That's what people *say* but so much is dependent on how it starts.

Did the state cleave cleanly? Are there divisions within states? Is it a set of guerilla actions? Is it more of an open rebellion? Is the rebellion contained to one region? Who is most directly opposing the government? Where is the foreign support?

all these questions can dramatically change the outcome.

One thing that can be said, is that if the US descends into a true civil war, everyone (and I mean everyone, including outside the US) loses. It's an outcome better avoided IMO.

I actually am not,

I had to do school projects, where 8 people have to make a product, and none of us know what we're doing, yet the project was completed succesfully


Reality is pretty much the same on a larger scale :D

A bunch of idiots being forced to work together to finish something favorably

You would think. But human society has a weird way of finding stable regions and holding together.

Humans were built, in some sense, to create societies of one form or another.

If the system wasn't somewhat stable, it would collapse into something stable (barring world-ending or species-ending events)

like i said, an american civil war will end very fast and quickly,

Because 1 side is against using guns and against the state
and the other side is for guns and is with the state

The non-gun side will get steamrolled

IDK. I think you can get armed pretty quick if given support.

not to mention 95% don't even want a civil war

^ That's the big thing.

It feels like there's alot of pushing for something like that, but everyone knows that everyone loses.

It's brinksmanship at it's core.

having a gun doesn't make you an expert,

A guy with a machine gun and doesn't even know how to arm the gun (take safety off etc) isn't gonna put up much of a fight against a person that actually knows how to use a pistol

also the faction "pushing" for it, is the same faction that said hillary had a 95% chance to win the election

I wonder if a second "civil war" would be much like our second "great depression".

in name prolly, many people will GET depressed 😉

economy might not feel much because you'll flush california mighty-clean

I think Tim Pools' video on the possibility was hinting it would probably be more like the bombings of the 70s.

That's not outside the realm of possibility, but it's different than what most people would consider a "civil war"

If that's what you mean, I think I could agree that it would be alot like our second "great depression" in that it's alot of hyperbole.

a civil war would require two factions to clash

Otherwise its just terrorism

@Dr.Wol you don't understand, 2008 has been called "the second great depression" by some

I know, because the economy dropped by what was it? 3%?

Wasn't the 1933 great depression like 20%?

To which I'm just like "either the great depression was a lot more laxed than I thought, or we are so fucking pathetically cosy that having to lease a car rather than own it and not being able to buy a new house every year is "the second worse thing in the world"'

In history*

I think its the fact that media needs to keep people hooked

I mean, if Trump is the new Hitler
and America is a tyrannical state now

then dafuq kind of lies have my history books been telling me about the German Reich? 😄

Ikr

Although given how much the EU is controlled by Germany, I wouldn't be surprised to see the 4th Reich rise up out of it as it starts to collapse

Germany be like "we tried to do it the sneaky buddy buddy way, but you.forced our hand"

it popped up like 20 years ago, don't you know?

Whatever number they are on.

lolwat, the bot blocked me for writing too much in this channel 😄

Apparently including the current "Reich" in the US apparently

@JDM_WAAAT can we remove slow mode? It's kinda annoying

mmmmmm nah

but i mean like, the media even tried to sell the world that Merkel, is now the leader of the FREE world when Trump was elected

welp my messages are blocked wholey now 😮

why can't i write anymore? 😮

The media does 2 things in this world

1) pushes a collective narrative that it likes (this isn't as conspiratorial as it sounds, it's a complex interplay of personal biases and a need to create narratives to keep people hooked)
2) pushes sensational stories that prey on people's emotions to get them to buy papers.

Telling everyone there's oncoming catastrophe is #2, which then becomes #1.

okay it seems i can talk again 😛

I can only see up the where "is now the leader of the FREE world when Trump was elected"

Everything else got cut off.

well thats the last thing i wrote