Its all the policians that are stiring up contreversy also please take into acount that CNN really is filling the powder kaige also Biden just became president and already is bashing economic chanceing out of the way. Not being bias but now that he is president 90% of americans hate him
Bruh if this man ever comes to America, he should get instant citizenship. Like the fact that he's so aware of american history, culture, and politics is insane, respect😤
It's basically true. After the War of 1812, Canada saw the writing on the wall and went out of its way to prove to the US government that Canada was a friend. They knew that if the US percieved Canada as a threat, they wouldn't long survive as an independent Nation.
@@AngraMainiiu Canada has lots of natural resources. So long as they are willing to trade as friends, we're willing to get along. If they were to ever do something stupid like allowing Chinese troops to have large scale military bases on their soil, then Canada would very quickly find out why that is a *very* bad idea.
@@randlebrowne2048 but as for natural resources ya you’re right but it’s also super underdeveloped and we’d have to create a massive amount of infrastructure to harvest and make it beneficial
As an American, I can't imagine actual civil war breaking out over here. And that's because there are just way too many people with different political beliefs scattered all over the states. Just how are we going to sort each and every single one of us out to form alliances? This isn't the 1850s anymore where people of a certain political belief and way of life were mostly restricted between the north and south.
Seems like Biden is pushing for a civil war. Watch his fight for gun controle, that might set it off. I can see the cities being choked of resources and starved.
If this did happen, it wouldn't happen the way this guy describes. It would start out in the towns/cities, then counties, then state. Just because an area is red or blue doesn't mean everyone in that area is red or blue. Also, there would be no way of knowing who's your enemy , so it would fail from the start.
Hell, it wouldn't even be towns and cities. It wouldn't even be neighborhoods. When the hat drops shots would be exchanged from house to house. Drive ways would be no man's land before any sort of organization begins.
@@shadowofhawk55 ok realistically it would take about 3-4 months before either side had any organized army or government, but in the end I agree with his predictions. There is one extreme factor that I think is overlooked though. The fact that I’d say 80 percent of republicans (I pulled it out of my ass I don’t know real numbers just guessing) have learned how to shoot, and have access to guns would be a substantial factor. Not only would it take like half the time to train, but also whenever democrats attacked a city they would likely be met with small militias
Ok the second amendment is soooo undervalued. At one point in ww2 Japan had an opportunity to land in California and push all the way to the mid west and part of the south. When asked why they didn’t after the war they said that they knew that nearly everyone in America had guns, and were willing to fight back in small local militias everywhere they went.
Its possible but highly unlikely. At most you would see anarchy in cities leading to death, and starvation and isolated in them and nothing would spread out or grow more than that. The country would be divided, but I believe then after there would be more connection after observing and living through such. Just my opinion on the matter
It would all boil down to the military and which side it chooses to support... and then it wouldn't be so much a civil war but more like a subjugation. lol I know many of our citizens are armed, but they aren't going to be able to put up much of a resistance to our current military, they are so much more technically advanced than what the average gun owner has. This is why I worry about who's in charge, regardless of party. Everyone just needs to stick to democracy, sometimes you win, sometimes you loose, but it keeps things stable. :D
@@heidiwyler2757 this assumes soliders are robots and don't have a conscious. While it is their job to follow the "commander in chief" - starting a war on its own people is completely different. A soliders job is to protect its CITIZENS, and their constitutional rights. If a President clearly over steps this, our military will be subject to reconsider the commander in chiefs orders.
@Meth Breakfast Yeah but it depends on doctrine the soldiers get many of the individuals who become soldiers come from the community that they might have to go against and they wouldn’t stand for that
@@lydiascarlet8584 Yeah he wouldn't want to come here right now anyway, or can't because of restrictions, but when things get better, he can come enjoy all the beauty and great things this country has to offer 😊
@@hop208 It's rosy if you're independently wealthy and have a direct pathway to citizenship, otherwise prepare to lose your life savings in a matter of weeks just trying to survive.
The reason we don't use the popular vote to determine who wins an election is because we have an electoral college. It's meant to balance the power between rural and urban areas, or the cities would decide each and every time. It's honestly a pretty controversial thing nowadays
Even though it shouldn't. It makes things fair. The ones who think it's wrong are democrats who listen to late night show talk show host who think their journalists...
@@collinspecht6725 not all democrats lol and yea the electoral college is to make sure it fair for everyone cus people in cities shouldn’t decide the fate of the country
People in large cities do not understand anything about food production. Natural resource management or resource transport. Yet citys could easily out vote the rural population. In doing so, be in a position to legislate and make policy governing industrys they no absolutely nothing about. An inner city business man should not be in charge of running farms and ranches. And vise versa. A farmer probably knows very little about issues faced by people living in mega citys.
I know this is a bit old now and the video with TONS of comments, but I'd like to point out that the electoral college is used for that purpose, but you could easily do this without the college too. All the electoral college really does is make some number of people (The senate and house of representatives to be specific) the people that actually vote for president. All other votes are just requesting those people to vote how you want them to. And it's split up mostly based on population, but not completely, to make it more fair for less populated areas.
You need to work on you Anglophile studies! J/K... There are many phrases like that, which are the original, and our culture changed them, possibly to better fit a situation. so he meant "Touch Wood", and You and i would mean "Knock Wood", which is the original derivation from "Touch Wood." They also sing the old version of a playground classic; "Ring a Ring o Roses"...here it became "Ring around the Rosie" In Britain; "The Hokey-Kokey," here; "The Hokie Pokie." i love these linguistic differences, and i often favour using UK spelling.
Something he missed is that lots of these red counties have small population so even if there a situation where it’s one blue county vs 30 red ones the blue county might have way more people
That may be true, but 30% of the red county population are trained and practiced snipers. So the blue counties would never be able to launch a massive army for fear of it being decimated.
@@starcravingmatt Republicans would win in the end but it would still take 2-4 years because the country is so massive and there are so many liberals in the country
@@andre.moonlight you can bomb the wilderness for decades and never harm an enemy that lives there. Just look at Vietnam, and Afghanistan... It would be very easy to cause major chaos in a city...
This isn’t going to happen, like someone else said in the comments, back in the civil war beliefs were very geographical. People in the North believed one thing while the South believed something else. Democrats and Republicans live amongst each other, very spread out. Certain states may lean towards one or another, it is still very mixed. Organizing would be practically impossible and they would not have enough momentum.
I wouldn’t be so sure. If the Biden administration does what it wants and said it was most of the country would say screw that and if Biden tried to push the issue with the military or national guard a civil war would break out as ik myself and a lot of others will not let anyone take our rights in any way without the consent of those it impacts
Honestly look up the purple map of the us that shows shades of purple to show that the us is honestly more mixed then the voting map would have someone believe.
True, i think the video is largely correct though. Your point would mean a lot of small and local scale violence in the enclaves of both sides. People would tend to either fall in line with their locality or evacuate to an enclave of their own side if they were partisan enough (assuming things got that martial). It would be an unmitigated disaster for everybody, anyways and would only empower those with authoritarian tendencies on both sides.
I love the electoral college but it needs to be distributed by house district like Nebraska and Maine. True democracy is as bad as a dictatorship. Democracy needs regulation it can be a very dangerous thing
@@deafleppard1812 it’s a weird thing to me tbh. And I’m not replying to start anything, I genuinely feel like we should just get rid of the electoral college because the winner of popular vote is the actual person that the majority of Americans voted for. I feel like the electoral college is kinda just like a “middle man” kinda, but an unnecessary one. In a sense I see it as a barrier to having a true democratic election because it doesn’t matter if they win the majority or not. And because of things like gerrymandering, smaller counties that pull one way every single time give an unfair advantage to a single party. I see both sides in a sense, but I feel like I order to have a true democracy it should be abolished.
@@chloeelizabeth6144 I see your point but I also think that if it was changed to a straight popular vote there would be a number of states that would leave the Union because because they wouldn’t feel they have a voice. They would feel like they are being completely ruled by people in fare away Cities kinda like at the original American revolution. But maybe it’s time for the country to split anyway as different as it seems to be
@@JasonLewis42 well I don’t think the country should split up. I don’t think any one would actually benefit from that long term. And like honestly everyone wants the same thing which is to like better the country as a whole. Everyone just needs to learn how to listen and compromise. I could see how people from rural areas could feel like their voices are being silenced, but I also don’t really think there’s much validity to that statement. I live in a rural county and personally I feel that it is the electoral college who is silencing my voice. If the majority of the country is voting one way, that person should win. That’s fair. People in rural areas would still be voting for whoever they wanted too so if the majority just so happened to be the person they voted for it’s fair. The electoral college does not represent the voices of the the people.
You asked a question that seemed to ask why we don't go by a strict popular vote rather than voting through an electoral college. I think you should do a whole video on that alone! What's important to people in cities is not always the same as those in rural areas.
The United States is a federated collection of semi-independent countries (states) that requires a method of choosing the collective leader fairly, regardless of state population count.
@@randlebrowne2048 except for the states that have more delegates than population to merit it. They get outsized electoral agency by virtue of there being a minimum amount of electors per state. So, no, it is not choosing fairly regardless of population. Electoral college needs to go, and will inside of 15 years.
Bruh, you're a people. People get spots. Not all the peoples have the balls to be on camera with toothpaste covering their spots. Courage has won my subscription. Well played sir, well played.
It’s possible, if we keep doubling down on our pendulum swing. I think most Americans DONT want this though. Let’s hope it stays that way. Let’s stop railing against free speech for starters. THAT AINT HELPIN!
May I just say, sir, that if you really think about it there is no crack down on free speech. Look, you can say pretty much ANYTHING you want on social media, you just can’t spread lies you have no legitimate evidence for. I see people saying racist, sexist, horrible things and they can stay on there. Even the people complaining about being censored, do you realize that you aren’t being censored if you can complain?
@@p.t.d.505 You clearly have no idea what free speech actually means. It's not the freedom to say "Hello, how are you doing on this fine afternoon?" it's the freedom to say "Fuck you, I wish an astroid would fall and hit you right now". Anything that is not by legal definition incitement is free speech. Saying you hate a group of people? Free speech. Someone can say they hate you right back. Saying that you hate Warren Buffet because he's richer than you? Free speech. Saying that you hope the government falls to a communist revolution? Free speech. Saying that you intend to kill someone? Not free speech. See how that works? Likewise, a 'conspiracy theory' is used to denote anything that someone doesn't think is true and/or doesn't want to believe is true. It's not a scientific term. The world being round can be a conspiracy theory according to a flat-earther, and regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary, they will still use that word. The problem with banning based on your idea of a 'conspiracy theory' is that you're taking it upon yourself to decide for others what is reality and what is not. Even worse is when a specific federal taskforce gets to decide what a 'conspiracy theory' is (conveniently anything that threatens or criticizes them). That is unbelievably dangerous, and is a practice that was used by both the Nazi regime and Stalin's regime. To quote a fictional character, Tyrion Lannister: "When you cut out a man's tongue, you are not proving him mistaken, but merely that you fear what he might say." Obviously no tongues are being removed, but to ban somebody is to remove them from societal discourse, permanently. You need to ensure that they did more than say "I think we should investigate the election" to warrant this. To summarize: if you ban somebody for 'conspiracy theories' you're not proving them wrong, you're not even engaging them, you're figuratively punching them in the face and saying "shut the fuck up, I don't like what you said so that means you can't say it". As far as 'spreading' disinformation is concerned, it is a much less harmful practice to hold debate and educate people so that they can decide what to believe for themselves, rather than making that choice for them based on your personal beliefs, as if you somehow are drastically more enlightened than the crawling masses (that, when done by a government, is called fascism by the way).
@@erikstrickland96 I didn’t say it was dead. I said we need to stop RAILING against it. Many people are doing that right now. The slippery slope argument is a valid one. I do agree with you, we still have it right now, but... we need to realize how quickly authoritative power leads to fascism and genocide. I respect you sharing your opinion on the matter and partially agree with you. ❤️
No, the country's even MORE conservative today. The left wing has totally alienated everyone else, at this point. They've openly declared everyone else to be all but inferior to them and that they should be silenced and exterminated. Why should anyone else be friendly toward the left, therefore?
@@cdot32 As a centrist I must say the election was bullshit. Never seen such orchestrated fraud in my life. That being said i wouldnt say the countries more conservative. The right has become more Nationalist and the left has become more Authoritarian (except for the young folk) since this video was published. Both parties are fracturing which I see as a good thing.
@@cdot32 doesn't prove anything, when the largest voting block is the non voter. Plus the Republicans didn't really fight in the Georgia runoff and thought the tired old playbook would see them through. All what happened is the Republicans alienated the Trump bump, the very people they needed to counter the dump the Democrats got from the anti-trumpers.
My democratic friends who own guns have a hunting rifle, a shotgun, and maybe a handgun with 50-100 rounds total. All my republican and libertarian friends own guns and many own at least a dozen different kind with THOUSANDS of rounds. It's also not uncommon to know someone with over 10,000 rounds of ammunition. Not to mention most of the outdoors people, those than can survive, are libertarian or republican. Sorry. But the city living hipster guys and the whole woke crowd won't be able to do shit.
I feel as if this video negates a lot of factors. For one, I doubt most of the nations he said would support the Republicans, actually would. Personally, I think the foreign aid alone would give democrats the victory. Not to mention, depending on who attacks first will give the other side a massive advantage. If the republicans attacked first, it would push a lot of moderates towards the democratic cause, meaning a lot of the red leaning areas would switch to blue, and considering the insurrection on January 6th, I find that to be quite a likely scenario.
@@podomuss Jan 6th was not an insurrection. It was a handful of idiots out of tens of thousands. If they wanted an insurrection.... it would’ve been way worse. The right has probably 90% of the civilian owned firearms. Also, the right tends to be people that know how to fend for themselves. 🤷♀️
@@nikkiplatt316 It was absolutely an insurrection. At the very least, a lot of them came to do as much damage as possible. Bombs were found, zip ties, guns, I dunno about you, but it kind of reminds me of when Hitler attempted to overthrow the government but failed and was sent to prison.
@@podomuss I know what was reported... the zip ties I’ll give you but I call BS on the rest. Like 50 people out of thousands.. tens of thousands. Like I said- if they wanted an insurrection, how much more would have been done in DC. I don’t agree with what that small number of people did, I think they should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That said, that small group does not set example of the rest of us... kinda how the rioters don’t make up a majority of the left. The difference, the left called for violence and the media told you “ they’re just tired of it.” Trump says peacefully make our voices heard... the media “ violent insurrectionists storm the Capitol because Trump told them too”.... you see my point? People on the right generally want peace, but we will fight to defend the rights of ourselves and others. The heart of the patriot.
