President Trump

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    Hi,

    You can find new board on address: https://forum.ikariam.gameforge.com/
    Please register there to continue with usage.

    Old forum is in read only mode and will stay like that for some time

    Ikariam team

    • New here, but since Trump is still president, I presume I'm not too late for the discussion. :D

      TheMantis wrote:

      As a side note, this country is very divided just like it was before the first civil war. If we (both Democrats and Republicans) do not work together on the real issues that matter then there wont be an Ikariam anymore because the USA as we know it will cease to exist simply because we are ripe for the next civil. I've seen so much hate out there, Republicans and Democrats fighting each other. I've even lost two best friends simply because I voted for the President whom they didn't vote for. 20 years ago after I saw just how divided this country was as it was in the 1850's, I figured that the next civil war will be fought between liberals and republicans. I really hope that I am wrong because I do not want my daughter to grow up in a country of ruin.
      Well, the last Civil War was fought between Democrats and Republicans more or less, so not much has changed in that sense. xD
      I completely agree that political polarization is relatively high, but I think suggesting another civil war might happen in our lifetimes is a bit of a stretch. Honestly, although not having lived through the 60s, I'd say that political and social tensions are not nearly as tense as they are now, nevermind what they were in the 1850s. Plus, not enough people are people are enraged/passionate about the issues as they were in the 1850s, which you can infer by looking at two statistics:
      1. Voter turnout for the 2016 election was just over half the population.
      2. President Trump's approval rating is just over 33%, but 70% of Republicans approve of Trump's performance as of the last couple of weeks, suggesting that the "radical conservatives" many people fear are not as plentiful as many people make them out to be.
      In other words, I think it's evident that there is a minority (albeit a loud minority) of the population adamantly in disagreement with each other, but the majority of the population either is not as passionate about the issues, or simply do not care enough to get involved.

      Thanks to Ratna for the fantastic sig!
    • In addition I'd point out that with the civil war, slavery played a huge role. What the South saw was a person they feared would make slavery illegal and end their way of life, their livelihood. (Irony is that Lincoln probably wouldn't have freed the slaves if the Civil War hadn't happened. [Just a personal opinion there.]) In addition to that, slavery was relegated to a certain region. The North and the South were both contiguous regions and while there were some slave states in the North, they split into contiguous countries and basically along the free-slave legality. And the South did have legitimate fears about losing its livelihood when you consider how integral the slave trade and slave labor was to their economy.

      Compared to today, what would be the defining issue? And what would be the division? The cities are liberal in ideology. The countryside is conservative. And the liberal/conservative states are interwoven with each other. Sure you could have an group come up, but that kind of happening would be something the government would want to stop quickly./


      Heather wrote:

      But baka, how can you be the cop if you're not playing?

      HaNs Na MiTrAljEzU wrote:

      But then again, knowing Kaleg, it could also mean we're all screwed later.
    • Kaleg Nar wrote:

      In addition I'd point out that with the civil war, slavery played a huge role. What the South saw was a person they feared would make slavery illegal and end their way of life, their livelihood. (Irony is that Lincoln probably wouldn't have freed the slaves if the Civil War hadn't happened. [Just a personal opinion there.]) In addition to that, slavery was relegated to a certain region. The North and the South were both contiguous regions and while there were some slave states in the North, they split into contiguous countries and basically along the free-slave legality. And the South did have legitimate fears about losing its livelihood when you consider how integral the slave trade and slave labor was to their economy.

      Compared to today, what would be the defining issue? And what would be the division? The cities are liberal in ideology. The countryside is conservative. And the liberal/conservative states are interwoven with each other. Sure you could have an group come up, but that kind of happening would be something the government would want to stop quickly./
      That's a good point, and its hard to think of a defining issue comparable to that of slavery during the Civil War. However, I fell short of mentioning that because slavery wasn't an issue that affected the lives of all southerners, just the wealthy plantation owners. The rest of the people just followed suit whether they believed in slavery or disagreed with a strong federal government telling states what to or what not to do. In this sense, it could be argued that any wealthy business owner that is threatened could take the place of the southern plantation owner.. say for example, pharmaceutical companies. Hypothetically, pharmaceutical companies, threatened by drastically lower profits of socialized medicine and/or healthcare could alienate the population (i.e. conservatives) so much against the idea that they could in turn convince political leaders to secede from the union. Perhaps a bad example, but nevertheless just because the two of us can't think of a defining issue, doesn't mean one currently exists.
      Additionally, while its true liberals and conservatives are very much interwoven (I live in a predominantly conservative town in one of the most liberal leaning states), I don't think its too far of a stretch to say that States can present a united front against one another on a particular issue.

