Fox News' Greg Gutfeld suggests "civil war" because "elections don't work"
Fox News host Greg Gutfeld erupted with dark rhetoric during Thursday's broadcast of "The Five," appearing to advocate for a new American civil war because “elections don’t work” and the nation is in “peril and chaos," the Daily Beast reports. The host, whose takes have grown more extreme in recent years, made the remarks during a discussion on the recent looting in Philadelphia. Gutfeld bemoaned how some looters received lesser consequences than participants in the Jan. 6 insurrection, who he claimed received harsher sentences because of their race and political affiliations. He went on to allege they were being "driven out of cities by the oppressed" and compared the political tensions of the moment to the turmoil around slavery that gave birth to the Civil War. “Doesn’t that feel that way now?” Gutfeld rhetorically asked. “That this defiant refusal to reverse this decline argues against the survival of a country. What does that leave you with? It leaves you with ‘you need to make war to bring peace’ because you have a side that cannot change. Because then that means the admission that their beliefs have been corrupt all the time.”
Liberal co-host Harold Ford Jr. responded by suggesting an election, but Gutfeld disagreed. “No, elections don’t work,” he retorted. “We know that.” After Ford countered that they do work, Gutfeld went on a tirade insisting democracy is no longer a possibility. “Look what we have! We had a moderate president, and we have crime exploding everywhere,” he shouted. “We had a Democrat president promise that he was going to be moderate, promise that he was gonna unite the country and now we have a terrible education system. We have no border. We have crime everywhere. Every facet of society is in peril and in chaos because our elections don’t matter!”
They REALLY think the left isn't armed and willing to fight if it comes down to it, don't they?
Oh don't think for one second that they actually want a civil war. A civil war is fought by sides that have fundamental differences in how they want the government to function. Conservatives don't really have any idea how or if they want the government to function. Because if you sit a bunch of conservatives down in a conference room and talk them through their ideal government, writing it all down and asking questions like, "but what if the president is corrupt?" Or "how do we ensure safe, clean drinking water?" they'd wind up basically with what we have now (but maybe with states having more power but maybe even less).
When conservatives barf up words like, "civil war" it's really just a dog whistle. What they really want is an excuse to commit mass murder of black people, immigrants, LGBTQ, etc (all the people they hate and blame for all the problems they create or refuse to fix).
Here's how it would play out: A consensus forms in the conservative crazysphere that civil war is a must then some event happens and the talking heads will declare, "it's a civil war!" and then the crazies with guns will congregate go on a killing spree.
If law enforcement stops them it will end, briefly before it happens again. If law enforcement helps them it'll be a real civil war. That's when things will become real bad for Americans. Severe economic consequences; the dollar will tank. Food and supply shortages will create a lot of desperate people.
Foreign governments will probably straight up invade and claim territories under the excuse of "keeping things stable" (for their own economies).
Billionaires will just move to other countries but they'll lose probably 90% of their wealth. If they're caught undefended out in the open they probably won't make it. Their assets would be siezed by any territories claimed by democratic (aka "liberal") groups in order to fund the war. Mere millionaires will find their wealth disappear overnight. They'll probably try to pass themselves off as middle class for as long as they can... Moving in with family, forced to abandon their mansions.
The rich that sided with the liberals (e.g. celebrities that are easily identified as liberal) will fair the best amongst the wealthy in democratic strongholds.
I was pretty much with you until you got to foreign powers invading. Seems unlikely. At worst, we’d end up with the two strongest armies on earth (both American) fighting each other. I can’t think of another country on earth who would think it worth it to cross an ocean and occupy the territory. If he have a civil war, there’s a good chance China will try and take Taiwan, but I don’t see California, or even Hawaii, as worth invading in terms of RoI, economic or political.
You assume the locals wouldn't welcome a foreign power lending their military might. You think Maine's local military strength would be enough to fend off the Massachusetts
LiberalLiberation Army?With no central government America's states would become clusters of alliances and those that did not wish to join may have few options.
I'm imagining Canada and Mexico invading the US to carve out pieces in the chaos...
I, a Liberal and 2a supporter, do not think the left is armed and willing to fight. The party of frappucinos and e-bikes? Come on. "Guns are scary" is a central tenet of the Democratic Party.
Wow, you're such a liberal.... /S
I am. I'm just not naive.
I voted for Clinton. In the primary. I'm a Biden/Newsom/Clinton style liberal, except I also support the 2nd amendment.