I come from a red-north county (western New York). I means that they often feel resentful toward the City, which always determines the state's votes, and it's felt that the interests of the city are often at odds with the interest of the countryside. (Gun control is probably the biggest issue. In the country, people hunt, live at a distance from small law enforcement hqs, and have a common-gun culture. In the City, where people are on top of each other and people are out to lessen the damage caused by gun crime, they want as many controls as possible, which ends up putting a big pinch on the countryside, where these issues are not primary. This then leads to a resentful toughening up of gun culture... not just "I got a right to my huntin' rifle," but "I can have any gun I want and you big city dictators can't take it!" And of course, the urbanites tend to assume that because of their sheer numbers and economic output, of COURSE they have the natural right to determine the outcome of elections, and if the rural areas lose out, then it's because they're losers and deserve to be. Which leads to the counter-response from the urban areas of using media dominance to ridicule and otherwise belittle their country cousins, which leads to... well, you can see where it's going. It's stupid, but this cycle of stupidity is what got us where we are.)
when it comes down to fighting and surviving I feel the cities would not last a month simply because of the lack of food so the war would be short and involve cities begging other countries for food so their "own" people won't jump ships on them With the exception of maybe the west coast areas then again I'm just knowledgeable about my area; being eastern farms and townships
this largely discounts people who dont vote or lean to either party which take up a large margin of the population and could tilt it to either side if they are forced to radicalize. Not to mention potential flipping sides depending on the goals of either army
I agree. It's a good way to lose many US followers and subscribers since politics is a very touchy subject, especially when voiced by a non-US citizen.
@@jeffburnham6611 that’s facts, anytime I hear someone from another country who doesn’t live in the US mention our politics, I tell them to shut up, even before I hear what they say.
@@jeffburnham6611 the problem is America exports its culture all over the world ,in some countries some of the most popular tv shows are American, so they think they know America, but Hollywood doesn't represent this country unless you have lived here for a long time you really have no idea what's going on. even when they visit here they just stick to a few touristy areas of LA or NYC.
@Not Me right I don't think many people own guns in NYC and LA. At least not legit. and ESPECIALLY not democrats. So I don't see how population is even a factor. Not to mention the Military and even Cops leaning right.
@@annea4197 we are like a family of anger and frustration over how we love the nation and want to make it petter and when a foreign force wants to threaten that, switch on a dime and turn our anger into passion for freedom, liberty, and justice. The history book kinda showed that and it genuinely surprises and scares me
11:45 that map is pretty accurate, here in Oregon about 2/3 of my friends are republican or libertarian. But Oregon is considered blue because the major cities like Portland have a very dense population of Democrats while Republicans are far more spread out across the state.
I honestly found it hilarious imagining the Democrats positioning themselves in the "Imperial Valley," when he was talking about how the Democrats would unite on the west coast. I grew up in the Imperial Valley and it's seriously a desert valley that reaches up to 120 degrees F (about 49 C) in the summer. Lets hope it's not a summer war.
I feel as if this video negates a lot of factors. For one, I doubt most of the nations he said would support the Republicans, actually would. Personally, I think the foreign aid alone would give democrats the victory. Not to mention, depending on who attacks first will give the other side a massive advantage. If the republicans attacked first, it would push a lot of moderates towards the democratic cause, meaning a lot of the red leaning areas would switch to blue, and considering the insurrection on January 6th, I find that to be quite a likely scenario.
the elite would love this to happen right know, and reap the benefit of them dividing us. We need a awakening. Idk what color you are, religion, side or politics u on, we are all human and not perfect from birth. Us coming together would not sit well with the government and we are their worst enemy.
The attitude I seem to feel from the people on Facebook and whatever talking up another civil war is “I want a war but I want someone else to fight it!” No one who’s talking it up is really willing to fight for it, they just want to send kids to die for their apparently uncompromising beliefs. It’s really ridiculous
I mean, I believed that aswell until I saw the Capitol riot. People were willing to go into a government building because they thought the election was rigged, now imagine what they would do if someone took away an admendment or something.
@@enyabthegreat9993 As soon as that one woman was shot for breaking in, a lot of them pissed their pants and left to be fair though. I think a lot of them thought it was gonna be as easy as sending a tweet or posting on FB. They didn't understand how serious breaking into a government building is, which is honestly quite sad
@@podomuss That's the thing, alot of them left. Not nearly all, and I'll make you think about this for a second. Alot of those people arent fighting for a cause many believe in, imagine what happens when something GIANT happens. 22% of Americans claim to own guns, I bet atleast 10% would be fine fighting the government. That is 32 million people, there in the ENTIRE world are 20.5 million.
I’m curious how this has changed in the last 3.5 years. I’m also curious how the 2020 Census will change the political affiliation of counties IF gerrymandering is banned.
This video is extremely biased, so I'll make this point short and sweet to not cause a fight in the comments. I think we can All agree that this would not be good for anyone and would be horrendous if it actually happened. In my opinion I don't think there would be a "Winning" Side we would ALL lose. Edit: Reading your replays made me think about how I worded this, I should have said slightly biased not extremely. There is some however so I'll explain for those asking. 1: Wealth Most democratic city's/area's are very wealthy, this is mostly glossed over and not addressed the way it should be as it's very important. EX: Despite not having the resources (IE,Guns/Amo/Food/Fuel ECT.) initially they could afford to get them by external means. 2: Population The population of these said city's is huge and again not discussed as it should be, If this had been taken into account he would have realized it would be a lot harder to take over those cities then he stated. In my opinion it wouldn't be possible at all to take over those cities without a massive loss of life on both sides and the Republicans would end up having to commit genocide in order to succeed, which is something I don't think they would do. So with that being said I want to make it clear I don't disagree with the end results just on how easy it would be, The Republicans would most likely "Win". However it would come at a cost of crippling the entire country and a huge loss of life. As well as leaving us open to attack by foreign bodies.
He said he’s libertarian, I’m also libertarian and all the libertarians i know dislike both sides, I doubt it’s biased I think he’s just sticking to the numbers
Not bias at all! Sorry! Why were the far left really worried? Besides liberals are against the 2nd amendment...the major cities are liberals were the rest of most states are conservative. What does that mean? Less federal government interference, freedom for school choice, restricted abortion rights, and freedom for 1st & 2nd amendment.
@@nocxlf agreed but more Libertarians tend to also be Constitutionalist and want less federal government, these things make Libertarians more of ally's to Republicans.
Sadly it used to be (more or less) that you could have differing options and still get along, now your are labeled something for having those opinions and attacked for them, just let everyone live their lives the way they want as long as it does not interfere with how you do you in a direct way.
It's easy to say just let everyone live their lives, but when some of the 'opinions' you mentioned directly affect how people can live those lives it's not so easy to just ignore. Homosexuality and Gay marriage are a pretty good example of that. "Go live you life how you want! But it's illegal for you to love the person you love. And you DEFINITELY can't get married." It's not nearly as simple as you suggest it to be.
@@moosiemoose1337 my speaker and headphones are already at 100% so ya i don't have trouble hearing there must be something wrong with my pc or it's razer driver causing a issue
@@DaMathias That works great when the video is uniformly quiet. Problem here is, turn the volume up to hear the video Luka's reacting to and his voice is gonna blow out your eardrums. Or watch with his voice at a comfortable level and barely be able to hear the background video.
RE: your question about why the presidential vote is by state rather than by person, the answer is twofold: 1) That's the way it was originally set up and 2) It benefits one of the two major parties that would be needed to alter it The main effect of a change like this would only come into play recently, with Gore (D) winning in 2000 rather than Bush Jr. (R), and Clinton (D) winning in 2016 instead of Trump (R). A way-too-simplified reasoning for the initial setup was because it was easier in the days of hand-tabulated voting, and additionally it gave the landowning rural elite a bit of protection against the uncouth city-dwelling rabble. How it plays out now is that the party allied with the rural areas enjoys greater representation in government than the party allied with the urban areas. This is because each state is allocated electoral votes (votes for president) based on 1 for each representative in congress (3 minimum - 2 senators for each state + minimum 1 Representative), which is set based on a census taken every 10 years. This means the smallest state (Wyoming, pop. ~481,000) gets 3 votes while the largest state (California, pop. ~33.63 mil) gets 55 votes. So California gets only18.3 times the representation despite having ~70 times the population. That's the most egregious example, but holds throughout, so in the 2020 Senate was Republican-controlled 53-47, but in terms of portion of the population represented, Senators representing 153 million Americans held control over Senators representing 168 million Americans. This Number Of States vs. Portion Of Population dichotomy is why, should the parties remain roughly as they are now, it will lead to Democrats controlling the House of Representatives, the Senate usually being Republican, and the Presidency being a tossup (for the Electoral vote - Democrats will likely frequently win the popular vote) in the near future
By the time that he talks about the democratic stronghold of Minneapolis, he’s erased the blue spot of it on the map. The area referred to there is actually the greater Duluth area. Which is tactically important due to being able to ship stuff through the Great Lake to/from the Atlantic. The area that was erased just north of there is strongly connected, as the iron mining industry in that area is arguably the primary reason why Duluth’s shipping industry was so developed- linking up with steel production further east. While the higher grade ore is mostly gone (in WWII that region of Minnesota produced more iron ore than the rest of the Allied countries combined, and a bit more than all of the Axis countries combined), this region is still is still by far the largest source of domestic iron ore.
A lot of the red areas in the country are VERY sparsely populated. This is a dynamic that's difficult for a lot of folks to wrap their heads around. Los Angeles County for example, has a greater population than all by 9 states. In the actual civil war, the Union used their technology advantage through railroad supremacy. The Democratic stronghold areas control most international trade, a lot of tech levers, etc. It's foolish to that that it would provide an advantage to them. Also, with the Republicans needing to control so much land, they'd be constantly trying to squash uprisings in all of the Democratic sympathizers in most of their cities significant cities.
I think this video gets it mostly right. At the end of the day, one side has a near monopoly on the production of natural resources, especially food and oil. The other side accounts for most of the consumption of those resources. Doesn't take Nostradamus to see how that plays out.
Doesn't even have to be a war. The well-armed rural conservatives could just cut off the supply chain to liberal cities, a few months later and that'd be that.
Yeah, the people with the manpower, wealth, and useful resources walk in and take everything. Sitting on a mountain of corn and hunting rifles won't stop the MQ-9 Reapers, tanks, and millions of well armed people streaming out of the areas with all the industrial infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities. If a city vs rural war happened it would play out like every other time in history, the cities living in comfort with the minor threat of car bombings and the rurals living in comfort with the minor threat of getting btfo'd by a drone.
@@callowaymotorcompany Texas, at least, has it's own fleet of f-16's and Reaper drones in our air national guard. Other states have their own combat squadrons of various types. Texas, at least, certainly wouldn't have much of a man power shortage. If things turned into a state vs state conflict, Texas would likely join with other, like minded states to share both trade and manpower/equipment. It's not like Texans have forgotten that other states sent people to fight alongside us at the Alamo.
And you're braindead if you think Biden, who was getting literally 12 people showing up to his rallies BEFORE covid, actually won the popular vote by 7 million lol don't be so naive
@@ahhReno people who voted for Biden think the pandemic is true so it goes to show social distancing is something they believe in (and made fun of when Trump supporters did so). Of course they wouldn’t have huge rallies, it would be hypocritical.
Yeah...at this point the war would be Antifa and democrats vs state militias and republicans. What’s awesome about that is the fact that the democrats think Antifa has their back....but they hate everyone. It wouldn’t take long before they turn on the left. Republicans wouldn’t even have to show up.
All my favorite TH-camrs seem to upload near the end of my school day or afterwards, it's awesome. Keep doing what you do, always enjoying the uploads!
At 9:10 I think what you are asking is why it doesn't run just by population. If so, to put it simply in the case of America there is the electoral college. The electoral college is put in because of how dense some cities are a candidate could win with just 3 or 4 states completely disregarding the other 47 or 46. So instead they put in systems like the electoral college where the number of electoral votes is determined by a state's population and whoever gets a majority electoral vote (270) is declared the winner. TLDR: It isn't ran just by the population because mass disregard of most states could easily take place.
republicans have more guns, water supply, crop production. the population difference between democrat and republican arent signifcant enough to overcome other significant metrics
@@artyumdragstov8823 Good point on the crop production. They would literally be cut off to the brink of starvation. Not much farm land around the city.
@@kraven4444 Many farmers are using non traditional farming. This includes hydroponic,aquaponics, vertical, and aeroponics. Many non traditional farming uses 98% less water and space. All can be grown inside with growing lights, the sun,and/or greenhouses. Many leafy plants grow 3 times faster in non traditional farming than traditional farming. This is how Disney can grow ALL their own food for their restaurants.
The population will inevitably starve since republican states control the food production. The Democrats will fight back but a percentage will be weakened due to malnutrition.
Yeah, just spread across a country the size of continental Europe, and with a population in possession of more small arms than exist in the combined military and police arsenals of every nation on Earth. Things would get truly ugly.
@@torriezenna653 That's your family but the whole US the right has at least double the guns as the left. I live in a county where it's about 80% Republican and theres 3 times more guns in my county than people.
Another thing to consider is gun ownership. A Republican is twice as likely to own a gun than a Democrat. This makes a successful Democrat guerrilla campaign much harder, especially if it's Democrats fleeing conquered cities having to fight in rural areas. More Republicans live in rural areas which means that more Republicans would be knowledgeable of the area, in addition to superior numbers.
Sometimes I see news about elections in the UK. It might be blip for a week and that’ll be it. The only way I really see politics from other countries is when I’m watching something like the daily show. I have to actively seek it out
The fact that the original poster never showed a population map or population density map kind of tips his hand. Even these "small county pockets" tend to be the bulwark of that region's population. Take Illinois, it has 12m+ people, well 8m+ live in Chicagoland, then there are the other college and small city areas, so if we're in total war where everyone is now a soldier, it makes far more sense that Chicagoland, would expand out to take the rest of their state, as well as the part sof Indy and Wisconsin that are in Chicagoland. Using land always doesn't make sense because of the sheer amount of gerrymandering that the GOP has undertaken this century. States like Mississippi or Texas might surprise you because of how much devaluing of population centers or places made up of largely POC. Lots of areas thought of as Republican population centers would likely not turn their way either. NC is a republican state purely through Political Injustice and Misconduct by their State Republicans, Texas is possibly two presidential cycles from flipping, we've seen how much the true Engine of Georgia: Metro Atlanta has changed that state. It also underestimates industry in dem leaning area. but the biggest mistake is not taking into context what each party represents these days. The Dems are called the PArty of the Big Tent because they literally represent the entire political spectrum from Center-Right to Left, WHILE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY has pushed further and further into the reactionary. The likely scenario of this country going to war, was actually unveiled last month, a authoritrian, anti-democratic coup attempt by a more and more unpopular national party, and there seemed to be ery little stomach for it to actually happen.
Perhaps Canada would help the US keep a Democratic safe & fair Democracy. Republicans have the tiny top % of millionaires, its no wonder they vote for Republican values, they wanna keep their shit & let others starve. Democrats provide a way for working equality & survivability for all. Thats why Democrats dominate & everyone I know is Democratic, except a chunk of "retired rich folks who have more $ than any 1 person deserves.