      Sharpe12 wrote:

      A civil war between those who have mutated after the nuclear war with Korea and those who haven't.
      Oh, well.. fair point. I guess a civil war is inevitable afterall... I best practice my mutant killing skills by playing more Fallout 4. x)

      Thanks to Ratna for the fantastic sig!
    • Why would you remove a statue of a Dodge Charger? Must be Mustang Fans. ;)

      I don't think you should white wash history by removing the statue. Trying to hide the facts is fascism.
      :gyrocopter-ani:
      BaM - Definition, bad at Mafia
      Sharpe12 - Definition, (Supremely handsome also refined, pulchritudinous & excellent) x12
    • Sharpe12 wrote:

      Why would you remove a statue of a Dodge Charger? Must be Mustang Fans. ;)

      I don't think you should white wash history by removing the statue. Trying to hide the facts is fascism.
      lol, must be. :P
      To a point, I agree that removing the statue is a bit of an extreme measure. I guess the reasoning behind removing it was because people were insulted by what seemed to be a statue glorifying the confederacy on government property and white supremacists apparently used the statue as a symbol of their movement. I can respect the fact that people want to keep the statue to honor the military past of the South, even if one of the reasons why the Confederacy was fighting was not moral. I think the way the differing ways the history of the Confederacy has been taught in schools is the root of the problem.. and I don't think removing the statue is going to solve it.

      Sharpe12 wrote:

      Just went on twitter and Donnie said he's condemning it.
      Well, at least its something. We'll see how this develops and how he continues to deal with it.

      Thanks to Ratna for the fantastic sig!
    • I mean it's not funny that people got run over and killed. But it is apt that the car that run people over was a Dodge Charger when they were protesting against the removal of General Lee.
      :gyrocopter-ani:
      BaM - Definition, bad at Mafia
      Sharpe12 - Definition, (Supremely handsome also refined, pulchritudinous & excellent) x12
    • Is this really a talking point? You've got to be kidding me. The chances the US either becomes two separate countries or breaks out into any version of civil war is not only incredibly low but also extremely illogical. I can't even imagine what would need to happen for civil war to occur.. no, really. What are you suggesting is the cause? The president and how liked or disliked he is? The fact that Hilary still hasn't accepted her defeat and is still in denial? The amount of SJWs and ilk would somehow not only create a threat but be taken seriously? War over gender politics? The country might as well commit suicide at that point it's lost all versions of respect as a powerful country and it's allies would fade, enemies would conquer.

      Is the supposed 'race war' or 'white guilt' your next idealism for what would cause the next war? If that's the case, where do you draw the line? Who's paying these reparations and why? (I edited out the rat of this since it's probably leaning on the edge of getting a warning or having somebody cry over it so I'll wait and see if it comes up and figure out how to re-word it)

      Now let's suggest that the US does get close to civil unrest.. you know what's a GREAT way to solve that issue? War. Simple war but not war amongst your countrymen. We'd quickly declare war on... You guessed it, the Middle East. Name a country there and it's fairly likely we could find a reason to go to war. I could go on but fail to see the point.


      Sig by June 8)
      Love is like air, without it... I die.

      spaPOT wrote:

      no worriess..you see im a kid thats why im dumb..kuku :pillepalle:
    • As a supporter of the dismantling of all countries more powerful, or remotely threatening to the United Kingdom. I support Texan, Californian and Pacific North West independence, and anywhere else in the US that wants it.

