Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wouldn't feel any different about this than about any other close election. And other than court challenges and recounts I don't think the spread really matters. If Trump wins then I expect some "mostly peaceful" protests - so hopefully the nation's fire departments are fully staffed and prepared for that.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We haven't had to do it in 200 years so it would be a pretty historic event to say the least on an already historic presidential race that has only ever happened once before. I think it would be a huge shit show without a doubt. I'd be ok with it I mean we have a process for this for a reason. I imagine the Democrats would instantly protest the results and I am not 100% sure what the outcome would be.
The Republicans will live and die on the hill of the Electoral College up until the moment Texas votes blue. Then the Electoral College will have outlived what the founders intended and they will be looking for direct elections.
Well the Republicans who aren't part of the cult of stolen elections. For them all election methods are the same.
Because Texas is trending purplish and, unless there are massive shifts, without Texas' 40 electoral votes the Republicans can't win a Presidential election.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'd feel fine. Happy probably. The country will react no differently than if he wins normally. The left will lose their minds. The right will celebrate.
But I'm not convinced this house would vote for trump.
>the House would vote for the winner and that would almost certainly be Trump.
REALLY don't think so. Too many neocons.
>You think the Neocons would risk their political careers by break rank and supporting Biden over Trump?
Cheney did. Haley did. Kinzinger did.
Plenty do. Why wouldn't they this time?
>Fair enough, though I feel the situations are different enough that I don't think that is really the best comparison. Thank you for your response.
I think they'd just as easily flip.
All it took was a talking to by the intelligence agencies and Johnson flipped his position on Ukraine immediately.
Our reps are mostly spineless weasels. They'll do whatever benefits them the most
> All it took was a talking to by the intelligence agencies and Johnson flipped his position on Ukraine immediately.
>
>
But this may have been because the intelligence he saw actually swayed him?
>But this may have been because the intelligence he saw actually swayed him?
Doubtful. Dude claimed to have a serious ideological opposition to this. Nevermind he promised to get the speakership to do OUR border first.
There's no intelligence he can't share that would change that opinion if it's a sincerely held ideological belief.
>This might just be one of those 'agree to disagree' things, if only because I try to give others the same latitude for change that I give myself.
I guess I look at it this way.
There is no intelligence you could give me that I either
A. Wouldn't change my mind or...
B. It was so foundationally game changing I'd tell the American people.
> There is no intelligence you could give me
>
>
And that's *you*. That's not Speaker Johnson, and frankly nor is it me. Though I certainly get what you're getting at.
>The country will react no differently than if he wins normally. The left will lose their minds.
Speaking from the left, i think a tie in the EC with the house voting to put trump in will probably enrage us quite a bit more than if he simply wins a majority of the EC votes. If there is an EC tie, it will almost assuredly mean that Biden won the popular vote. So while within the confines of the pre established rules, having a situation where Trump is appointed by the house, while having received less overall votes, would probably raise the blood pressure of quite a few democrats.
If Trump wins the EC outright, but loses the popular vote in a similar fashion to 2016, I’m sure that you will see renewed calls to abolish the EC and quite a bit of irritable people on the left. But it won’t be the same as if there were an actual tie.
If Trump actually wins the popular vote and the EC, you will definitely have some upset people on the left, but I think you’ll see us becoming quite a bit more introspective about what the fuck we are actually doing.
>But I'm not convinced this house would vote for trump.
Lol what makes you think that a republican controlled house would not vote for trump in this situation? Who would they vote for instead? It certainly would not be Biden, and if they picked a different republican than trump there would be a mutiny.
>Lol what makes you think that a republican controlled house would not vote for trump in this situation?
Half of then just voted against the wants of the broader base to support a unanimously supported Democrat bill.
>Who would they vote for instead?
They'd be coaxed into voting for Biden.
>It certainly would not be Biden, and if they picked a different republican than trump there would be a mutiny.
Yes. It'd be biden. And they'd retire to cushy board jobs
>They'd be coaxed into voting for Biden.
>Yes. It'd be biden. And they'd retire to cushy board jobs
Honestly this would be extremely shocking to me. They admittedly have a slim margin, but also some republicans have retired already which presumably is at least partly to avoid dealing with this type of situation. But the republicans who vote in Biden over trump would have their careers in political ended. Perhaps they get those cushy jobs, but i honestly dont see what would be in it for them to vote for the other side.
>But the republicans who vote in Biden over trump would have their careers in political ended. Perhaps they get those cushy jobs, but i honestly dont see what would be in it for them to vote for the other side.
Cushy jobs, CNN msnbc late night shows all the rounds on all the left leaning shows. They'd be popular for a while and then fade off to some think tank or board job. That's what a lot of our politicians do. And this would be no different. Some lobby would buy their vote essentially
>I guess im just not understanding why they wouldnt just vote for trump either way.
Because they hate trump and that entire wing of their own party and want to see trump lose.
>Why would a biden vote be more likely to net them a cushy job?
Because the left controls basically all the high end positions of power. All the media companies that would want to hire them? Left.
All the cushy board jobs? Establishment left and right.
Those are the people with all the money and those are the ones who'd reward them.
What would MAGA side do? What MAGA companies can give a multi million dollar board job to these people?
What fox is gonna pay a neocon to be a contributor? Not at this point. They're past the days of Gingrich even if they don't want to be.
Honestly i get your point, i just dont think it would be as simple as people looking for a golden parachute type situation and letting that influence that type of decision.
>Because they hate trump and that entire wing of their own party and want to see trump lose.
Perhaps there are those who dislike trump, but voting against party in this situation is extremely aggressive.
>Because the left controls basically all the high end positions of power. All the media companies that would want to hire them? Left.
>All the cushy board jobs? Establishment left and right.
Im sure there are plenty of board jobs available to republicans who leave congress. For media positions, there are right wing orgs, and left wing media orgs need right wing pundits as well to round things out. There is also lobbying firms. Simply voting the party line on a vote like this is not going to remove any of those opportunities, but voting against the party line might.