I think the perspective of this vid may not be based on fact. Real Life Lore did a vid on how separate Republican and Democratic countries would compare in regards to population, economy, military size, etc. I would recommend reacting to that one! From the facts RLL mentions, it may become clear what would happen if a civil war broke out between the two parties.
@Lav Luka The reason the election is not decided by a popular vote (as you asked at around 9:30) is because the U.S. has a system called the electoral college. There are both pros and cons to this kind of system, and one party more often opposes the electoral college, whereas the other party would more often want to keep it. You could look it up to see the reasons for and against. Trying to keep it politically neutral so yeah there's that.
It's an interesting video but there's a glaring hole in the analysis; counties are much more divided than the majority winner would lead you to believe. In many places in that sea of red, the split between Democrat and Republican can be as low as 49-51. Now there are many (low population) places (in the South especially) that swing massively toward Republicans, but it's hard to believe that in a narrowly divided county, the result wouldn't just be partisan warfare. It's not like all the Democrats and Progressives would just go, "Well, we're only 40% of the population in this county, so guess we get on board with the Conservatives for the big war..." So the idea that the Republicans could maneuver unimpeded to just wipe out the Democrats on the coasts neglects the massive guerrilla campaign that would be waged nationwide.
That and the fact that not every voter is a soldier. Very much not. 99.5% of people would not randomly go grab a weapon and start butchering people in the street, or form an army. Most people who vote don't do it with grand zeal, they do it passively and without too much emotional conviction one way or the other. This is why a civil war in the traditional sense will never happen in the foreseeable. Too few people have the balls, the will or the means.
We're friendly until we're given reason not to be... There is actually a bill working it's way through our state legislature to allow a referendum vote on secession. The head of the state GOP has already announced his support for it.
He’s not referring to the whole population. He’s talking about the segments from each side that would sign up and actively fight. Twice as many right aligned citizens join the military as left leaning ones. The Democrats just throwing untrained and unwilling citizens on the frontline with a helmet and rifle, would be meaningless. They’d be nothing more than cannon fodder. It takes a certain personality to sacrifice ones self in the defense of their nation.
@@datdude1538 I mean if he’s not referring to the whole population then why even have the conversion if we aren’t considering that the whole population wouldn’t contribute. War isn’t about infantry there is tons of other things involved. Even if they are just bodies the statement is still false. There are more democrats, that’s just a fact
You have to remember there are Democrats some fairly liberal ones in the vast red area, and some Republicans some fairly conservative on the blue coasts, I'm a fairly liberal Democrat in the very red northwest corner of Iowa. I think we came a lot closer to disaster with the attempted coup on Jan. 6, 2021. And remember that map shower the rust belt ( Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania as red in 2020 they went blue again. I'd probably have to flee to the Twin Cities in Minnesota if a new civil war broke out.
If Jan. 6th were actually a coup, at least some of the people doing it would have been armed. Those people were mostly just idiots thinking that they could get away with what BLM and Antifa got away with during the Kavenaugh supreme court confirmation hearings.
I think this video overlooks a few other tidbits. Blue bastions account for 64% of the US economic activity and 84% of red states rely on Federal aid just to keep their local governments afloat. Some states like Kentucky receive nearly 1/2 of their state budget this way. A looming war would begin with a financial wrought and blue bastions would mobilize their financial clout towards mobilization. The last great war had a union army that was a quarter foreign born and the financial clout of the left could muster "mercenaries" to supplement our forces. Wars are typically won by the side with money. They can more readily turn enemy units to their cause and amass arms. They can supplement their industries with most of the worlds production centers. Blue bastions control all the important ports save for some in Florida. This means democrats can starve out supply chains from the few allies republicans have while ensuring their own. While the officer core leans republican (if you don't count the last election), it's not clear entirely how support ranks among other groups. Veterans tend to lean 60-40 but that tilt resides with older voters whereas younger military members are inclined towards democrats. With further passage of time before this war that political split will encroach in democrats favor. You must also take into account that man military members vote republican for only one reason and that is funding. Bernie Sanders received more contributions from Military donations and in 2012, Obama received 85% of the donations from military members. Biden won the military vote this year around 4% and more so among those under 50. Democrats have less international wound up time than portrayed. They already control ports and a massive trade infrastructure since this is how they make a lot of their money to begin with. They are typically characterized as international hubs. Capital hill is 92% democrat and is surrounded by our intelligence hubs that give an intelligence, technological, and command advantage in a world where everything is connected. Intelligence agencies tend to lean democrat and would be immediately acquired even if they weren't. I won't get into specifics, but intelligence agencies can easily render the enemies means ineffective, frustrate coordination and reliable information while affording democrats the advantage of having full insight on enemy movements and their own. Many of the left's allies may not have big armies, but the UK for example has the largest intelligence surveillance center in the world. The EU matches the US economy and would be invested in a blue victory to ensure their own economies and to dig into the pot as we did in WW2. Cybersecurity, tech , foreign, and bureaucratic advantages belong to democrats. Drones and AI are a more common means of warfare that is debated for their ethicality but the left wouldn't debate that now. They control tech industries and can pump them out fast and quick. They also control the areas for military contractors that arm and produce them. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the government used gamers to test a lot of these drones with before, so this is an example of using people with no combat of life experience whatsoever in war. Another point is that Megacities typically do not fall. There has never been a war in one really. They're not defenseless and are outfitted for war. We've been arming and prepping them since the cold war, WW2, etc. Whereas the same is not true for rural areas so they have less opportunities to repurpose these items. Los Angeles County has more people in it than the 7-10 lower populated red states combined and there 10's of counties. These are logistic and economic hubs that would be targeted in war. Though the cold war never produced invasion plans from either side, generals kept pushing fear on capitol Hill that we stockpiles defense in these areas to thwart invasions. Cities are discreet fortresses. Think of the Maginot line but without weakness.
Politics is nasty everywhere. I've seen some good rows in Parliament during Prime Ministers questions. I have a question for my UK friends.Could Brexit lead the UK to civil war?
There is actually more truth to that than you know. When Andrew Jackson was running for office, a political cartoon portrayed Jackson and his Democrat party as "Jack-asses". Jackson's personality being what it was, he decided to run with it.
The reason why the US vote is not a pure popular vote (vote by population) is that there are different needs and values in different locations. In the United States, the number of electoral college votes is split up and distributed across the states, based on population. The number of electoral college votes is based on the number of state representatives, which is based purely on population. To balance the states, each state has 2 senators, which gives them 2 electoral college points. This gives people in Wyoming seemingly more voting power than people in California. The idea of giving states votes purely off of their statehood is to make sure smaller, less populated states, are not completely controlled by larger, more populated states.
Whenever you look at a map of which states voted for which party, remember this: it ALWAYS comes down to how many people in each state lives in cities. Rural people tend to vote Republican, even in democrat states, and democrats tend to live in cities and vote democrat even in republican states. New York obviously has New York City, so it will always be blue. The red states have much smaller cities in them.
I just love looking at Illinois lol. Most of the State is VERY Republican, but Chicago has such an insane amount of people that it is able to render the Republican voters useless. Same deal in NYC. Here we have a few major cities: Syracuse, Rochester, and New York. Rural voters do not stand a chance. Interestingly, the same is happening in Texas. Texas has some HUGE cities, but the voter suppression is so bad, and the State is so big that rural voters are competitive, but not for long once Texas' economy starts to grow even more. Georgia is going through the same thing. Movie industry is moving there, Atlanta alone is growing like crazy, and the State's economy is booming. In Georgia, again, rural voters are about to be rendered insignificant in a few years.
@@zualapips1638 lol what are you talking about, if anything the electoral college gives an advantage to rural voters. If the election was decided by popular vote democrats would win every time.
that's not necessarily true for states with smaller major cities, like Louisiana. New Orleans is one of a handful of cities in LA that consistently votes Dem, but is only 370k+ strong. the Greater New Orleans Area has 1.2M+ people in the surrounding parishes, ALL of which vote GOP. Same thing with MO and TN, and those states have MUCH larger populations and MUCH larger cities.
On the voting question: voting isn't solely based on population because we want fair representation for each state, since they are so diverse. If it was only based on population it would give unbalanced power to states like CA. So, all states send 2 senators to represent an equal voice (senate) and each state sends a number of representatives that reflects their states population to represent the peoples voice (house of representatives).
5:40 The problem with those politcal alignment tests is that they tend to be very us centric. Asking questions from a US perspective. And giving you a label that fits into US politics. But US politics really skew right compared to other countries. A centrist in the US would be considered on the right in many other countries.
Hey man, good video. We don’t count the election “per county” in any real sense, we just keep stats of the polling places in each county. The states themselves are direct democracies when it comes to national elections basing the winner of each state on the person who receives the most votes, and then each state has a certain amount of electoral votes based on population with a slight skew to give smaller populated states a boosted voice on the national stage. This allows people, distributed over vastly different landscapes, climates, and cultures to have their needs met too if they fall in line with enough of the other likeminded states. If the US was a direct democracy nationally, the bigger cities needs would always overshadow the needs of the people in between the cities and this can be dangerous. A barista in LA has a vastly different set of needs than that of a Wyoming or Mississippi farmer. Our founding fathers feared the tyranny of the majority, especially with the understanding that as the population grew, the informed and well educated voter base would eventually decline into a majority of ill-informed voters with short-sidedness when it comes to the ramifications of their choices and that can be detrimental to the needs of the few that the majority directly depend on for their way of life without realizing it (i.e. farmers, factory workers, blue collar jobs in general, and middle class jobs). Our founding fathers intentionally set up the EC to meet the needs of people with respect to geography, job distributions, culture, religion, and other likeminded attributes. This is somewhat offset with the setup of congress in which population wins you more seats in the House of Representatives while each state has equal representation in the Senate. It truly is a magnificent system and it was designed to be polarized so that crap policy can’t easily be passed just because people want instant gratification. It was built to have people exuberantly defend their position to entice, not only the majority of the population, but also a majority of the states as well to represent the will of the most people and the most TYPES of people at once. It is ingrained in our culture to be hyped up over the politics of our country because we were built on the idea that every American’s voice should be heard, so we use it, sometimes abuse it, but use it nonetheless.
If you ever go to America be careful. And start a vlog, that would be awsome. I'm really surprised and quite happy how aware you are of American culture. It's really interesting to watch all your reactions and thoughts on American life and history, hope you get to go America.
@9:38, what you're talking about is how do we get from personal votes to party majority in a state. That's done by gerrymandering shortly after the census is taken. New representative boundaries are laid out (usually in favor of the current "majority" in the state) so that the minority hopefully gets diminished within a representative district. Thus, when a district votes predominantly republican or democrat, that district's electors in the Electoral College (EC) are chosen. Different states go about different ways. Many are winner take all. Some are winner take percentage (meaning that the number of EC votes is split between majority and minority, but both end up with electors unless the final count is overwhelmingly one party). Now, this gives us 535 electors. Effectively it is 1 elector in the EC for each federal level representative (435) and each federal level senator (100). These electors convene in December, cast their votes first along the prescribed party lines (usually) and the majority elector winner is chosen, with EC counts certified by both House and Senate (January 6th historically). SHOULD a majority not be found in the first vote of the EC, then all bets are off. Most states at that point have a debate amongst their electors and then may change their votes to go with their own personal party leanings. The EC is a balancing point between large population cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, Houston, Dallas, etc.) and the vast stretches of lesser populated rural areas. What many people miss is that should the EC be abolished, all elections come down to only the top 5 cities with respect to population in the entire country. Those 5 cities alone overwhelm all other votes in the nation.
Oh lord... the comments are hot lol. Let me do my part. Look... we all know the obvious truth... most of the guns... are owned by one side. Just saying lol.
Exactly. The parts with the most population like NYC and LA can't even have guns. Nor would Dems want to buy them even if they could. He also mentioned the military leaning way more right. So I'm not sure what the Left would "gear up" with. It's not like in NY and LA the military magically leans more left. Not to mention the shit the left pulled with Cops as well. Sooo. The only war the left would win is twitter and facebook.
@@kraven4444 A new civil war today wouldn’t stay wouldn’t a civil war for long, especially if the US military couldn’t be trusted to do its job independent of politics. Perfect time for a foreign adversary to swoop in and sway the battle. Look at the Syrian Civil War. Look how many other nations jumped into that mess. Another civil war would be the end of the US and y‘know what? We‘d deserve it too if we let it escalate to such a point. Also, assuming the US did descend into a war, law observance would massively be ignored by those participating so...I could see dems and republicans obtaining weapons rather easily as well to arm themselves with considering the weapon super-highway that flows into and throughout the country.
