I think that kind of talk is rhetorical and attention grabbing, and not realistic.

A civil war would be two sides with competing views. What we have is one side, the uniparty state apparatus, which has captured 95% of the populace with the psyop of 'red vs blue'.

I see a revolution as a more likely outcome long term.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The American civil war was a failed revolution. It was states rights vs federal supremacy. A second American civil war would be the same conflict with only slightly different geographic lines.

Alternate view: there was no attempt to overthrow and abolish the federal government, only to separate from it. I wouldn't consider it a revolution but there's a degree to which this is an argument over semantics.

Same could be said for the first American revolution. They didn't seek to depose the king of England, just to separate from the crown.

This is true. Depends on your definition of the terms.

Nikki Haley must be very confused rn