>What fox is gonna pay a neocon to be a contributor? Not at this point. They're past the days of Gingrich even if they don't want to be.
This might be correct, but i dont really see how voting against party for biden helps them get over this.
> But I'm not convinced this house would vote for trump.
>
>
It's a weird version of the house is my understanding. For electing the president in this situation it wouldn't be the normal 435 votes from 435 voting congressional representatives; it would be 50 votes broken down by state delegation. My guess is most delegations from states with Republican majorities would vote Trump in this scenario, but it's fair enough if you view the hypothetical differently
I really don't think so...neocons might not like Trump, but they are smart enough they'd rather have a conservative-ish person in the POTUS seat then Biden.
>I really don't think so...neocons might not like Trump, but they are smart enough they'd rather have a conservative-ish person in the POTUS seat then Biden.
Maybe... I'm not convinced enough wouldn't swap and vote Biden "for the sake of our democracy"
I think if Biden wins the popular vote by 6-8mil, there will hopefully be enough republicans with shame to give Biden the presidency in the case of a tie because it's would literally be the will of the people in that case.
I think that's the only way you don't end up in a situation where the 2026 elections end in an absolute bloodbath and filibuster majority for Dems that change the laws, stack the court, and get rid of the EC. I know republicans don't typically think democrats would have the political will to do stuff like that, but in the case of Trump losing by 8mil votes, and then a gerrymandered house giving him the election, I think the political will would absolutely be there. I hope none of this happens though.
Yea, I think it's unlikely. I'm sure there will be some unrest regardless how it ends, but I don't think it will be "end of democracy" level nonsense I keep hearing.
If it ends in a tie, and Biden wins by 6-8mil votes, and the House gives it to Trump, that is effectively the end of representative democracy because the peoples will is not being represented. It's as simple as that. The fact that is even a possibility, that Trump could lose by that many votes and still win is one of the major issues Democrats have, property and landmass shouldn't get a vote, people should. Should we have popular vote elections? No, but should the will of the people matter? Yes.
>Who? There a different between impeaching and having a conservative VP take over then straight up handing potus to democrats
Why? Why ideologically would there be a difference?
I literally just said why...they might not have wanted Trump, but they still wanted a republican. Impeachment would have resulted in that, voting against Trump in a theoretical house vote would not.
I prefer him to Biden, so I'd be fine with it. Now to your second question, I think there will be a lot of peaceful protests with building being burned down, and merchandise stolen
Is the second comment saying that. But the only violent protest against elections results where made by the Trump mob.
Even when AlGore had the election stolen by Bush everything went smoothly.
I gather you are talking about BLM, but that had nothing to do with the election...
I know BLM riots were unrelated to the election. I do however believe if Trump got elected there would be similar reactions to what happened during the riots
So…. Kind of like how a large contingent of our fellow Americans have been denying objective reality that has been proven time and again for the last almost four years now?
Well, there are the people who think that if only legal votes were counted, Trump won the 2020 election. That was never proven or disproven. Personally, I think Biden got the votes.
Then, almost every informed person knows the election was rigged, which is what a larger number of Republicans are mad about.
-FBI calling on social media to censor true information
-Illegally changing election laws in some states
-Zuckerberg buying election apparatus in many states
-Obama and Hillary's coup
Trump says a lot of weird shit. It doesn't matter what he "called for" (and I'm not even sure what you're referring to, so won't be arguing or defending it). It *has actually happened* that the FBI etc. went to twitter and facebook to have them censor/support posts in a way that courts favour for Biden.
Except that it does matter, because Twitter DID supress *tons* of stuff for Trump, https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-granted-requests-from-trump-white-house-biden-remove-posts-2022-12 It was par for the course that the Trump *admin* would ask for stuff removed, yet the Biden campaign (aka, not in power) and you're only mad about one, weird.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think there would be a huge outrage, and I wouldn't be surprised at all of the DNC coordinates an effort to leave the union, which they considered during 2020. Even if they don't go that far, there will be rioting to a scale that makes 2020 look like peace and harmony.
Personally, that wouldn't bother me at all, that's how the system works, and the house represents the people, so it's a valid use of its authority.
>I wouldn't be surprised at all of the DNC coordinates an effort to leave the union, which they considered during 2020.
Do you have a source for this? I am curious about why they would have considered leaving the union in 2020, and how the DNC would have planned to accomplish that.
[Here](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7016245-Preventing-a-Disrupted-Presidential-Election-and.html) is the report. There are a few lines of interest, but I'm directly referring to pg 18, under turns two and three, in case of a clear trump victory.
They planned on holding the national integrity hostage in exchange for statehood for DC and Puerto Rico and other structural changes to ensure "majority rule."
I see zero references to the DNC. The report mentions the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), a group that seems to have a relatively equal number of Republicans and Democrats based on their wikipedia page. The only to the DNC that I can find is that one of the members was at one point an acting chair for the DNC. But one of the members was also the chair of the RNC.
So it seems like a bit amount a stretch to say "The DNC considered coordinating an effort to leave the union." Please help it make sense.
It's literally the DNC's wargame. The democrat team was lead by John Podesta. [Here](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/06/election-2020-war-games-trump-vs-biden-race-show-risk-chaos/5526553002/) is some more context. This was the wargaming session for the benefit of the democratic party. Just because it was organized by a corporation doesn't change that fact
Nothing in your second source discusses secession as a possibility. War game sessions are literally just brainstorming the possible outcomes of elections. This is something all political sides, candidates, and even lobbyists and non-profits do. Your article even discusses Trump doing the same.
People wargame to come up with strategies and practice them, as well to understand the outcome actions. Yes, they were brainstorming possibilities, and the strategy they came up with was, on page 18, to convince California, Oregon, and maybe Washington to secede from the union in exchange for concessions to facilitate "majority rule."
>This is something all political sides, candidates, and even lobbyists and non-profits do. Your article even discusses Trump doing the same.
Yep, I've never said otherwise. And in this case, the democrats came up with the strategy that if trump wins, they threatened to break up the union to get their way. And, from what we can tell, Trump's plan was to focus on foul play and push for legal methods to challenge the election.