That guy that made the video, is not unbiased and willfully overlooked and left out very important factors **please note, this is not the attitude of all Republicans or Democrats, just generalization by actions by or in reaction to gov, belief structures, some negatives of each. Some more than others, etc** Democrat=In favor of larger government to be more able to expand social programs, healthcare, and 1% raise in the average citizens taxes but no tax breaks for cooperations. Human civil rights progress and protections for all regardless of Gender, Age, Race, Sexuality, financial position, and true religious freedom. (Womens rights, gay rights, racial equality, etc)Huge cooperations need to pay their fair share and not get tax breaks while poor have theirs hiked by higher tax rateSeparation of church and state is key Protections for animal life, climate change, raise minimum FDA standards, believes in world trade including repayment of help and loans to other countries in crisis, and is in favor of stricter gun laws such as type of guns able to purchase, higher fees, better background checks, criminal and psychological exclusion from ownership. Republicans=Used to have a proud and mostly decent party in respect to core values. Put old fashioned ways to current placehold, stopping progress. Military was valued.highly, but now cuts to soldiers pay, college tuition promised taken back, medical insurance, VA rights reduced. They want small gov unless GOP dominated, cut social programs, unwilling to help country financially, fight against civil rights if it suits their agenda. won't wear masks, think pandemic is a hoax, are.why it's this bad. They include Christianity in gov, and wish to make laws reflecting Bible. Want religious freedom unless any religious view not Christian. Openly speak ill of others dif than themselves, announcing nationalistic views like a badge of honor, call news fake news unless Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, or TikTok is the reference to "fact". " Fact" can mean fact or can mean I heard so I believe it. Flat earthers are predominantly Republicans...so are the proud boys, KKK, neo Nazis, white nationalists. They made the conspiracy community split into two groups. The fact based, evidence based conspiracy theorists, and then them...no evidence necessary. Don't believe in climate change, EPA huge reduction and loss of.vital funds. Put money over people, put guns over people, think democrats are here to take their guns+gun rights even though it's crystal clear what's proposed and that gun rights is an amendment of the constitution they won't lose them, apparently doubting the power of constitution. They fed into Trump's accusations and baseless scrap and like sheep flocked into the capital intending to kill senators and Mike Pence, to be condemned and left to rot with charges...but call us sheep. Irony. The Pandemic Response and Recovery team was gotten rid of by Trump then later in presidency, COVID19....this is how it all blew up and spread...now spreaders are not following guidelines. *that map is deceptive as huge uninhabited areas of plains, National parks, swamps, forests, Mountain ranges, etc are still marked red zones instead of indicating little to no inhabitants. A third color for these would more accurately depict party locations.Accurate maps show more detailing with zones, and even dots of towns giving all a voice *Ammunition and weapon production is dependent on materials, Gun powder, Gun powder mixes, metal alloys, are limited in the U.S. so without importing raw materials, the manufacturers of the Great Lakes and Texas would quickly run out of material, greatly limiting available ammunition and guns for sale. Even people that make their own bullets, would run out of gun powder at a point. Democratic states however would build up stock in ammunition and weaponry. *Democrat dominated states and areas are wealthier of the states, and red states tend to have less money and much lower minimum wage by majority. Democrats have the financial upperhand with Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Boeing, Wall Street, Comcast Xfinity, Tmobile, sprint, verizon, as well as the owners of celltower network vital to provide service areas rented out by cell phone service compaies. At&T and Verizon may be the companies Republican states depend on, able to function as low on 2G-3G only towers other services no longer even function on(and only reason they have more towers & "coverage area" shitty at best) dominating republican areas, but rent towers from cell tower networks just as do the internet providers used on cell phone service providers. Making outrageous amounts of money for the residing states, on top of the already wealthier state budgets *BUT both AT&T & Verizon are having trouble paying rent these towers charge, closing stores in mass and AT&T selling off their remaining self owned towers, while T-Mobile is growing and thriving buying up main providers able to offer lower cost pricing, better plans, gaining service areas +customers. Bad for AT&T, and it struggle then fail, if huge populations of Democrats boycotted AT&T & Verizon, dropped the services republican states and areas depend on, AT&T & Verizon would fail. Leaving HUGE communication blackout areas for phones, & without computer software being cut off, even more intense communication blackouts. etc. There's weakness in limited service providers for such a huge area, both failing. This leads me to a very damning factor for Republican party.... *Both the West and East Coasts major ports are areas populated and run by Democrats. The largest ports supply the county with necessary supplies, raw materials, food, clothing, chemicals, mined minerals, OILand MEDICINE for the vast majority of American businesses, as trade enabled us lower costs, and higher profit. In turn American materials dropped drastically and won't magically recover overnight, so getting these necessities is vital. We can cut the Republicans off from imports as well as money they depend on made through export sales. Dwindling resources the remaining Republican U.S. would struggle to replicate in any remotely fast way, and can take years to build back up, but takes money to do....as for food, as grain, corn, and soy crops dominate great plains region of the Republican areas, a large area is considered a food desert limiting the diets of the residents, to what they can grow themselves, leaving huge gaps in nutrition. Low nutrition, limited medicine, loss of business essentials, loss of gas, oil, loss of services including communication through internet, cell towers, *seeking by cutoff of vitals, military bases of the west and east coast include 5 branches of military including navy. Located in democratic areas. *Even when this video was made, countries on all continents aside from Antarctica, have been cut off from help with foreign affairs and humanitarian emergencies, had their people, races, and religions demonized and created hard feelings towards Trump and the Republican party for bad foreign policy, and stirring the pot leaving lasting impressions & grudges. It would not be hard for coastal Democratic states and area to make deals with countries as allies against the people that were so outspoken towards these people and countries. Let's not forget the whole build the wall bullshit and republican militias playing border patrol, sporting trump hats and Republican pins...Mexico knows it is in their best interest to play for the side that will provide future deals and alliances. *so Asian countries, Middle Eastern countries, Northern Africa, Europe, U.K. (in tern Canada), Mexico, Central and South America, Australia, New Zealand, and don't forget Cuba Alliance was Democrat pushed and lead by Obama to make peace with Cuba after all that time,just to have Trump and Republicans slap these places in their faces building bad blood. Republican foreign policy sucks ass. They have Putin and North Korea when it comes down to it. *Don't underestimate Democrats. Remember they can group all they want in the Midwest, we have to power of coastline for so much
Well which ever side the military industrial complex feels the most threatened by will have a another thing coming to them. The only thing a civil war will do is accelerate the US turning into a Totalitarian state that isn't going to pretend it isn't anymore.
I feel as if this video negates a lot of factors. For one, I doubt most of the nations he said would support the Republicans, actually would. Personally, I think the foreign aid alone would give democrats the victory. Not to mention, depending on who attacks first will give the other side a massive advantage. If the republicans attacked first, it would push a lot of moderates towards the democratic cause, meaning a lot of the red leaning areas would switch to blue, and considering the insurrection on January 6th, I find that to be quite a likely scenario.
Hey man I know some people that didn't start getting face at me or zits until in their mid thirties. I myself didn't counter any sort of problem until I was around 30 or so. Try not to worry and stress out on the little things. You're doing a smashing job on these videos and your channel I commend you sir.
Love the reactions but this clip being commented on is ridiculous. There are scenarios where the US military could have a schism, but Cleveland being invaded or something is like some Escape from LA level bullshit lol.
I think what you wanted to know at 10:00 is why we use an electoral college instead of popular vote. It’s mostly to protect big cities from deciding the election every year. Instead every state gets at least three electors no matter population size and bigger states get more. If we didn’t have this system the top ten cities in the United States would decide every election no matter what the rest of the country said.
@@artyumdragstov8823 but u gotta realize the military will side with the govt and depending on who’s looked at as the side thats bad they will be the ones fighting against the military thus making the republicans being against the military bc they are more likely to Secede due to there stronger beliefs
@@dixonoliver2360 Alot depends if marshal law is enacted or if staes pick sides. once states pick sides those who serve federally from certain states will be disbanded to their states/ or held as captives.
@@artyumdragstov8823 I just can’t see America falling to a state of which there isn’t a central govt that isn’t still in control especially since we’ve already had a civil war and it did t end well
I do think something was left out when it comes to some things like what party would have more money to support the war and that the president is democratic, which are very important things to factor in.
@@Marcel_Audubon what year did you have yours? People that live in different areas look out for their own interests not others. As for his example in particular, rural area people produce 63% of all food in the United States. Without the electoral college these people would have no representation in the government.
@@eliezercohengoldberg1381 um ... yeah, rural areas produce rural products, that ain't hard to figure out ... doesn't mean the deserve disproportional representation. BTW, your *farm subsidies* are paid for largely by city dwellers. The entire banking industry is managed out of urban areas ... by your logic urban dwellers should get 100% of the representation! coz those farms would close down overnight without banks.
@@Marcel_Audubon the point of the electoral college is that people like them will get representation we are not a democracy, we are a republic that is meant to safeguard people against the tyranny of the majority.
@@Marcel_Audubon also bankers are parasites that deserve less than nothing. They hold the most sway in society even though they produce nothing and take from others.
Only the first 10 rights amended to the Constitution which is the Bill of Rights. Or the Constitution as a whole containing all 27 of them as they are today? Just a question. In my opinion what would be good is the later was reviewed as it contains 13th. 14th 15th, 19th & the 26th amendments. Which are quite huge in terms of equality. Or at least an attempt at striving for a more equally based County. Well I think that's all my 2 cents will buy any further talking and it will cost me a nickle LoL. Good day
@@jrthmc29 Let's start with The Bill of Rights. The entire Constitution would require several videos from Luka, just because of his reaction style (which I really like).
Eh I have a feeling that any civil war would easily end in us just agreeing to a split. The average American doesn't have much of a stomach for war. Anti war stances and isolationism is actually one of the few things both sides seem to agree on right now. We would likely stay a fully united country and just break up states to give rural communities more representation to appease them.
Your question about how we assign district wins in elections immediately made me think of gerrymandering - whether you react to it or not, there is an interesting video on the topic done by Vox called ‘How Politicians Rig Election’. They also have one called ‘The Man Who Rigged America’s Election Maps’ that is also interesting.
@@AnhNguyen-lx5pc Vox does have a major liberal bias - but Gerrymandering is a thing that has happened to our district lines and it isn’t a biased opinion that Thomas Hofeller (the subject of one of those Vox videos) played a major role in doing so.
Of course, when you see a map of Nevada by county, it's worth mentioning that of the two blue counties, the one with the much smaller population, Washoe, in the northwest with a population of 470k or so has more people than every other county in the state combined (~342k), and still has a population about 5 times smaller than Clark County in the southeast at 2 and a quarter million. Same holds true throughout that sea of red, it's just a lot of mostly empty land. Whoever made the original video sounds like they're using state of the art tin can on a string technology to record.
Ryan Dean ....some huh? I used to live in Reno, have many friends that still do, and some who live in Sparks and Fernley...they are ALL gun owning registered Republicans, not one of em voted for a liberal nor will they ever vote for a leftist dirtbag....
@Lav Luka, the reason that it isn't a popular vote, is that most people in the US live in cities. When you take into account that cities are generally Democratic, Democrats would pretty much always win, having the league cities choose what happens to the rest of the country.
shiesh this is a hot topic, also heres a link to my patreon ;) www.patreon.com/LavLuka
Hey
Yeah, I half cringed, half chuckled when I saw you post this. Grab your popcorn & enjoy the ride.
@@tylermulligan5861 The Electoral College needs to be abolished
Lav Luka I would like to see you make videos on UK politics and economics. As an American I very curious and generally interested.
Its all the policians that are stiring up contreversy also please take into acount that CNN really is filling the powder kaige also Biden just became president and already is bashing economic chanceing out of the way. Not being bias but now that he is president 90% of americans hate him
Bruh if this man ever comes to America, he should get instant citizenship. Like the fact that he's so aware of american history, culture, and politics is insane, respect😤
you might change your opinion when I post my US Citizenship quiz video later toady lmaoooooo
@@lavluka6210 thanks 😊 gonna be fun I bet you pass with flying colars
@@lavluka6210 lmaooo, the irony bruh ☠
unfortunately immigrants need to take a citizenship test that most americans can't even pass themselves
@@Trotsky.-.83_years_ago_-_and probably not the citizenship quiz is full of stupid AF question. That most Americans would fail
"Canada only exist cuz the US is fine with it"
that killed me😂😂
It's basically true. After the War of 1812, Canada saw the writing on the wall and went out of its way to prove to the US government that Canada was a friend. They knew that if the US percieved Canada as a threat, they wouldn't long survive as an independent Nation.
Canada is literally too worthless to fight over.
@@AngraMainiiu Canada has lots of natural resources. So long as they are willing to trade as friends, we're willing to get along. If they were to ever do something stupid like allowing Chinese troops to have large scale military bases on their soil, then Canada would very quickly find out why that is a *very* bad idea.
@@randlebrowne2048 there were Chinese military members in Canada about a week or two ago.
@@randlebrowne2048 but as for natural resources ya you’re right but it’s also super underdeveloped and we’d have to create a massive amount of infrastructure to harvest and make it beneficial
As an American, I can't imagine actual civil war breaking out over here. And that's because there are just way too many people with different political beliefs scattered all over the states. Just how are we going to sort each and every single one of us out to form alliances? This isn't the 1850s anymore where people of a certain political belief and way of life were mostly restricted between the north and south.
bruh most American people think america is heading to our already in a civil war. You really haven't been paying attention
The Civil War wasn’t so neatly delineated as you’re making it sound.
Seems like Biden is pushing for a civil war. Watch his fight for gun controle, that might set it off. I can see the cities being choked of resources and starved.
The internet.....?
Depends greatly on how it starts. Who thinks "it's" "someone's" fault. The catalyst will be the deciding factor early on. Odds of winning later.
If this did happen, it wouldn't happen the way this guy describes. It would start out in the towns/cities, then counties, then state. Just because an area is red or blue doesn't mean everyone in that area is red or blue. Also, there would be no way of knowing who's your enemy , so it would fail from the start.
Very well thought out and reasoned assessment. Good show!
People would join a side or remain neutral. Just as they did the first Civil War.
Hell, it wouldn't even be towns and cities. It wouldn't even be neighborhoods. When the hat drops shots would be exchanged from house to house. Drive ways would be no man's land before any sort of organization begins.
@@shadowofhawk55 ok realistically it would take about 3-4 months before either side had any organized army or government, but in the end I agree with his predictions. There is one extreme factor that I think is overlooked though. The fact that I’d say 80 percent of republicans (I pulled it out of my ass I don’t know real numbers just guessing) have learned how to shoot, and have access to guns would be a substantial factor. Not only would it take like half the time to train, but also whenever democrats attacked a city they would likely be met with small militias
Ok the second amendment is soooo undervalued. At one point in ww2 Japan had an opportunity to land in California and push all the way to the mid west and part of the south. When asked why they didn’t after the war they said that they knew that nearly everyone in America had guns, and were willing to fight back in small local militias everywhere they went.
I swear there going to be an argument somewhere in this comment section
@@Ardiepolu i got my keyboard ready☺
Trump was elected, Biden was selected
@@rogerrabbit8304 wrong, they both were elected
@@nolanpalmore5091 yep even tho i wanted trump to win :/
@@sexyalien806 you win some, u lose some🤷🏾♂️
It isnt south vs north its big cities versus the rest of the U.S but civil war is unlikely
Its possible but highly unlikely. At most you would see anarchy in cities leading to death, and starvation and isolated in them and nothing would spread out or grow more than that. The country would be divided, but I believe then after there would be more connection after observing and living through such. Just my opinion on the matter
It would all boil down to the military and which side it chooses to support... and then it wouldn't be so much a civil war but more like a subjugation. lol I know many of our citizens are armed, but they aren't going to be able to put up much of a resistance to our current military, they are so much more technically advanced than what the average gun owner has. This is why I worry about who's in charge, regardless of party. Everyone just needs to stick to democracy, sometimes you win, sometimes you loose, but it keeps things stable. :D
Unfortunately
@@heidiwyler2757 this assumes soliders are robots and don't have a conscious. While it is their job to follow the "commander in chief" - starting a war on its own people is completely different. A soliders job is to protect its CITIZENS, and their constitutional rights. If a President clearly over steps this, our military will be subject to reconsider the commander in chiefs orders.
@Meth Breakfast Yeah but it depends on doctrine the soldiers get many of the individuals who become soldiers come from the community that they might have to go against and they wouldn’t stand for that
I'm not in a position to do this, but please, someone, provide him a ticket to the US.
I know! If I could, I would fly him here and...Road Trip!!
We’re too broke for that
@@kota3117 cross country train trip 😉
@@lydiascarlet8584 Yeah he wouldn't want to come here right now anyway, or can't because of restrictions, but when things get better, he can come enjoy all the beauty and great things this country has to offer 😊
@@goldenstateaviation2861 nope, ain’t got no trains in 75% or more of country .
@Lav Luka if you ever coming to America then please do a vlog .
Facts
True i need to see his reaction
Bro how many channels do you watch I always see you commenting on everything 😭
Yessss
@Meth Breakfast bro what? Calm down.
Stress can cause outbreaks on the face. But you never look "a mess", dear boy.
Things aren't so rosy in Russia, China, Canada, the EU....
Where are they rosy?
@@c.s.7266 -- Nowhere. That's why it's "the real world," not utopia.
@@c.s.7266 New Zealand?