      Also Free Tibet!
      :gyrocopter-ani:
      BaM - Definition, bad at Mafia
      Sharpe12 - Definition, (Supremely handsome also refined, pulchritudinous & excellent) x12
    • bamcbix wrote:

      Is this really a talking point? You've got to be kidding me. The chances the US either becomes two separate countries or breaks out into any version of civil war is not only incredibly low but also extremely illogical. I can't even imagine what would need to happen for civil war to occur.. no, really. What are you suggesting is the cause? The president and how liked or disliked he is? The fact that Hilary still hasn't accepted her defeat and is still in denial? The amount of SJWs and ilk would somehow not only create a threat but be taken seriously? War over gender politics? The country might as well commit suicide at that point it's lost all versions of respect as a powerful country and it's allies would fade, enemies would conquer.

      Is the supposed 'race war' or 'white guilt' your next idealism for what would cause the next war? If that's the case, where do you draw the line? Who's paying these reparations and why? (I edited out the rat of this since it's probably leaning on the edge of getting a warning or having somebody cry over it so I'll wait and see if it comes up and figure out how to re-word it)

      Now let's suggest that the US does get close to civil unrest.. you know what's a GREAT way to solve that issue? War. Simple war but not war amongst your countrymen. We'd quickly declare war on... You guessed it, the Middle East. Name a country there and it's fairly likely we could find a reason to go to war. I could go on but fail to see the point.
      Well, most of the talking on this point has been about how unlikely it is, so you can take comfort in that at least. :P But for the sake of argument....
      What do you mean the US breaking into two separate countries is illogical? Do you mean the idea of it happening is illogical or the actual separation is illogical? If the later, then I'd have to disagree. Depending on how the country is split, it could serve to benefit one half while disadvantaging the other. Say for example, if (for some reason) all states with the highest debt broke from the United States and formed their own union. In this case, the states still remaining would not have to contribute as much money to help the indebted states, thus keeping more of their wealth. Additionally, if you're arguing its illogical because a state's size is directly proportionate to its power, then I'd have to disagree, especially in an age when a single missile can level whole cities.
      Any of those examples for causing a civil could be applicable, if they cause enough people to feel they have either lost control over their lives or the control over their lives is threatened. You can't dismiss an issue because you feel its irrelevant/insignificant when to someone else, its the difference between life and death. For example, there was a war fought over a Golden Stool in 1900. While simply a fancy stool to the British, the Golden Stool had large significance to an African tribe who fiercely fought the British for several months before being defeated.
      On a side note: Oo a Hilary hater I see. :P What makes you think that she is in denial about her loss?
      War is a great way to solve a civil unrest? I think the 60s/70s would have to disagree with you... Aye, it can be used as a distraction/a way to unify people, but that's usually only the case when that state was attacked, not when it attacks others.
      Why the Middle East? O_o I think we could find an excuse to attack any country regardless of where it is with a clever enough reason.

      Thanks to Ratna for the fantastic sig!
    • Suppose I'll answer the easier question first-hand did I mean the ideology that it could potentially happen or the literal separation. Well, the ideology is linked to the literal separation. Let's say the parts of the country with the most debt broke off... Bow they're the poorest country, they lack the ability to support themselves with modern technology and companies that are not based their would most likely abandon those regions due to legal actions hosted by the mainland. They also lose the powerful and necessary allies that the US has. In short it dies either a quick and painless death or a short reenactment of Ireland during the famine.

      Now why the middle East? Well it's fairly obvious but I guess I'll take a short stab at it. The middle East is incompatible with Western culture. Neither does it's beliefs or those living there (in majority or radically) exist with any of Western Civilization's interests. War practically declares itself due to that alone but we could go further and say that the only other valid but significantly more risky option would be Korea, specifically the north but I suppose all of Korea would be involved in some way. Take into account that Democrats have played a large part towards making the middle East what it is now.. I'm certain this doesn't have to be explained more... Or were you going to suggest China or Russia? Both are terrible options and rather pointless.


      Sig by June 8)
      Love is like air, without it... I die.

      spaPOT wrote:

      no worriess..you see im a kid thats why im dumb..kuku :pillepalle:
    • bamcbix wrote:

      Suppose I'll answer the easier question first-hand did I mean the ideology that it could potentially happen or the literal separation. Well, the ideology is linked to the literal separation. Let's say the parts of the country with the most debt broke off... Bow they're the poorest country, they lack the ability to support themselves with modern technology and companies that are not based their would most likely abandon those regions due to legal actions hosted by the mainland. They also lose the powerful and necessary allies that the US has. In short it dies either a quick and painless death or a short reenactment of Ireland during the famine.