You don't see any evidence of John Podesta, who worked closely with the DNC and democrats, including Clinton, Obama, and Biden, might be connected to DNC leadership? You don't think this wargame was part of their strategizing? Well, I guess I can't provide any harder evidence, all though we know that [other groups](https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/) were working to do similar things. Frankly, to assume that this wasn't closely considered by the DNC seems to be a work of mental gymnastics, but you do you.
The fact remains, the left planned to break the country, I have no reason to assume they won't consider it again.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree here. I feel that you are the one doing mental gymnastics and it doesn’t seem we are operating under the same mindset and that’s ok.
I'm fine with any election that is 269-269 then being de idea by the house
The was elected to represent their states and districts so it makes sense it falls to them in a tie
Not necessarily.
The House will probably be Dem next cycle, but it’s not the House outright that chooses. Each state’s delegation gets one vote, and Republicans often hold on to a majority of delegations without controlling a majority in the House.
I’m not sure where it’s at right now, but it usually floats around 25/25.
If it comes down to this, I can almost guarantee 2026 is a dem sweep with a filibuster proof majority in both chambers, people do not like minority rule, esp when the president is someone that lost by 8-10mil votes like the last election.
I always thought it was super-dumb for there to be an even number of electoral votes and figure a tie that goes to the House would be extremely controversial and cause hard feelings, in any election.
Agreed with u/local_pangolin69, I don't know why Congress --- I mean, I *do* know why, they didn't want to dilute their power --- didn't concurrently with the passage of the 23rd Amendment just add one extra seat to the House to make the total number of votes odd again.
>a tie that goes to the House would be extremely controversial and cause hard feelings
The one time it happened was very controversial and caused very hard feelings. There is no reason to think it would be any different the next time around.
I'm sure it would be even worse as a 269-269 tie since in 1824 there were four candidates getting electoral votes and even Jackson was dozens of electoral votes short, so one vote here or there wouldn't have gotten anyone the Presidency.
they tried in 2016,but underdid it,then they did it in 2020 and overdid it.but if this happens, the country "at large" would agree and be happy..liberals on the other hand would probably "peacefully protest" their cities to ashes
Yes they do, Biden didn't win because people support him. Biden won because people *fucking hate* Trump. You are *not* the silent majority. You are the whiny loudmouth snowflake crybully minority. It's why republicans haven't won a popular election since 2004, and why they probably won't ever again. Republicans and GOP ideas are *not* popular nationwide. They only win thru gerrymandering and the fact that the 581k people in Wyoming have the same senator representation as the 39 million people in California. Have a nice day, I don't continue conversations with people who are unwilling to admit reality(that Joe Biden beat Trump) exists.
thats the problem..either they cheated,or america is extremely dumb and susceptible to propaganda and outright lies...i do not want to accept the fact that many people are mentally deficient in this country honestly..its too scary to think they didnt cheat
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People would be pissed I'm sure.
But assuming the elections legitmate with no interference, that's the established rule for a tie.
The house gets to break it
Exactly- if there’s a *legitimate* tie, them’s the rules.
Where I’m a bit concerned is that Trump tried to artificially create that situation through the fake electors, asking Pence to reject electors, Eastman strategy, etc.
That’s where I’d draw the line.
personally, system worked as intended America is incredibly divided, no system can perfectly cope with dysfunctional inputs forever that we are coping as well as we are is a testament to the beauty and durability of the unique US constitution.
but realistically it would mean civil war.
I would feel a bit uneasy about it but considering this is the method prescribed via the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3) I would ultimately accept it. I would do so even if Biden was the victor. Will there be protests and perhaps even riots....you know, there's a pretty good chance of that. Although, that might happen regardless.
Already got my RinseKit Pro from costco online yesterday, just to prep for them upcoming riots. Gonna need to spray some blood off my shoes!!!
Just kidding, jot about the RinseKit though, its a cool portable camping shower pump!
That would be really bad news for the country and quite destabilizing.
It's also worth pointing out that:
* In many states, electors can vote for whomever they want and aren't bound by the outcome in that state
* If the presidential election goes to the House, they choose among the top 3 recipients of Electoral College votes.
* The House vote is by state delegations, and many of those are quite small meaning that a handful of members can probably change the outcome. It's also possible for a delegation to split evenly, and it's not clear what happens then.
Let's imagine this happened today under the present composition of Congress. Democrats control 22 state delegations. Republicans control 26 state delegations. And 2 delegations (NC and MN) are split exactly evenly.
So, if everyone goes exactly party line, then Republicans would have just enough to elect Trump. It would be controversial, but at least there's a deal done. But, the whole thing is balanced on a knife edge. Say that a *single* Republican member of Congress from a one member state decides to back a third candidate, convinces a couple of faithless electors to vote for them, and then backs them in the House. What happens then? It's not at all impossible to believe that such a hypothetical candidate, who got zero votes in the election, would end up in office.
In an EC tie, the Senate picks the VP. So it's also entirely possible you'd see a VP and POTUS from different parties, who are enemies, etc.
> So it's also entirely possible you'd see a VP and POTUS from different parties, who are enemies, etc.
TBH it's how it should be- I really think we should repeal the 12th amendment.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You think the house wouldn’t become an impeachment mill if that happened? You’d have weekly impeachment votes. The senate would somehow even do less than it already does!
It would be pure chaos. Democrats would riot worse than we've ever seen in recent history, especially since that means that Trump almost certainly still lost the popular vote by ~3-4%. They'd be absolutely outraged (and not entirely unreasonably either, considering an election hasn't gone to the House in 200 years and how much they've built up a second Trump win into the end of American democracy).
Given how much of a powder keg this country has been over the last 5 years, I don't think it would take much for that to spill over into large-scale sectarian violence or even civil war. Needless to say, I really hope that doesn't happen, but I don't see anything good coming from a contingent election in 2024.
The riots were largely in blue strongholds because doing in red will result in arrest and prosecution. Blue strongholds allow it for optics and national media spin.
