The Marjorie Taylor Greene thread.

[dudalb]

You're still citing a subset of evangelicals. Note that category you are citing is not named "Evangelicals". It's named something that indicates it is a subset of Evangelicals.

A better number for total Evangelicals has already been cited. If you missed it just type "what percentage of the us population is evangelical" in to google. Google will likely cite the relevant number that is already cited, 35% or so. It might be as low as 30% by some estimates, but those estimates will be factoring our Evangelicals that aren't even relevant to the original point.


Yeah. No kidding. Just for the record the original point is still true even with your low estimate. You two are wrong about something that doesn't even affect the point.

I also think lumping all Evangelicals together is a mistake.
But then, though I am total skeptic when it comes to religion, I don't have the pure hatred fo rit that some here have. As long as they don't try to force theri beliefs dwon my throat, I don't have a quarrel with someone with religous beliefs.

 

[ponderingturtle]

A second civil war in the US would resemble the Spanish Civil war much more then it's first Civil War.

Or the Iraq civil wars of 2004-20??

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I also think lumping all Evangelicals together is a mistake.

It's fine if you're just trying to figure out how many there are which is where the two people questioning me are at. I've run in to this multiple times on this board that people just can't wrap their heads around how many biblical literalists (of all names) there are.

And to your point, about lumping all together though, I agree. And the most important distinction relevant to this conversation is black vs white in regards to what the Republican party is these days. White Evangelicals are highly aligned with the Republican party and vice versa. They've practically become one and the same recently. The whole Republican party is basically a smokescreen at this point to obscure the fact that the division in society is primarily defined by "fundy" vs everyone else. And note that "everyone else" includes half of US Christians in IMO. It's not a religious vs not religious divide.

But then, though I am total skeptic when it comes to religion, I don't have the pure hatred fo rit that some here have. As long as they don't try to force theri beliefs dwon my throat, I don't have a quarrel with someone with religous beliefs.

Agreed. And the Christians I have issues with are in the Biblical literalist side of Christianity. As I said, I don't see a religious vs not religious divide.

 

[gnome]

I'm there too--nearly all my hostility to Christianity goes away if someone doesn't try to adhere to a literalist interpretation. A good portion of the time they really aren't (because contradictions in the scripture render that logically impossible) but use the pretense of literalism to cherry pick justifications for what they preach, and shut down discussions such as "are we really supposed to think this" when it beggars common sense or decency. To literalists, the answer is automatically yes, and that extends dangerously to claims in the domain of scientific examination.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think many people don't realise that a civil war doesn't have to be two armies fighting each other in big battles like the US Civil War of the 1860s

The definition of a civil war is "a war between citizens of the same country."

As SG pointed out, just two people planned and executed the destruction the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma, killing 168 people, injuring over 680 others, destroying or damaging 324 other buildings within a 16-block radius, destroying 86 cars, and causing an estimated $652 million in damage.... two men, a rented truck and a few barrels of ANFO!

And I'm pretty sure one terrorist act is not a civil war.

All of those examples fail to address what I asked you folks who are worried about a civil war here to provide. Provide some evidence there is more than a couple dozen weekend warriors planning a civil war and none of you have.

And I doubt even that group of idiots who thought they actually were going to overthrow the Congress and keep Dump in power are still thinking the same.

Yes, it was incredibly serious Dump managed to work a mob up enough to swarm the Capitol. People died.

But at the same time as far as starting a civil war, IT WAS A JOKE. The army that came to the rescue was delayed by Dump and his dumpsters but when they finally got there they certainly didn't join in with the idiots. Yes they let the perps all go but now they are being rounded up and charged.

Yes there are a too many police who support Dump. And there are people in the military both active and retired who support Dump. But this is not the Banana Republic Mr Tinpot Dump wished it was any more than the COVID pandemic disappeared like Dump fantasized. There is no US military faction plotting a coup.

Think of the idiots in the Bundy clan who were encouraged but the show of force that stopped Bundy Sr from being arrested. They took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. It lasted until they ran out of beer. Is that who you think are going to start a civil war?

It makes me wonder if people here who shouldn't, do believe Dump's con.

 

[catsmate]

I think Skeptic Ginger is right - for now.

One, the U.S. military has not given any indication of taking sides.

Two, the church played a big role in the Spanish civil war. Churches are dying in the U.S. and frankly don't have that much political influence anymore.

Three, the U.S. does not currently have large-scale anarchist groups (or left-wing worker unions) marching in the streets.

