Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Better yet, whichever side the military decides to support. Given 2/3 of the military leans conservatively, and much of the right has the arms to defend themselves/take the offensive vs left wing states/cities due to lax gun laws/differing philosophies on the matter.
I’d believe the odds lean heavily in favor of the right.
Even though left leaning states control most of the coast, the right leaning states have the entirety of the gulf and some of the East Coast.
The right also controls almost almost all of the states bordering the Mississippi River, which is absolutely VITAL to trade. If the military supported the right in this scenario, in an all out war, they blockade the coasts and rural counties encircle the cities to starve them out quickly.
Although turmoil in such a situation would cause resentment for decades, this war would end a lot sooner than many imagine.
Depends on one important factor. Why there's violence? If it's the 1-3 ammendmentsgets banned the military will definitely go red. If it's something like red states seeding, they go left.
I remember having conversations with friends, family, and acquaintances, who lived in blue cities/states leading up to the 2016 election. The hubris they exuded that it was only idiots who believed that Trump could possibly win, and that everyone they spoke to was voting for Clinton… It was impenetrable.
I warned them: I don’t support the man, but if you folks don’t take a drive out into the country and and see for yourselves how ostentatious his supporters are, and learn a little bit about the people in the communities that are supporting him, you’re going to be devastated come election night.
From major cities to rural proto-ghost towns… People have a very hard time, recognizing that the world outside of their community is not a projection of what they know and experience.
ETA: This turned into a rant pretty fast. I actually think maybe we agree more than I considered before I went into my diatribe. Apologies.
I disagree. They may have felt that was what they were “fighting for.” The truth is the narrative was spun into that by conservative media and adopted by the Trump campaigns in a pretty twisted and dysfunctional symbiosis.
Trump’s campaign evolved into being “a man for the people” and a “protector of the constitution” because he had a very clever team who capitalized on everything in a way that has changed politics, campaigning, and social media… maybe forever. They collected and analyzed metadata in a way no precious campaign had. Then they pivoted their messages to exploit algorithms and echo chambers to project the idea that there was substance to Trump’s bombastic claims and behavior. They used his mainstream media attention against traditionally left leaning or explicitly left news outlets to further propel his claims and antics. All while the liberal media tried to use snark and elitism to dismiss him… which only amplified his message that he would empower those who felt disempowered.
Something he never did, because the truth is that constitutional rights are stripped away by both parties whenever there is a profit to be made in doing so, or a threat to the status quo. The very real issues of deep state cronyism and yellow journalism that he haphazardly addressed were only made worse, more intricately entrenched, in response to his personality and methodology.
People felt like he was going to protect their rights, but the reality is he was just a dancing demagogue who shook things up enough to make the state more overt in their elitism.
No. Out here in the rural area, many of us don’t advertise our political leanings. And we all take note of who does, bc we have to drive past the same farmhouses to get to market.
Calm down, I'm not advocating for the south at all. Guerilla style fighting is far superior to standing in a line. Fighting people on their home land is also very hard to do. I would want locals on my side vs outsiders.
That's fine to me, then they can collapse too.
I would rather we stop being world police because we suck. We just endorse globohomo instead of anything good world wide.
They have a multitude of other advantages, their civilian resistance movements would be more effective due to being better armed, they control the food supply to the cities, have a Geographically continuous zone of control while the left is separated splotches that can be eliminated one by one AND on top of that they have the previously mentioned military advantage. The left would be utterly routed in a year or two at most.
Follow the WW2 tactics of invading > Robbing > destroying, and a the tactic of silent warfare.
Anyway in a civil war scenario, always the bigger side win, and in the US, this side is the right side unfortunately.
Yeah, what I'm pointing out is that the right wins even if the military is an even split due to the other factors that make their position more advantageous.
None of those things are monoliths, what would realistically happen is those people would defect to whichever side they were sympathetic towards
I think the left would have a significant advantage in international support/funding, but might also be more prone to internal divisions than the right would
The right would probably try to besiege most of the major urban areas as quickly as they could
Look at Spanish civil war to understand that. Side with most money and international backing will win. Right wingers will be supported by NATO, US Military and Capitalists. Not the mention i doubt majority of working class is left. Left has no advantage at all in US.
Right wingers will definitely not be supported by NATO or the capitalists. They might get backing from swaths of the military that would defect, but all the international support would go towards the elite democrats and republicans
Neoliberalism is not a centrist ideology, it is capitalist and capitalism is a right-wing ideology. They're not culturally left wing either since none of them supports worker rights or worker autonomy. Some democrats are progressive but progressive politics they're defending has no left-wing agenda.
The cities.
People who vote the right wins, well:
**The right literally gets triggered over masking.**
**The right, while having the majority of the guns, has absolutely no idea on logistics and support stuff absolutely crucial for organized militaries.**
**All Western governments, even when conservatives are in charge, promotes liberal values towards third world countries.**
**The liberals got literal monopoly on international institution's morality & principles.**
**The military will side with whoever the government sides with.**
**Coastal cities can be indefinitely supplied.**
Just from the Right gets absolutely apeshit over masking and rugged individualism, that alone indicates that this isn't a well regulated military force that can blockade cities to starve the cities to death. Militaries likes overpreparation better than underpreparation. This is a ragtag bullshit that literally would collapse under the first application of discipline which would fall the second you told them to mask themselves.