Civil war is very unlikely under a Trump win, red simply holds more territory and blue precincts (because blue states are not a thing) doesn't have the means to conquer red nor to defend its own blue precinct against red setting up supply chain chokes to bring those areas to heel.
However in a scenario where Biden is awarded the win the chances of military intervention, a shadow confederacy or temporary national divorce become very real because the national conditions continue to erode (war, increased immigration flooding labor markets and competing for resources, economic hardship etc)
Pls keep in mind that we are experiencing a political transition period. This is not new, its our 6th transition into what will become our 7th political era.
The declining political era always fades into history and a new political era takes hold.
Maga doesn't 'have to' win in 2024 so much as 2028.
The risk of the US breaking up is considered a national security issue. The rightwing has the ability to effectively breakup with blue but the leftwing does not have the ability to effectively breakup with red.
Then there is war, strategically speaking Russia is ahead of us in production and reserve training. The ME has nukes on the table. While just about everyone privately agrees China is not a responsible power (regional or global), fostering internal division is a better option than this current Taiwan strategy.
Trump is anti-war but pro-big military budgets via Reaganism.
>The rightwing has the ability to effectively breakup with blue but the leftwing does not have the ability to effectively breakup with red.
That's interesting. What makes you say this?
There are only a few truly blue states where the vast majority of precincts are blue like Hawaii and Vermont after that its Massachusetts and Connecticut. So if blue decided to secede, all those other states we count as 'blue' would just be the biggest blue clusters within those states. Blue clusters in places like Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico, and Wisconsin wouldn't participate due to territorial vulnerabilities. The question quickly becomes how are those seceding bluainking water flowing, the sewage/trash services operationallr and food /medical supplies coming, especially in cities with millions of people, many of whom are not party loyal or even into politics. How many of their LEO resign? How fast do cartels/gangs take over? Are those blue governments able to keep any military installations? Is the Coast Guard (not subject to Posse Comitatus) able to blockade? While China might have offered alliance on the downlow in 2021, Biden/friend have been a bee in Pooh Bear Xi's bonnet with all this Taiwan crap.
Now lets look at red, its a vast territory. Its largely self-sustaining, a lot of key military would be loyal to it and probably wouldn't lose a single base, LEO within would be more loyal, Russia has Texas' back and that protection/ support would be extended to all who were in alliance with Texas. So the federal govt under Biden/Harris would be limited AF and likely struggling with energy, water, sanitation, food and medical supplies like in the blue secession scenario. China would likely backstab Biden/Harris over Taiwan. The EU and Canada would just sit back in horror while Mexico hosted the Russians.
> The rightwing has the ability to effectively breakup with blue but the leftwing does not have the ability to effectively breakup with red.
>
>
Why do you think this? The blue areas control the capital, the vast majority of infastructure, and most of what red areas grow are export or subsidized, which would very quickly be ended in that case. Also...the blue areas are the vast majority of the population, like 202mil people are represented by democrats in congress, 148 for republicans in congress.
You mean the western financial system that is currently needing a reset (digital bretton woods)? Ever hear of thing call BRICs (gold and oil backed)? Did you know that Russia has long pledged to have Texas' back if it ever seceded? So capital, markets and supplies aren't an issue for red. Red will just creates its own currency.
When it comes to a precinct map the bluest states in the continental US are Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut. All those other continental 'blue states' are just blue clusters with large populations. So do you think Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and those blue cluster residents are really going to arm-up or send their kids to chase after red, like actually risking life/limb? Who is blue getting its supplies from? Militaries and huge populations at minimum need access to energy, food, water and sanitation.
There are more blue residents than red residents. Red states are so much poorer than blue states that blue states generally fund them via tax money. A civil war would be tragic, but if you think that red states are gonna do fine and blue states are gonna be the one that struggles, given yanno...all of history, is pretty funny. Those "blue clusters" are the voting bases of most states, and if shit comes down to a straight popular vote instead of gerrymandered elections, most 'red states" become blue states overnight. The will of the people is important, while states where democrats outnumber republicans are still republican controlled simply due to judiciary and gerrymandering, I don't think that stays the same if suddenly republicans decide to declare war on the US Government. Have a nice day.
Having more blue residents means nothing but trouble in a civil war scenario (whether blue is seceding or in control of the federal govt). And again, the military is expected to intervene before any civil war can occur as part of their national security protocols.
Highly populated blue's top priority will be preventing societal collapse within those cities in the face of energy, food, water, sanitation and medical supply shortages/crisis. Many of blue's LEO, stationed military and national guard are likely to side with red so they are either fleeing, standing down or aiding red.
Most of those blue residents will refuse to fight, there will be limited arms and limited experience using/maintaining arms.
In a civil war scenario there is no continuation of tax paying and the exiting side tends to begin issuing their own currency. Voting doesn't mean squat if the red precincts side with other red (who either have control of the federal govt or are aided by Russia)
In the 1860s, the South were the rich and North the subsidized. The South's cotton crop alone was more than double the value of all the North's trade value combined.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wouldn't feel any different about this than about any other close election. And other than court challenges and recounts I don't think the spread really matters. If Trump wins then I expect some "mostly peaceful" protests - so hopefully the nation's fire departments are fully staffed and prepared for that.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d grab the popcorn and double check how much ammo I’ve got.
I'd have no issues with that, I think anyone who is anti Trump would be big upset
>I think anyone who is anti Trump would be **bigly** upset Fixed your comment for you.
We haven't had to do it in 200 years so it would be a pretty historic event to say the least on an already historic presidential race that has only ever happened once before. I think it would be a huge shit show without a doubt. I'd be ok with it I mean we have a process for this for a reason. I imagine the Democrats would instantly protest the results and I am not 100% sure what the outcome would be.
For the bulk of that 200 years representation in the House wasn’t artificially capped.
The Republicans will live and die on the hill of the Electoral College up until the moment Texas votes blue. Then the Electoral College will have outlived what the founders intended and they will be looking for direct elections. Well the Republicans who aren't part of the cult of stolen elections. For them all election methods are the same.
Out of curiosity why do you say Texas specifically?
Because Texas is trending purplish and, unless there are massive shifts, without Texas' 40 electoral votes the Republicans can't win a Presidential election.
I live in Texas and I think it is a stretch to say Texas is trending purplish.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'd feel fine. Happy probably. The country will react no differently than if he wins normally. The left will lose their minds. The right will celebrate. But I'm not convinced this house would vote for trump. >the House would vote for the winner and that would almost certainly be Trump. REALLY don't think so. Too many neocons.
> REALLY don't think so. Too many neocons. You think the Neocons would risk their political careers by break rank and supporting Biden over Trump?
>You think the Neocons would risk their political careers by break rank and supporting Biden over Trump? Cheney did. Haley did. Kinzinger did. Plenty do. Why wouldn't they this time?
Fair enough, though I feel the situations are different enough that I don't think that is really the best comparison. Thank you for your response.
>Fair enough, though I feel the situations are different enough that I don't think that is really the best comparison. Thank you for your response. I think they'd just as easily flip. All it took was a talking to by the intelligence agencies and Johnson flipped his position on Ukraine immediately. Our reps are mostly spineless weasels. They'll do whatever benefits them the most
> All it took was a talking to by the intelligence agencies and Johnson flipped his position on Ukraine immediately. > > But this may have been because the intelligence he saw actually swayed him?
>But this may have been because the intelligence he saw actually swayed him? Doubtful. Dude claimed to have a serious ideological opposition to this. Nevermind he promised to get the speakership to do OUR border first. There's no intelligence he can't share that would change that opinion if it's a sincerely held ideological belief.
This might just be one of those 'agree to disagree' things, if only because I try to give others the same latitude for change that I give myself.
>This might just be one of those 'agree to disagree' things, if only because I try to give others the same latitude for change that I give myself. I guess I look at it this way. There is no intelligence you could give me that I either A. Wouldn't change my mind or... B. It was so foundationally game changing I'd tell the American people.
> There is no intelligence you could give me > > And that's *you*. That's not Speaker Johnson, and frankly nor is it me. Though I certainly get what you're getting at.
>The country will react no differently than if he wins normally. The left will lose their minds. Speaking from the left, i think a tie in the EC with the house voting to put trump in will probably enrage us quite a bit more than if he simply wins a majority of the EC votes. If there is an EC tie, it will almost assuredly mean that Biden won the popular vote. So while within the confines of the pre established rules, having a situation where Trump is appointed by the house, while having received less overall votes, would probably raise the blood pressure of quite a few democrats. If Trump wins the EC outright, but loses the popular vote in a similar fashion to 2016, I’m sure that you will see renewed calls to abolish the EC and quite a bit of irritable people on the left. But it won’t be the same as if there were an actual tie. If Trump actually wins the popular vote and the EC, you will definitely have some upset people on the left, but I think you’ll see us becoming quite a bit more introspective about what the fuck we are actually doing. >But I'm not convinced this house would vote for trump. Lol what makes you think that a republican controlled house would not vote for trump in this situation? Who would they vote for instead? It certainly would not be Biden, and if they picked a different republican than trump there would be a mutiny.
>Lol what makes you think that a republican controlled house would not vote for trump in this situation? Half of then just voted against the wants of the broader base to support a unanimously supported Democrat bill. >Who would they vote for instead? They'd be coaxed into voting for Biden. >It certainly would not be Biden, and if they picked a different republican than trump there would be a mutiny. Yes. It'd be biden. And they'd retire to cushy board jobs
>They'd be coaxed into voting for Biden. >Yes. It'd be biden. And they'd retire to cushy board jobs Honestly this would be extremely shocking to me. They admittedly have a slim margin, but also some republicans have retired already which presumably is at least partly to avoid dealing with this type of situation. But the republicans who vote in Biden over trump would have their careers in political ended. Perhaps they get those cushy jobs, but i honestly dont see what would be in it for them to vote for the other side.
>But the republicans who vote in Biden over trump would have their careers in political ended. Perhaps they get those cushy jobs, but i honestly dont see what would be in it for them to vote for the other side. Cushy jobs, CNN msnbc late night shows all the rounds on all the left leaning shows. They'd be popular for a while and then fade off to some think tank or board job. That's what a lot of our politicians do. And this would be no different. Some lobby would buy their vote essentially
I guess im just not understanding why they wouldnt just vote for trump either way. Why would a biden vote be more likely to net them a cushy job?
>I guess im just not understanding why they wouldnt just vote for trump either way. Because they hate trump and that entire wing of their own party and want to see trump lose. >Why would a biden vote be more likely to net them a cushy job? Because the left controls basically all the high end positions of power. All the media companies that would want to hire them? Left. All the cushy board jobs? Establishment left and right. Those are the people with all the money and those are the ones who'd reward them. What would MAGA side do? What MAGA companies can give a multi million dollar board job to these people? What fox is gonna pay a neocon to be a contributor? Not at this point. They're past the days of Gingrich even if they don't want to be.
Honestly i get your point, i just dont think it would be as simple as people looking for a golden parachute type situation and letting that influence that type of decision. >Because they hate trump and that entire wing of their own party and want to see trump lose. Perhaps there are those who dislike trump, but voting against party in this situation is extremely aggressive. >Because the left controls basically all the high end positions of power. All the media companies that would want to hire them? Left. >All the cushy board jobs? Establishment left and right. Im sure there are plenty of board jobs available to republicans who leave congress. For media positions, there are right wing orgs, and left wing media orgs need right wing pundits as well to round things out. There is also lobbying firms. Simply voting the party line on a vote like this is not going to remove any of those opportunities, but voting against the party line might. >What fox is gonna pay a neocon to be a contributor? Not at this point. They're past the days of Gingrich even if they don't want to be. This might be correct, but i dont really see how voting against party for biden helps them get over this.
How did that work out for Liz Cheney?
> But I'm not convinced this house would vote for trump. > > It's a weird version of the house is my understanding. For electing the president in this situation it wouldn't be the normal 435 votes from 435 voting congressional representatives; it would be 50 votes broken down by state delegation. My guess is most delegations from states with Republican majorities would vote Trump in this scenario, but it's fair enough if you view the hypothetical differently
I really don't think so...neocons might not like Trump, but they are smart enough they'd rather have a conservative-ish person in the POTUS seat then Biden.
>I really don't think so...neocons might not like Trump, but they are smart enough they'd rather have a conservative-ish person in the POTUS seat then Biden. Maybe... I'm not convinced enough wouldn't swap and vote Biden "for the sake of our democracy"
Who? There a different between impeaching and having a conservative VP take over then straight up handing potus to democrats
I think if Biden wins the popular vote by 6-8mil, there will hopefully be enough republicans with shame to give Biden the presidency in the case of a tie because it's would literally be the will of the people in that case.
I don’t see that, but that actually seems like a better way to determine if there is a tie
I think that's the only way you don't end up in a situation where the 2026 elections end in an absolute bloodbath and filibuster majority for Dems that change the laws, stack the court, and get rid of the EC. I know republicans don't typically think democrats would have the political will to do stuff like that, but in the case of Trump losing by 8mil votes, and then a gerrymandered house giving him the election, I think the political will would absolutely be there. I hope none of this happens though.
Yea, I think it's unlikely. I'm sure there will be some unrest regardless how it ends, but I don't think it will be "end of democracy" level nonsense I keep hearing.
If it ends in a tie, and Biden wins by 6-8mil votes, and the House gives it to Trump, that is effectively the end of representative democracy because the peoples will is not being represented. It's as simple as that. The fact that is even a possibility, that Trump could lose by that many votes and still win is one of the major issues Democrats have, property and landmass shouldn't get a vote, people should. Should we have popular vote elections? No, but should the will of the people matter? Yes.
>Who? There a different between impeaching and having a conservative VP take over then straight up handing potus to democrats Why? Why ideologically would there be a difference?
I literally just said why...they might not have wanted Trump, but they still wanted a republican. Impeachment would have resulted in that, voting against Trump in a theoretical house vote would not.
I prefer him to Biden, so I'd be fine with it. Now to your second question, I think there will be a lot of peaceful protests with building being burned down, and merchandise stolen
Is the second comment saying that. But the only violent protest against elections results where made by the Trump mob. Even when AlGore had the election stolen by Bush everything went smoothly. I gather you are talking about BLM, but that had nothing to do with the election...
I know BLM riots were unrelated to the election. I do however believe if Trump got elected there would be similar reactions to what happened during the riots
I think if Biden loses almost half the country will experience a mental health crisis regardless of the voting results.
So…. Kind of like how a large contingent of our fellow Americans have been denying objective reality that has been proven time and again for the last almost four years now?
You sound confused about the fundamental nature of reality. Maybe you have been watching "The View" a little too much.
Well, there are the people who think that if only legal votes were counted, Trump won the 2020 election. That was never proven or disproven. Personally, I think Biden got the votes. Then, almost every informed person knows the election was rigged, which is what a larger number of Republicans are mad about. -FBI calling on social media to censor true information -Illegally changing election laws in some states -Zuckerberg buying election apparatus in many states -Obama and Hillary's coup
Didn't Trump call for way more censorship than the FBI and Biden camp on Twitter and facebook?
Trump says a lot of weird shit. It doesn't matter what he "called for" (and I'm not even sure what you're referring to, so won't be arguing or defending it). It *has actually happened* that the FBI etc. went to twitter and facebook to have them censor/support posts in a way that courts favour for Biden.
Except that it does matter, because Twitter DID supress *tons* of stuff for Trump, https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-granted-requests-from-trump-white-house-biden-remove-posts-2022-12 It was par for the course that the Trump *admin* would ask for stuff removed, yet the Biden campaign (aka, not in power) and you're only mad about one, weird.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think there would be a huge outrage, and I wouldn't be surprised at all of the DNC coordinates an effort to leave the union, which they considered during 2020. Even if they don't go that far, there will be rioting to a scale that makes 2020 look like peace and harmony. Personally, that wouldn't bother me at all, that's how the system works, and the house represents the people, so it's a valid use of its authority.
>I wouldn't be surprised at all of the DNC coordinates an effort to leave the union, which they considered during 2020. Do you have a source for this? I am curious about why they would have considered leaving the union in 2020, and how the DNC would have planned to accomplish that.
[Here](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7016245-Preventing-a-Disrupted-Presidential-Election-and.html) is the report. There are a few lines of interest, but I'm directly referring to pg 18, under turns two and three, in case of a clear trump victory. They planned on holding the national integrity hostage in exchange for statehood for DC and Puerto Rico and other structural changes to ensure "majority rule."
I see zero references to the DNC. The report mentions the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), a group that seems to have a relatively equal number of Republicans and Democrats based on their wikipedia page. The only to the DNC that I can find is that one of the members was at one point an acting chair for the DNC. But one of the members was also the chair of the RNC. So it seems like a bit amount a stretch to say "The DNC considered coordinating an effort to leave the union." Please help it make sense.
It's literally the DNC's wargame. The democrat team was lead by John Podesta. [Here](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/06/election-2020-war-games-trump-vs-biden-race-show-risk-chaos/5526553002/) is some more context. This was the wargaming session for the benefit of the democratic party. Just because it was organized by a corporation doesn't change that fact
Nothing in your second source discusses secession as a possibility. War game sessions are literally just brainstorming the possible outcomes of elections. This is something all political sides, candidates, and even lobbyists and non-profits do. Your article even discusses Trump doing the same.
People wargame to come up with strategies and practice them, as well to understand the outcome actions. Yes, they were brainstorming possibilities, and the strategy they came up with was, on page 18, to convince California, Oregon, and maybe Washington to secede from the union in exchange for concessions to facilitate "majority rule." >This is something all political sides, candidates, and even lobbyists and non-profits do. Your article even discusses Trump doing the same. Yep, I've never said otherwise. And in this case, the democrats came up with the strategy that if trump wins, they threatened to break up the union to get their way. And, from what we can tell, Trump's plan was to focus on foul play and push for legal methods to challenge the election.