@@hop208 New Zealand is incredible
@@hop208 It's rosy if you're independently wealthy and have a direct pathway to citizenship, otherwise prepare to lose your life savings in a matter of weeks just trying to survive.
The reason we don't use the popular vote to determine who wins an election is because we have an electoral college. It's meant to balance the power between rural and urban areas, or the cities would decide each and every time. It's honestly a pretty controversial thing nowadays
Even though it shouldn't. It makes things fair.
The ones who think it's wrong are democrats who listen to late night show talk show host who think their journalists...
@@collinspecht6725 not all democrats lol and yea the electoral college is to make sure it fair for everyone cus people in cities shouldn’t decide the fate of the country
People in large cities do not understand anything about food production. Natural resource management or resource transport. Yet citys could easily out vote the rural population. In doing so, be in a position to legislate and make policy governing industrys they no absolutely nothing about. An inner city business man should not be in charge of running farms and ranches. And vise versa. A farmer probably knows very little about issues faced by people living in mega citys.
I know this is a bit old now and the video with TONS of comments, but I'd like to point out that the electoral college is used for that purpose, but you could easily do this without the college too. All the electoral college really does is make some number of people (The senate and house of representatives to be specific) the people that actually vote for president. All other votes are just requesting those people to vote how you want them to. And it's split up mostly based on population, but not completely, to make it more fair for less populated areas.
@@collinspecht6725 *they're (contraction of "THEY aRE")
their: for possession
there: for all other uses
When you said “touch wood” I was so confused. Then I realized you meant “knock on wood” 😂😂😂
That would suggest something different in America lol
You need to work on you Anglophile studies! J/K... There are many phrases like that, which are the original, and our culture changed them, possibly to better fit a situation. so he meant "Touch Wood", and You and i would mean "Knock Wood", which is the original derivation from "Touch Wood." They also sing the old version of a playground classic; "Ring a Ring o Roses"...here it became "Ring around the Rosie"
In Britain; "The Hokey-Kokey," here; "The Hokie Pokie."
i love these linguistic differences, and i often favour using UK spelling.
"Touch wood"
No one:
My immature-ass brain: ...."THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!" 😂🤣
Something he missed is that lots of these red counties have small population so even if there a situation where it’s one blue county vs 30 red ones the blue county might have way more people
That may be true, but 30% of the red county population are trained and practiced snipers. So the blue counties would never be able to launch a massive army for fear of it being decimated.
@@starcravingmatt HAHAHA the big counties and cities don’t need guns 💀they have more powerful arms that would destroy them before they say trump 2020
@@andre.moonlight what does that even mean of course you need guns in a civil war
@@starcravingmatt Republicans would win in the end but it would still take 2-4 years because the country is so massive and there are so many liberals in the country
@@andre.moonlight you can bomb the wilderness for decades and never harm an enemy that lives there. Just look at Vietnam, and Afghanistan...
It would be very easy to cause major chaos in a city...
This isn’t going to happen, like someone else said in the comments, back in the civil war beliefs were very geographical. People in the North believed one thing while the South believed something else. Democrats and Republicans live amongst each other, very spread out. Certain states may lean towards one or another, it is still very mixed. Organizing would be practically impossible and they would not have enough momentum.
I wouldn’t be so sure. If the Biden administration does what it wants and said it was most of the country would say screw that and if Biden tried to push the issue with the military or national guard a civil war would break out as ik myself and a lot of others will not let anyone take our rights in any way without the consent of those it impacts
@@curtin_ Bruh, You and your friends of extremists won’t beat the us military
@@curtin_ what specific things are you talking about?
@Timothy Goff The president is the commander in chief, so that's who they would have to listen to.
There still very much are still geographic lines its just rural vs urban instead of North vs South
Honestly look up the purple map of the us that shows shades of purple to show that the us is honestly more mixed then the voting map would have someone believe.
Yeah most counties tilt 60-40 or less with some areas of course being extreme exceptions
*than (comparison)
True, i think the video is largely correct though. Your point would mean a lot of small and local scale violence in the enclaves of both sides. People would tend to either fall in line with their locality or evacuate to an enclave of their own side if they were partisan enough (assuming things got that martial).
It would be an unmitigated disaster for everybody, anyways and would only empower those with authoritarian tendencies on both sides.
A lot of the things you are confused about have to do with the Electoral College. You should do a video on it
I love the electoral college but it needs to be distributed by house district like Nebraska and Maine. True democracy is as bad as a dictatorship. Democracy needs regulation it can be a very dangerous thing
@@deafleppard1812 and that, friend, is why we’re a democratic republic! I agree with you 100%
@@deafleppard1812 it’s a weird thing to me tbh. And I’m not replying to start anything, I genuinely feel like we should just get rid of the electoral college because the winner of popular vote is the actual person that the majority of Americans voted for. I feel like the electoral college is kinda just like a “middle man” kinda, but an unnecessary one. In a sense I see it as a barrier to having a true democratic election because it doesn’t matter if they win the majority or not. And because of things like gerrymandering, smaller counties that pull one way every single time give an unfair advantage to a single party. I see both sides in a sense, but I feel like I order to have a true democracy it should be abolished.
@@chloeelizabeth6144 I see your point but I also think that if it was changed to a straight popular vote there would be a number of states that would leave the Union because because they wouldn’t feel they have a voice. They would feel like they are being completely ruled by people in fare away Cities kinda like at the original American revolution. But maybe it’s time for the country to split anyway as different as it seems to be
@@JasonLewis42 well I don’t think the country should split up. I don’t think any one would actually benefit from that long term. And like honestly everyone wants the same thing which is to like better the country as a whole. Everyone just needs to learn how to listen and compromise. I could see how people from rural areas could feel like their voices are being silenced, but I also don’t really think there’s much validity to that statement. I live in a rural county and personally I feel that it is the electoral college who is silencing my voice. If the majority of the country is voting one way, that person should win. That’s fair. People in rural areas would still be voting for whoever they wanted too so if the majority just so happened to be the person they voted for it’s fair. The electoral college does not represent the voices of the the people.
You asked a question that seemed to ask why we don't go by a strict popular vote rather than voting through an electoral college. I think you should do a whole video on that alone! What's important to people in cities is not always the same as those in rural areas.
The United States is a federated collection of semi-independent countries (states) that requires a method of choosing the collective leader fairly, regardless of state population count.
@@randlebrowne2048 🤡🤡🤡
Once Texas becomes blue, the electoral college's days will be numbered.
@@randlebrowne2048 except for the states that have more delegates than population to merit it. They get outsized electoral agency by virtue of there being a minimum amount of electors per state. So, no, it is not choosing fairly regardless of population.
Electoral college needs to go, and will inside of 15 years.
@@kilgoretrout3966 'outsized electoral agency' because there's a bare minimum established? Please.
Bruh, you're a people. People get spots. Not all the peoples have the balls to be on camera with toothpaste covering their spots.
Courage has won my subscription. Well played sir, well played.
It’s possible, if we keep doubling down on our pendulum swing. I think most Americans DONT want this though. Let’s hope it stays that way. Let’s stop railing against free speech for starters. THAT AINT HELPIN!
Free speech is great. However, spreading lies and disinformation through conspiracy theories is another situation altogether.
May I just say, sir, that if you really think about it there is no crack down on free speech. Look, you can say pretty much ANYTHING you want on social media, you just can’t spread lies you have no legitimate evidence for. I see people saying racist, sexist, horrible things and they can stay on there. Even the people complaining about being censored, do you realize that you aren’t being censored if you can complain?
@@p.t.d.505 You clearly have no idea what free speech actually means. It's not the freedom to say "Hello, how are you doing on this fine afternoon?" it's the freedom to say "Fuck you, I wish an astroid would fall and hit you right now". Anything that is not by legal definition incitement is free speech. Saying you hate a group of people? Free speech. Someone can say they hate you right back. Saying that you hate Warren Buffet because he's richer than you? Free speech. Saying that you hope the government falls to a communist revolution? Free speech. Saying that you intend to kill someone? Not free speech. See how that works?
Likewise, a 'conspiracy theory' is used to denote anything that someone doesn't think is true and/or doesn't want to believe is true. It's not a scientific term. The world being round can be a conspiracy theory according to a flat-earther, and regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary, they will still use that word. The problem with banning based on your idea of a 'conspiracy theory' is that you're taking it upon yourself to decide for others what is reality and what is not. Even worse is when a specific federal taskforce gets to decide what a 'conspiracy theory' is (conveniently anything that threatens or criticizes them). That is unbelievably dangerous, and is a practice that was used by both the Nazi regime and Stalin's regime.
To quote a fictional character, Tyrion Lannister: "When you cut out a man's tongue, you are not proving him mistaken, but merely that you fear what he might say." Obviously no tongues are being removed, but to ban somebody is to remove them from societal discourse, permanently. You need to ensure that they did more than say "I think we should investigate the election" to warrant this. To summarize: if you ban somebody for 'conspiracy theories' you're not proving them wrong, you're not even engaging them, you're figuratively punching them in the face and saying "shut the fuck up, I don't like what you said so that means you can't say it". As far as 'spreading' disinformation is concerned, it is a much less harmful practice to hold debate and educate people so that they can decide what to believe for themselves, rather than making that choice for them based on your personal beliefs, as if you somehow are drastically more enlightened than the crawling masses (that, when done by a government, is called fascism by the way).
@@erikstrickland96 👌
@@erikstrickland96 I didn’t say it was dead. I said we need to stop RAILING against it. Many people are doing that right now. The slippery slope argument is a valid one. I do agree with you, we still have it right now, but... we need to realize how quickly authoritative power leads to fascism and genocide. I respect you sharing your opinion on the matter and partially agree with you. ❤️
Hoping the comments don't become a complete $hit$how.... Fingers crossed....
this tbh
Facts people gonna take it to seriously
It's about politics it's gonna become that
We can only hope...
Too late 😂
The original video is so out of date to todays Political warzone.
No, the country's even MORE conservative today. The left wing has totally alienated everyone else, at this point. They've openly declared everyone else to be all but inferior to them and that they should be silenced and exterminated. Why should anyone else be friendly toward the left, therefore?
@@noahhyde8769 So much more conservative that now they have a democratic President and Senate.
@@cdot32 As a centrist I must say the election was bullshit. Never seen such orchestrated fraud in my life. That being said i wouldnt say the countries more conservative. The right has become more Nationalist and the left has become more Authoritarian (except for the young folk) since this video was published. Both parties are fracturing which I see as a good thing.
@@tomatop6754 What voter fraud?
Most of trump's bullshit was proven false.
@@cdot32 doesn't prove anything, when the largest voting block is the non voter.
Plus the Republicans didn't really fight in the Georgia runoff and thought the tired old playbook would see them through. All what happened is the Republicans alienated the Trump bump, the very people they needed to counter the dump the Democrats got from the anti-trumpers.
My democratic friends who own guns have a hunting rifle, a shotgun, and maybe a handgun with 50-100 rounds total. All my republican and libertarian friends own guns and many own at least a dozen different kind with THOUSANDS of rounds. It's also not uncommon to know someone with over 10,000 rounds of ammunition.
Not to mention most of the outdoors people, those than can survive, are libertarian or republican. Sorry. But the city living hipster guys and the whole woke crowd won't be able to do shit.
Truth...
I feel as if this video negates a lot of factors. For one, I doubt most of the nations he said would support the Republicans, actually would. Personally, I think the foreign aid alone would give democrats the victory. Not to mention, depending on who attacks first will give the other side a massive advantage. If the republicans attacked first, it would push a lot of moderates towards the democratic cause, meaning a lot of the red leaning areas would switch to blue, and considering the insurrection on January 6th, I find that to be quite a likely scenario.
@@podomuss Jan 6th was not an insurrection. It was a handful of idiots out of tens of thousands. If they wanted an insurrection.... it would’ve been way worse. The right has probably 90% of the civilian owned firearms. Also, the right tends to be people that know how to fend for themselves. 🤷♀️
@@nikkiplatt316 It was absolutely an insurrection. At the very least, a lot of them came to do as much damage as possible. Bombs were found, zip ties, guns, I dunno about you, but it kind of reminds me of when Hitler attempted to overthrow the government but failed and was sent to prison.
@@podomuss I know what was reported... the zip ties I’ll give you but I call BS on the rest. Like 50 people out of thousands.. tens of thousands. Like I said- if they wanted an insurrection, how much more would have been done in DC. I don’t agree with what that small number of people did, I think they should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That said, that small group does not set example of the rest of us... kinda how the rioters don’t make up a majority of the left. The difference, the left called for violence and the media told you “ they’re just tired of it.” Trump says peacefully make our voices heard... the media “ violent insurrectionists storm the Capitol because Trump told them too”.... you see my point? People on the right generally want peace, but we will fight to defend the rights of ourselves and others. The heart of the patriot.
I come from a red-north county (western New York). I means that they often feel resentful toward the City, which always determines the state's votes, and it's felt that the interests of the city are often at odds with the interest of the countryside. (Gun control is probably the biggest issue. In the country, people hunt, live at a distance from small law enforcement hqs, and have a common-gun culture. In the City, where people are on top of each other and people are out to lessen the damage caused by gun crime, they want as many controls as possible, which ends up putting a big pinch on the countryside, where these issues are not primary. This then leads to a resentful toughening up of gun culture... not just "I got a right to my huntin' rifle," but "I can have any gun I want and you big city dictators can't take it!" And of course, the urbanites tend to assume that because of their sheer numbers and economic output, of COURSE they have the natural right to determine the outcome of elections, and if the rural areas lose out, then it's because they're losers and deserve to be. Which leads to the counter-response from the urban areas of using media dominance to ridicule and otherwise belittle their country cousins, which leads to... well, you can see where it's going. It's stupid, but this cycle of stupidity is what got us where we are.)
when it comes down to fighting and surviving I feel the cities would not last a month simply because of the lack of food so the war would be short and involve cities begging other countries for food so their "own" people won't jump ships on them
With the exception of maybe the west coast areas
then again I'm just knowledgeable about my area; being eastern farms and townships
You don’t need a AK-47 to hunt...
And I’ve been to upstate New York..There are grocery stores 😏
@@teslacumba Excellent ones. But the thought runs, "If they can ban the AK-47, my hunting rifle is next. What's the limit?"
@@babs3241 Weapons made specific for war & killing a lot of people at once.
Should NEVER had been in civilian hands in the first place 🤬
@@babs3241 You can’t go to the store to buy a bomb. You shouldn’t be able to buy a machine gun either
this largely discounts people who dont vote or lean to either party which take up a large margin of the population and could tilt it to either side if they are forced to radicalize. Not to mention potential flipping sides depending on the goals of either army
Yeah, most people are in the middle and don't really care. Just going to work and trying to pay the bills
Making a vid with toothpaste on your face? Legend. He doesn't care if he gets roasted
I highly recommend ,don't get into American politics.
Yea it’s a Pandora’s box of utter horse shit
I agree. It's a good way to lose many US followers and subscribers since politics is a very touchy subject, especially when voiced by a non-US citizen.
