Trump, Bannon and the Coming Crisis

[David Horn]

(02-08-2017, 05:28 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Please define what you consider his "limited base", and what "other, less dedicated supporters" are supposed to look like.

There are the rabid supporters, many of whom entered the fray for the first time just to support Trump. They were there from the beginning. Then there are the millions, many in the "surprise!" states, who voted Obama twice then Trump this round. I see them as energized, but not for Trump so much as for themselves ... as they should be. Trump already leads a minority movement, so stripping it of any substantial support makes it a rump.

SomeGuy Wrote:Yeah, I've long been skeptical of the ACW 2.0 thesis, too.  I don't think it impossible, but there are a lot of intervening steps that would have to take place between here and there.

Who would be the sides?  Over what issue?  How many of the people running their mouths now would actually be willing to pick up a rifle and kill other people over said issue(s)?  What would the (desired) end-state be?

There was a great map set in the NY Times (if you can find it, please do), that showed a map of Blue America and another of Red America. Blues own the urban areas, at-risk ethnic and racial enclaves, and places that benefit from the non-security-state government. Reds own the security state and rural/exurban areas -- dominating the military bases and their immediate surrounds. The only Purple areas are the suburbs, and not all of them. I don't see either group invading the land of their opponents, so no war. Unless the military decides to back a putsch, there is no military option I can see.

It does raise the uncomfortable issue of an all-volunteer force that is almost totally derived from one philosophical tribe.