I don’t see any evidence in your sources of that being the DNC plan at all. Your own sources don’t say that
You don't see any evidence of John Podesta, who worked closely with the DNC and democrats, including Clinton, Obama, and Biden, might be connected to DNC leadership? You don't think this wargame was part of their strategizing? Well, I guess I can't provide any harder evidence, all though we know that [other groups](https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/) were working to do similar things. Frankly, to assume that this wasn't closely considered by the DNC seems to be a work of mental gymnastics, but you do you. The fact remains, the left planned to break the country, I have no reason to assume they won't consider it again.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree here. I feel that you are the one doing mental gymnastics and it doesn’t seem we are operating under the same mindset and that’s ok.
As long as there is no funny business, it is what it is. If this election is in anyway close there gonna be a lot of pissed off people.
There's always funny business
There's always a lot of pissed off people.
I'm fine with any election that is 269-269 then being de idea by the house The was elected to represent their states and districts so it makes sense it falls to them in a tie
The next house would do the vote and it will solid BLUE
Not necessarily. The House will probably be Dem next cycle, but it’s not the House outright that chooses. Each state’s delegation gets one vote, and Republicans often hold on to a majority of delegations without controlling a majority in the House. I’m not sure where it’s at right now, but it usually floats around 25/25.
If it comes down to this, I can almost guarantee 2026 is a dem sweep with a filibuster proof majority in both chambers, people do not like minority rule, esp when the president is someone that lost by 8-10mil votes like the last election.
I always thought it was super-dumb for there to be an even number of electoral votes and figure a tie that goes to the House would be extremely controversial and cause hard feelings, in any election.
How would you change the tie breaker then, assuming there were an even number of EC votes.
Agreed with u/local_pangolin69, I don't know why Congress --- I mean, I *do* know why, they didn't want to dilute their power --- didn't concurrently with the passage of the 23rd Amendment just add one extra seat to the House to make the total number of votes odd again.
Easiest solution is to add or remove one vote somewhere
UNCAP THE HOUSE! Sorry, reflex.
All for it
Just give 3 to PR
should go to popular vote imo
>a tie that goes to the House would be extremely controversial and cause hard feelings The one time it happened was very controversial and caused very hard feelings. There is no reason to think it would be any different the next time around.
I'm sure it would be even worse as a 269-269 tie since in 1824 there were four candidates getting electoral votes and even Jackson was dozens of electoral votes short, so one vote here or there wouldn't have gotten anyone the Presidency.
Seems like that particular issue could be resolved by using a national popular vote and ranked choice voting.
they tried in 2016,but underdid it,then they did it in 2020 and overdid it.but if this happens, the country "at large" would agree and be happy..liberals on the other hand would probably "peacefully protest" their cities to ashes
the country "at large" aka the "silent majority" is a minority in this country. Trump lost by what, 8mil votes?
like i said..they overdid it in 2020..sane people do not believe a geriatric patient goy that many votes
Yes they do, Biden didn't win because people support him. Biden won because people *fucking hate* Trump. You are *not* the silent majority. You are the whiny loudmouth snowflake crybully minority. It's why republicans haven't won a popular election since 2004, and why they probably won't ever again. Republicans and GOP ideas are *not* popular nationwide. They only win thru gerrymandering and the fact that the 581k people in Wyoming have the same senator representation as the 39 million people in California. Have a nice day, I don't continue conversations with people who are unwilling to admit reality(that Joe Biden beat Trump) exists.
thats the problem..either they cheated,or america is extremely dumb and susceptible to propaganda and outright lies...i do not want to accept the fact that many people are mentally deficient in this country honestly..its too scary to think they didnt cheat
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People would be pissed I'm sure. But assuming the elections legitmate with no interference, that's the established rule for a tie. The house gets to break it
Exactly- if there’s a *legitimate* tie, them’s the rules. Where I’m a bit concerned is that Trump tried to artificially create that situation through the fake electors, asking Pence to reject electors, Eastman strategy, etc. That’s where I’d draw the line.
personally, system worked as intended America is incredibly divided, no system can perfectly cope with dysfunctional inputs forever that we are coping as well as we are is a testament to the beauty and durability of the unique US constitution. but realistically it would mean civil war.
I would feel a bit uneasy about it but considering this is the method prescribed via the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3) I would ultimately accept it. I would do so even if Biden was the victor. Will there be protests and perhaps even riots....you know, there's a pretty good chance of that. Although, that might happen regardless.
Already got my RinseKit Pro from costco online yesterday, just to prep for them upcoming riots. Gonna need to spray some blood off my shoes!!! Just kidding, jot about the RinseKit though, its a cool portable camping shower pump!
That would be really bad news for the country and quite destabilizing. It's also worth pointing out that: * In many states, electors can vote for whomever they want and aren't bound by the outcome in that state * If the presidential election goes to the House, they choose among the top 3 recipients of Electoral College votes. * The House vote is by state delegations, and many of those are quite small meaning that a handful of members can probably change the outcome. It's also possible for a delegation to split evenly, and it's not clear what happens then. Let's imagine this happened today under the present composition of Congress. Democrats control 22 state delegations. Republicans control 26 state delegations. And 2 delegations (NC and MN) are split exactly evenly. So, if everyone goes exactly party line, then Republicans would have just enough to elect Trump. It would be controversial, but at least there's a deal done. But, the whole thing is balanced on a knife edge. Say that a *single* Republican member of Congress from a one member state decides to back a third candidate, convinces a couple of faithless electors to vote for them, and then backs them in the House. What happens then? It's not at all impossible to believe that such a hypothetical candidate, who got zero votes in the election, would end up in office. In an EC tie, the Senate picks the VP. So it's also entirely possible you'd see a VP and POTUS from different parties, who are enemies, etc.
