Yeah, but who would be fighting who? How would warfare break out? A bunch of right-republicans taking over buildings and then being demolished by the largest and strongest military force in the world? A coup in the military to fight unarmed liberals? Race war? It could all happen but it is a little far fetched.

If the US is involved in the battle, then who would arm the insurrection!? /s

They had signs, not weapons.

The secret is that it is not actually that intolerable or deplorable. This is likely what some people find infuriating; that their political enemies are not the Nazis or Soviets they have been trained to hate, just stupid Americans acting stupidly for their own stupid loss.

I worry that my fellow Americans are definitely getting complacent about all the good the federal government does. The fall of the US Fed would end the free world rather quickly.

If the opposition is entirely intolerant of you, why even try? If they do not agree on the same values commonly held before what is there left?

If your tinfoil runs that way, this is preparation for declaring marshal law to handle all these "right-wing extremists." You know, like parents objecting to school curricula... things like that.

It's the propaganda version of grooming.

And they really haven't cracked down on visible violent terrorist organizations. Just let them riot, burn and loot... Or even declare sedition...

And the government has the most powerful military in the would. No rebellion will succeed without significant support from the military establishment.

> Personally, I think we need a full rewrite and do-over.

And how do you want to accomplish that? A coup? Any rewrite or do-over is going to require overthrowing the current government in some way.

One thing I find interesting is how everyone expecting a coup is also calling for a coup themselves. That's fully why I expect the civil war to happen, not because one side is going to cause a coup, but I'm expecting two coups simultaneously. Or three or four or something. Like everyone is trying to grab at their own interpretation of the constitution minus the parts that inconvenience them.

Or we could, you know, stick to the one we have during a moment of like 10 national crises and figure out the politics after the entire world stabilizes a bit rather than destabilize our own government right when China and Russia want us to so they can distract us fighting ourselves while they reach into the cookie jars of Ukraine and Taiwan setting off a chain reaction that would put us at a severe disadvantage at.

Their entire playbook has been spoken out loud multiple times by them, by the people here domestically, then the people here repeating the same warnings domestically end up just forming their own version of it. It's the same thing they did in Crimea, announce they are subverting your ideology, then leave the enemy to Lord of the Flies it out fight it out to figure out who is the enemy ideologically subversive element McCarthyism style. Except here I think they don't really care what happens and would rather we just fall to anarchy (as if we aren't already there), just to keep us away from their doings abroad.

I'll just finish with something I've been saying for at least 20 years, since many people have been saying "we need a constitutional convention for X" on both sides of the aisle for so long. If we have a constitutional convention (or a "full rewrite and do-over", what do you think the people you disagree with are going to add in there? This applies to anyone of any belief system. Just think about it. Do you want that?

> To make it more fair, I think maybe everyone should be allowed a vote who maybe passes a competancy exam showing they know the subject material or have a base understanding of how the country works.

Who is going to make these tests? That's literal voter suppression, and anti-democratic. That idea by itself is a literal threat to the concept of democracy, even if it's non-violent. People should not need to be experts in all fields just to vote. I've followed politics for decades and stuff still comes up that I don't know, and I know lawyers who have practiced for many decades who say that despite knowing everything they know and everything they've experienced, they don't feel they know enough about anything. The world is not a simple system that you can fit into any brain, let alone all brains.

> Or we could just select lawyers who at least know constitutional law really well, some economists, scientists, educators -- maybe even elect the individuals who'll represent their 'field' at the table so there's a well-rounded discussion on everything going into.

That's why we have the federal and state bureaucracies to inform the legislature with educated skilled professionals in their fields.

I would actually think that the military would defect an order to round up their own citizens and another government would need to be installed. Perhaps not all of it, but then it would indeed lead to a war depending on fault lines.