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

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51191530]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] Neither did you. You just magically handwaved away the fact the US failed to achieve it's military objectives (i.e. [I]they lost[/I]) in the last three counter-insurgency wars it fought. [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] I saw [I]simply[/I]. There is more to fighting an insurgency than just numbers. Not having enough boots on the ground is just one factor and is arguably more important than the technological edge - a JDAM can't search a house for contraband. [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] All insurgent groups need to do to win is survive longer than the enemy's stomach for the conflict, [I]that is how insurgencies are won[/I]. Killing x number of people means little in these conflicts. If you think the US won in those regions and successfully put down the insurgents then maybe you should brush up on your recent history or open a newspaper. [quote]I literally responded to what you gave. You haven't presented an argument.[/quote] Neither have you. All you've done is authoritatively declared that the US military would win "because I'm a grunt that's been in the military for a year or so and therefore I know". [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] You're moving the goalposts dude, we were discussing a civil war here, not a few dickwads who think they're going to disappear into the backwoods come election day and live out Red Dawn. [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. 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![/QUOTE] Pity we didn't have your counter-insurgency genius in Afghanistan, the war would have been over in only a few months! All of these stunning military revelation revealed in a forum post and summed up in only a single page. Oh wait, you have no clue what you're talking about. You appear to be operating under this delusion that military targets are easy to distinguish from civilians during an insurgency where people can put their rifle away and look no different than every other civilian going about their business. Insurgents don't go walking around with signs say "shoot me, i'm and insurgent!" or operate exclusively in the backwoods where collateral damage doesn't exist; they have day jobs and look like normal people. I would strongly suggest you ask one of your senior NCOs about how difficult it was fighting such a murky and unclear enemy in the likes of Afghanistan or Iraq. You also appear to have a greatly inflated personal perception of your own understanding of warfare. You should probably remember you're not in a position that requires you to make anything but the most basic of tactical decision, let alone strategic decisions made by people far more intelligent than you or I.

this is depressing. It doesn't even matter about the logistics of it, or if a small revolt would actually hurt the US, but it's just sad that people would actually (they probably wont, because people say this every presidency, but who knows) go out and kill or maim others to cause chaos and try to bring others to revolt with them. Sure, the government will shut them down, but at what cost to the american people, and their image? Shooting a bunch of revolters isn't going to look good anywhere. I hope this sort of thing doesn't come to pass.

[QUOTE=download;51190929]Ah, so that's how the US won in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.[/QUOTE] They lost in South Vietnam because South Vietnamese government was the lost cause from the start and US couldn't save it nor fix it. Vietnamese were firmly for communism and north Vietnam leadership was superior to South one. Also US military won in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's post-war political solutions that failed to give peace and stability. But even then, US is still winning just not as effectively as it should have due terrible Bush administration and weak Obama's administration. If competent and firm government was running US, many of these issues would have been avoided or at least heavily minimised.

[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] Not to mention the international and domestic image the government would have. A revolution is just not feasable.

i have doubts that most americans would be unable to overthrow their government when a third of them are physically unfit/incapable of fighting and many more are dependent on the infrastructure that is provided by the existence of the federal government like if there was an actual uprising, my money is on the professional military forces. insurgents historically have always done badly - it's actually rare for them to overthrow the government or to even make some kind of gain the last time America had a civil war (in defence of the right to own people), the losers not only lost the right to own slaves, but they were put under military occupation and their entire socioeconomic system was dismantled.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51192204]The "losers" were a conventional, successful military too.[/QUOTE] to put it bluntly, it wasn't. they were short of just about everything (from skilled men to resources), and by the end they were conscripting slaves to defend their collapsing shithole the confederate administration and application of law also slowly broke down along with the economy over time as well due to incompetence and poor governance. it was slowly becoming a failed state

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51190859]Pence advocates for peaceful democratic process How is this bad[/QUOTE] The democratic process is great, but what do we do when we play fair with known cheaters? (Hillary and her silencing tactics) Voter Fraud happened during brexit as quite a few elderly vote haulers were approached by strange men in hoodies asking for the vote boxes. They was one case of this in my area and I had high doubts those men voted for Ukip. Democrats and other leftwing groups today are a lot more cunning these days.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51192220]to put it bluntly, it wasn't. they were short of just about everything (from skilled men to resources), and by the end they were conscripting slaves to defend their collapsing shithole the confederate administration and application of law also slowly broke down along with the economy over time as well due to incompetence and poor governance. it was slowly becoming a failed state[/QUOTE] The funny part too is that they structured the government much like the US government was before we had the constitution, seeing it necessary to stop the whole "these states are oppressing these states" situation from arising again, completely forgetting that it was a fucking terrible form of government. It's very well possible they could have won the war (not conquering north, but forcing them off with a treaty negotiated with foreign powers) but that shitty structure prevented them from getting things done.

