The political pendulum has been swinging wildly, the parties are split and the public is buying into it.

We have to ask ourselves, is this happening, is America experiencing its second Revolution spurred on by political ideology and hatred for one or another candidate and political party?

Ask yourself, what do you think? Are we on the verge of a coup de'tat in American Government? Are we following in the footsteps of Rome?

Reminds me of the John Titor Time Traveller Internet posts:

The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over. The civil war in the United States will start in 2004. I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse. The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012 and end in 2015 with a very short WWIII.

Are some areas of the United States safer than others?
Take a close look at the county-by-county voting map from the last
elections.

Is the conflict racial?
Not at all. In fact, I would say it goes a long way toward erasing racial problems.

Does the civil war start in such a way that those willing will have time to remove themselves to safer locations.
Yes. You will be forced to ask yourself how many civil rights you will give up to feel safe.

Will you readily be able to identify the enemy?
They will be the ones arresting and holding people without due process.

http://www.johntitor.com/

Yes, I could see it happening. The leftists are so extreme in their views I could easily see them starting a new Civil War. If the Republicans win again, especially if it is close or contested, or worse yet, another electoral win but popular loss, or if the election must be delayed due to (foreign-initiated) terrorist acts, then multiple individual and small group (liberal-initiated) terrorist acts could escalate into massive violence, and later civil war.

Look how pissed they still are about the last election.

On the contrary, Republicans, being more reasonable and logical, would never create such chaos if their candidate lost. Even if we knew these predictions would come true, it still would not be reason enough to vote for Kerry. We do not give in to terrorists, ever. I would, however, move from Clear Lake to Galveston before the "big one." I'm too close to the Air Force base and NASA. :(

Will you readily be able to identify the enemy?
They will be the ones arresting and holding people without due process.

Uhhhh, Doc -- that would be the Bush administration in 2004.

Well, 1) you need the military for a coup d'etat and 2) the military would never go against the president, so no, there won't be another revolution, and never will be, unless something seriously changes in our military. Or is that not what you mean, and you're talking about some other weirdly obscure political version of a coup d'etat in the US?

And the differences we've got going between "parties" (and I use that term lightly) are nothing like the differences in the 20's, in the 60's, or even in the 70's.

I'm glad I'm on the side that likes guns.

Uhhhh, Doc -- that would be the Bush administration in 2004.My point exactly. The liberals see the Bush administration as enemies, and believe that they are taking basic human rights away "without due process." They are so pissed about it, and so irrational and extreme in general (many of them that is) that I could see them going off the edge when Bush wins again this year, especially if it is another electoral but not popular win, or other unusual circumstances.

It could start with various protests that turned violent, they would see it as more abuses against their "rights," and things would escalate. Like "John Titor" wrote, it would be like a Waco event every month until things reached the boiling point.

They would have to enlist the support of their terrorist supporters in other countries to eventually gain much strength, thus leading to world war, as he predicted.

Just a thought. Who knows what our "worldline/timeline" holds?

There was a scary article in the paper this morning giving examples of how out of hand and stupid this is becoming. In some places, people are going so far as to approve or disapprove of who their children are dating based on what party their parents follow. How friggin immature is that? I think this entire country needs to grow up and stop acting like a bunch of whiny babies. Maybe everyone should go stand in their own seperate corners for a bit.

As long as people have jobs, people have homes, and people have a vested interest in not seeing a bloody revolution occur, it will not happen.

I realize some people definitley fall out of the decscription above, but until 50% or greater meet these requirements, I do not see it happening.

So, until the next great depression or a dictatorship takes over we realistically have nothing to worry about.

If you think I am wrong, think about how lazy, whiney and fickle the general public is, then realize how bad things would have to get in order for a massive uprising large enough to overwhelm the status quo would have to be. At this time, we are no where close. The far left and the far right, while they have loud voices in public because they constantly scream the loudest, are still statistical outlyers, a vast majority 60% or greater simply dont give a crap. If voter turn out is somewhere near 75% this election, then I would take it as a sign that I have underestimated public concern/interest/unrest. I am willing to bet it is still near or under 50% as usual.

Now if Bush/Cheney instate martial law or postpone elections or do some other truley dictatorshipish move, then watch out, some shite is going to hit the fan, but the chances of that happening are incredibly slim no, matter how low your opinon is of them.

10 years from now? who knows?

I am about as concerned about an a new american civil war as I am about Islamic extermestist trying to kill me, in other words... I am not concerned at all.