I agree, mostly, with your first point. However the US military has significant right-wing elements and is very vulnerable to subversion.
Your second point is mostly wrong IMO; the issue with the RCC in Spain was their political and economic power, and ties to the conservative establishment. In the US this parallels much of the larger elements of the economy who are heavily tied to political interests.
Your third point is reasonably accurate; however as the recent protests have shown this are active anarchist elements in the US (though these are not really needed for a civil war to begin). But there are workers "marching in the streets" in the USA; the battle for unionisation of Amazon for example.

 

[mgidm86]

I came here looking for the latest MTG whackiness and her name is nowhere to be found. Damn.

 

[Galaxie]

I agree, mostly, with your first point. However the US military has significant right-wing elements and is very vulnerable to subversion.
Your second point is mostly wrong IMO; the issue with the RCC in Spain was their political and economic power, and ties to the conservative establishment. In the US this parallels much of the larger elements of the economy who are heavily tied to political interests.
Your third point is reasonably accurate; however as the recent protests have shown this are active anarchist elements in the US (though these are not really needed for a civil war to begin). But there are workers "marching in the streets" in the USA; the battle for unionisation of Amazon for example.

With #1, I think (hope) our military is still diverse enough to make their taking sides a non-starter.

Regarding #2, I'm not sure I follow you. None of the current U.S. churches have the kind of power the RCC did back then. Did you mean perhaps that corporate entities have sort of taken the place of the church in our era? I think I could agree with that.

 

[smartcooky]

And I'm pretty sure one terrorist act is not a civil war.[/HILITE]

Newsflash Ginger! Terrorism is how civil war participants fight a civil war when raising open land armies is either not possible or not wise.

The Irish "time of troubles" was a sectarian ethno-nationalist civil war between Irish nationalists (the IRA) and Irish unionists. Despite being often incorrectly tagged as a religious war it was primarily political and nationalistic. How were the IRA fighting this war? By terrorism - blowing up school buses and buildings and police precincts and places of worship.

Sunni's and Shi'ites are right now fighting a religious civil war in the middle east, and how are they doing it.... with terrorist acts - blowing up school buses and buildings and police precincts and places of worship.

If you want to use your narrow definition of a civil war, that it has to be two groups of armed citizenry openly fighting in battles like Gettysburg, Bull Run and Shiloh or Guadalahara, Catalonia and Jarama, then yes, those kinds of things are unlikely to happen in the US... but civil war is not just about land armies - civil wars can be fought covertly, with subterfuge, with terrorism, and they don't stop being civil wars just because you attach the tag "terrorist" to the participants.

 

[smartcooky]

I came here looking for the latest MTG whackiness and her name is nowhere to be found. Damn.

We's all jus' killin' time waitin' for the next act of stoopidity from Georgia's Jewish Space Laser queen.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Newsflash Ginger! Terrorism is how civil war participants fight a civil war when raising open land armies is either not possible or not wise.

The Irish "time of troubles" was a sectarian ethno-nationalist civil war between Irish nationalists (the IRA) and Irish unionists. Despite being often incorrectly tagged as a religious war it was primarily political and nationalistic. How were the IRA fighting this war? By terrorism - blowing up school buses and buildings and police precincts and places of worship.

Sunni's and Shi'ites are right now fighting a religious civil war in the middle east, and how are they doing it.... with terrorist acts - blowing up school buses and buildings and police precincts and places of worship.

If you want to use your narrow definition of a civil war, that it has to be two groups of armed citizenry openly fighting in battles like Gettysburg, Bull Run and Shiloh or Guadalahara, Catalonia and Jarama, then yes, those kinds of things are unlikely to happen in the US... but civil war is not just about land armies - civil wars can be fought covertly, with subterfuge, with terrorism, and they don't stop being civil wars just because you attach the tag "terrorist" to the participants.

Gee I never knew that.

You continue to cite all these examples like I was born yesterday, and you have yet to post one lick of evidence there is a rising military (formal and/or weekenders) plotting to start a civil war.

Gawd we were a hell of a lot closer to a civil war during the Vietnam protest era and even then the Weather Underground and the "Symbionese Liberation Army" were about as far as it went.

The weekend warriors tried it on Jan 6; it turned out to be a very bad joke but a joke nonetheless.

 

[smartcooky]

Gee I never knew that.

Yes, and you sure act and post like you don't!

You continue to cite all these examples like I was born yesterday

Because you continue to act and post, at least on this subject, like you were born yesterday

and you have yet to post one lick of evidence there is a rising military (formal and/or weekenders) plotting to start a civil war.

Slight historical point of education for you...