The number of people that would be fit to actually put up a resistance in this country is so insignificantly small. Sure there will be people shouting about doing it but when their jazzy scooter's batteries die all they'll be left with is whatever they had on them and several hundred pounds of extra self-grown weight to carry around. The average person isn't even someone to do any more than post an inflammatory facebook post about politics. That doesn't equate to actually be willing to take up arms against their neighbors.

[QUOTE=Secrios;51192237]The democratic process is great, but what do we do when we play fair with known cheaters? (Hillary and her silencing tactics) Voter Fraud happened during brexit as quite a few elderly vote haulers were approached by strange men in hoodies asking for the vote boxes. They was one case of this in my area and I had high doubts those men voted for Ukip. Democrats and other leftwing groups today are a lot more cunning these days. They will fill every avenue they can to win an election no matter how depraved or illegal it gets. Whenever you hear talks or "jokes" about an assassination, you never really hear them from the lips of a republican voter.[/QUOTE] Holy shit, you can't be for real. This reads like a Conscript post. I'll also point out that Trump basically called for 'second amendment people' to kill a future President Clinton when she appointed her Supreme Court judges.

[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 think the point hes trying to make is that an insurrection would be almost impossible to achieve here in the US given that most people will not follow it, the entire might of the fbi, nsa, military, and every counter terrorism machine we ever constructed would be constantly on their ass and if they tried something stupid like takeover somewhere by shooting people then they will quickly get stomped public opinion would say those people are fucking nuts to go to war just because hillary won on a side note, a civil war type thing just couldnt happen today thanks to how we have placed our military bases to maximize pork spending. every state seemingly has a military base of some large size, while some might get taken over in a hypothetical civil war conflict, i cant see the state militias or national guards just easily convincing people to just leave the bases

[QUOTE=Secrios;51192237]The democratic process is great, but what do we do when we play fair with known cheaters? (Hillary and her silencing tactics) Voter Fraud happened during brexit as quite a few elderly vote haulers were approached by strange men in hoodies asking for the vote boxes. They was one case of this in my area and I had high doubts those men voted for Ukip. Democrats and other leftwing groups today are a lot more cunning these days. They will fill every avenue they can to win an election no matter how depraved or illegal it gets. [b]Whenever you hear talks or "jokes" about an assassination, you never really hear them from the lips of a republican voter.[/b][/QUOTE] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment[/url] try again.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51191112]Good thing the rest of the country aren't sovereign citizens.[/QUOTE] I can't believe I agreed with a post by you, its a little miracle

[QUOTE=Sableye;51192293]i think the point hes trying to make is that an insurrection would be almost impossible to achieve here in the US given that most people will not follow it, the entire might of the fbi, nsa, military, and every counter terrorism machine we ever constructed would be constantly on their ass and if they tried something stupid like takeover somewhere by shooting people then they will quickly get stomped public opinion would say those people are fucking nuts to go to war just because hillary won on a side note, a civil war type thing just couldnt happen today thanks to how we have placed our military bases to maximize pork spending. every state seemingly has a military base of some large size, while some might get taken over in a hypothetical civil war conflict, i cant see the state militias or national guards just easily convincing people to just leave the bases[/QUOTE] The number of people who will support an insurrection depends entirely on why they're doing it. I don't think any can declare it to be impossible for it to happen, it's just unlikely.

I feel that no matter who wins, we're going to have massive riots. Trump wins and a lot of people are going to get pissed. I know we get a lot of rhetoric like "Oh, if Trump wins, I'm going to Canada!", but I really wouldn't put it passed some people. It might even get worse as he start making "presidential decisions". Oh, and it sure as fuck won't help racial tension. Hillary wins and the entire Trump "fan base" is going to call foul. He's already convinced them that the entire process is rigged and if he loses, it's going to be a huge shitfest. We'll see a large portion of people become adamantly opposed to Hillary's "regime" and create even more friction in those areas. I know we hear this all the time, but there won't be any winners this election.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51191364]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] People having self defense ready in case some dumb bozos try to physically harm them based on race/religion/ethnicity/political standing/etc. = advocating for a civil war. Yeah ok.

[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] Then, with your vast sea of knowledge on the subject, would you please inform us of how exactly they do function and operate? Or are you talking out your ass and not even making any points other than just telling other people they don't know what their talking about without backing it up. [editline]12th October 2016[/editline] Attacking people's background doesn't prove a point, I'm afraid. There's a magical term for it called [i]ad hominem[/i], and I know it may be pointless to point out fallacies, but your post was literally filled with [i]nothing[/i]. Nothing of relevancy was said. And the part I find funniest about this is that you keep bringing up how his background doesn't matter, when you have even less authority as an internet armchair warrior. At least he's seen the military work with his own two eyes.