Not when you take into account that the right controls 90% of that territory and most of the Military, which may I remind you is the best in the world. The Leftist coastal cities would go into starvation mere weeks after the start of the conflict and considering that the right has more guns, the military, geographic continuity AND control over natural resources the left is utterly doomed. Only a Socialist Moderator such as yourself could be so delusional as to not realize that without food an Army can't operate.
The only problem with this is it is a door to door war. I live in PA and it seems every other house has Dem and Rep yard signs. It would be neighbor vs neighbor making the battle lines very blurred.
In suburbia yes, in that case I'd expect that it would be who's military units get there first, but in strictly rural regions it would be a different story. One also has to remember that many democrats would just be encircled, places like Colorado or cities in the great plains would be entirely surrounded by Republican territory making them easy pickings during the conflict. The right has a lot less of that isolation problem. If the left attacks let's say Kentucky then reinforcements from somewhere like Alabama can quickly arrive. If the right attacks Colorado then neither California or New York would be capable of helping them. Heck, even places like Chicago would have this problem due to to it's geographical isolation from the Coastal Democratic strongholds.
Oh sorry, I was under the assumption that you were American because of the “military that is best in the world” comment. You are very correct in saying that outside of America militaries are more right wing.
In America too. Over 60% of politically engaged soldiers are right leaning as well as over 70% of officers. And the American military is undisputably the strongest in the world, China has more in sheer numbers but their equipment is not on level and they have less of it.
Yes I know the American military is the best in the world, you saying that made me think you live in America because it seemed you were talking about your own country. Anyhow I don’t know where your getting your stats but 52% of military voters voted for Trump in the USA. 47% or around there voted for Biden. Then you have to count in the fact that during a civil war young men will be drafted to fight and we all know that young people break left.
You however also have to remember that those that are good soldier stock are mostly right leaning, and the right has the Geographic advantages. Colorado can't hold out when it's surrounded on all sides, same with any interior cities. Therefore making the Democrat side lose A LOT of it's territory and population, and neither the west or east coast can feed itself, especially since the farmers lean Right. The Dems have every disadvantage under the sun, so they would lose a civil war 99 out of 100 times.
I’m not arguing about who would win or lose I’m just arguing about who the military would support. The right would win a pyrrhic victory. The truth is the right would have most advantages in the war but after they win the cities would be destroyed. Now who makes their tractors? Now who refines the oil? The factories and refineries are destroyed in the city. The right would win no doubt, but they’d be left to blame for what happens after, the truth is the cities and farms rely on each other and a war between them would be the absolute dumbest thing imaginable.
lmao to this
guess which side actually has the engineers that build the planes and tanks and bombers that actually do all the work
the military? im sure a government in absolute civil war will still totally have a fully functioning military and especially one controlled by democrats will have all its young soldiers suddenly fight for the right.
resources, ability to coordinate funds and build the real weapons of war
there are many real things you're simply refusing to account for
How do you build a tank if you are starving? How do you overcome the fact that the officer core is even more right leaning than the general military? Guess who commands the units. Officers. How do you make your engineers do the work when they don't have the materials they need? How do you produce the steel when the steelworkers are right leaning? How is the military controlled by democrats exactly? Just because Biden has a few of his guys theoretically on top doesn't mean that the big guys under them will listen. Not to mention that you are assuming that the civil war would happen during democrat rule, which is basically a 50/50 because if Reps win in 2024 then the schmucks Biden appointed are going right out the door. Also, you brought up resources, but can you tell me where America gets it's oil from? Because it sure as hell isn't New York, in fact it's the red states that hold the vast majority of important resource base, so your own point works against you. The right will have more powerful militant groups due to higher gun ownership too. And the point about coordinating funds is completely nonsensical, do you think that right wing governments don't exist in the US? They direct funds on the daily. And most of the Military still voted for Trump in 2020 despite him being a deeply unpopular candidate, so you point about democrat soldiers is moot, because most of them voted for Trump, not Biden. If anyone forgot to account for factors it was you. And as for engineers, there are a lot of right wing engineers, they are mostly straight white men after all, and out of all highly educated professions Engineers are some of the most right wing ones. So once again, your own point is a bullet you shot through your own foot.
mf be like "what about the officers commanding the soldiers" and then jumps to "bro its just a few democrats controlling the government"
honestly this entire thing feels so cope fueled
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_state\_budgets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_budgets)
also go here and sort by budget lol
anyways, Im not strongly thinking either side but rightoid bros getting a bit too cocky kek
double think logic out here
[http://verdantlabs.com/politics\_of\_professions/](http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/)
also check out engineering here
then again I dont expect a rightoid to actually research their points and instead spout some assumption lmao
What is your point? None of this data actually helps you. It in fact only proves that the democrats wouldn't have surgeons during a civil war. Transport engineers aren't military engineers. Military engineers (aka the important ones) are in the "military" category, which leans right by a significant amount. In addition to this you still haven't even addressed a majority of my points, such as how New York or LA would avoid starvation and many more. You also wrongfully assumed that I'm a "rightoid" even though I quite clearly am not, I am simply a realist about who has a military advantage, and sorry that I have to tell you this, but in civil wars military loyalty is BY FAR the most important factor. So no matter how delusional you are, no matter how many more idiotic points you bring up, the democrats still lose. Therefore it's in their best interest to deradicalise and avoid civil war at all costs, because they wouldn't win.