@@jeffburnham6611 that’s facts, anytime I hear someone from another country who doesn’t live in the US mention our politics, I tell them to shut up, even before I hear what they say.
@@jeffburnham6611 the problem is America exports its culture all over the world ,in some countries some of the most popular tv shows are American, so they think they know America, but Hollywood doesn't represent this country unless you have lived here for a long time you really have no idea what's going on. even when they visit here they just stick to a few touristy areas of LA or NYC.
@@hifijohn I think this is an incredibly important point to make.
Most of that red area you see is empty land compared to the blue areas
We have more guns in these empty area's
Actually, it's full of citizens who have the same rights as New Yorkers and Californians.
@Not Me right I don't think many people own guns in NYC and LA. At least not legit. and ESPECIALLY not democrats. So I don't see how population is even a factor. Not to mention the Military and even Cops leaning right.
That's the trick with a lot of Republican maps. They're giant expanses with really low population density.
@@RicochetForce that land is not nothing. That land is valuable resources. The land is home field advantage conservatives.
I really appreciate how genuine you are! My favorite is when you Google in the middle of your videos!! Another great reaction...
U.S. in a nutshell: a load of internal fighting, but when having to deal with something external, we are united
Literally a big house hold.
No this is true all we do is fight each other but other countries start a fight the red white blue comes out lol
@@jenosou5128 yeah, family sibling fighting
@@annea4197 we are like a family of anger and frustration over how we love the nation and want to make it petter and when a foreign force wants to threaten that, switch on a dime and turn our anger into passion for freedom, liberty, and justice. The history book kinda showed that and it genuinely surprises and scares me
Yep 9/11 proved that this is true
11:45 that map is pretty accurate, here in Oregon about 2/3 of my friends are republican or libertarian. But Oregon is considered blue because the major cities like Portland have a very dense population of Democrats while Republicans are far more spread out across the state.
I honestly found it hilarious imagining the Democrats positioning themselves in the "Imperial Valley," when he was talking about how the Democrats would unite on the west coast. I grew up in the Imperial Valley and it's seriously a desert valley that reaches up to 120 degrees F (about 49 C) in the summer. Lets hope it's not a summer war.
Given gun control in California the only thing liberal Democrats would be firing is emojis
I feel as if this video negates a lot of factors. For one, I doubt most of the nations he said would support the Republicans, actually would. Personally, I think the foreign aid alone would give democrats the victory. Not to mention, depending on who attacks first will give the other side a massive advantage. If the republicans attacked first, it would push a lot of moderates towards the democratic cause, meaning a lot of the red leaning areas would switch to blue, and considering the insurrection on January 6th, I find that to be quite a likely scenario.
This topic is still way more relevant than you would imagine
the elite would love this to happen right know, and reap the benefit of them dividing us. We need a awakening. Idk what color you are, religion, side or politics u on, we are all human and not perfect from birth. Us coming together would not sit well with the government and we are their worst enemy.
@@dantaerodgers2555 they have been working on dividing us for years now. decades when you take identity politics into account
@@JimTheKid right division has gotten us nowhere. We should at least try bonding against the real enemy
@@JimTheKid longer than that when you take religion into account.
@@dantaerodgers2555 You mean MAtt Gaetz?
This is a very touchy subject but I’m glad your looking into it!
The attitude I seem to feel from the people on Facebook and whatever talking up another civil war is “I want a war but I want someone else to fight it!” No one who’s talking it up is really willing to fight for it, they just want to send kids to die for their apparently uncompromising beliefs. It’s really ridiculous
I mean, I believed that aswell until I saw the Capitol riot. People were willing to go into a government building because they thought the election was rigged, now imagine what they would do if someone took away an admendment or something.
@@enyabthegreat9993 Yeah, that’s concerning. People are just insane, man. There’s no compromise anymore, which is much easier
@@enyabthegreat9993 As soon as that one woman was shot for breaking in, a lot of them pissed their pants and left to be fair though. I think a lot of them thought it was gonna be as easy as sending a tweet or posting on FB. They didn't understand how serious breaking into a government building is, which is honestly quite sad
@@podomuss That's the thing, alot of them left. Not nearly all, and I'll make you think about this for a second. Alot of those people arent fighting for a cause many believe in, imagine what happens when something GIANT happens. 22% of Americans claim to own guns, I bet atleast 10% would be fine fighting the government. That is 32 million people, there in the ENTIRE world are 20.5 million.
@@caldeauwolf5534 this is kinda just adding to what I said to you
I’m curious how this has changed in the last 3.5 years. I’m also curious how the 2020 Census will change the political affiliation of counties IF gerrymandering is banned.
This video is extremely biased, so I'll make this point short and sweet to not cause a fight in the comments. I think we can All agree that this would not be good for anyone and would be horrendous if it actually happened. In my opinion I don't think there would be a "Winning" Side we would ALL lose.
Edit: Reading your replays made me think about how I worded this, I should have said slightly biased not extremely. There is some however so I'll explain for those asking.
1: Wealth
Most democratic city's/area's are very wealthy, this is mostly glossed over and not addressed the way it should be as it's very important. EX: Despite not having the resources (IE,Guns/Amo/Food/Fuel ECT.) initially they could afford to get them by external means.
2: Population
The population of these said city's is huge and again not discussed as it should be, If this had been taken into account he would have realized it would be a lot harder to take over those cities then he stated. In my opinion it wouldn't be possible at all to take over those cities without a massive loss of life on both sides and the Republicans would end up having to commit genocide in order to succeed, which is something I don't think they would do.
So with that being said I want to make it clear I don't disagree with the end results just on how easy it would be, The Republicans would most likely "Win". However it would come at a cost of crippling the entire country and a huge loss of life. As well as leaving us open to attack by foreign bodies.
Of course we would. But he is saying that the ending would be a republican controlled U.S., or what isn't of the US
Which part was biased?
He said he’s libertarian, I’m also libertarian and all the libertarians i know dislike both sides, I doubt it’s biased I think he’s just sticking to the numbers
Not bias at all! Sorry! Why were the far left really worried? Besides liberals are against the 2nd amendment...the major cities are liberals were the rest of most states are conservative. What does that mean? Less federal government interference, freedom for school choice, restricted abortion rights, and freedom for 1st & 2nd amendment.
@@nocxlf agreed but more Libertarians tend to also be Constitutionalist and want less federal government, these things make Libertarians more of ally's to Republicans.
Sadly it used to be (more or less) that you could have differing options and still get along, now your are labeled something for having those opinions and attacked for them, just let everyone live their lives the way they want as long as it does not interfere with how you do you in a direct way.
It's easy to say just let everyone live their lives, but when some of the 'opinions' you mentioned directly affect how people can live those lives it's not so easy to just ignore. Homosexuality and Gay marriage are a pretty good example of that. "Go live you life how you want! But it's illegal for you to love the person you love. And you DEFINITELY can't get married." It's not nearly as simple as you suggest it to be.
Dude, for the millionth time, none of us care about the audio issues, we can always turn the video up or down ourselves if we have to
I care. It's so annoying but whatever.
@@moosiemoose1337 then turn up your volume like a big boy or don't watch it.
@@DaMathias yeah I stopped watching 😅
@@moosiemoose1337 my speaker and headphones are already at 100% so ya i don't have trouble hearing there must be something wrong with my pc or it's razer driver causing a issue
@@DaMathias That works great when the video is uniformly quiet. Problem here is, turn the volume up to hear the video Luka's reacting to and his voice is gonna blow out your eardrums. Or watch with his voice at a comfortable level and barely be able to hear the background video.
“iM gEtTiNg a GrEeN ScReEn SoOn” -you half a year ago
WTAF???
@@immortalfae13 huh?
@J Breeze and there’s still Amazon
@@amank1250 Why are you on here? Is it just to complain about a green screen??
@J Breeze More over why does he care about whether or not he has a green screen?
I'm scared to read the rest of the comments😅
Same
Don't be, if we all hid from facts we would never learn anything.
RE: your question about why the presidential vote is by state rather than by person, the answer is twofold: 1) That's the way it was originally set up and 2) It benefits one of the two major parties that would be needed to alter it
The main effect of a change like this would only come into play recently, with Gore (D) winning in 2000 rather than Bush Jr. (R), and Clinton (D) winning in 2016 instead of Trump (R).
A way-too-simplified reasoning for the initial setup was because it was easier in the days of hand-tabulated voting, and additionally it gave the landowning rural elite a bit of protection against the uncouth city-dwelling rabble. How it plays out now is that the party allied with the rural areas enjoys greater representation in government than the party allied with the urban areas. This is because each state is allocated electoral votes (votes for president) based on 1 for each representative in congress (3 minimum - 2 senators for each state + minimum 1 Representative), which is set based on a census taken every 10 years. This means the smallest state (Wyoming, pop. ~481,000) gets 3 votes while the largest state (California, pop. ~33.63 mil) gets 55 votes. So California gets only18.3 times the representation despite having ~70 times the population. That's the most egregious example, but holds throughout, so in the 2020 Senate was Republican-controlled 53-47, but in terms of portion of the population represented, Senators representing 153 million Americans held control over Senators representing 168 million Americans.
This Number Of States vs. Portion Of Population dichotomy is why, should the parties remain roughly as they are now, it will lead to Democrats controlling the House of Representatives, the Senate usually being Republican, and the Presidency being a tossup (for the Electoral vote - Democrats will likely frequently win the popular vote) in the near future
By the time that he talks about the democratic stronghold of Minneapolis, he’s erased the blue spot of it on the map. The area referred to there is actually the greater Duluth area. Which is tactically important due to being able to ship stuff through the Great Lake to/from the Atlantic. The area that was erased just north of there is strongly connected, as the iron mining industry in that area is arguably the primary reason why Duluth’s shipping industry was so developed- linking up with steel production further east. While the higher grade ore is mostly gone (in WWII that region of Minnesota produced more iron ore than the rest of the Allied countries combined, and a bit more than all of the Axis countries combined), this region is still is still by far the largest source of domestic iron ore.
A lot of the red areas in the country are VERY sparsely populated. This is a dynamic that's difficult for a lot of folks to wrap their heads around. Los Angeles County for example, has a greater population than all by 9 states. In the actual civil war, the Union used their technology advantage through railroad supremacy. The Democratic stronghold areas control most international trade, a lot of tech levers, etc. It's foolish to that that it would provide an advantage to them. Also, with the Republicans needing to control so much land, they'd be constantly trying to squash uprisings in all of the Democratic sympathizers in most of their cities significant cities.
The blue areas are all gun free zones 🙄 and most of the blue people I know are afraid of gun fire...
I think this video gets it mostly right. At the end of the day, one side has a near monopoly on the production of natural resources, especially food and oil. The other side accounts for most of the consumption of those resources. Doesn't take Nostradamus to see how that plays out.
It plays out with most Democrat controlled cities burning themselves to the ground with food riots.
Doesn't even have to be a war. The well-armed rural conservatives could just cut off the supply chain to liberal cities, a few months later and that'd be that.
@@samieltheinfamous A month would be giving them too much credit.
Yeah, the people with the manpower, wealth, and useful resources walk in and take everything. Sitting on a mountain of corn and hunting rifles won't stop the MQ-9 Reapers, tanks, and millions of well armed people streaming out of the areas with all the industrial infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities. If a city vs rural war happened it would play out like every other time in history, the cities living in comfort with the minor threat of car bombings and the rurals living in comfort with the minor threat of getting btfo'd by a drone.
@@callowaymotorcompany Texas, at least, has it's own fleet of f-16's and Reaper drones in our air national guard. Other states have their own combat squadrons of various types.
Texas, at least, certainly wouldn't have much of a man power shortage. If things turned into a state vs state conflict, Texas would likely join with other, like minded states to share both trade and manpower/equipment.
It's not like Texans have forgotten that other states sent people to fight alongside us at the Alamo.
The vote count for Dems. was 81m to the Reps. 74m this go around. Just saying😉
Ok but Republicans use guns. Considering dems don’t know which bathroom to use if there was a civil war the side who use guns will win
@@skycarmack3732 it's a joke, calm down.
And you're braindead if you think Biden, who was getting literally 12 people showing up to his rallies BEFORE covid, actually won the popular vote by 7 million lol don't be so naive
Thank you for input, I respect your stance and I you hope you have a more pleasant day than this currently.
@@ahhReno people who voted for Biden think the pandemic is true so it goes to show social distancing is something they believe in (and made fun of when Trump supporters did so). Of course they wouldn’t have huge rallies, it would be hypocritical.
And they didn't even talk about the thousands of right wing militias
Yeah...at this point the war would be Antifa and democrats vs state militias and republicans. What’s awesome about that is the fact that the democrats think Antifa has their back....but they hate everyone. It wouldn’t take long before they turn on the left. Republicans wouldn’t even have to show up.
Bro right wing militias are a joke. They’d hide in the woods waiting to ambush someone that never comes
@@kristinanelson7143 I’m not antifa just a citizen but I’d fight like hell against republican facism
@@NicholasSteMarie are you sure because that statement right there straight up calling republican the fascist make you really sound like antifa
@@demokeyan9601 Red caps proved 1/6/21 who were over throwing the Constitution.
All my favorite TH-camrs seem to upload near the end of my school day or afterwards, it's awesome. Keep doing what you do, always enjoying the uploads!
At 9:10 I think what you are asking is why it doesn't run just by population.
If so, to put it simply in the case of America there is the electoral college. The electoral college is put in because of how dense some cities are a candidate could win with just 3 or 4 states completely disregarding the other 47 or 46. So instead they put in systems like the electoral college where the number of electoral votes is determined by a state's population and whoever gets a majority electoral vote (270) is declared the winner.
TLDR: It isn't ran just by the population because mass disregard of most states could easily take place.
Republicans have more land, however Democrats have more population.
republicans have more guns, water supply, crop production. the population difference between democrat and republican arent signifcant enough to overcome other significant metrics
@@artyumdragstov8823 Good point on the crop production. They would literally be cut off to the brink of starvation. Not much farm land around the city.
@@kraven4444 Many farmers are using non traditional farming. This includes hydroponic,aquaponics, vertical, and aeroponics. Many non traditional farming uses 98% less water and space. All can be grown inside with growing lights, the sun,and/or greenhouses. Many leafy plants grow 3 times faster in non traditional farming than traditional farming. This is how Disney can grow ALL their own food for their restaurants.
The population will inevitably starve since republican states control the food production.
The Democrats will fight back but a percentage will be weakened due to malnutrition.
@@artyumdragstov8823 it's worth noting that most farms survive off of government funding, aka tax payer dollars from big cities
[INSERT GROUP NAME] is [INSULT] because I'm [SELF-COMPLIMENT] & they're a bunch of [INSULT]
Civil War in the US would more resemble The Troubles in Northern Ireland than it would the first Civil War
It would probably be a lot worse than the first civil war. There’s a lot more anger now than ever. That’s just my opinion but it would be really bad
Yeah, just spread across a country the size of continental Europe, and with a population in possession of more small arms than exist in the combined military and police arsenals of every nation on Earth. Things would get truly ugly.