[QUOTE=download;51191683]Neither did you. You just magically handwaved away the fact the US failed to achieve it's military objectives (i.e. [I]they lost[/I]) in the last three counter-insurgency wars it fought. I saw [I]simply[/I]. There is more to fighting an insurgency than just numbers. Not having enough boots on the ground is just one factor and is arguably more important than the technological edge - a JDAM can't search a house for contraband. All insurgent groups need to do to win is survive longer than the enemy's stomach for the conflict, [I]that is how insurgencies are won[/I]. Killing x number of people means little in these conflicts. If you think the US won in those regions and successfully put down the insurgents then maybe you should brush up on your recent history or open a newspaper. Neither have you. All you've done is authoritatively declared that the US military would win "because I'm a grunt that's been in the military for a year or so and therefore I know". You're moving the goalposts dude, we were discussing a civil war here, not a few dickwads who think they're going to disappear into the backwoods come election day and live out Red Dawn. Pity we didn't have your counter-insurgency genius in Afghanistan, the war would have been over in only a few months! All of these stunning military revelation revealed in a forum post and summed up in only a single page. Oh wait, you have no clue what you're talking about. You appear to be operating under this delusion that military targets are easy to distinguish from civilians during an insurgency where people can put their rifle away and look no different than every other civilian going about their business. Insurgents don't go walking around with signs say "shoot me, i'm and insurgent!" or operate exclusively in the backwoods where collateral damage doesn't exist; they have day jobs and look like normal people. I would strongly suggest you ask one of your senior NCOs about how difficult it was fighting such a murky and unclear enemy in the likes of Afghanistan or Iraq. You also appear to have a greatly inflated personal perception of your own understanding of warfare. You should probably remember you're not in a position that requires you to make anything but the most basic of tactical decision, let alone strategic decisions made by people far more intelligent than you or I.[/QUOTE] Why did you keep comparing the US to Afghanistan and Vietnam? You do realize the US is absolutely nothing like those countries. You can go back and bang on stats about the Vietnam War all you want, but no one is ever going to try and say a rebellion in America will be just like Vietnam. We have working infrastructure, we're a first world super power. And maybe wars depend on how long a country can support it like with Afghanistan, but only when it's an actual foreign war. Like do you really think the US people and congress would drop a land war like they do a war in the Middle East? Russia invades us today and in a year we lose because we decide it's a lot of work? Insurgents in America keep the war up for the year and what you think congress will vote on giving in to their demands because they'll think it's gone on too long?

[QUOTE=phaedon;51191031]Couldn't read past a couple of random points. TIL there's looting in wars. Someone get Clausewitz on the line![/QUOTE] Me neither. This dude says red states are the producer states? Oh yeah, no wonder the deepest red states have the lowest GDPs in the country.

I don't understand the idea that anyone that has a different view regarding this election is "FUCKIN RETARDED AND WRONG" and where the idea's coming from that "THIS COUNTRY IS SO FUCKED IF EITHER CANDIDATE WINS". Yeah, they're probably not going to be as good as some of the president's we've had but I think either way we'll [I]survive.[/I] I don't think a revolution is necessary and if I see any kind of revolution happening I'm keeping my .38 close by to protect myself from those who like to hop on the bandwagon just to destroy shit.

[QUOTE=Secrios;51192237]The democratic process is great, but what do we do when we play fair with known cheaters? (Hillary and her silencing tactics) Voter Fraud happened during brexit as quite a few elderly vote haulers were approached by strange men in hoodies asking for the vote boxes. They was one case of this in my area and I had high doubts those men voted for Ukip. Democrats and other leftwing groups today are a lot more cunning these days. They will fill every avenue they can to win an election no matter how depraved or illegal it gets. Whenever you hear talks or "jokes" about an assassination, you never really hear them from the lips of a republican voter.[/QUOTE] gone off the deep end

[QUOTE=Secrios;51192237]They will fill every avenue they can to win an election no matter how depraved or illegal it gets. [B]Whenever you hear talks or "jokes" about an assassination, you never really hear them from the lips of a republican voter[/B].[/QUOTE] Like, Trump himself has called for Hillary to be killed at least twice, so that statement is already pretty easily disproved.