You are right Lufa about the lazy and apathetic nature of Americans. And Elara about the difficulty in effectively fighting the military. The Iraqi insurgents are well armed and (somewhat) trained, and they still have to resort to hit and run terrorist attacks and car bombs and the like, and they are still getting their asses kicked. Good thing rocket launchers are hard to find in Austin, or I would be more worried. I don't know about So Cal. I'm sure assault rifles can be found in decent numbers here in Texas, but more likely in Republican hands, like the vast majority of the state. Good luck to anybody starting any sh*t down here. :p

To not worry about Islamic extremists trying to kill you is pretty foolish, however. Sure, I place it about the same level of concern as getting struck by lightning, but I take precautions against that too. My eyes are open....

Yeah ok, I agee, lightning and Islamic extremeists are on equal footing as far my concern goes.

Good analogy.

Both are almost completly avoidable except in extreme circumstances, then just a little dilligence will remove 95% of the risk.


Oh yeah and that is a big no Shite that Austin would be attacked from all sides if a revolution started... I think it would take about 1 week for all of conservative Texas to reduce Austin to a smoldering hole in the ground.

50% (10/20) of the people voted Yes, we are seeing the beginning of a Coup De'tat in American government.

Might I suggest NA meetings. The first step is to admit you have a problem.

50% (10/20) of the people voted Yes, we are seeing the beginning of a Coup De'tat in American government.

Might I suggest NA meetings. The first step is to admit you have a problem.

Yeah, I'm a little confused about that too. Are those of you voting this way REALLY concerned about this? Or are you just not doing your homework? Or maybe you're just trying to screw with the poll?

I guess we will find out after November....

I'm picking up this vibe....kind of like the Y2K hype.

I was sort of joking. It would really have to come from within the military itself. Our military force is too powerful for a bunch of Thomas Paine wannabes to topple it. :p

http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html

One other thought, a charasmatic leader is necessary to start a revolution. There is only one in the Democratic pipeline that I can think of.....the current VP nominee.
Hmmmm. He seems too smiley/happy for that, and has limited leadership experience. Maybe in a few years though.

http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html


That was beautiful. :)


I have to ask, what does When in Rome............... mean? Are you talking about the collapse of the Republic and the rise of the Empire? Or is it the fall to an outside power brought on by decadence and collapse of the infrastructue (not to mention lead poisoning)?

A revolution lead by a trial lawyer can only lead to very bad things.

http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html
That may be the funniest thing I have seen on the forum. Thanks for the link.

thisland by the jibjab brothers is making them famous. They're doing tv interviews and that link is getting around. Their servers are crumbling under the load. A friend of mine is running some mirrors and was excited about doing a web hosting deal with them. I don't know how they can serve up so much bandwidth and not go into the red.

My point exactly. The liberals see the Bush administration as enemies, and believe that they are taking basic human rights away "without due process." They are so pissed about it, and so irrational and extreme in general (many of them that is) that I could see them going off the edge when Bush wins again this year, especially if it is another electoral but not popular win, or other unusual circumstances.

It could start with various protests that turned violent, they would see it as more abuses against their "rights," and things would escalate. Like "John Titor" wrote, it would be like a Waco event every month until things reached the boiling point.

They would have to enlist the support of their terrorist supporters in other countries to eventually gain much strength, thus leading to world war, as he predicted.

Just a thought. Who knows what our "worldline/timeline" holds?


Are you effin' kidding me?!?! Tell me your joking. If you really believe that statement it has to be said:

Your a moron. ;)

I think that a lot of the comments here are exaggerations, impossible long shots or extreme what-ifs.

Edit: At least the Coup percentage has dropped to less than half.

OKay, here's something fun for you guys- I just finished a three day training class in Washington, and an Army reporter (he works for Rumsfeld at the Pentagon)was in my class. We talked pretty extensively about what's going on. He said that a lot of the soldiers coming back from Iraq feel like Bush betrayed them, especially by way of the media and how everything is going in Iraq, because they mainly see a bunch of happy people who really appreciate all the rebuilding and aid they've received from the US. More than a few plan on voting for Kerry. Don't really know what this means, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

FWIW, how much actual contact do you think a reporter for Rumsfeld has with the troops in Iraq.

I do know that the Army Times newspaper recently ran a cover story detailing what changes Kerry's possible victory might have on the Army.

OKay, here's something fun for you guys- ...Don't really know what this means, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
That is what is known as a sampling error (http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/power/ch6/sampling/sampling.htm).

Hey, I didn't say anything about what it meant. Take it as you like. And I'd guess an army reporter works pretty damn closely with troops coming back from Iraq, since that's part of his job. If I had said they were all saying they thought Bush was great, you guys would be jumping up and down.