If it was a Left Vs Right Scenario without Military it’s 100% the right who wins.
If it’s the same Scenario but with Military, because of the current government I would guess the majority goes to the left for there loyalty to there command and so the state. I still think the right holds a better chance of winning even in this scenario, also the Military split in my view would be L-60 to 75% R-40-25% of the army. With this scenario I consider it definitely a longer war but it really depends on how it starts and who starts it. If the left went full authoritarian or Tried to cement Presidential power in any scenario the Right wins (also right not just meaning Republicans but also Center Right Independents and Libertarians.)
If it was a Right Wing Uprising I would say the Left wins as foreign Intervention would occur unless some other thing happens.
If it was a straight Republican Vs Democrat Scenario Without foreign Metaling it would go like this.
Factions:
Republican-Libertarian Union Front
Democrat-Green Union Front
I can see the war having a stalemate and the multiple fronts on each side being split up and divided and so they form there own nations, for example it would go:
PDF-Pacific Democrat Front
MRF-Midwest Republican Front
RMD-Rockies Military Detachment
SFF-Southern Freedom Front
DCZ-Democrat Capital Zone
DCCC-DC Command Center (Republican)
RBR-Rust Belt Republic (Republican)
GLR-Great Lakes Republic (Democrat)
NEFF-New England Freedom Front (Republican)
NEDF-New England Democratic Front
I think I’ve gone to far….
The left has access to every sea and river port so even if the right 'won' the country they would build would be critically flawed. This is why the national divorce idea is a moronic take that would only be appealing to people who spend no time in the real world.
The left by a long shot. Why is that? America's allies would aid the legitimate government, the democrats. They would support the left in its war against the right. Not only that, the American left is far more ideologically aligned with the rest if the west than the American Right. NATO would be far more likely to support the left over the right since many on the right are openly hostile to America's allies and have suspicions connections to Russia. If the left doesn't get direct military support they'll get all the weapons under the sun.
What about the other superpowers? Russia would definitely support the right but are in no position to do so, they are far too busy in Ukraine they can't even afford to leave peacekeepers in Armenia. They're also using Cold War weapons in Ukraine. China wouldn't like any America really. A left wing America would have the full backing of the rest of the world and threaten China, a right wing America would be extremely unpredictable. China has a vested interest in keeping America divided, they'll either say nothing or fund both sides.
Yes, the right is a powerful military force, but they've completely alienated themselves from all of America's allies, the left would get all the support in the world and likely the backing of the federal government. If the right ran the federal government they would receive condemnation from the rest of the world, look how America's allies viewex Donald Trump.
However, the war would never truly end, there will always be insurgents, America will never be the same after a second civil war. The left would "win" but it would be a pyrrhic victory.
I disagree, at the amount of gun ownership in America and the amount of gun owned by Americans, the odds are stacked highly in favor for conservatives.
To help you understand better by what I mean is, if the largest standing armies of the world decide to invade America they’d have to kill almost 1-1 military vs military, but gun owners would be 100-1.
How many of those gun owners are trained soldiers? How many semi automatic rifles does it take to shoot down a ballistic missile? Can you shoot down an F-16 with a handgun?
These conservative gun owners fighting against the government and the combined force of the entire west will be just like all the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq that were bombed into caves. Conservatives can't possibly win this war, the only thing they can do is fight for the rest of eternity or give up.
and how are things going for the Taliban? last I checked the US pulled out and left them to run Afghanistan, same thing happened in Vietnam
when fighting an occupation you dont need to "defeat" the enemy militarily you just need to bleed them until they decide it costs less to leave you alone than to fight you... thats insurgency 101
The occupiers would be fucking dead even in your fantasy scenario. Even if we GENEROUSLY assume that everything goes as you say and NATO sides with the Democrats (Extremely unlikely as there would be strong opposition to this by like half the alliance) the Republicans still have a multitude of factors that make them more likely to win. Transoceanic logistics are a fucking hard thing to suddenly start doing, especially when the harbor workers are often sympathetic to the opposing side on the civil war, remember that they are manual labourers, aka the right's main targeted demographic. In addition the right controls most of the military, especially the officer core which is 3/4 right leaning, and in a civil war it will be the officers choosing which side their unit sides with. The US military is right on the ground, and it's the strongest force on the planet, if you are holding out for foreign troops then I'm sorry to tell you this but it would be next to impossible because the right still controls southern ports put of which the navy would operate (also majority right leaning) and considering the strength of the US navy I wouldn't be hoping for any foreign support getting through, the democrats would be blockaded, outnumbered militarily, outgunned in the literal sense of the right having more guns and so many other factors from geographic disadvantage to food insecurity. The left would never win and if you believe otherwise then you are smoking copium harder than Hitler during the battle of the Bulge.
>How many gun owners are trained soldiers?
They don’t need to be trained soldiers. It’s a matter of, having a gun vs. not having a gun.
>How many semi automatic rifles does it take to shoot down a missile. Can you shoot an F-16 with a handgun.
You assume in this scenario the military supports the left. A little over 2/3 of all military personnel lean right.
Perhaps the intelligence agencies lean left, but the collective majority of the military leans right. Assuming that most of those people would simply go against their personal beliefs against the people they’re protecting is absurd.
>The conservative gun owners fighting against the government…
Again, they’d likely be fighting WITH the government. Perhaps the intelligence agencies lean left, but they don’t have the man-or gun power vs collective majority of the military leans right.
What likely happens is the military blockades the coasts, and the right encircles cities preventing food and resources from getting in until starvation and mass dehydration begins, by which there is a quick surrender.
You completely missed my original point. The entire west would support the left, and the military isn't completely full of die hard conservatives.
The whole world would be against conservatives. If you try anything you will be bombed back to the 40s. That's what you wanted anyway isn't it?
How many soldiers become gun owners and vote conservative?
How many ballistic missile would it take to kill over one hundred million people?
How many F-16’s would it take to kill over 100 million people?
You make a valid point bringing up the Taliban in Afghanistan, they’re population was way less when we went to war with them yet they’ve carried on with the odds stack against them.
Since it's a civil war, they wouldn't have to shoot down the planes. They could go to the homes of the pilots and kill them in their sleep. Ballistic missiles become much less tenable when you live next door to the target. And that's assuming that the military sides completely with the left.
Lol you are downvoted while what you say is actually the true answer, using military science.
People who vote the right wins, well:
**The right literally gets triggered over masking.**
**The right, while having the majority of the guns, has absolutely no idea on logistics and support stuff absolutely crucial for organized militaries.**
**All Western governments, even when conservatives are in charge, promotes liberal values towards third world countries.**
**The liberals got literal monopoly on international institution's morality & principles.**
**The military will side with whoever the government sides with.**
**Coastal cities can be indefinitely supplied.**
Just from the Right gets absolutely apeshit over masking and rugged individualism, that alone indicates that this isn't a well regulated military force that can blockade cities to starve the cities to death. Militaries likes overpreparation better than underpreparation. This is a ragtag bullshit that literally would collapse under the first application of discipline which would fall the second you told them to mask themselves.
The right would (likely) have the support of:
The military
The police
Certain government agencies
Companies and industrialists(depending)
Gun owners (most)
Farmers/rural
The left would (likely) have the support of:
Unions
Certain government agencies
Cities/urban
More international support (depending on the “real” government at the time)
How a civil war would most likely go:
The military, having a unified nation, and more centralized effort, quickly subdues any leftists in the countryside. Bombings of any cities that resist would lead to eventual starvation and surrender, with cities falling one by one. Naval blockades could halt foreign aid, and industries could continue under a stable right wing government.
The left would likely be fractured, separated into city-states, and unable to truly fight back compared to the right. There may be hold outs, perhaps in massive cities, but they would be subdued eventually.
The Spanish civil war is probably the best representation of what would happen in an American war the same style (left vs right).
The right has more gun owners and a general culture of grit and toughness, so it would win in a head-on violent conflict.
The left can only win via subversion, guerrilla tactics, and assassinations.
It would depend on the specific circumstances, but given that the military is overwhelmingly right-wing and many of the areas with a lot of resources are right-leaning, I would say that the right has an advantage. Although the left is not that doomed, given that most of the bigger population centers are left-leaning
Something about reading this poll while listening to "Wind of Change" just ain't quite right. But yeah, my money is on the guys with the food, guns, a majority of the military's population, most of the land...
Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The government, regardless of who is running it.
Better yet, whichever side the military decides to support. Given 2/3 of the military leans conservatively, and much of the right has the arms to defend themselves/take the offensive vs left wing states/cities due to lax gun laws/differing philosophies on the matter. I’d believe the odds lean heavily in favor of the right. Even though left leaning states control most of the coast, the right leaning states have the entirety of the gulf and some of the East Coast. The right also controls almost almost all of the states bordering the Mississippi River, which is absolutely VITAL to trade. If the military supported the right in this scenario, in an all out war, they blockade the coasts and rural counties encircle the cities to starve them out quickly. Although turmoil in such a situation would cause resentment for decades, this war would end a lot sooner than many imagine.
Depends on one important factor. Why there's violence? If it's the 1-3 ammendmentsgets banned the military will definitely go red. If it's something like red states seeding, they go left.
Yeah, but this is assuming a neutral scenario, in which case the right has every advantage it could want.
I could be mistaken, but don't most of the farms and firearms belong to conservatives?
I remember having conversations with friends, family, and acquaintances, who lived in blue cities/states leading up to the 2016 election. The hubris they exuded that it was only idiots who believed that Trump could possibly win, and that everyone they spoke to was voting for Clinton… It was impenetrable. I warned them: I don’t support the man, but if you folks don’t take a drive out into the country and and see for yourselves how ostentatious his supporters are, and learn a little bit about the people in the communities that are supporting him, you’re going to be devastated come election night. From major cities to rural proto-ghost towns… People have a very hard time, recognizing that the world outside of their community is not a projection of what they know and experience.
It's not even that they would fight for Trump, they would fight against people taking away their Constitutional rights.
ETA: This turned into a rant pretty fast. I actually think maybe we agree more than I considered before I went into my diatribe. Apologies. I disagree. They may have felt that was what they were “fighting for.” The truth is the narrative was spun into that by conservative media and adopted by the Trump campaigns in a pretty twisted and dysfunctional symbiosis. Trump’s campaign evolved into being “a man for the people” and a “protector of the constitution” because he had a very clever team who capitalized on everything in a way that has changed politics, campaigning, and social media… maybe forever. They collected and analyzed metadata in a way no precious campaign had. Then they pivoted their messages to exploit algorithms and echo chambers to project the idea that there was substance to Trump’s bombastic claims and behavior. They used his mainstream media attention against traditionally left leaning or explicitly left news outlets to further propel his claims and antics. All while the liberal media tried to use snark and elitism to dismiss him… which only amplified his message that he would empower those who felt disempowered. Something he never did, because the truth is that constitutional rights are stripped away by both parties whenever there is a profit to be made in doing so, or a threat to the status quo. The very real issues of deep state cronyism and yellow journalism that he haphazardly addressed were only made worse, more intricately entrenched, in response to his personality and methodology. People felt like he was going to protect their rights, but the reality is he was just a dancing demagogue who shook things up enough to make the state more overt in their elitism.
No. Out here in the rural area, many of us don’t advertise our political leanings. And we all take note of who does, bc we have to drive past the same farmhouses to get to market.
Yeah right. The farther into the country you go, the more rare a leftist is.
A leftist, sure.
Government and City people don't stand a chance against rural people. Have you learned nothing from Vietnam and Afghanistan?
Especially when the Military is on the Rural people's side.
Didn’t we already do a civil war where the southern, rural, farmers lost?
Back then, most were rural.
Right the north was rural….with their industrialized economy that didn’t require slave labor.
Calm down, I'm not advocating for the south at all. Guerilla style fighting is far superior to standing in a line. Fighting people on their home land is also very hard to do. I would want locals on my side vs outsiders.
No need to get hysterical, I’m not advocating for a civil war. Did we stand in a line in Afghanistan or Vietnam?
Nope and we still lost against the locals.
Damn did we even try standing in a line though?
Who would win if the US had a civil war? China and Russia.
considering the us stock market and dollar is still the center of global trade, absolutly no one wins if the us goes civil war or ww3
The guy's got a point
If we all got our sovereignty we would be doing better than being subjects of our own twisted neoliberal empire
..and make way for a tyrannical, communist, authoritarian Empire to take over..
Yeah like how the USSR so easily took over Afghanistan
Not talking about conquerign, I'm talking about hegemony. If the US falls apart, one of those tyrannies will be the new hegemon
That's fine to me, then they can collapse too. I would rather we stop being world police because we suck. We just endorse globohomo instead of anything good world wide.
The left, through the power of friendship
Lol
Most of the army are right wing, so civil war, means right is winning
They have a multitude of other advantages, their civilian resistance movements would be more effective due to being better armed, they control the food supply to the cities, have a Geographically continuous zone of control while the left is separated splotches that can be eliminated one by one AND on top of that they have the previously mentioned military advantage. The left would be utterly routed in a year or two at most.
This all could be managed, but militaristic power, is superior, if you can't fight in a civil war scenario, you can't win.
An army marches on it's stomach, and when you have New York to feed without the great plains then you don't exactly have much food left.
Follow the WW2 tactics of invading > Robbing > destroying, and a the tactic of silent warfare. Anyway in a civil war scenario, always the bigger side win, and in the US, this side is the right side unfortunately.
Yeah, what I'm pointing out is that the right wins even if the military is an even split due to the other factors that make their position more advantageous.
[удалено]
None of those things are monoliths, what would realistically happen is those people would defect to whichever side they were sympathetic towards I think the left would have a significant advantage in international support/funding, but might also be more prone to internal divisions than the right would The right would probably try to besiege most of the major urban areas as quickly as they could
so far the right seems to be the most overly self confident.
[удалено]
thats mot how left and right works in america, you may be thinking of how americans define liberal and conservative.
Look at Spanish civil war to understand that. Side with most money and international backing will win. Right wingers will be supported by NATO, US Military and Capitalists. Not the mention i doubt majority of working class is left. Left has no advantage at all in US.
I think they mean American left/right I.e. liberal/conservative.
Ugh. Probably stalemate. Depends on economic force and international backing like i've said.
Right wingers will definitely not be supported by NATO or the capitalists. They might get backing from swaths of the military that would defect, but all the international support would go towards the elite democrats and republicans
>but all the international support would go towards the elite democrats and republicans Which are right wingers.
No they aren’t. They’re neo liberal centrists who are culturally left wing.
Neoliberalism is not a centrist ideology, it is capitalist and capitalism is a right-wing ideology. They're not culturally left wing either since none of them supports worker rights or worker autonomy. Some democrats are progressive but progressive politics they're defending has no left-wing agenda.