[QUOTE=Secrios;51192237\]They will fill every avenue they can to win an election no matter how depraved or illegal it gets. Whenever you hear talks or "jokes" about an assassination, you never really hear them from the lips of a republican voter.[/QUOTE] [t]http://occupydemocrats.com/wp-content/uploads/effigy2.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51192273]Holy shit, you can't be for real. This reads like a Conscript post. I'll also point out that Trump basically called for 'second amendment people' to kill a future President Clinton when she appointed her Supreme Court judges.[/QUOTE] No he didn't. Stop over exagerating. You are taking his words and misrepresenting them. If you are going to play that game, Hillary Clinton wanted Obama to be assassinated in the 08 race with that kenndy comment.

[QUOTE=Jouska;51192726]No he didn't. Stop over exagerating. You are taking his words and misrepresenting them. If you are going to play that game, Hillary Clinton wanted Obama to be assassinated in the 08 race with that kenndy comment.[/QUOTE] Unsubstantiated. Whereas trump was on record

[QUOTE=Kylel999;51192614]I don't understand the idea that anyone that has a different view regarding this election is "FUCKIN RETARDED AND WRONG" and where the idea's coming from that "THIS COUNTRY IS SO FUCKED IF EITHER CANDIDATE WINS". Yeah, they're probably not going to be as good as some of the president's we've had but I think either way we'll [I]survive.[/I] I don't think a revolution is necessary and if I see any kind of revolution happening I'm keeping my .38 close by to protect myself from those who like to hop on the bandwagon just to destroy shit.[/QUOTE] People think if Hillary wins we will be in a communist dictatorship day one she get elected. Others think Thrump is going to kick out every colored person out and that he will nuke every other country for giggles. Shit is insane. The republican party have always been this racist the past 2 decades, Thrump is just alot more honest/open about it. the Establishment has always been this corrupt and politicans have always bullshit us during speeches, Hillary is just more obvious with it. Alot of times I hear thrump supporters saying shit like that they are protecting the consitution from evil democrats, then hillary voters would say dumb shit like "for the greater good". Us americans treat political parties like football teams and treat elections like WWE matches.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51190942]it isn't as easy to drone strike your own citizens[/QUOTE] Military action against self is pretty well understood. Governments around the world have been doing it for a long time. Aside from the fact that drones make things less [I]personal[/I] it's pretty easy to rally troops against people from regions that aren't near them. (This is my understanding of how China has dealt with dissidents in the past.) In the kinds of numbers we could reasonably see from those nutcases the US should see no existential threat. Those people are unreasonable and impracticality violent. Anyone with sense can see that peaceful protest (not working) is the best course of action if things get out of hand. If the regime in power gets violent without the right sort of provocation it makes more people see the cause as righteous.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51190877]I'm afraid that when Clinton wins some Trump supporters will go out and commit hate crimes[/QUOTE] Hate crimes?

[QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;51192735]Unsubstantiated. Whereas trump was on record[/QUOTE] He could have meant alot of different things with those words. When I heard those I thought he meant that gun holders should refuse to give up their weapons. No where did he said "go kill hillary". Where as Clinton was specifically joking about how Obama would get assassinated like kenndy. But the point is, you guys are falling for media fear mongering. Neither Clinton nor Thrump has actually told their supporters to kill the other candidate.

[QUOTE=Jouska;51192726]No he didn't. Stop over exagerating. You are taking his words and misrepresenting them. If you are going to play that game, Hillary Clinton wanted Obama to be assassinated in the 08 race with that kenndy comment.[/QUOTE] Unsubstantiated statements versus statements actually on record. I don't understand why Pro-Trump and Anti-Hillary folks (though that may as well fall under the same category) keep trying to bang on about unsubstantiated, easily disproven statements about Clinton merely for the sake of finding ammunition to dislike her. I understand a lot of folks have loyalty to their party, but Trump himself has proven on multiple occasions just how unfit an individual he is for the Presidency of the United states. I've practically shouted myself hoarse, myself and many other posters, about how terrible an idea it is to elect this man as the President, and how both Clinton and Trump are bad choices, but this doesn't change the fact one choice (not Trump) is less bad than the other. Trump's loyal army of supporters can't see anything beyond the baseless rhetoric he spews out and are attracted to his shitty personality, because somehow it's a good thing to 'say it like it is' when you happen to be in charge of one of the most powerful countries on earth. He managed to alienate just about everybody, is a narcissist, a sociopath, delusional to the point where he claimed he wouldn't go to heaven if he lost the election, has openly called for his supporters to riot if he didnt gain the candidacy, has advocated for violence, and is a bigoted piece of shit. With all these good reasons for him to not be elected President, leave alone somehow ending up as a candidate in this election, why do you still insist on supporting the likes of him? do you find his personality cult so attractive that you refuse to see the problems electing him will bring? who will you blame when his "policies" impoverish the middle class so badly they'll be worse off than they are now? will you accuse the liberals and democrats of sabotaging his Presidency then? For once in your lives, [i]open your eyes and think.[/i]