The commencement of Civil Wars are hardly ever plotted or planned in advance. They almost always start due to political and cultural differences between groups, when divisions become so partisan that neither side of the divide is prepared to back down or take a backwards step, each side doing things that provoke the other side, upping the ante and doing things even more unacceptable to the other side ... sound familiar? Your own Civil War started exactly this way, due to uncompromising differences between the free states and the slave states over the power of the Federal government to prohibit slavery in the territories. It was a serious dick-wagging contest between leaders of the South Carolina Militia (The Confederate Army didn't even exist yet) and the US Army at Fort Sumter that kicked it all off. Your Civil War was unusual in that it had defined territories associated with the protagonists - the Confederacy occupied eleven states south of the Mason-Dixon line, the Union occupied the rest. This kind of regionalisation doesn't happen very often in civil wars.

Gawd we were a hell of a lot closer to a civil war during the Vietnam protest era and even then the Weather Underground and the "Symbionese Liberation Army" were about as far as it went.

The weekend warriors tried it on Jan 6; it turned out to be a very bad joke but a joke nonetheless.

And you think that was just a one-off, an isolated incident, never to be repeated? Right? Well, I have news for you

39% of Americans believe there was a Deep State working to undermine Trump. Almost two in every five!!!

33% of Americans believe the Biden only won the election due to voter fraud... one in three!!!!

19% of Americans support the protesters who broke into the Capitol to disrupt the election certification... 19%!!! That is almost one in every five Americans support an insurrection against the Government to overturn a Presidential Election!!!!. This is Banana Republic stuff!!

When, say, 1 or 2% of a population has these kinds of beliefs, you can probably write that off as insignificant, but when large minorities of 20 - 40% believe this stuff, it ought to set alarm bells ringing loudly for every American. If you don't want believe me, at least listen to what your own experts! are trying to warn you about!

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/22/us-domestic-extremism-security-threat-9-11-capitol-assault/

The U.S. intelligence community warned that domestic extremists, emboldened by the siege on the U.S. Capitol and by conspiracy theories about the coronavirus pandemic and alleged fraud in the 2020 election, will almost certainly attempt violent attacks this year. The assessment cites a contentious political environment as one of the main factors motivating white supremacists and militias, followed a warning by FBI Director Christopher Wray earlier this month that the threat of domestic terrorism in the United States is “metastasizing.”​

These dire warnings sound eerily like the threat the United States faced after the 9/11 attacks. Then, Americans easily united against what was framed as a foreign—and Muslim—enemy that was trying to kill U.S. citizens. But today’s enemy defies such tidy characterizations. There is no bearded Osama bin Laden hiding in a cave, just hundreds of Timothy McVeighs huddling at home.​

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You do know when people don't buy what you say it doesn't mean they are stupid or just don't get it, right smartcooky? Big bolded font doesn't help in cases where people simply disagree with you.

You don't even live here. I do. You are getting your facts filtered through the news media that sells controversy and scandal as a business model; and/or whatever social media sites you are inhaling.

Yes, the FBI can now admit that domestic terrorism is a bigger issue than caravans of rapists and murderers crossing the southern border. That doesn't mean any kind of civil war is brewing.

Saying one agrees with the idiots on Jan 6 on a survey is a **** of a lot different from picking up arms.

I have never seen you engaged in a falsehood up to your eyeballs like this. Look me up in 6 months and we can revisit the issue.

 

[Babbylonian]

You do know when people don't buy what you say it doesn't mean they are stupid or just don't get it, right smartcooky?

Sometimes, that's exactly what it means

PS- I live here.

 

[bruto]

I don't believe we were closer to a civil war back in the Viet Nam era, or with the Symbionese Liberation Army, etc. Simply put, there was never enough national division. In the case of war protestors, they did not want to change the structure of society and government. They wanted a change in policy. Influential as they (or I should say perhaps we) became they were a minority, and radical minority groups like the SLA or Move On more so. It doesn't matter how bellicose the protestors are if there are so few. They may well be able to cause great damage and chaos, or in the case of war protestors, begin a shift in policy, but to have a civil war you need both the desire for what is, essentially, an internal revolution, and the numbers.

 

[Jim_MDP]

We's all jus' killin' time waitin' for the next act of stoopidity from Georgia's Jewish Space Laser queen.

Pretty much. AOC wouldn't give oxygen to MTGs stupid debate blather, so she's probably scrabbling around for the next faux outrage to glom onto.
Probably Tucker's "call child services" anti-mask screed, IMO.

 

[Babbylonian]

Pretty much. AOC wouldn't give oxygen to MTGs stupid debate blather, so she's probably scrabbling around for the next faux outrage to glom onto.
Probably Tucker's "call child services" anti-mask screed, IMO.

If the preeminent white nationalist on Fox News actually believed his own ********, we'd have headlines about his own police/children's services calls. In fact, he'd be bragging about them on the White Nationalist Power Hour.

 

[smartcooky]

You do know when people don't buy what you say it doesn't mean they are stupid or just don't get it, right smartcooky? Big bolded font doesn't help in cases where people simply disagree with you.

