Who benefits more from a second civil war in the US?

[SolitarySolace]

My opinion, the woke would benefit more form a second civil war because they hate the country and want to see it destroy itself.

The Woke

MAGA

[Anonymous]

Nobody really wins, A war represents the inability of at least one party to leave the other alone. And thus an effort by that other party to make such crusading prohibitively expensive.
If the central goverment wasn't already struggling to pay it's dept the party that controls it without real opposition would run to town with that goverment.

If it is the woke, their progressive agenda will further compromise their ability to wage war. If it is the MAGA right... well there won't be much left of the woke in such a case.

Either way your talking about an enormous loss in money and people.

1: if we remain united a precedent that will enable a future dictatorship. By future political factions who want as much control.
2: If we split up on the other hand much of the gains from free trade of people and goods & services will be reduced. Prosperity, democracy, and freedom however will be secure as it will always survive somewhere reminding others of what it is and its value.

[Snakeyes7]

Whoever wins

[Snakeyes7]

Actually, I take that back. The woke will win because sparking the war is their win condition. Once someone strikes then the government can enact emergency powers and all of the people who oppose the machine will have their rights will vanish in thin air. We need to call out to the people who want violence for the feds that they are.

[monorprise]

Nobody really wins, as if it comes down to war and shooting each-other it will mean we could not peacefully coexist and therefore will lose a great deal of blood, treasure, trying to force the other to leave us alone, or in the case of progressive bend to our will.

[Snakeyes7]

@monorprise I mean that Texas will start off at a massive disadvantage. The violence is what the woke wants and it doesn't matter who actually strikes first, the media will say Texas started it. This will give the government justification to go full Canada if not worse.

At the end of the day, you're right, no one wins. No matter who wins that war, everyone's lives will be never be the same again, mostly for the worst

[BCA6010]

The radical left achieves a significant 'victory' simply by a civil war starting, or really even being seriously talked about because it gives them justification for all of the abuses of power they desperately want.

The right doesn't win anything in that scenario without actually achieving what would basically be a military victory that ends with the leaders and instigators from the left being put behind bars, and even so, can't be won without inflicting damage to the country that wouldn't be repaired within our lifetimes. In other words, it wouldn't even be a win so much as a salvage.

[monorprise]

Technically for the right to win a conflict they simply have to make it impossible for he left to govern them.

If the right leave all levers of power to the left as they did in the prior war then @BCA6010 your right, the left will go to town building an enormous state.

Part of the problem with this strategy for the left is the existing state is already the largest goverment in the history of the world and bankrupt.

The cost of such a war would be prohibitive to maintain, to add an expanded welfare state on top of that would cause an even greater level of financial stress on their "union" goverment giving the right waging a insurgency an ever greater still long term advantage.

In 1861 the Federal goverment was tiny and only scratched the surface of what their economy could afford. The war pushed that to the limits, today our existing corrupt welfare state has already put the goverment on the limit all the time. As it has been for 40+ years maxing out what taxes it could collect driving ever higher dept year by year squeezing out other federal spending. Anytime we have to go beyond that such as COVID leads to large scale inflation.

throw in the precious position of the dollar as a reserve currency and we really can't afford to wage such a war longer than a few years at best.

[rigmarole]

Not Americans. Divide and conquer only benefits our enemies. If we are too busy fighting among ourselves, the world will be at war and will become expansionist and swallow up territory of weaker nations. Thus we will waste resources will they exterminate other populations and acquire new resources.

[rigmarole]

*and they will

[monorprise]

They might do that absence an America capable of stopping them.
Still @rigmarole I doubt it as Europe would step up. But I also don't think either side would see that as a compelling reason to give up their rights. So that they can continue to spend like crazy allegedly securing foreign lands.

[rigmarole]

@monorprise Europe has been infiltrated by the same lot financed by the WEF, and they are running the same game. They have their migrant waves of ISIS just like America does whom can be easily armed and set against the population. They have their installed socialist leadership, rigged elections, and policies being installed to starve and freeze the population to death. The primary difference is that American citizens are the world's largest army and have not been disarmed yet. Europe is in a worse situation, they can't step up to police the world. They have their own internal chaos that has been set upon them.

[monorprise]

@rigmarole European leaders will figure that out and find away to deal with the threats to themselves. Your right thou given their even more precarious economic and political situation they have created for themselves this might end in an unmitigated disaster.

Still better sooner rather than later for Europe as there might now still be enough Europeans left to deal with and salvage something of their countries.

Either way it really isn't America's problem and its foolish to think either side is going to give up what ever cause that would cause them to fight simply to keep fighting for the rest of the world.