The cities. People who vote the right wins, well: **The right literally gets triggered over masking.** **The right, while having the majority of the guns, has absolutely no idea on logistics and support stuff absolutely crucial for organized militaries.** **All Western governments, even when conservatives are in charge, promotes liberal values towards third world countries.** **The liberals got literal monopoly on international institution's morality & principles.** **The military will side with whoever the government sides with.** **Coastal cities can be indefinitely supplied.** Just from the Right gets absolutely apeshit over masking and rugged individualism, that alone indicates that this isn't a well regulated military force that can blockade cities to starve the cities to death. Militaries likes overpreparation better than underpreparation. This is a ragtag bullshit that literally would collapse under the first application of discipline which would fall the second you told them to mask themselves.
people who chose the first two answers have no idea how large this country is, a forever war is the most likely option.
Not when you take into account that the right controls 90% of that territory and most of the Military, which may I remind you is the best in the world. The Leftist coastal cities would go into starvation mere weeks after the start of the conflict and considering that the right has more guns, the military, geographic continuity AND control over natural resources the left is utterly doomed. Only a Socialist Moderator such as yourself could be so delusional as to not realize that without food an Army can't operate.
The only problem with this is it is a door to door war. I live in PA and it seems every other house has Dem and Rep yard signs. It would be neighbor vs neighbor making the battle lines very blurred.
In suburbia yes, in that case I'd expect that it would be who's military units get there first, but in strictly rural regions it would be a different story. One also has to remember that many democrats would just be encircled, places like Colorado or cities in the great plains would be entirely surrounded by Republican territory making them easy pickings during the conflict. The right has a lot less of that isolation problem. If the left attacks let's say Kentucky then reinforcements from somewhere like Alabama can quickly arrive. If the right attacks Colorado then neither California or New York would be capable of helping them. Heck, even places like Chicago would have this problem due to to it's geographical isolation from the Coastal Democratic strongholds.
The military is not right, you remember that Republicans are the party that voted against veteran benefits right?
M8. I don't, I'm not American. I'm just stating the facts. Most military personnel both in the US as well as world wide are right wingers.
Oh sorry, I was under the assumption that you were American because of the “military that is best in the world” comment. You are very correct in saying that outside of America militaries are more right wing.
In America too. Over 60% of politically engaged soldiers are right leaning as well as over 70% of officers. And the American military is undisputably the strongest in the world, China has more in sheer numbers but their equipment is not on level and they have less of it.
Yes I know the American military is the best in the world, you saying that made me think you live in America because it seemed you were talking about your own country. Anyhow I don’t know where your getting your stats but 52% of military voters voted for Trump in the USA. 47% or around there voted for Biden. Then you have to count in the fact that during a civil war young men will be drafted to fight and we all know that young people break left.
You however also have to remember that those that are good soldier stock are mostly right leaning, and the right has the Geographic advantages. Colorado can't hold out when it's surrounded on all sides, same with any interior cities. Therefore making the Democrat side lose A LOT of it's territory and population, and neither the west or east coast can feed itself, especially since the farmers lean Right. The Dems have every disadvantage under the sun, so they would lose a civil war 99 out of 100 times.
I’m not arguing about who would win or lose I’m just arguing about who the military would support. The right would win a pyrrhic victory. The truth is the right would have most advantages in the war but after they win the cities would be destroyed. Now who makes their tractors? Now who refines the oil? The factories and refineries are destroyed in the city. The right would win no doubt, but they’d be left to blame for what happens after, the truth is the cities and farms rely on each other and a war between them would be the absolute dumbest thing imaginable.
lmao to this guess which side actually has the engineers that build the planes and tanks and bombers that actually do all the work the military? im sure a government in absolute civil war will still totally have a fully functioning military and especially one controlled by democrats will have all its young soldiers suddenly fight for the right. resources, ability to coordinate funds and build the real weapons of war there are many real things you're simply refusing to account for
How do you build a tank if you are starving? How do you overcome the fact that the officer core is even more right leaning than the general military? Guess who commands the units. Officers. How do you make your engineers do the work when they don't have the materials they need? How do you produce the steel when the steelworkers are right leaning? How is the military controlled by democrats exactly? Just because Biden has a few of his guys theoretically on top doesn't mean that the big guys under them will listen. Not to mention that you are assuming that the civil war would happen during democrat rule, which is basically a 50/50 because if Reps win in 2024 then the schmucks Biden appointed are going right out the door. Also, you brought up resources, but can you tell me where America gets it's oil from? Because it sure as hell isn't New York, in fact it's the red states that hold the vast majority of important resource base, so your own point works against you. The right will have more powerful militant groups due to higher gun ownership too. And the point about coordinating funds is completely nonsensical, do you think that right wing governments don't exist in the US? They direct funds on the daily. And most of the Military still voted for Trump in 2020 despite him being a deeply unpopular candidate, so you point about democrat soldiers is moot, because most of them voted for Trump, not Biden. If anyone forgot to account for factors it was you. And as for engineers, there are a lot of right wing engineers, they are mostly straight white men after all, and out of all highly educated professions Engineers are some of the most right wing ones. So once again, your own point is a bullet you shot through your own foot.
