4 ms·

I'd say (more) violent civil conflict is a certainty at this point. Nearly the entire Republican party has reorganized around the concept of "if we win, good, i

I'd say (more) violent civil conflict is a certainty at this point. Nearly the entire Republican party has reorganized around the concept of "if we win, good, if they win, they stole our country". That mindset has already led to violence and that mindset grows stronger every day. But an actual civil war, and the sacrifices and consequences that come with it, seems far fetched in light of the fact that we are still a comfortable place to live and most people have a lot to lose and little to gain by killing their neighbor.

zozbot234 5y ago
> Nearly the entire Republican party has reorganized around the concept of "if we win, good, if they win, they stole our country". It's not like the other side is totally immune to this, either. There used to be a very real sentiment among Democrat-leaning politically-involved activists that the 2016 election had been "stolen" from them and that they would never acknowledge Trump as a legitimate president. You would even see echoes of this mindset in press outlets like the NY Times. Of course those folks didn't march on the Capitol like the other side did post-2020, and I'll gladly praise them for that choice.
- standardUser 5y ago
  The difference between some Democrats reaction to the 2016 election and the widespread (and growing) Republican reaction to the 2020 election is about as wide as the Grand Canyon. Or a few Grand Canyons. Even attempting to compare them seems deeply disingenuous. Trump still hasn't even conceded.
- orwin 5y ago
  I'm taking a far left example because i don't want my argumentation to fall under partisan lines. In the 70s, we lived in europe under the threat of the RAF [0], that was born out of a mix of misery, anger, violent radicality supported by the public and by some politics. Once the terrorist attacks and the violent actions against people stated, there was an unanimous condemnation from all political parties, including the communist party (at least in France), and from activist groups, including some that would now be called "antifa" (autodefense and protection groups against "ratonnades" and other urban occupation groups). With support from a part of the population, the RAF grew and convinced more and more people. Without a firm condemnation from the affiliated political party/activist groups, i'm not sure the group would've come down as easily. That's why i think that as long as people in power support the extremists, they will perform extreme actions. In this case, this is the Republican party job to crash down on violence against people (idc about broken windows in the House tbh). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction

zozbot234 5y ago

> Nearly the entire Republican party has reorganized around the concept of "if we win, good, if they win, they stole our country". It's not like the other side is totally immune to this, either. There used to be a very real sentiment among Democrat-leaning politically-involved activists that the 2016 election had been "stolen" from them and that they would never acknowledge Trump as a legitimate president. You would even see echoes of this mindset in press outlets like the NY Times. Of course those folks didn't march on the Capitol like the other side did post-2020, and I'll gladly praise them for that choice.

standardUser 5y ago
The difference between some Democrats reaction to the 2016 election and the widespread (and growing) Republican reaction to the 2020 election is about as wide as the Grand Canyon. Or a few Grand Canyons. Even attempting to compare them seems deeply disingenuous. Trump still hasn't even conceded.
orwin 5y ago
I'm taking a far left example because i don't want my argumentation to fall under partisan lines. In the 70s, we lived in europe under the threat of the RAF [0], that was born out of a mix of misery, anger, violent radicality supported by the public and by some politics. Once the terrorist attacks and the violent actions against people stated, there was an unanimous condemnation from all political parties, including the communist party (at least in France), and from activist groups, including some that would now be called "antifa" (autodefense and protection groups against "ratonnades" and other urban occupation groups). With support from a part of the population, the RAF grew and convinced more and more people. Without a firm condemnation from the affiliated political party/activist groups, i'm not sure the group would've come down as easily. That's why i think that as long as people in power support the extremists, they will perform extreme actions. In this case, this is the Republican party job to crash down on violence against people (idc about broken windows in the House tbh). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction