Pence tamps down rally-goer’s talk of anti-Clinton revolution - Polidicks

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51190999] A lot of that is pretty big rubbish. Estimated 75% desertion for a Democrat and 50% for a Republican? What?[/QUOTE] This was originally posted during an obama scare (you know how 4chan can be), and those rates are referring to a democratic or republican president

[QUOTE=download;51191011]You are utterly delusional.[/QUOTE] Great counter point. Really deconstructed my point and made me see how everything I said was somehow wrong. [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zombinie;51191042]This was originally posted during an obama scare, and those rates are referring to a democratic or republican president[/QUOTE] How do you even survey that though. I've never heard of a study asking military members whether they desert, it's just ridiculous to even consider. The rest of his points are just as bad.

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51191051]Great counter point. Really deconstructed my point and made me see how everything I said was somehow wrong.[/QUOTE] You clearly don't realise how small the US military and the FBI are if you think they have numbers to fight off the rest of the country.

[QUOTE=download;51191071]You clearly don't realise how small the US military and the FBI are if you think they have numbers to fight off the rest of the country.[/QUOTE] Seeing as I'm a member of the military... What type of doomsday prepper fever dream zombie apocalypse esque bullshit of an insurrection is [I]not only[/I] going to have 2 million organized morons that can somehow match the US militaries massive technological, supply, communication advantage, along with literally every other conceivable advantage they would have (all of them), but will not have double the number, no, not triple the number, but so many people they will overrun the military like the fucking Chinese in Korea. This isn't World War Z, and if you think what you said actually makes sense you're just as delusional than the woman in the OP.

[QUOTE=download;51191071]You clearly don't realise how small the US military and the FBI are if you think they have numbers to fight off the rest of the country.[/QUOTE] Rebellions don't literally involve "the rest of the country". Even in places like Syria, it's not a few hundred thousand rugged individualists with guns fighting on their own. People organize in factions, and within those factions there's some semblance of a hierarchy and organization. These people still need supplies, ammunition and commanders like regular armies do. These are actual limitations that mean that you can't have every single guy in the country fight. Besides, just look at history. The ACW wasn't the relatively few US regulars versus literally every other citizen. First of all, not all states seceded, and the Union forces expanded and reorganized themselves.

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51191094]Seeing as I'm a member of the military... What type of doomsday prepper fever dream zombie apocalypse esque bullshit of an insurrection is [I]not only[/I] going to have 2 million organized morons that can somehow match the US militaries massive technological, supply, communication advantage, along with literally every other conceivable advantage they would have (all of them), but will not have double the number, no, not triple the number, but so many people they will overrun the military like the fucking Chinese in Korea. This isn't World War Z, and if you think what you said actually makes sense you're just as delusional than the woman in the OP.[/QUOTE] "I just graduated basic infantry training therefore I'm the endall of all military knowledge." Give me a break. Despite your training you seem to lack basic knowledge as to how insurgencies function and operate.

the point isn't that revolutionaries could defeat the military, its that the government would not be able to recover to the level it is currently at in the instance of a full-blown revolution or civil war [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] if trump supporters do revolt, though, i am joining the military

[QUOTE=Zombinie;51190957]I never thought I would have to repost from 4chan... [IMG]https://i.yuki.la/k/1467921285198.png[/IMG] TL;DR? The scare factor of Tanks and Drones is ineffectual in a true revolution/rebellion scenario.[/QUOTE] if you want your points to be credible you probably shouldn't cite a batman movie as something that would happen

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51191127]the point isn't that revolutionaries could defeat the military, its that the government would not be able to recover to the level it is currently at in the instance of a full-blown revolution or civil war [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] if trump supporters do revolt, though, i am joining the military[/QUOTE] Summed it up better than I could. There's far more to an insurgency than killing the ather side. The real weapon is economic damage.

[QUOTE=download;51191115]"I just graduated basic infantry training therefore I'm the endall of all military knowledge." Give me a break. Despite your training you seem to lack basic knowledge as to how insurgencies function and operate.[/QUOTE] I've been out of boot for over a year now what are you even talking about. You insisted I don't even know how many people are in, which is basic shit for a military member to know. You've given literally no points to argue. Everything you said sounds like you got an elementary education on a few wars, read The Turner Diaries and then decided you know how some sort of mystical civil war would go down. [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=download;51191135]Summed it up better than I could. There's far more to an insurgency than killing the ather side. The real weapon is economic damage.[/QUOTE] Literally nothing you said even implied that

a superpower the size of america experiencing a civil war or revolution would have wide reaching economic consequences on the entire world [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] it would be nothing like the ACW, america didn't really matter on a global scale back then, now it is the country that has the most effect

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51190859]Pence advocates for peaceful democratic process How is this bad[/QUOTE] The bad part is that Trump supporters have to be reminded this. This is what Trump has created.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51191147]a superpower the size of america experiencing a civil war or revolution would have wide reaching economic consequences on the entire world[/QUOTE] The bigger issue with a Civil War is that it leaves the US wide open to invasions/attacks from other nations. The first Civil War was fought between two major powers that had the capabilities to defend themselves. A States vs Federal Government would have the Feds fighting both the citizens of the States while simultaneously trying to defend it. Personally I can't imagine cities faring well since a strong breeze is enough to knock out power lines, and water can be shut off for millions just by capturing a dam or pipeline. I expect rioting/violence regardless of who wins the election this year but a full-on Civil War in the US wouldn't get too far in this age. Starting one as the result of the democratic process also sounds improbable.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51191186]A States vs Federal Government would have the Feds fighting both the citizens of the States while simultaneously trying to defend it.[/QUOTE] Where's this States vs Feds scenario coming from, and why is it so prevalent? At worst, there would be a limited number of states fighting against others that stood by the President. If that's even possible nowadays. States are a lot less important to people than they used to be. How would it be possible for all the states to rally under a single cause and still have the federal government oppose them politically, let alone militarily?

[QUOTE=phaedon;51191209]Where's this States vs Feds scenario coming from, and why is it so prevalent? At worst, there would be a limited number of states fighting against others that stood by the President. If that's even possible nowadays. States are a lot less important to people than they used to be. How would it be possible for all the states to rally under a single cause and still have the federal government oppose them politically, let alone militarily?[/QUOTE] Honestly my guess as to what a new Civil War would look like has little to go on, other than people would be pissed at the federal government. The issue is that common enemies do not make common friends. You could have allied states that would group together (Northwest US), states that want full independence (Texas is the most common suggestion), states splitting up like what happened to Virginia & West Virginia, ect. The American Civil War was simple in this respect because you had two opposing groups of states, now the US is so big and diverse in interests there's no real telling what would happen. Critical infrastructure in the US like power, water, and comm stations can be so easily sabotaged by a group with a bunch of explosives. Military members are US citizens too and I would expect more bases to peacefully surrender to States than to try and rage a war of attrition once their supplies are cut off by the locals. I'm 80% certain there are people in our government who have jobs that predict all the different scenarios a Civil War would entail, so I think I'm going into a lot of poorly-based hypotheticals. Honestly the best case revolution I see unfolding is people just refusing to work to break the economy until something happens.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51191252]Honestly my guess as to what a new Civil War would look like has little to go on, other than people would be pissed at the federal government. The issue is that common enemies do not make common friends. You could have allied states that would group together (Northwest US), states that want full independence (Texas is the most common suggestion), states splitting up like what happened to Virginia & West Virginia, ect. The American Civil War was simple in this respect because you had two opposing groups of states, now the US is so big and diverse in interests there's no real telling what would happen. Critical infrastructure in the US like power, water, and comm stations can be so easily sabotaged by a group with a bunch of explosives. Military members are US citizens too and I would expect more bases to peacefully surrender to States than to try and rage a war of attrition once their supplies are cut off by the locals. I'm 80% certain there are people in our government who have jobs that predict all the different scenarios a Civil War would entail, so I think I'm going into a lot of poorly-based hypotheticals. Honestly the best case revolution I see unfolding is people just refusing to work to break the economy until something happens.[/QUOTE] The vast majority of people want nothing to do with some wingnut insurrection. Even if it was an attempt via a proclamation at the level of local or state government, they'd be raided and taken out within hours.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51191252]Honestly my guess as to what a new Civil War would look like has little to go on, other than people would be pissed at the federal government. The issue is that common enemies do not make common friends. You could have allied states that would group together (Northwest US), states that want full independence (Texas is the most common suggestion), states splitting up like what happened to Virginia & West Virginia, ect. The American Civil War was simple in this respect because you had two opposing groups of states, now the US is so big and diverse in interests there's no real telling what would happen.[/quote] All of these are possibilities, as well as an insurgency that has nothing to do with states. Both in the sense that states as subdivisions of the US wouldn't be the focus of the conflict, as well as the possibility of an insurrection with a much more limited scope. But I am struggling to understand the potential mechanism of an all-out states/civilian population vs federal gov conflict, even if the POTUS went full authoritarian. [quote]Critical infrastructure in the US like power, water, and comm stations can be so easily sabotaged by a group with a bunch of explosives. Military members are US citizens too and I would expect more bases to peacefully surrender to States than to try and rage a war of attrition once their supplies are cut off by the locals. [/quote] The second part seems to be what would happen if a state were to secede from the Union anyhow, assuming there would be popular support for that. The first part that you mention seems to lend itself to the possibility of domestic terrorism, which is more likely than an all-out civil war anyway.

[QUOTE=download;51191071]You clearly don't realise how small the US military and the FBI are if you think they have numbers to fight off the rest of the country.[/QUOTE] "The rest of the country" Oh yeah, 300 million people will all agree to take up arms against the government, not a handful of fringe lunatics like the guys who occupied the ranch in Oregon.

[QUOTE=phaedon;51191307] But I am struggling to understand the potential mechanism of an all-out states/civilian population vs federal gov conflict, even if the POTUS went full authoritarian. [/QUOTE] The States vs Feds thing is a the oldest story in American history which is why it keeps getting invoked. I don't think the US population hates the government itself like when we had the Revolutionary War, I think they just hate how its ran. Representatives frequently don't represent their constituents, they're just some rich asshole with a lot of connections who lives in the area. People do like the EPA and DOT for their protection and service, but when it takes months or years to get action/a rep from the EPA to visit them and months to repave a road or install some signs, people get furious at the inaction. I like our system of government, but the mentality that manages it needs a complete overhaul rather than spot fixes.

[QUOTE=markfu;51190897]That's why minorities and potentially targeted people should start arming themselves for self defense purposes. Let these Trump supporters have a taste of their 2nd amendment they love so much if they try to go out and harm others.[/QUOTE] You are arguing for a civil war, i hope you realise that. These voters are crazy, if they fear a fake election they should just be election watchers, i know there is a system for that. There is plenty of options before violent revolution... Mass strike for example, why grasp to the single most destructive wildcard on a moments breath, this is even more crazy as the stay folk in brexit.

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51191139]I've been out of boot for over a year now what are you even talking about. You insisted I don't even know how many people are in, which is basic shit for a military member to know. You've given literally no points to argue. Everything you said sounds like you got an elementary education on a few wars, read The Turner Diaries and then decided you know how some sort of mystical civil war would go down. [/QUOTE] My point still stands. Having one years or even more years as a grunt means nothing in this discussion. You clearly tried to bring it up as a "I know what I'm talking about, don't dispute it!" trump card. On top of that you've gone for the wonderful ad hominem attack trying to imply I somehow have views that align with William Pierce and his ilk - a rather obtuse way of calling me a nazi. Fighting an insurgency isn't a simply numbers game of who has the largest numbers of troops or who has the best technology. Time and time again, small insurgent groups have stopped enormous multi-billions dollar per year armies with a numbers and technological edge in their tracks. [I]You[/I] haven't offered how it would be any different in America besides some bullshit about numbers and home turf. You went on about how the FBI, an organisation of [I]only[/I] 35,000 people, could somehow put down a civil war in the United states. Assuming numbers mattered (which it doesn't as demonstrated time and time again in insurgencies) it would only take 0.0109% of the US population to be in rebellion to outnumber them. To outnumber the US military (including reserves) it only takes 0.625% of the population. You can not fight an unconventional force purely with bombs and aircraft - it requires troops on the ground who will struggle to sort insurgents from the general population. Meanwhile enormous economic damage is inflicted hampering your ability to fight the insurgency and making the whole thing worse. [QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51191139]Literally nothing you said even implied that[/QUOTE] Okay? Are you going to respond to it?

There would have to be something going on thats extraordinarily bad for a full scale civil war to happen. Small insurrections in the more backwater parts of the country? Sure, but the fact of the matter is that no one is going to willingly reduce their quality of life to that of being in a warzone unless theres an immediate, palpable risk to their way of life.

You guys really are disillusioned if you think there is a chance that thrump supporters will all take up in arms and attempt to overthrow the government if Clinton wins. Like seriously? Not only this but you think they will actually be able to cause a civil war? The WORST thing that'll happen is a small group like the Oregon guys that will get arrested/killed easily This all comes from some crazy lady saying she wants to revolt? She suddenly speaks for everybody out there thats voting for thrump? This is just media fear morgering. I would like to belive most soldiers would totally turn on the government during a real civil war anyways.

[QUOTE=Jouska;51191387]You guys really are disillusioned if you think there is a chance that thrump supporters will all take up in arms and attempt to overthrow the government if Clinton wins. Like seriously? Not only this but you think they will actually be able to cause a civil war? The WORST thing that'll happen is a small group like the Oregon guys that will get arrested/killed easily This all comes from some crazy lady saying she wants to revolt? She suddenly speaks for everybody out there thats voting for thrump? This is just media fear morgering. I would like to belive most soldiers would totally turn on the government during a real civil war anyways.[/QUOTE] No one's implying its going to happen. These people haven't got the balls.

[QUOTE=download;51191391]No one's implying its going to happen. These people haven't got the balls.[/QUOTE] People have the balls but not the organization to make it happen en masse. This election is about real change vs staying the course. A lot of people like Trump's direction, a lot of people don't, but most people want change to the way our government is managed because it doesn't work the way it should.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51191414]People have the balls but not the organization to make it happen en masse. This election is about real change vs staying the course. A lot of people like Trump's direction, a lot of people don't, but most people want change to the way our government is managed because it doesn't work the way it should.[/QUOTE] I sincerely doubt that the number of people who would participate in an armed rebellion against the united states is high.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51191418]I sincerely doubt that the number of people who would participate in an armed rebellion against the united states is high.[/QUOTE] Armed rebellion wouldn't have too many participants, even though there's about 600,000 registered hunters (read: people with guns) in the US. All I can see in terms of protest are local governments (towns & counties) refusing to pay federal taxes or export their goods (which is a big deal for farming states).

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51191414]People have the balls but not the organization to make it happen en masse. This election is about real change vs staying the course. A lot of people like Trump's direction, a lot of people don't, but most people want change to the way our government is managed because it doesn't work the way it should.[/QUOTE] Lmao dude I'm from the middle east. Most people here in the states would just shit themselves and run the moment shit gets real. Most people here have never seen anything even close to warfare. Not to mention the culture here, most people will be on their OWN team not somebody elses. Nobody is going to risk their lives and join either side because they know that shit isnt worth it. The only way something like that would happen is something huge like the stock market crashing or when the petrodollar goes bust(which it will one day because having the economy depend on a resource that'll be gone in a few decades is retarded).

An armed insurrection wouldn't begin mass scale just because Clinton took office, it would begin if she started attempting to confiscate weapons from large populations within red states by force (With the help of a supreme court ruling) and executive orders. Though I don't think she's dumb enough to force it that quickly or even when she's still in office, I expect her to leave the supreme court in a position to gradually nullify the second amendment over time.