The very first thing that came to mind when I saw the notification title was, "The Republicans would be much better armed."
That is just factually incorrect. My whole family are Democrats and they all have firearms.
@@torriezenna653 That's your family but the whole US the right has at least double the guns as the left. I live in a county where it's about 80% Republican and theres 3 times more guns in my county than people.
@@torriezenna653 no, that's your anecdotal evidence. Gun culture has been a part of right-leaning ideology for generations.
They sure as hell have done no good with those guns! Where were they during the riots last year??
@@nfamus540 Christ! Are you afraid of squirrels?
Another thing to consider is gun ownership. A Republican is twice as likely to own a gun than a Democrat. This makes a successful Democrat guerrilla campaign much harder, especially if it's Democrats fleeing conquered cities having to fight in rural areas. More Republicans live in rural areas which means that more Republicans would be knowledgeable of the area, in addition to superior numbers.
Sometimes I see news about elections in the UK. It might be blip for a week and that’ll be it. The only way I really see politics from other countries is when I’m watching something like the daily show. I have to actively seek it out
The fact that the original poster never showed a population map or population density map kind of tips his hand. Even these "small county pockets" tend to be the bulwark of that region's population. Take Illinois, it has 12m+ people, well 8m+ live in Chicagoland, then there are the other college and small city areas, so if we're in total war where everyone is now a soldier, it makes far more sense that Chicagoland, would expand out to take the rest of their state, as well as the part sof Indy and Wisconsin that are in Chicagoland.
Using land always doesn't make sense because of the sheer amount of gerrymandering that the GOP has undertaken this century. States like Mississippi or Texas might surprise you because of how much devaluing of population centers or places made up of largely POC. Lots of areas thought of as Republican population centers would likely not turn their way either. NC is a republican state purely through Political Injustice and Misconduct by their State Republicans, Texas is possibly two presidential cycles from flipping, we've seen how much the true Engine of Georgia: Metro Atlanta has changed that state.
It also underestimates industry in dem leaning area. but the biggest mistake is not taking into context what each party represents these days. The Dems are called the PArty of the Big Tent because they literally represent the entire political spectrum from Center-Right to Left, WHILE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY has pushed further and further into the reactionary.
The likely scenario of this country going to war, was actually unveiled last month, a authoritrian, anti-democratic coup attempt by a more and more unpopular national party, and there seemed to be ery little stomach for it to actually happen.
“CANADA ONLY EXISTS CAUSE AMERICA SAYS ITS OKAY” I’m dead💀
Perhaps Canada would help the US keep a Democratic safe & fair Democracy. Republicans have the tiny top % of millionaires, its no wonder they vote for Republican values, they wanna keep their shit & let others starve. Democrats provide a way for working equality & survivability for all. Thats why Democrats dominate & everyone I know is Democratic, except a chunk of "retired rich folks who have more $ than any 1 person deserves.
@@LauderdaleJoeM do you live under a rock bro? Most of the top percentage of rich people in America are radical democrats
@@boomersooner2735 Yeah idk wth he talking about
Just dab a bit of concealer that’s drying and matches your skin tone. We’ll be none the wiser🙂
And keep your hands off your face. Always picking your face - bacteria. Suggest Proactive.
I think the perspective of this vid may not be based on fact. Real Life Lore did a vid on how separate Republican and Democratic countries would compare in regards to population, economy, military size, etc. I would recommend reacting to that one!
From the facts RLL mentions, it may become clear what would happen if a civil war broke out between the two parties.
@Lav Luka The reason the election is not decided by a popular vote (as you asked at around 9:30) is because the U.S. has a system called the electoral college. There are both pros and cons to this kind of system, and one party more often opposes the electoral college, whereas the other party would more often want to keep it. You could look it up to see the reasons for and against. Trying to keep it politically neutral so yeah there's that.
It's an interesting video but there's a glaring hole in the analysis; counties are much more divided than the majority winner would lead you to believe. In many places in that sea of red, the split between Democrat and Republican can be as low as 49-51. Now there are many (low population) places (in the South especially) that swing massively toward Republicans, but it's hard to believe that in a narrowly divided county, the result wouldn't just be partisan warfare. It's not like all the Democrats and Progressives would just go, "Well, we're only 40% of the population in this county, so guess we get on board with the Conservatives for the big war..." So the idea that the Republicans could maneuver unimpeded to just wipe out the Democrats on the coasts neglects the massive guerrilla campaign that would be waged nationwide.
That and the fact that not every voter is a soldier. Very much not. 99.5% of people would not randomly go grab a weapon and start butchering people in the street, or form an army. Most people who vote don't do it with grand zeal, they do it passively and without too much emotional conviction one way or the other. This is why a civil war in the traditional sense will never happen in the foreseeable. Too few people have the balls, the will or the means.
25% of the voters are over the age of 65. Who are all these people going to war with their neighbors?
Just to make it fair, it should be Texan Republicans vs everyone else. I’m not even Texan but I’m right next door and I know how they are.
We're friendly until we're given reason not to be...
There is actually a bill working it's way through our state legislature to allow a referendum vote on secession. The head of the state GOP has already announced his support for it.
What, he said the republicans will have more men to throw at the Democrats? This is not true 😂
He’s not referring to the whole population. He’s talking about the segments from each side that would sign up and actively fight.
Twice as many right aligned citizens join the military as left leaning ones. The Democrats just throwing untrained and unwilling citizens on the frontline with a helmet and rifle, would be meaningless. They’d be nothing more than cannon fodder. It takes a certain personality to sacrifice ones self in the defense of their nation.
@@datdude1538 I mean if he’s not referring to the whole population then why even have the conversion if we aren’t considering that the whole population wouldn’t contribute. War isn’t about infantry there is tons of other things involved. Even if they are just bodies the statement is still false. There are more democrats, that’s just a fact
Not taking sides, but fist fight between farm boy vs software engineer, who’s your money on?
@@williamsmith4720 my brother is a 6’5 260 lbs beast and is a software engineer so like...
@@williamsmith4720 also why fist fight? Who fights wars with fists???
You have to remember there are Democrats some fairly liberal ones in the vast red area, and some Republicans some fairly conservative on the blue coasts, I'm a fairly liberal Democrat in the very red northwest corner of Iowa. I think we came a lot closer to disaster with the attempted coup on Jan. 6, 2021. And remember that map shower the rust belt ( Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania as red in 2020 they went blue again. I'd probably have to flee to the Twin Cities in Minnesota if a new civil war broke out.
If Jan. 6th were actually a coup, at least some of the people doing it would have been armed. Those people were mostly just idiots thinking that they could get away with what BLM and Antifa got away with during the Kavenaugh supreme court confirmation hearings.
I think this video overlooks a few other tidbits.
Blue bastions account for 64% of the US economic activity and 84% of red states rely on Federal aid just to keep their local governments afloat. Some states like Kentucky receive nearly 1/2 of their state budget this way. A looming war would begin with a financial wrought and blue bastions would mobilize their financial clout towards mobilization. The last great war had a union army that was a quarter foreign born and the financial clout of the left could muster "mercenaries" to supplement our forces. Wars are typically won by the side with money. They can more readily turn enemy units to their cause and amass arms. They can supplement their industries with most of the worlds production centers.
Blue bastions control all the important ports save for some in Florida. This means democrats can starve out supply chains from the few allies republicans have while ensuring their own.
While the officer core leans republican (if you don't count the last election), it's not clear entirely how support ranks among other groups. Veterans tend to lean 60-40 but that tilt resides with older voters whereas younger military members are inclined towards democrats. With further passage of time before this war that political split will encroach in democrats favor. You must also take into account that man military members vote republican for only one reason and that is funding. Bernie Sanders received more contributions from Military donations and in 2012, Obama received 85% of the donations from military members. Biden won the military vote this year around 4% and more so among those under 50.
Democrats have less international wound up time than portrayed. They already control ports and a massive trade infrastructure since this is how they make a lot of their money to begin with. They are typically characterized as international hubs.
Capital hill is 92% democrat and is surrounded by our intelligence hubs that give an intelligence, technological, and command advantage in a world where everything is connected. Intelligence agencies tend to lean democrat and would be immediately acquired even if they weren't. I won't get into specifics, but intelligence agencies can easily render the enemies means ineffective, frustrate coordination and reliable information while affording democrats the advantage of having full insight on enemy movements and their own. Many of the left's allies may not have big armies, but the UK for example has the largest intelligence surveillance center in the world. The EU matches the US economy and would be invested in a blue victory to ensure their own economies and to dig into the pot as we did in WW2. Cybersecurity, tech , foreign, and bureaucratic advantages belong to democrats.
Drones and AI are a more common means of warfare that is debated for their ethicality but the left wouldn't debate that now. They control tech industries and can pump them out fast and quick. They also control the areas for military contractors that arm and produce them. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the government used gamers to test a lot of these drones with before, so this is an example of using people with no combat of life experience whatsoever in war.
Another point is that Megacities typically do not fall. There has never been a war in one really. They're not defenseless and are outfitted for war. We've been arming and prepping them since the cold war, WW2, etc. Whereas the same is not true for rural areas so they have less opportunities to repurpose these items. Los Angeles County has more people in it than the 7-10 lower populated red states combined and there 10's of counties. These are logistic and economic hubs that would be targeted in war. Though the cold war never produced invasion plans from either side, generals kept pushing fear on capitol Hill that we stockpiles defense in these areas to thwart invasions. Cities are discreet fortresses. Think of the Maginot line but without weakness.
Politics is nasty everywhere. I've seen some good rows in Parliament during Prime Ministers questions. I have a question for my UK friends.Could Brexit lead the UK to civil war?
I don’t think so. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think it’s big enough to create a civil war
Sword duels in the streets😂
@@citymorgue8462 Aren't they already busy banning butter knives?
It’s not just based on popular vote due to a safeguard enacted to prevent “mob rule”
I love the honesty with the paste lmao tons of youtubers wont go on cam without a bucket of makeup lol
Let’s just look at the symbolism. Elephant vs donkey? Well, you know.....🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
There is actually more truth to that than you know. When Andrew Jackson was running for office, a political cartoon portrayed Jackson and his Democrat party as "Jack-asses". Jackson's personality being what it was, he decided to run with it.
@@randlebrowne2048 well that makes perfect sense 🤣
The reason why the US vote is not a pure popular vote (vote by population) is that there are different needs and values in different locations. In the United States, the number of electoral college votes is split up and distributed across the states, based on population. The number of electoral college votes is based on the number of state representatives, which is based purely on population. To balance the states, each state has 2 senators, which gives them 2 electoral college points. This gives people in Wyoming seemingly more voting power than people in California. The idea of giving states votes purely off of their statehood is to make sure smaller, less populated states, are not completely controlled by larger, more populated states.
Whenever you look at a map of which states voted for which party, remember this: it ALWAYS comes down to how many people in each state lives in cities. Rural people tend to vote Republican, even in democrat states, and democrats tend to live in cities and vote democrat even in republican states. New York obviously has New York City, so it will always be blue. The red states have much smaller cities in them.
I just love looking at Illinois lol. Most of the State is VERY Republican, but Chicago has such an insane amount of people that it is able to render the Republican voters useless. Same deal in NYC. Here we have a few major cities: Syracuse, Rochester, and New York. Rural voters do not stand a chance.
Interestingly, the same is happening in Texas. Texas has some HUGE cities, but the voter suppression is so bad, and the State is so big that rural voters are competitive, but not for long once Texas' economy starts to grow even more. Georgia is going through the same thing. Movie industry is moving there, Atlanta alone is growing like crazy, and the State's economy is booming. In Georgia, again, rural voters are about to be rendered insignificant in a few years.
@@zualapips1638 lol what are you talking about, if anything the electoral college gives an advantage to rural voters. If the election was decided by popular vote democrats would win every time.
that's not necessarily true for states with smaller major cities, like Louisiana. New Orleans is one of a handful of cities in LA that consistently votes Dem, but is only 370k+ strong. the Greater New Orleans Area has 1.2M+ people in the surrounding parishes, ALL of which vote GOP. Same thing with MO and TN, and those states have MUCH larger populations and MUCH larger cities.
you need to know, the cream draws way more attention to the spots. Better to ignore them, and then only the the rudest people would ever notice them,
MASSS STARVATION. We own 80% of farmland. Good luck
...and most of the trucks required to get that food to urban markets.
And yet we can be clever so good luck maintaining your farmland.
It will be an honor fighting next to you Trotsky
ROFL
Numbers spread out too thinly to hold it, and Dems would get international backing/supplies. They also own all the ports.
On the voting question: voting isn't solely based on population because we want fair representation for each state, since they are so diverse. If it was only based on population it would give unbalanced power to states like CA. So, all states send 2 senators to represent an equal voice (senate) and each state sends a number of representatives that reflects their states population to represent the peoples voice (house of representatives).
5:40 The problem with those politcal alignment tests is that they tend to be very us centric. Asking questions from a US perspective. And giving you a label that fits into US politics. But US politics really skew right compared to other countries. A centrist in the US would be considered on the right in many other countries.
Hey man, good video. We don’t count the election “per county” in any real sense, we just keep stats of the polling places in each county. The states themselves are direct democracies when it comes to national elections basing the winner of each state on the person who receives the most votes, and then each state has a certain amount of electoral votes based on population with a slight skew to give smaller populated states a boosted voice on the national stage. This allows people, distributed over vastly different landscapes, climates, and cultures to have their needs met too if they fall in line with enough of the other likeminded states. If the US was a direct democracy nationally, the bigger cities needs would always overshadow the needs of the people in between the cities and this can be dangerous. A barista in LA has a vastly different set of needs than that of a Wyoming or Mississippi farmer. Our founding fathers feared the tyranny of the majority, especially with the understanding that as the population grew, the informed and well educated voter base would eventually decline into a majority of ill-informed voters with short-sidedness when it comes to the ramifications of their choices and that can be detrimental to the needs of the few that the majority directly depend on for their way of life without realizing it (i.e. farmers, factory workers, blue collar jobs in general, and middle class jobs). Our founding fathers intentionally set up the EC to meet the needs of people with respect to geography, job distributions, culture, religion, and other likeminded attributes. This is somewhat offset with the setup of congress in which population wins you more seats in the House of Representatives while each state has equal representation in the Senate. It truly is a magnificent system and it was designed to be polarized so that crap policy can’t easily be passed just because people want instant gratification. It was built to have people exuberantly defend their position to entice, not only the majority of the population, but also a majority of the states as well to represent the will of the most people and the most TYPES of people at once. It is ingrained in our culture to be hyped up over the politics of our country because we were built on the idea that every American’s voice should be heard, so we use it, sometimes abuse it, but use it nonetheless.
Definitely oversimplified. This doesn't quite represent the actual population and a couple of wildcards.
This was brave of you the comments is going to be tough
If you ever go to America be careful. And start a vlog, that would be awsome. I'm really surprised and quite happy how aware you are of American culture. It's really interesting to watch all your reactions and thoughts on American life and history, hope you get to go America.
