Wyatt_Gurp 12 points ago +12 / -0

How'd that work out for you idiots last time?

12
deleted 12 points ago +12 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
11
DasBurt 11 points ago +11 / -0

Probably why Bathhouse Barry worked so hard to get patriots out of military leadership and get commies like Vindman replacing them.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
10
gnomenclature 10 points ago +11 / -1

As if anybody would try to stop them from seceeding. Bye, Felicia! Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord spilt ya!

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
1
gnomenclature 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nah, let's just give them one tiny island in the Aleutian chain. They all love being crowded in together. They'll love it and we won't have to deal with them. Win-win!

9
TypicalEd 9 points ago +9 / -0

I can see why. It worked out so well for them last time.

9
ScreamingEagles 9 points ago +9 / -0

Democrats are 0 - 1. Might as well go for 0 - 2.

8
Cheesecakecrush 8 points ago +8 / -0

Wait, west coast secession? DON'T THREATEN ME WITH A GOOD TIME. Hollywood could be out-and-proud chinese pandering communists finally! Then, when it all burns to the ground like Commie countries do, they can beg to be let back in!

3
Nameless_Mofo 3 points ago +3 / -0

But we should never let them back in. Take back the land and ship the commies off to China, who will probably take great pleasure in working the filthy baizuo to death in forced labor camps.

8
tchouk 8 points ago +8 / -0

I've said it before: these people are beyond desperate and would rather let the world burn than cede more power.

I don't know quite why they are. The closing investigations into circles of depraved satanist pedophiles certainly sounds attractive. But I don't believe that stuff will ever be investigated anyway, so it's probably more run of the mill psychopaths not wanting to give up their gravy.

7
RighteousViolence1 7 points ago +7 / -0

I really hope people are preparing.

6
GoldenEagle1776 6 points ago +6 / -0

War of Succession 2: Communist Boogaloo.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
5
Mehockmehogan 5 points ago +6 / -1

Pure Leftist fantasy. To have a civil war the Democrats would need to field a homegrown Army, Air Force, Navy and militia that would be capable of fighting and defeating the US Military and loyalists to the US Flag and President Trump.

I have a more realistic scenario. Trump wins in a landslide and the next week traitors are lynched. .

5
MaxineWaters4Prez 5 points ago +5 / -0

There is no closely contested election.

5
JimRaynor 5 points ago +5 / -0

I’m not saying I would kill people in broad daylight in cold blood but if Democrats would rather start a civil war than let go of power; those SJWs are literally going extinct in the US ten days. It would be absolute culling.

5
Covfefe_Crusader 5 points ago +5 / -0

Let's get it on, I've been preparing for years and it's inevitable if we want the USA to be a place worth living in and fighting for.

5
Anti_Immigration 5 points ago +6 / -1

We need a peaceful separation. We have allowed unchecked multiracialism and welfare state growth since the 60s and now our differences are irreconcilable. This country will be like south Africa or Rhodesia until people on our side are willing to have the tough conversations. Race is a massive component of this, even if you don't think it should be.

4
Homopratensis2 4 points ago +5 / -1

California succeeding may be a win-win.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Homopratensis2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thanks!

4
infinitysupreme 4 points ago +4 / -0

Secession, civil war, rioting, looting, defunding police, fake impeachment, Russia hoax, 57 flavors of vote fraud, race riots, inmates released, hundreds of thousands of businesses closed, schools closed, deep state insanity, covid patients sent to nursing homes, no Presidential debates, President Pelosi . . . nothing to see here. honk

And it's all to defeat Trump. All of it

1
Notme 1 point ago +1 / -0

All that and they haven't lost the election yet.

4
operator1214 4 points ago +4 / -0

The Democrats are going to through everything at this election: fraud, miscount/mistrial, procedure, and yes, they will likely go up to civil war/rebellion/secession...perhaps even calling for foreign interference (active, as in UN presence).

They are that desperate and power hungry, and so far into their corruption. Like the Roman senators before the fall, they care more for their own greed than the country.

I expect nothing less from them. PS. there are also some Republicans and Libertarians too (cough, Romney, cough) -- 30 pieces of silver has more charm to them than anything else, and they have no remorse.

4
lanre 4 points ago +4 / -0

The uniparty would have to be retarded to push for a civil war. Demographic change, Republican spinelessness, and a stranglehold on education means their agenda is proceeding just fine for the foreseeable future.

A civil war would introduce instability and allow the possibility that someone other than them might take over. That's the last thing they want.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
4
TheRedPlanet 4 points ago +4 / -0

If they do cheat, civil war is inevitable. We can not live with a people who mean to rule over us illigitimately. We will have no choice but to push for a separation. Sadly, that concept no longer scares me.

4
turdinthepunch 4 points ago +4 / -0

The left is more organized than the right. The right might have "more guns" and might control the supply chain, but the left can get guns, they have powerful propaganda and more importantly, I think, already have established networks. If a hot civil war broke out, groups would be more powerful than individuals until they found a way to organize.

7
RiverFenix 7 points ago +7 / -0

"Army of One" x60,000,000

versus mega-behemoth corporations full of retards.

While your premise is strong - you underestimate the power of relying on retards to carry out your agenda and hoping it will go exactly as planned.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
RiverFenix 1 point ago +1 / -0

Some of us are way ahead of the above.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
1
Philhelm 1 point ago +1 / -0

But you can eat commies.

2
Cyer6 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is what concerns me. We have seen them put together an organized movement that's been able to sway and influence giant cooperations and politicians in a matter of weeks. They've kept the heat on in Portland for going on 2 months straight. Our side has not responded or been able to conduct any successful pushback against tyrant governments. We buy our bullets and guns and write our worthless GOP representatives and that's about it.

The dems have closed down our schools, businesses and imposed ridiculous mandates outside the normal process of law and we've done nothing. Without the ability to organize and move people into action, there's nothing that will stop them from destroying the country. This is what concerns me.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Don-O-Mite 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think you underestimate how organized people are.

4
WinMAGAWin 4 points ago +4 / -0

I'm good with that. That way we could stop giving them money, and it will turn into a shithole country.

4
kestral 4 points ago +4 / -0

In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office as planned

Joke's on you, I'm into that shit