[QUOTE=download;51191367]My point still stands. Having one years or even more years as a grunt means nothing in this discussion. You clearly tried to bring it up as a "I know what I'm talking about, don't dispute it!" trump card. On top of that you've gone for the wonderful ad hominem attack trying to imply I somehow have views that align with William Pierce and his ilk - a rather obtuse way of calling me a nazi.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]You clearly don't realise how small the US military and the FBI are [/QUOTE] This was literally half of your post. There is no big strategy for me to pull that trump card out on and say I know better then because you literally presented no points besides the insurgency would sdomehow be the rest of the country. I was quoting that book because it's one of the more well known books about a civil war in the United States. If you want to derive some other meaning from that, feel free, [QUOTE=download;51191367]Fighting an insurgency isn't a simply numbers game of who has the largest numbers of troops or who has the best technology.[/QUOTE] You literally said "WHAT ABOUT AFGHANISTAN / VIETNAM" and then when pushed said "THEY DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS TO FIGHT OFF THE REST OF THE COUNTRY" [QUOTE=download;51191367]Time and time again, small insurgent groups have stopped enormous multi-billions dollar per year armies with a numbers and technological edge in their tracks.[/QUOTE] The US military has nearly wiped out almost every fighting force that has gone against it in all of the conflicts you quoted. Al Qaeda and the Taliban both faced massive shortages of manpower to fight the US since they took so many casualties, and most of the Iraqi insurgency was former military members trying to earn pay and throw out the US. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong was utterly destroyed and disbanded, and the NVA constantly faced morale shortages and failed to win any decisive battles against the US military, only winning completely because the US withdrew in the face of the absolute loss of support from home. In Afghanistan and Iraq, Al Qaeda and the Taliban never recovered, and the US installed regimes still remain there in some form or another, even if ISIS is currently rampaging around the country. [I]The insurgency's didn't win, they just survived.[/I] [QUOTE=download;51191367][I]You[/I] haven't offered how it would be any different in America besides some bullshit about numbers and home turf.[/QUOTE] I literally responded to what you gave. You haven't presented an argument. [QUOTE=download;51191367]You went on about how the FBI, an organisation of [I]only[/I] 35,000 people, could somehow put down a civil war in the United states.[/QUOTE] You're assuming this 'civil war' will somehow maintain over 35,000 people then, which I find even more obnoxious of an idea. [QUOTE=download;51191367]Assuming numbers mattered (which it doesn't as demonstrated time and time again in insurgencies) it would only take 0.0109% of the US population to be in rebellion to outnumber them. To outnumber the US military (including reserves) it only takes 0.625% of the population.[/QUOTE] Wow, you fucking got me! Let's do a quick test. Let's assume for the sake of all of this that this insurgency will just be insane Trump supporters, and consist of his core base. Let's also assume that they magically have food, supplies, are well armed (with rifles available to civilians), clothed, and they can somehow form an actual insurgency despite being spread out across one of the largest nations on Earth with no real means to organize and communicate. In 2012, 126 million people voted for the president. 61,000,000 voted for the Republican candidate. Trump is expected to get even less than Romney did. But we're looking for a core of Trump supporters. Let's just say it's those who voted for hiom in the primaries, 14,000,000. Let's magically assume they are all fighting the US military instead of you know, sitting at home with their families, like 13,500,000 of them would. This would require each of the 2,000,000 US service members (not counting 1.1 million officers, 35,000 in the FBI, 10,800 in the DEA, and thousands of others in other government organizations, private security, foreign militaries offering assistance to the US (like all of NATO) or civilians siding with the government) to kill 7 insurgents. The average US airstrike kills anywhere from 5 - 20 people in each strike. This is in an area which the only surveilance is that done by US forces, in the middle of one of the most hostile climates on Earth. You're asking for these insurgents to fight where? The corn fields of Nebraska? The pine barrens? You might be able to foster an insurgency in the mountains, but they still remain mountains that are on US soil, some of the most monitored and guarded land on Earth. The largest air force on Earth is literally based within minutes of anywhere the insurgents would live. What would they eat? Who would they turn to? How would they get a message out? Who is their leader? How are they surviving the US fucking military bearing down on them? How do a bunch of rednecks and veterans who never saw combat / haven't fought in years stand up against the active force of the US military? How does any of that matter when they can be bombed from above? The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan sustained massive losses, had huge amounts of pre-prepared areas to hide in (from the Afghan war), had constant streams of volunteers to trickle in, were fanatical in their religious beliefs and largely managed to survive by painting the US as the evil foreign invader, the problem exacerbated by the fact the Americans had problems getting translators or proper advisors on local culture and customs, and how the US faced problems being able to exert enough force to convince villages that they could protect them from Al Qaeda / Taliban reprisal. Literally, none of this applies in the US. [QUOTE=download;51191367]You can not fight an unconventional force purely with bombs and aircraft - it requires troops on the ground who will struggle to sort insurgents from the general population. Meanwhile, enormous economic damage is inflicted hampering your ability to fight the insurgency and making the whole thing worse.[/QUOTE] So Trump supporters are going to be opening fire on the streets filled with civilians on who? Police officers? Setting off bombs in power plants and pissing off literally everyone. They are so fanatical in their belief that they hope they will get 21 founding fathers in heaven so they'll suicide bomb a US military base? And is surveillance in the USA now so bad that we can't properly track and stop these individuals from doing... what literally every terrorist has been trying to do for the past hundred years? Christ if destroying the United States on its home turf was so easy you would think the thousands of independent groups trying to do it would have had a field day by now. "THEY CAN SHUT DOWN THE POWER GRID! THEY CAN BLEND IN WITH THE POPULATION!" well shit great idea nobody has ever tried it before!