We'd love him here 😊❤
@9:38, what you're talking about is how do we get from personal votes to party majority in a state. That's done by gerrymandering shortly after the census is taken. New representative boundaries are laid out (usually in favor of the current "majority" in the state) so that the minority hopefully gets diminished within a representative district. Thus, when a district votes predominantly republican or democrat, that district's electors in the Electoral College (EC) are chosen. Different states go about different ways. Many are winner take all. Some are winner take percentage (meaning that the number of EC votes is split between majority and minority, but both end up with electors unless the final count is overwhelmingly one party). Now, this gives us 535 electors. Effectively it is 1 elector in the EC for each federal level representative (435) and each federal level senator (100). These electors convene in December, cast their votes first along the prescribed party lines (usually) and the majority elector winner is chosen, with EC counts certified by both House and Senate (January 6th historically). SHOULD a majority not be found in the first vote of the EC, then all bets are off. Most states at that point have a debate amongst their electors and then may change their votes to go with their own personal party leanings. The EC is a balancing point between large population cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, Houston, Dallas, etc.) and the vast stretches of lesser populated rural areas. What many people miss is that should the EC be abolished, all elections come down to only the top 5 cities with respect to population in the entire country. Those 5 cities alone overwhelm all other votes in the nation.
Oh lord... the comments are hot lol. Let me do my part. Look... we all know the obvious truth... most of the guns... are owned by one side. Just saying lol.
Is that true though? Maybe cause I’m in Texas it’s different but both sides owns guns at least the people that I know
Exactly. The parts with the most population like NYC and LA can't even have guns. Nor would Dems want to buy them even if they could. He also mentioned the military leaning way more right. So I'm not sure what the Left would "gear up" with. It's not like in NY and LA the military magically leans more left. Not to mention the shit the left pulled with Cops as well. Sooo. The only war the left would win is twitter and facebook.
@@kraven4444 A new civil war today wouldn’t stay wouldn’t a civil war for long, especially if the US military couldn’t be trusted to do its job independent of politics. Perfect time for a foreign adversary to swoop in and sway the battle. Look at the Syrian Civil War. Look how many other nations jumped into that mess.
Another civil war would be the end of the US and y‘know what? We‘d deserve it too if we let it escalate to such a point.
Also, assuming the US did descend into a war, law observance would massively be ignored by those participating so...I could see dems and republicans obtaining weapons rather easily as well to arm themselves with considering the weapon super-highway that flows into and throughout the country.
That guy that made the video, is not unbiased and willfully overlooked and left out very important factors
**please note, this is not the attitude of all Republicans or Democrats, just generalization by actions by or in reaction to gov, belief structures, some negatives of each. Some more than others, etc**
Democrat=In favor of larger government to be more able to expand social programs, healthcare, and 1% raise in the average citizens taxes but no tax breaks for cooperations. Human civil rights progress and protections for all regardless of Gender, Age, Race, Sexuality, financial position, and true religious freedom. (Womens rights, gay rights, racial equality, etc)Huge cooperations need to pay their fair share and not get tax breaks while poor have theirs hiked by higher tax rateSeparation of church and state is key Protections for animal life, climate change, raise minimum FDA standards, believes in world trade including repayment of help and loans to other countries in crisis, and is in favor of stricter gun laws such as type of guns able to purchase, higher fees, better background checks, criminal and psychological exclusion from ownership.
Republicans=Used to have a proud and mostly decent party in respect to core values. Put old fashioned ways to current placehold, stopping progress. Military was valued.highly, but now cuts to soldiers pay, college tuition promised taken back, medical insurance, VA rights reduced. They want small gov unless GOP dominated, cut social programs, unwilling to help country financially, fight against civil rights if it suits their agenda. won't wear masks, think pandemic is a hoax, are.why it's this bad. They include Christianity in gov, and wish to make laws reflecting Bible. Want religious freedom unless any religious view not Christian. Openly speak ill of others dif than themselves, announcing nationalistic views like a badge of honor, call news fake news unless Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, or TikTok is the reference to "fact". " Fact" can mean fact or can mean I heard so I believe it. Flat earthers are predominantly Republicans...so are the proud boys, KKK, neo Nazis, white nationalists. They made the conspiracy community split into two groups. The fact based, evidence based conspiracy theorists, and then them...no evidence necessary. Don't believe in climate change, EPA huge reduction and loss of.vital funds. Put money over people, put guns over people, think democrats are here to take their guns+gun rights even though it's crystal clear what's proposed and that gun rights is an amendment of the constitution they won't lose them, apparently doubting the power of constitution. They fed into Trump's accusations and baseless scrap and like sheep flocked into the capital intending to kill senators and Mike Pence, to be condemned and left to rot with charges...but call us sheep. Irony. The Pandemic Response and Recovery team was gotten rid of by Trump then later in presidency, COVID19....this is how it all blew up and spread...now spreaders are not following guidelines.
*that map is deceptive as huge uninhabited areas of plains, National parks, swamps, forests, Mountain ranges, etc are still marked red zones instead of indicating little to no inhabitants. A third color for these would more accurately depict party locations.Accurate maps show more detailing with zones, and even dots of towns giving all a voice
*Ammunition and weapon production is dependent on materials, Gun powder, Gun powder mixes, metal alloys, are limited in the U.S. so without importing raw materials, the manufacturers of the Great Lakes and Texas would quickly run out of material, greatly limiting available ammunition and guns for sale. Even people that make their own bullets, would run out of gun powder at a point. Democratic states however would build up stock in ammunition and weaponry.
*Democrat dominated states and areas are wealthier of the states, and red states tend to have less money and much lower minimum wage by majority. Democrats have the financial upperhand with Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Boeing, Wall Street, Comcast Xfinity, Tmobile, sprint, verizon, as well as the owners of celltower network vital to provide service areas rented out by cell phone service compaies. At&T and Verizon may be the companies Republican states depend on, able to function as low on 2G-3G only towers other services no longer even function on(and only reason they have more towers & "coverage area" shitty at best) dominating republican areas, but rent towers from cell tower networks just as do the internet providers used on cell phone service providers. Making outrageous amounts of money for the residing states, on top of the already wealthier state budgets
*BUT both AT&T & Verizon are having trouble paying rent these towers charge, closing stores in mass and AT&T selling off their remaining self owned towers, while T-Mobile is growing and thriving buying up main providers able to offer lower cost pricing, better plans, gaining service areas +customers. Bad for AT&T, and it struggle then fail, if huge populations of Democrats boycotted AT&T & Verizon, dropped the services republican states and areas depend on, AT&T & Verizon would fail. Leaving HUGE communication blackout areas for phones, & without computer software being cut off, even more intense communication blackouts. etc. There's weakness in limited service providers for such a huge area, both failing.
This leads me to a very damning factor for Republican party....
*Both the West and East Coasts major ports are areas populated and run by Democrats. The largest ports supply the county with necessary supplies, raw materials, food, clothing, chemicals, mined minerals, OILand MEDICINE for the vast majority of American businesses, as trade enabled us lower costs, and higher profit. In turn American materials dropped drastically and won't magically recover overnight, so getting these necessities is vital. We can cut the Republicans off from imports as well as money they depend on made through export sales. Dwindling resources the remaining Republican U.S. would struggle to replicate in any remotely fast way, and can take years to build back up, but takes money to do....as for food, as grain, corn, and soy crops dominate great plains region of the Republican areas, a large area is considered a food desert limiting the diets of the residents, to what they can grow themselves, leaving huge gaps in nutrition. Low nutrition, limited medicine, loss of business essentials, loss of gas, oil, loss of services including communication through internet, cell towers,
*seeking by cutoff of vitals, military bases of the west and east coast include 5 branches of military including navy. Located in democratic areas.
*Even when this video was made, countries on all continents aside from Antarctica, have been cut off from help with foreign affairs and humanitarian emergencies, had their people, races, and religions demonized and created hard feelings towards Trump and the Republican party for bad foreign policy, and stirring the pot leaving lasting impressions & grudges. It would not be hard for coastal Democratic states and area to make deals with countries as allies against the people that were so outspoken towards these people and countries. Let's not forget the whole build the wall bullshit and republican militias playing border patrol, sporting trump hats and Republican pins...Mexico knows it is in their best interest to play for the side that will provide future deals and alliances. *so Asian countries, Middle Eastern countries, Northern Africa, Europe, U.K. (in tern Canada), Mexico, Central and South America, Australia, New Zealand, and don't forget Cuba Alliance was Democrat pushed and lead by Obama to make peace with Cuba after all that time,just to have Trump and Republicans slap these places in their faces building bad blood. Republican foreign policy sucks ass. They have Putin and North Korea when it comes down to it.
*Don't underestimate Democrats. Remember they can group all they want in the Midwest, we have to power of coastline for so much
Beautifully explained
@@lyricc2702 Thank you
@@NaomiDollxoxo ofc.. It amazes me to see the trumpet cult in the comments still saying how Donald trump will be president🤣
As long as you say so, clearly it must be
@@msjdb723 you know you could research the points I made instead of making a comment like that....not that hard
It’ll come down to bastions of military industry , and whatever else in between
No winners tho
Not for anyone
Well which ever side the military industrial complex feels the most threatened by will have a another thing coming to them. The only thing a civil war will do is accelerate the US turning into a Totalitarian state that isn't going to pretend it isn't anymore.
I feel as if this video negates a lot of factors. For one, I doubt most of the nations he said would support the Republicans, actually would. Personally, I think the foreign aid alone would give democrats the victory. Not to mention, depending on who attacks first will give the other side a massive advantage. If the republicans attacked first, it would push a lot of moderates towards the democratic cause, meaning a lot of the red leaning areas would switch to blue, and considering the insurrection on January 6th, I find that to be quite a likely scenario.
Hey man I know some people that didn't start getting face at me or zits until in their mid thirties. I myself didn't counter any sort of problem until I was around 30 or so. Try not to worry and stress out on the little things. You're doing a smashing job on these videos and your channel I commend you sir.
Love the reactions but this clip being commented on is ridiculous. There are scenarios where the US military could have a schism, but Cleveland being invaded or something is like some Escape from LA level bullshit lol.
I think what you wanted to know at 10:00 is why we use an electoral college instead of popular vote. It’s mostly to protect big cities from deciding the election every year. Instead every state gets at least three electors no matter population size and bigger states get more. If we didn’t have this system the top ten cities in the United States would decide every election no matter what the rest of the country said.
Literally who ever has the military on their side
the military is republican like 80 - 20
@@artyumdragstov8823 also it’s if they want to fight for the president who is a democratic rn or fighting for republicans
@@artyumdragstov8823 but u gotta realize the military will side with the govt and depending on who’s looked at as the side thats bad they will be the ones fighting against the military thus making the republicans being against the military bc they are more likely to Secede due to there stronger beliefs
@@dixonoliver2360 Alot depends if marshal law is enacted or if staes pick sides. once states pick sides those who serve federally from certain states will be disbanded to their states/ or held as captives.
@@artyumdragstov8823 I just can’t see America falling to a state of which there isn’t a central govt that isn’t still in control especially since we’ve already had a civil war and it did t end well
I have also taken a plitical compass test and resulted in libritarian right which is pretty damn accurate.
Also remember that the red areas own almost all the weapons. One side wants to ban them while the other side collects them for fun.
I do think something was left out when it comes to some things like what party would have more money to support the war and that the president is democratic, which are very important things to factor in.
People that live in rural areas need more representation because they need different laws than in the city
what year did you have your lobotomy?
@@Marcel_Audubon what year did you have yours? People that live in different areas look out for their own interests not others. As for his example in particular, rural area people produce 63% of all food in the United States. Without the electoral college these people would have no representation in the government.
@@eliezercohengoldberg1381 um ... yeah, rural areas produce rural products, that ain't hard to figure out ... doesn't mean the deserve disproportional representation. BTW, your *farm subsidies* are paid for largely by city dwellers.
The entire banking industry is managed out of urban areas ... by your logic urban dwellers should get 100% of the representation! coz those farms would close down overnight without banks.
@@Marcel_Audubon the point of the electoral college is that people like them will get representation we are not a democracy, we are a republic that is meant to safeguard people against the tyranny of the majority.
@@Marcel_Audubon also bankers are parasites that deserve less than nothing. They hold the most sway in society even though they produce nothing and take from others.
I would like you to do something on The Bill of Rights.
That could be interesting
Only the first 10 rights amended to the Constitution which is the Bill of Rights. Or the Constitution as a whole containing all 27 of them as they are today?
Just a question.
In my opinion what would be good is the later was reviewed as it contains 13th. 14th 15th, 19th & the 26th amendments. Which are quite huge in terms of equality. Or at least an attempt at striving for a more equally based County.
Well I think that's all my 2 cents will buy any further talking and it will cost me a nickle LoL.
Good day
@@jrthmc29 Let's start with The Bill of Rights. The entire Constitution would require several videos from Luka, just because of his reaction style (which I really like).
Eh I have a feeling that any civil war would easily end in us just agreeing to a split. The average American doesn't have much of a stomach for war. Anti war stances and isolationism is actually one of the few things both sides seem to agree on right now. We would likely stay a fully united country and just break up states to give rural communities more representation to appease them.
In reality dissenters would likely be written off and subjugated through cultural demonization and media manipulation
Your question about how we assign district wins in elections immediately made me think of gerrymandering - whether you react to it or not, there is an interesting video on the topic done by Vox called ‘How Politicians Rig Election’. They also have one called ‘The Man Who Rigged America’s Election Maps’ that is also interesting.
Vox is one of the most bias sources out there LOL
@@AnhNguyen-lx5pc Vox does have a major liberal bias - but Gerrymandering is a thing that has happened to our district lines and it isn’t a biased opinion that Thomas Hofeller (the subject of one of those Vox videos) played a major role in doing so.
Of course, when you see a map of Nevada by county, it's worth mentioning that of the two blue counties, the one with the much smaller population, Washoe, in the northwest with a population of 470k or so has more people than every other county in the state combined (~342k), and still has a population about 5 times smaller than Clark County in the southeast at 2 and a quarter million. Same holds true throughout that sea of red, it's just a lot of mostly empty land.
Whoever made the original video sounds like they're using state of the art tin can on a string technology to record.
Ryan Dean ....some huh? I used to live in Reno, have many friends that still do, and some who live in Sparks and Fernley...they are ALL gun owning registered Republicans, not one of em voted for a liberal nor will they ever vote for a leftist dirtbag....
I though even before the video started it would be Republicans because they in general just have more guns
The issue is that most counties have at least a 30% population of the other party...
@@iro6612 If you don't have proof against their claim, your comment is pointless.
Yup Detroit MI, Buffalo NY, Cleveland OH are all rust belt. Many many factories still by me in Buffalo, and we're seeing a comeback too.
@Lav Luka, the reason that it isn't a popular vote, is that most people in the US live in cities. When you take into account that cities are generally Democratic, Democrats would pretty much always win, having the league cities choose what happens to the rest of the country.