      Now why the middle East? Well it's fairly obvious but I guess I'll take a short stab at it. The middle East is incompatible with Western culture. Neither does it's beliefs or those living there (in majority or radically) exist with any of Western Civilization's interests. War practically declares itself due to that alone but we could go further and say that the only other valid but significantly more risky option would be Korea, specifically the north but I suppose all of Korea would be involved in some way. Take into account that Democrats have played a large part towards making the middle East what it is now.. I'm certain this doesn't have to be explained more... Or were you going to suggest China or Russia? Both are terrible options and rather pointless.
      Alright, I messed up the example I gave yesterday. xD Rather than the countries with the highest debt breaking up, consider all the richest states breaking off. Consequently, they would be in a stronger country without having to carry the weight of the states in worse shape (I also use the word "state" interchangeable with "country", hopefully that isn't causing confusion). To clarify, my opinion is that the United States is not going to break apart, but if it did break apart in an arbitrary way as described above, it wouldn't be illogical as you described it.

      Alright, so I'm assuming when you're referring to the "Middle East", you're referring to Arabic and Persian cultures and not including states like Turkey and Israel. I'm also assuming that you are connecting Islam with Middle Eastern culture and thinking of how the Quran has phrases of intolerance towards other religions. Furthermore, I'm assuming that you are thinking of Iran, Al Qaeda, and ISIS as prime examples of Middle Eastern culture being incompatible with Western Culture. So, based on these assumptions, you have a very narrow view on what middle eastern culture is. First of all, Islam (which is fairly ingrained in Middle Eastern culture) is perfectly compatible with Western culture, as is evident by countries like Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait who are friendly towards Western cultures. In fact, I recall one of those countries will be leasing a fair amount of the artwork in the Louvre within the next couple of years (unless it already happened... I'm not sure). Its true that some interpretations of the Quran preach intolerance towards people of differing beliefs, but that can also be said for the bible; a book that is definitely not considered incompatible with Western culture.
      "Neither does it's beliefs or those living there (in majority or radically) exist with any of Western Civilization's interests."
      ^This... what the heck does that mean? If this discussion is going to get anywhere, you need to get rid of your view on what is "common knowledge" and explain what you're trying to saying thoroughly. Making statements without providing examples or evidence is a bit counterproductive in this case.

      I wasn't going to suggest any country, as I thought the idea of declaring a war to solve civil unrest is not practical anyways.



      Sharpe12 wrote:

      Because middle eastern countries will lose. They play conventional warfare not jungle warfare and they're awful at it.
      Guerrilla warfare was and is commonly practiced in the Middle East against Western forces, not just conventional warfare in the western sense. But using that argument, I could say that nearly every country would lose in a conventional war with the United States. So limiting it to the Middle East is arbitrary.

      Thanks to Ratna for the fantastic sig!
    • Since I'm short on time I'll give a portion of the answer and will come back after my meeting.

      Even if the richest portions of the country were to break off, companies would suffer, building an economic system from nothing would be difficult and impractical for the faux-US the richest regions are far too separated to even consider making a country nor would they benefit in the slightest. Would lose out on larger parts of their military than the poorer parts of the US and again, is illogical.

      Then, we mix in the wonderful concoction of civil unrest and displeasure. If anything the individual "countries" of the now divided states would end up both going into civil war due to the plausible nature's of any rational separation. Almost could consider this a reenactment of East and West Berlin.


      Sig by June 8)
      Love is like air, without it... I die.

      spaPOT wrote:

      no worriess..you see im a kid thats why im dumb..kuku :pillepalle:
    • Yeah, but Muslim countries are especially easy to take down their official forces. I mean, look at israel, when was the last time they lost a war? Never, that's when, that's because they're fighting Muslim countries, which can't war properly.
      :gyrocopter-ani:
      BaM - Definition, bad at Mafia
      Sharpe12 - Definition, (Supremely handsome also refined, pulchritudinous & excellent) x12