[rigmarole]

@monorprise I’m not stating we should fight for the rest of the world. I’m stating our enemies benefit by us being distracted. If we are weakening ourselves in civil war, wasting life and resources while they are strengthening themselves, then eventually the balance of power changes and they can confront us head on. It’s about fighting for our own welfare.

[monorprise]

@rigmarole
A civil war would be a disastrous move for its own right far more consequential to our own well being then anything the rest of the world does to us. As such we would only take for reasons far more consequential than the rest of the world is to us.

Put simply, it hardly matters if the CCP dominates most of the world if we have no freedom or home because of our own goverment.

[rigmarole]

@monorprisee The goal of Global Socialism is "total control" of the entire planet. It matters if territory is taken. While America is most important to me, if America is overpowered by consolidation of much of the world under the forces of evil, while we destroy ourselves internally we still end up fighting for our homeland in the end. Every country need to fight an internal political, economic, legal, and information war now to free themselves from infiltration, so that latter we don't have to fight the kinetic war.

[monorprise]

@rigmarole As true as what you say about the goals of Socialism, and the threat they will try to pose in every way. Remember at least the rules of warfare are not about raw numbers but the ability to destroy the enemy state. Raw numbers matter far less in the nuclear age.

Also consider the half life of a socialist state, Socialism is indeed evil because it enslaves men to other men, but its also evil because it doesn't work. Everyone who adopts it does so for lies or power and all of them invariably are on net more impoverished because of it.

Our 'enemies' as such today will only be in a position to challenge us to the extent they have abandoned socialism.

This is not to say that a weaker or dis-united States would not be less able to wield raw power against them. But that is only true if we are yourself not corrupted by the same and thus able to wield that power at all.
A country thus in theses respects is a all or nothing deal and in such circumstances Socialism is far easier to sell and maintain.

Case in point the modern Socialist security system was in fact tried in many states where it was in practice rejected by the population before FDR picked it up and instituted it as a federal ponzi scheme where it remains today miss-investing 15% of our life time income.. That is 15% of an average of $2.7 million dollars or ~ $400 thousand per person invested over the course of a life time.

[FunkyMonkee]

The people that make the weapons.
What's so civil about a war?
What are you supposed to do, walk up to someone and say, "Pardon me but, would you mind terribly if I killed you?"
"Why, no, old man. by all means, go right ahead. Here, let me hold your spare gun clip for you."?

[exitseven]

MAGA. They would get rid of a lot of the factions that are dragging America into bankruptcy. They would need to build a wall to keep the liberalsxoyt once they run out of food

[monorprise]

@exitseven It's possible if a real conservative has control of the federal goverment when it starts they could support such a conflict by drastically downsizing or getting rid of existing programs.
So that the money could instead be spend on defense and security.

That entirely depends on whom is in charge, someone like Mitch or to the left is likely to just further expand the national security state pushing us ever faster to the point of insolvency.

The abolition of many of theses programs would over time abolish woke as they make such an ideology disconnected from reality possible. The woke know this, that they can survive without the countless billions going to finance their army's via "community organizing", collage and state "education", "Arts" etc...

Realistically we would probably be better off negotiating an autonomy zone to let then "experiment" among the willing. This would teach the non-crazy ones just how bad the worse ideas in history really are. Building for a far stronger union.

[exitseven]

@monorprise I think that if Trump gets elected the Mitch Mcconnell part of the Republicsn party is done. any of them will retire including mitch. Republicans all need to be on the same page and stop the infighting. They will be much more effective if they all work together. The Bush/Cheney party is dead.

[DryGermanGuy]

China, Russia and Iran. How is this even a question?

[XXblack88]

I honestly think our politicians are the only ones who would benefit from a civil war

[milyjohn]

Politicians are nothing but useful idiots.
I shutter to think who's really in charge.

[XXblack88]

@milyjohn Idiots I agree with you useful not so much lol

[milyjohn]

That's the term communists give to idiots like Biden. (just before they put a bullet in their head)

[jahaims]

Rich people that are tricking the dummies into fighting

[JayBones]

Secessionists. There won't be a 2 sided civil war it will be between 3 and 5. I didn't move to Texas to stay in the Union.

[tfan1]

War is stupid. There are no winners only casualties.

[OtterMan68]

Weapons manufacturers

Undertakers

Body bag manufacturers

[lightbulb27]

Funeral homes...

China

[laly520]

enemies would benefit the most

[Pterodon]

MAGA we’re the ones with the guns

[LRSJame]

The woke

[Zestyassmf1997]

Everyone.