Army reporter (he works for Rumsfeld at the Pentagon)

Maybe "reporter" is a imprecise term. Why would Rumsfeld have a reporter working for him? A reporter would be at a much lower level than working for Rumsfeld. At Rumsfeld's level, the person would more likely be some type of press secretary.

I also find it out of character that the Army would be conducting politcal polls among it troops, but what do I know?

Maybe "reporter" is a imprecise term. Why would Rumsfeld have a reporter working for him? A reporter would be at a much lower level than working for Rumsfeld. At Rumsfeld's level, the person would more likely be some type of press secretary.

I also find it out of character that the Army would be conducting politcal polls among it troops, but what do I know?


There are a lot of internal publications you don't see in the armed forces. The guy was enlisted, working as a field reporter based out of the Pentagon, not directly under Rumsfeld, but down the ladder a bit. And he wasn't taking polls, he was talking to them as a member of a group talks to another member of a group. This wasn't exactly anything official. Take it as you will- I am just telling you what HE told me.

Thanks for the clarification. :)

OKay, here's something fun for you guys- I just finished a three day training class in Washington, and an Army reporter (he works for Rumsfeld at the Pentagon)was in my class. We talked pretty extensively about what's going on. He said that a lot of the soldiers coming back from Iraq feel like Bush betrayed them, especially by way of the media and how everything is going in Iraq, because they mainly see a bunch of happy people who really appreciate all the rebuilding and aid they've received from the US. More than a few plan on voting for Kerry. Don't really know what this means, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Let's clarify more. Are you saying the soldiers feel betrayed by Bush because the media is unfairly painting a portrait of Iraq not going well while the soldiers see happy appreciative people? Or are you saying the media is painting a portrait of a bunch of happy appreciative Iraqis while the soldiers feel otherwise. Neither statement makes sense to me: Bush can't control the media, and the media is certainly not painting a favorable portrait of our intervention.

I treated a guy who was working security for Halliburton in Iraq, and he said pretty much the same thing...that the Iraqis think Bush is god for liberating them, and the typical Iraqi is very appreciative of all the US has done for them. Then again, I have a sampling error in my survey too. :p

Let's clarify more. Are you saying the soldiers feel betrayed by Bush because the media is unfairly painting a portrait of Iraq not going well while the soldiers see happy appreciative people? Or are you saying the media is painting a portrait of a bunch of happy appreciative Iraqis while the soldiers feel otherwise. Neither statement makes sense to me: Bush can't control the media, and the media is certainly not painting a favorable portrait of our intervention.

I treated a guy who was working security for Halliburton in Iraq, and he said pretty much the same thing...that the Iraqis think Bush is god for liberating them, and the typical Iraqi is very appreciative of all the US has done for them. Then again, I have a sampling error in my survey too. :p

I'm guessing what he meant is that the soldiers feel betrayed because all anyone sees is the awful stuff going on, like AbuGhraib, bombings, and soldiers dying. No one hears about the good things, like the Baghdad water treatment plant, the rebuilt hospitals, the rebuilt schools, etc. And the soldiers (at least that this guy talked to) are blaming Bush for the lack of "happy" information. So they're blaming the Bush administration for not promoting the good things. Interestingly enough, when I told my husband last night, he said there was a piece on NPR yesterday morning about the same topic, with the same information. I didn't hear it, though, so you'll have to look it up yourselves.

Perhaps someone has already pointed this out, but dictionary.com defines a coup d'etat as "The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority." Based on that definition, I think we may already have had one. :D

coup d'etat as "The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority." Based on that definition, I think we may already have had one.
Based on what information?

Perhaps someone has already pointed this out, but dictionary.com defines a coup d'etat as "The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority." Based on that definition, I think we may already have had one. :D

Let me see....NO!

For some reason I feel that this picture applies to this thread.

John Kerry in rare form.

I'm guessing what he meant is that the soldiers feel betrayed because all anyone sees is the awful stuff going on, like AbuGhraib, bombings, and soldiers dying. No one hears about the good things, like the Baghdad water treatment plant, the rebuilt hospitals, the rebuilt schools, etc. And the soldiers (at least that this guy talked to) are blaming Bush for the lack of "happy" information. So they're blaming the Bush administration for not promoting the good things. Interestingly enough, when I told my husband last night, he said there was a piece on NPR yesterday morning about the same topic, with the same information. I didn't hear it, though, so you'll have to look it up yourselves.

Two words for you, Elara... FREE PRESS.

Bush cannot control the media, and the media has no desire to portray anything related to Iraq as a success. Now, I'm sure you understand that... I'm just not sure why our soldiers don't...

Two words for you, Elara... FREE PRESS.