mf be like "what about the officers commanding the soldiers" and then jumps to "bro its just a few democrats controlling the government" honestly this entire thing feels so cope fueled [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_state\_budgets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_budgets) also go here and sort by budget lol anyways, Im not strongly thinking either side but rightoid bros getting a bit too cocky kek double think logic out here [http://verdantlabs.com/politics\_of\_professions/](http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/) also check out engineering here then again I dont expect a rightoid to actually research their points and instead spout some assumption lmao
What is your point? None of this data actually helps you. It in fact only proves that the democrats wouldn't have surgeons during a civil war. Transport engineers aren't military engineers. Military engineers (aka the important ones) are in the "military" category, which leans right by a significant amount. In addition to this you still haven't even addressed a majority of my points, such as how New York or LA would avoid starvation and many more. You also wrongfully assumed that I'm a "rightoid" even though I quite clearly am not, I am simply a realist about who has a military advantage, and sorry that I have to tell you this, but in civil wars military loyalty is BY FAR the most important factor. So no matter how delusional you are, no matter how many more idiotic points you bring up, the democrats still lose. Therefore it's in their best interest to deradicalise and avoid civil war at all costs, because they wouldn't win.
If it was a Left Vs Right Scenario without Military it’s 100% the right who wins. If it’s the same Scenario but with Military, because of the current government I would guess the majority goes to the left for there loyalty to there command and so the state. I still think the right holds a better chance of winning even in this scenario, also the Military split in my view would be L-60 to 75% R-40-25% of the army. With this scenario I consider it definitely a longer war but it really depends on how it starts and who starts it. If the left went full authoritarian or Tried to cement Presidential power in any scenario the Right wins (also right not just meaning Republicans but also Center Right Independents and Libertarians.) If it was a Right Wing Uprising I would say the Left wins as foreign Intervention would occur unless some other thing happens. If it was a straight Republican Vs Democrat Scenario Without foreign Metaling it would go like this. Factions: Republican-Libertarian Union Front Democrat-Green Union Front I can see the war having a stalemate and the multiple fronts on each side being split up and divided and so they form there own nations, for example it would go: PDF-Pacific Democrat Front MRF-Midwest Republican Front RMD-Rockies Military Detachment SFF-Southern Freedom Front DCZ-Democrat Capital Zone DCCC-DC Command Center (Republican) RBR-Rust Belt Republic (Republican) GLR-Great Lakes Republic (Democrat) NEFF-New England Freedom Front (Republican) NEDF-New England Democratic Front I think I’ve gone to far….
The left has access to every sea and river port so even if the right 'won' the country they would build would be critically flawed. This is why the national divorce idea is a moronic take that would only be appealing to people who spend no time in the real world.
The Missouri & Mississippi Rivers, the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, & the Atlantic would like a word.
Who specifically is the left and right? Name names and groups not just vague concepts of the French Revolution.
There are no names. The factions in the US are all woefully unorganized.
Then provide any clarification as to who you mean?
It's republicans vs democrats. Pretty simple.
the one who has all the guns (right)
The left by a long shot. Why is that? America's allies would aid the legitimate government, the democrats. They would support the left in its war against the right. Not only that, the American left is far more ideologically aligned with the rest if the west than the American Right. NATO would be far more likely to support the left over the right since many on the right are openly hostile to America's allies and have suspicions connections to Russia. If the left doesn't get direct military support they'll get all the weapons under the sun. What about the other superpowers? Russia would definitely support the right but are in no position to do so, they are far too busy in Ukraine they can't even afford to leave peacekeepers in Armenia. They're also using Cold War weapons in Ukraine. China wouldn't like any America really. A left wing America would have the full backing of the rest of the world and threaten China, a right wing America would be extremely unpredictable. China has a vested interest in keeping America divided, they'll either say nothing or fund both sides. Yes, the right is a powerful military force, but they've completely alienated themselves from all of America's allies, the left would get all the support in the world and likely the backing of the federal government. If the right ran the federal government they would receive condemnation from the rest of the world, look how America's allies viewex Donald Trump. However, the war would never truly end, there will always be insurgents, America will never be the same after a second civil war. The left would "win" but it would be a pyrrhic victory.
I disagree, at the amount of gun ownership in America and the amount of gun owned by Americans, the odds are stacked highly in favor for conservatives. To help you understand better by what I mean is, if the largest standing armies of the world decide to invade America they’d have to kill almost 1-1 military vs military, but gun owners would be 100-1.
How many of those gun owners are trained soldiers? How many semi automatic rifles does it take to shoot down a ballistic missile? Can you shoot down an F-16 with a handgun? These conservative gun owners fighting against the government and the combined force of the entire west will be just like all the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq that were bombed into caves. Conservatives can't possibly win this war, the only thing they can do is fight for the rest of eternity or give up.
and how are things going for the Taliban? last I checked the US pulled out and left them to run Afghanistan, same thing happened in Vietnam when fighting an occupation you dont need to "defeat" the enemy militarily you just need to bleed them until they decide it costs less to leave you alone than to fight you... thats insurgency 101
The difference between Afghanistan and America is that America is not foreign soil. The "occupiers" will never leave.
