"Civil War" means any large scale military action taken by some part of the country against come other part of the country. This could be military vs. civilian, military vs. military, or civilian vs. civilian. Actual violence must be involved, not just threats. "Large scale" means that it takes place in more than one city and each side has the support of a significant fraction of the country. It must be an attempt to conquer territory or people, not just riots.
1,000
3.00I collected a couple of forecasts here:
Notably, Metaculus has civil war at 4%, and resolution criteria vary a lot
https://fortune.com/2024/05/16/united-states-elections-trump-biden-ray-dalio-bridgewater/
“Billionaire investor Ray Dalio warns U.S. is ‘on the brink’ and estimates a more than 1 in 3 chance of civil war”
A Rasmussen poll conducted shortly thereafter suggested 41% of likely U.S. voters believe they will experience a civil war sometime in the next five years
He updated his forecast in June: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pick-side-fight-keep-your-head-down-flee-ray-dalio-53fpe/
"When I wrote the book in 2020, I saw the writing on the wall but had hoped for the possibility that we would not cross the brink into a type of civil war, so I estimated the chance of that as about 1 in 3. At the time, this was considered a crazy high estimate (this was before the 2020 election being contested and the January 6th incident). Now I think the risk of some form of civil war is uncomfortably more than 50 percent, and I am confident that in the next year we will know the answer to whether we will cross the brink.
[...]
A clash between state governments and a fractured central government appears likely, which I would regard as a type of civil war even if not violent.
[...]
To be clear, I am not saying that we will certainly cross the brink into civil war—I am saying that there is a much higher probability of some type of civil war (including a non-violent one) than is commonly believed."
Related:
https://manifold.markets/FranklinBaldo/which-country-will-have-the-next-co
https://manifold.markets/LivInTheLookingGlass/conditional-on-a-democrat-winning-i
https://manifold.markets/wasabipesto/conditional-on-a-democrat-winning-i-5047057f4ade
https://manifold.markets/BTE/will-there-be-an-attempted-autogolp
https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/will-there-be-a-civil-war-in-the-un
https://manifold.markets/DeanValentine/will-any-weird-country-experience-a
https://manifold.markets/MathieuPutz/will-30000-people-die-in-a-us-civil
https://manifold.markets/MP/will-a-vice-president-with-the-cabi
https://manifold.markets/DeanValentine/will-any-of-the-following-weird-cou-b07b8b698192
https://manifold.markets/dreev/trump-coup-2025-conditional-on-a-de
https://manifold.markets/MatthewBarnett/will-there-be-a-coup-attempt-that-k
(No way to copy-paste a market grid, so I'm just providing links.)
@IsaacKing I don't know, but it's a more unclear question than it seems, I think, because violence exists on a spectrum.
@JohnLewis Shouldn't, no. I don't think their actions were supported by a significant fraction of republicans. (At least not when the true actions are known.)
@IsaacKing Given that the protestors killed no one, broke a few windows, and shoved some popo around, and were generally polite (the QAnon Shaman went so far as to pray for the police officers) it barely qualifies as a riot.
@EricAshley I mean... I don't usually break windows and shove around police officers in my free time? I kinda feel like that's what a "riot" is.
@IsaacKing No buildings were set on fire, no cars flipped and/or set on fire, no guns were fired, no bricks were thrown. You can call it a riot, but it was a very mild one.
The only people who died were protestors. The only people who died from violence were two women. One was shot in the throat, and the other was beaten as she lay unconscious on the ground.
I know we're supposed to go 'worst thing evar' but honestly, the average weekend in Chicago is way worse.
@EricAshley It was a riot and its intent was to alter the course of a political proceeding. Protesters were violent and attacked police. They stormed the building, destroying anything in their way. Why would you downplay what happened rather than addressing it as a problem that society needs to address?
@JohnLewis Barely a riot, man. And one wonders how many of the shovers were actually Feds or Feebs themselves.
It was a protest to get Congress to do its obvious duty.
As to destroying everything in their way---QAnon Shaman got escorted around, and had doors opened for him by the police. Another guy put his feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk, and wrote a short non-threatening note on her desk. Oooh, the horror of it all.
One guy went so far as to have some goofball pics taken of him carrying the podium---a college prank. (and yes, prank is the right term. Collegians for decades have take professors cars and put them on the roofs of buildings without anyone going to jail).
Very, very little was damaged.
But you are correct that this is a serious problem: what do you call a country where the majority of the population rightly fears to protest the government?
@EricAshley Considering Isaac's question is about civil war, which we all should want to avoid, does the atmosphere of fearful repression, that awful injustices will be done to an ordinary man who yells at a politician, push us closer or further from civil war? I'd argue it makes it more likely as cussing out pols is a good way for the nation to course correct, and to release steam. Take away free speech, and what do you h ave left to change people's minds? A technocratic censorship is not going to change minds; its merely going to drive the anger deeper, and create more problems. You should be trying to understand why the average American thinks that Biden did not win the election instead of having Facebook censor them.
But that's enough for now.
@EricAshley I think you're stuck in an information bubble. I'm telling you this because the only way out of it is too trust someone who is outside it. Or at least be curious that you might be in one. Try to find a third viewpoint.
This is where I say 'we told you so'. The Right told the Left 'don't lie for power, or there will be bad consequences' and the Left did it anyways. Now no one listens to the Left, and you're left asking me to go listen to someone I don't trust. Trust lost is hard to regain, John.
And tu quoque is not an adequate response.
The only adequate response is to repent of dishonesty, and seek Jesus, and Truth, and over time win back a reputation for the Left as capable of being honest. Otherwise, there is little reason for me to seek out such opinions when I glance at them and think 'eh, he's probably lying'.
I rarely get into political debates online anymore. No real point, and its a waste of time. Used to do it a lot. This debate might be the first in two months for me, or more. But this idea of prediction markets does seem like it might be a bit amusing. Good night, and good bye.
@EricAshley Perhaps I'm not being clear. I'm not "the Left". And I'm not asking you to trust me other than suggesting you are stuck in a information bubble. I left behind the two party political system, it's feeds on itself. I'm not suggesting you "listen to someone you don't trust." There's more than two sides and outside of the two party dynamic of demonizing the enemy, there's a world looking in.
Find third parties you don't distrust. They exist and you can find your way out of the cycle if you're curious. If you're not curious and you're comfortable with the answers your leaders give you, then you're right, there's no point in talking about it. Have a good night.