Whatever

You don't even live here. I do.

Aha, I wondered how long it would be before you trotted out the old "you couldn't possibly know anything about what happens in a country you don't live in" chesnut.

What's coming next 'Murica is Speshul!!?

You are getting your facts filtered through the news media that sells controversy and scandal as a business model; and/or whatever social media sites you are inhaling.

So you say, but only partially so. I also get a lot of my information from family who live in various parts "your" country, which remarkably, just happens to be their country too!!!!

Yes, the FBI can now admit that domestic terrorism is a bigger issue than caravans of rapists and murderers crossing the southern border. That doesn't mean any kind of civil war is brewing.

For your idea of what constitutes civil war

Saying one agrees with the idiots on Jan 6 on a survey is a **** of a lot different from picking up arms.

The thing is, (and the thing you don't seem to get) is that its a matter of numbers and percentages... the more people that are angry about a thing they think is unfair, the more likely there is to be some among them who are prepared to do something about it, and the more likely it is that a small number of those will be prepared to do something really violent and/or extreme and/or murderous about it.

Your FBI and intelligence community have made the same assessment that I have. The risk is very high, if you read the link I posted earlier, you will have seen that for yourself.

I have never seen you engaged in a falsehood up to your eyeballs like this.

And you still haven't, because its not a falsehood. If it was, you would be able to prove its falsity, and you can't... I know for a fact that you can't. If you think I'm wrong about this, post your proof that I'm wrong.

No, like me, all you can do is express your opinion that the current political situation cannot or will not lead to a civil war or domestic terrorism.

My opinion is that it can, because vary many of the precursors observed in other civil wars, are present in the US Today. It doesn't mean its 100% going to happen, and I never said it would. It means there is a risk, and if you accept (as I do) that widespread acts of domestic terrorism are tantmount to a civil war (one group of a country's citizens levying war against another group of the country's citizens) then I believe, as do the FBI and your intelligence community, that the risk is high.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't believe we were closer to a civil war back in the Viet Nam era, or with the Symbionese Liberation Army, etc. Simply put, there was never enough national division. In the case of war protestors, they did not want to change the structure of society and government. They wanted a change in policy. Influential as they (or I should say perhaps we) became they were a minority, and radical minority groups like the SLA or Move On more so. It doesn't matter how bellicose the protestors are if there are so few. They may well be able to cause great damage and chaos, or in the case of war protestors, begin a shift in policy, but to have a civil war you need both the desire for what is, essentially, an internal revolution, and the numbers.

Nope, not during Vietnam and for the other end of the spectrum, not during Aryan Nations skinheads circle jerk and not during Bundy's little family matter, you name it. We've seen this movie before and not once was it ever close to an actual viable insurrection.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Aha, I wondered how long it would be before you trotted out the old "you couldn't possibly know anything about what happens in a country you don't live in" chesnut.

Read my lips: "you don't even live here" is not synonymous for "you couldn't possibly know anything about what happens in a country you don't live in", italicized or not.

...What's coming next 'Murica is Speshul!!?

I'm pretty sure being special has nothing to do with it.

...So you say, but only partially so. I also get a lot of my information from family who live in various parts "your" country, which remarkably, just happens to be their country too!!!!

So you have friends/relatives here in the US that are worried civil war is about to breakout here? Do they know Jan 6 was a failure and the remnants are being rounded up and charged? Who do they think is left that are still getting ready for battle? Tell me, do they believe Dump is leading this battle?

... For your idea of what constitutes civil war

Well let's see, if you define it as a couple of idiots who read The Turner Diaries and blew up a big building, then I can safely say that's not how I define a civil war. My idea of a civil war is more like Castro's insurrection, or what happened in Bosnia.

...The thing is, (and the thing you don't seem to get) is that its a matter of numbers and percentages... the more people that are angry about a thing they think is unfair, the more likely there is to be some among them who are prepared to do something about it, and the more likely it is that a small number of those will be prepared to do something really violent and/or extreme and/or murderous about it.

Now who is lecturing whom about what one can't understand? My point and I'm sticking to it, is there is not one whiff of a civil war here in this country. Maybe some weekend warriors tell each other wet dreams about the second coming of Dump. Don't you think if the Maoris were about ready to rise up you'd at least know about it?

...Your FBI and intelligence community have made the same assessment that I have. The risk is very high, if you read the link I posted earlier, you will have seen that for yourself.

No they ******* have not. Terrorist acts, not a civil war. Come on, get real.

... [snip]
No, like me, all you can do is express your opinion that the current political situation cannot or will not lead to a civil war or domestic terrorism. [snip]

Told ya, get back to me in 6 months and we can compare notes.