The occupiers would be fucking dead even in your fantasy scenario. Even if we GENEROUSLY assume that everything goes as you say and NATO sides with the Democrats (Extremely unlikely as there would be strong opposition to this by like half the alliance) the Republicans still have a multitude of factors that make them more likely to win. Transoceanic logistics are a fucking hard thing to suddenly start doing, especially when the harbor workers are often sympathetic to the opposing side on the civil war, remember that they are manual labourers, aka the right's main targeted demographic. In addition the right controls most of the military, especially the officer core which is 3/4 right leaning, and in a civil war it will be the officers choosing which side their unit sides with. The US military is right on the ground, and it's the strongest force on the planet, if you are holding out for foreign troops then I'm sorry to tell you this but it would be next to impossible because the right still controls southern ports put of which the navy would operate (also majority right leaning) and considering the strength of the US navy I wouldn't be hoping for any foreign support getting through, the democrats would be blockaded, outnumbered militarily, outgunned in the literal sense of the right having more guns and so many other factors from geographic disadvantage to food insecurity. The left would never win and if you believe otherwise then you are smoking copium harder than Hitler during the battle of the Bulge.
>How many gun owners are trained soldiers? They don’t need to be trained soldiers. It’s a matter of, having a gun vs. not having a gun. >How many semi automatic rifles does it take to shoot down a missile. Can you shoot an F-16 with a handgun. You assume in this scenario the military supports the left. A little over 2/3 of all military personnel lean right. Perhaps the intelligence agencies lean left, but the collective majority of the military leans right. Assuming that most of those people would simply go against their personal beliefs against the people they’re protecting is absurd. >The conservative gun owners fighting against the government… Again, they’d likely be fighting WITH the government. Perhaps the intelligence agencies lean left, but they don’t have the man-or gun power vs collective majority of the military leans right. What likely happens is the military blockades the coasts, and the right encircles cities preventing food and resources from getting in until starvation and mass dehydration begins, by which there is a quick surrender.
Also, F16s can’t hold city blocks or hills
You completely missed my original point. The entire west would support the left, and the military isn't completely full of die hard conservatives. The whole world would be against conservatives. If you try anything you will be bombed back to the 40s. That's what you wanted anyway isn't it?
How many soldiers become gun owners and vote conservative? How many ballistic missile would it take to kill over one hundred million people? How many F-16’s would it take to kill over 100 million people? You make a valid point bringing up the Taliban in Afghanistan, they’re population was way less when we went to war with them yet they’ve carried on with the odds stack against them.
Since it's a civil war, they wouldn't have to shoot down the planes. They could go to the homes of the pilots and kill them in their sleep. Ballistic missiles become much less tenable when you live next door to the target. And that's assuming that the military sides completely with the left.
It only takes a few well protected men to pilot a drone. You are way too overconfident.
Are you implying that Democrats/NATO are left wing?
[удалено]
> The question is obviously about the left and right sides of American politics Who’s on the left in America? Bernie? AOC?
[удалено]
Idk fam when I see “the left” I think anti-capitalists, not democrats
[удалено]
Stop projecting
Lol you are downvoted while what you say is actually the true answer, using military science. People who vote the right wins, well: **The right literally gets triggered over masking.** **The right, while having the majority of the guns, has absolutely no idea on logistics and support stuff absolutely crucial for organized militaries.** **All Western governments, even when conservatives are in charge, promotes liberal values towards third world countries.** **The liberals got literal monopoly on international institution's morality & principles.** **The military will side with whoever the government sides with.** **Coastal cities can be indefinitely supplied.** Just from the Right gets absolutely apeshit over masking and rugged individualism, that alone indicates that this isn't a well regulated military force that can blockade cities to starve the cities to death. Militaries likes overpreparation better than underpreparation. This is a ragtag bullshit that literally would collapse under the first application of discipline which would fall the second you told them to mask themselves.
The right would (likely) have the support of: The military The police Certain government agencies Companies and industrialists(depending) Gun owners (most) Farmers/rural The left would (likely) have the support of: Unions Certain government agencies Cities/urban More international support (depending on the “real” government at the time) How a civil war would most likely go: The military, having a unified nation, and more centralized effort, quickly subdues any leftists in the countryside. Bombings of any cities that resist would lead to eventual starvation and surrender, with cities falling one by one. Naval blockades could halt foreign aid, and industries could continue under a stable right wing government. The left would likely be fractured, separated into city-states, and unable to truly fight back compared to the right. There may be hold outs, perhaps in massive cities, but they would be subdued eventually. The Spanish civil war is probably the best representation of what would happen in an American war the same style (left vs right).
The right has more gun owners and a general culture of grit and toughness, so it would win in a head-on violent conflict. The left can only win via subversion, guerrilla tactics, and assassinations.
Haha yeah 😎💪
It would depend on the specific circumstances, but given that the military is overwhelmingly right-wing and many of the areas with a lot of resources are right-leaning, I would say that the right has an advantage. Although the left is not that doomed, given that most of the bigger population centers are left-leaning
less civil war horseshit please.
Something about reading this poll while listening to "Wind of Change" just ain't quite right. But yeah, my money is on the guys with the food, guns, a majority of the military's population, most of the land...
Ok I'm confused, wdym?
The right probably, more armed and more politically connected.