Bush cannot control the media, and the media has no desire to portray anything related to Iraq as a success. Now, I'm sure you understand that... I'm just not sure why our soldiers don't...


As a former part of the media, I can tell you it works both ways. The more press releases you send out on a certain subject, the more coverage it's going to get. The bigger deal you make out of something, the more attention it's going to get. Ignore it, and so will the press. So in some ways, it does fall on what the government does.

As Lufa mentioned, most of the American public can't even summon the will to vote, much less participate in a revolution. Apathy, not radicalism, is the problem. We have revolutions on a regular basis -- they're called elections.

The liberals see the Bush administration as enemies, and believe that they are taking basic human rights away "without due process." They are so pissed about it, and so irrational and extreme in general (many of them that is) that I could see them going off the edge when Bush wins again this year, especially if it is another electoral but not popular win, or other unusual circumstances.

Here is an article from today that echoes my view:

Going apoplectic
Charles Krauthammer

August 27, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Upon losing a game at the 1925 Baden-Baden tournament, Aaron Nimzowitsch, the great chess theoretician and a superb player, knocked the pieces off the board, jumped on the table and screamed, ``How can I lose to this idiot?''

Nimzowitsch may have lived decades ago in Denmark, but had the soul of a modern American Democrat. After all, Democrats have been saying much the same -- with similar body language -- ever since the erudite Adlai Stevenson lost to the syntactically challenged Eisenhower in 1952. They said it again when they lost to that supposed simpleton Reagan. Twice, would you believe. With George W. Bush, they are at it again, and equally apoplectic.

Actually, this time around, even more apoplectic. The Democrats' current disdain for George Bush reminds me of another chess master, Efim Bogoljubov, who once said, ``When I am White, I win because I am White'' -- White moves first and therefore has a distinct advantage -- ``when I am Black, I win because I am Bogoljubov.'' John Kerry is a man of similar vanity -- intellectual and moral -- and that spirit thoroughly permeates the Democratic Party.

Democrats feel a mixture of horror and contempt for the huddled masses -- so bovine, so benighted, so besotted with talk radio -- who made a king of an empty-headed movie star (Reagan, long before Arnold) and inexplicably want the Republicans' current nitwit leader to have a second term.

Historians will have a field day trying to fathom the depths of detestation that the Democrats are carrying into this campaign. Vanity is only part of it. What else is at play? First, and most obviously, revenge. Democrats have convinced themselves that Bush stole the last election. They cannot bear suffering not just a bad presidency but an illegitimate one.

Moreover, against all expectations, it turned out to be a consequential presidency too. Bush was not the mild-mannered Gerald Ford-like Republican he was expected to be -- transitional and minor. He turned out to be quite the revolutionary, most especially in his radical reordering of American foreign policy. A usurper is merely offensive; a consequential usurper is intolerable.

But that is still not enough to account for the level of venom today. It is not often that a losing presidential candidate (Al Gore) compares the man who defeated him to both Hitler and Stalin. It is not often that a senior party leader (Edward Kennedy) accuses a sitting president of starting a war (``cooked up in Texas'') in order to gain political advantage for his re-election.

The loathing goes far beyond the politicians. Liberals as a body have gone quite around the twist. I count one all-star rock tour, three movies, four current theatrical productions and five best sellers (a full one-third of the New York Times list) variously devoted to ridiculing, denigrating, attacking and devaluing this president, this presidency and all who might, God knows why, support it.

How to explain? With apologies to Dr. Freud, I propose the Pressure Cooker Theory of Hydraulic Release.

The hostility, resentment, envy and disdain, all superheated in Florida, were not permitted their natural discharge. Came 9/11 and a lid was forced down. How can you seek revenge for a stolen election by a nitwit usurper when all of a sudden we are at war and the people, bless them, are rallying around the flag and hailing the commander in chief? With Bush riding high in the polls, with flags flying from pickup trucks (many of the flags, according to Howard Dean, Confederate), the president was untouchable.

The Democrats fell unnaturally silent. For two long, agonizing years, they had to stifle and suppress. It was the most serious case of repression since Freud's Anna O. went limp. The forced deference nearly killed them. And then, providentially, they were saved. The clouds parted and bad news rained down like manna: WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Joe Wilson and, most important, continued fighting in Iraq.

Stripped of his halo, the president's ratings went down. The spell was broken. He was finally once again human and vulnerable. With immense relief, the critics let loose.

The result has been volcanic. The subject of one prominent new novel is whether George W. Bush should be assassinated. This is all quite unhinged. Good God. What if Bush is re-elected? If they lose to him again, Democrats will need more than just consolation. They'll need therapy.

edit: oops, forgot the link

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20040827.shtml