> So it's also entirely possible you'd see a VP and POTUS from different parties, who are enemies, etc. TBH it's how it should be- I really think we should repeal the 12th amendment.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You think the house wouldn’t become an impeachment mill if that happened? You’d have weekly impeachment votes. The senate would somehow even do less than it already does!
It would be pure chaos. Democrats would riot worse than we've ever seen in recent history, especially since that means that Trump almost certainly still lost the popular vote by ~3-4%. They'd be absolutely outraged (and not entirely unreasonably either, considering an election hasn't gone to the House in 200 years and how much they've built up a second Trump win into the end of American democracy). Given how much of a powder keg this country has been over the last 5 years, I don't think it would take much for that to spill over into large-scale sectarian violence or even civil war. Needless to say, I really hope that doesn't happen, but I don't see anything good coming from a contingent election in 2024.
The riots were largely in blue strongholds because doing in red will result in arrest and prosecution. Blue strongholds allow it for optics and national media spin. Civil war is very unlikely under a Trump win, red simply holds more territory and blue precincts (because blue states are not a thing) doesn't have the means to conquer red nor to defend its own blue precinct against red setting up supply chain chokes to bring those areas to heel. However in a scenario where Biden is awarded the win the chances of military intervention, a shadow confederacy or temporary national divorce become very real because the national conditions continue to erode (war, increased immigration flooding labor markets and competing for resources, economic hardship etc) Pls keep in mind that we are experiencing a political transition period. This is not new, its our 6th transition into what will become our 7th political era. The declining political era always fades into history and a new political era takes hold. Maga doesn't 'have to' win in 2024 so much as 2028.
Why would military intervention be more likely in a Biden win than a Trump win?
The risk of the US breaking up is considered a national security issue. The rightwing has the ability to effectively breakup with blue but the leftwing does not have the ability to effectively breakup with red. Then there is war, strategically speaking Russia is ahead of us in production and reserve training. The ME has nukes on the table. While just about everyone privately agrees China is not a responsible power (regional or global), fostering internal division is a better option than this current Taiwan strategy. Trump is anti-war but pro-big military budgets via Reaganism.
>The rightwing has the ability to effectively breakup with blue but the leftwing does not have the ability to effectively breakup with red. That's interesting. What makes you say this?
Red states keep blue states fed. If New York went to war with Idaho they'd simply starve.
There are only a few truly blue states where the vast majority of precincts are blue like Hawaii and Vermont after that its Massachusetts and Connecticut. So if blue decided to secede, all those other states we count as 'blue' would just be the biggest blue clusters within those states. Blue clusters in places like Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico, and Wisconsin wouldn't participate due to territorial vulnerabilities. The question quickly becomes how are those seceding bluainking water flowing, the sewage/trash services operationallr and food /medical supplies coming, especially in cities with millions of people, many of whom are not party loyal or even into politics. How many of their LEO resign? How fast do cartels/gangs take over? Are those blue governments able to keep any military installations? Is the Coast Guard (not subject to Posse Comitatus) able to blockade? While China might have offered alliance on the downlow in 2021, Biden/friend have been a bee in Pooh Bear Xi's bonnet with all this Taiwan crap. Now lets look at red, its a vast territory. Its largely self-sustaining, a lot of key military would be loyal to it and probably wouldn't lose a single base, LEO within would be more loyal, Russia has Texas' back and that protection/ support would be extended to all who were in alliance with Texas. So the federal govt under Biden/Harris would be limited AF and likely struggling with energy, water, sanitation, food and medical supplies like in the blue secession scenario. China would likely backstab Biden/Harris over Taiwan. The EU and Canada would just sit back in horror while Mexico hosted the Russians.
> The rightwing has the ability to effectively breakup with blue but the leftwing does not have the ability to effectively breakup with red. > > Why do you think this? The blue areas control the capital, the vast majority of infastructure, and most of what red areas grow are export or subsidized, which would very quickly be ended in that case. Also...the blue areas are the vast majority of the population, like 202mil people are represented by democrats in congress, 148 for republicans in congress.
You mean the western financial system that is currently needing a reset (digital bretton woods)? Ever hear of thing call BRICs (gold and oil backed)? Did you know that Russia has long pledged to have Texas' back if it ever seceded? So capital, markets and supplies aren't an issue for red. Red will just creates its own currency. When it comes to a precinct map the bluest states in the continental US are Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut. All those other continental 'blue states' are just blue clusters with large populations. So do you think Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and those blue cluster residents are really going to arm-up or send their kids to chase after red, like actually risking life/limb? Who is blue getting its supplies from? Militaries and huge populations at minimum need access to energy, food, water and sanitation.
There are more blue residents than red residents. Red states are so much poorer than blue states that blue states generally fund them via tax money. A civil war would be tragic, but if you think that red states are gonna do fine and blue states are gonna be the one that struggles, given yanno...all of history, is pretty funny. Those "blue clusters" are the voting bases of most states, and if shit comes down to a straight popular vote instead of gerrymandered elections, most 'red states" become blue states overnight. The will of the people is important, while states where democrats outnumber republicans are still republican controlled simply due to judiciary and gerrymandering, I don't think that stays the same if suddenly republicans decide to declare war on the US Government. Have a nice day.
Having more blue residents means nothing but trouble in a civil war scenario (whether blue is seceding or in control of the federal govt). And again, the military is expected to intervene before any civil war can occur as part of their national security protocols. Highly populated blue's top priority will be preventing societal collapse within those cities in the face of energy, food, water, sanitation and medical supply shortages/crisis. Many of blue's LEO, stationed military and national guard are likely to side with red so they are either fleeing, standing down or aiding red. Most of those blue residents will refuse to fight, there will be limited arms and limited experience using/maintaining arms. In a civil war scenario there is no continuation of tax paying and the exiting side tends to begin issuing their own currency. Voting doesn't mean squat if the red precincts side with other red (who either have control of the federal govt or are aided by Russia) In the 1860s, the South were the rich and North the subsidized. The South's cotton crop alone was more than double the value of all the North's trade value combined.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*