Politics Civil War part 2! Which side will you fight for?

[riverman]

It seems to me that the revolution has already begun

the earth's rotation never ends....everyday is a revolution!! civil war is a silly prediction....if anything far fetched happens under the tweeterinchief it'll be secession...not war

 

[The Professional Fan]

Curious how they'd target their enemy. Would they just roam around and shoot anyone that isn't wearing a red hat? Go door to door and ask who we voted for and shoot us when we don't say Trump? How would this work? Invade liberal cities and just assume everyone is an enemy and just start shooting? This is a really weird fucking thing to say or think. Wacko, racist, gun toting, dipshits.

 

[barfo]

It seems to me that the revolution has already begun. We have had attempts to bring down the President before, we have had crimes investigated before, but at least there was a crime committed before investigations began. The difference now is, we have investigations in search of a crime, that no one can find, except that Trump won.

Never before has the Constitution been so completely ignored, not only by the left, but also those that identify themselves as the establishment. I see no grounds for having a special
counsel empowered to investigate uninhibited and answerable to no one, answerable to the American people.
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years..." Whatever you call the current state, it can not fit
under this clear statement in the Constitution. There is nothing to clear up, the Constitution is clear, an election has selected the Chief Executive for four years.

Any people that do not accept this as lawful, are unlawful. Unlawfulness must have consequences.

So what are you so afraid of, if you think no crimes have been committed?

If no crimes have been committed, then the investigation will not be able to find any, and it will all be a big nothingburger. Not something to be afraid of.

Of course, it might be that Trump has a long history of shady behavior and that there actually are crimes that will be discovered.

Hypothetically supposing there are, should he get a pass in your opinion?

barfo

 

[DaLincolnJones]

The idea that the left would be able to mount a true resistance in an armed revolt is laughable. The ANTIFA, BLM extremists can only exist when left leaning communities allow them to be disruptive. I dare them to take their side show on the road to an arena less friendly. That, I would buy a ticket to watch, if not participate in convincing them that they are not to be tolerated.

 

[Natebishop3]

The idea that the left would be able to mount a true resistance in an armed revolt is laughable. The ANTIFA, BLM extremists can only exist when left leaning communities allow them to be disruptive. I dare them to take their side show on the road to an arena less friendly. That, I would buy a ticket to watch, if not participate in convincing them that they are not to be tolerated.

One major problem.... well..... two major problems.

One: The so called "left" most likely outnumbers the truly right wing states. Most of the most densely populated cities and states are located in liberal strongholds.

Two: Those same cities and states will have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more money than the cities and states in the south and the flyover states.

Not much has changed since the first civil war. The south had superior generals, they had soldiers who grew up in an environment that lended itself to warfare (gun culture, etc) but the North won. Why? Economy. They could simply outproduce the south. They had more industry. It's the same reason why we beat the Germans in WWII. They had superior technology. We just outproduced them. That's how we win wars.

So yes, the south has more gun owners, and more people that can shoot, but in a war of attrition they're going to lose. They will be painted as extremists. As racists. As bigots and religious zealots. The moderates and the liberals will band together.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-approval-rate-time-low-slip-support-base/story?id=49015043

Trump currently has a 33% approval rating among registered voters, and conversely he has a 61% DISAPPROVAL rating. I don't think their "civil war 2.0" will gain as much momentum as they think.

 

[Minstrel]

The idea that the left would be able to mount a true resistance in an armed revolt is laughable.

Yeah, few civilians, right or left politically, are equipped to handle some nutcases shooting at people randomly. Good luck with the army, though.

Unless you're one of those people who believe the army is secretly waiting for the high-sign from Free Republic to "take back the country."

 

[riverman]

but the North won. Why? Economy

The Union Army had a massive stream of immigrants to build their army...millions of Europeans traded service for citizenship....ironic given the current White House culture against immigration.

 

[barfo]

I could actually see the US splitting up, sparked by the 'war on sanctuary cities'. If federal funds actually were withdrawn from cities/states, that would probably cause a secession movement to avoid sending money to the federal government.

It's pretty far-fetched, as I don't think that the funding cutoff can actually happen. But if it did, and if the coasts seceded, then we might have a civil war.

And after the war was over, I think we'd probably not have rural states with outsized power anymore.

barfo

 

[Nikolokolus]

An armed revolution in this day and age would be the biggest clusterfuck I can possibly imagine. I have a hard time believing people are going to put on red or blue armbands for easy identification. The only discernible "sides" would be what, race? Well, that'll be fun.

 

[Minstrel]

I could actually see the US splitting up, sparked by the 'war on sanctuary cities'. If federal funds actually were withdrawn from cities/states, that would probably cause a secession movement to avoid sending money to the federal government.

It's pretty far-fetched, as I don't think that the funding cutoff can actually happen. But if it did, and if the coasts seceded, then we might have a civil war.

And after the war was over, I think we'd probably not have rural states with outsized power anymore.

I wouldn't expect any formal secession. If the Trump administration successfully managed to cut off federal funds to states with "sanctuary cities," (which I, also, don't expect to be successful), and those states then refused to send money to the federal government, what could the federal government do about it? Sue, of course, but any court orders (assuming, again, successful litigation) could only be enforced by military force. I don't think Trump and Sessions want to go quite that far.

It would be quite a crisis, though.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

You don't follow him on twitter? Not surprising.

Who wants celebrities' views on politics? Elitists!

 

[barfo]

I wouldn't expect any formal secession. If the Trump administration successfully managed to cut off federal funds to states with "sanctuary cities," (which I, also, don't expect to be successful), and those states then refused to send money to the federal government, what could the federal government do about it? Sue, of course, but any court orders (assuming, again, successfully litigation) could only be enforced by military force. I don't think Trump and Sessions want to go quite that far.

It would be quite a crisis, though.

Well, what I was thinking was that most of the payments from states are actually payments by individuals and corporations directly to the IRS. So to withhold money the states would have to instruct their residents to pay their federal taxes to the state rather than the federal government. Which would be an interesting development. You might be right that that order might not require secession.

barfo

 

[riverman]

I wouldn't expect any formal secession. If the Trump administration successfully managed to cut off federal funds to states with "sanctuary cities," (which I, also, don't expect to be successful), and those states then refused to send money to the federal government, what could the federal government do about it? Sue, of course, but any court orders (assuming, again, successfully litigation) could only be enforced by military force. I don't think Trump and Sessions want to go quite that far.

It would be quite a crisis, though.

Hawaii has mulled secession for decades...they are not happy with the immigration policy nor do they feel they are anything like the mainland culture...there are homeless native Hawaiians still waiting for some 90 year old golf course or hotel lease to expire so they can get their 5 acres...very few live to obtain their land. I can see other states considering it...Washington and California have had petitions already.

 

[Minstrel]

Well, what I was thinking was that most of the payments from states are actually payments by individuals and corporations directly to the IRS. So to withhold money the states would have to instruct their residents to pay their federal taxes to the state rather than the federal government. Which would be an interesting development. You might be right that that order might not require secession.

Yeah, that's an excellent point. It is a bit more complicated than I suggested.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

One major problem.... well..... two major problems.

One: The so called "left" most likely outnumbers the truly right wing states. Most of the most densely populated cities and states are located in liberal strongholds.

Two: Those same cities and states will have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more money than the cities and states in the south and the flyover states.

Not much has changed since the first civil war. The south had superior generals, they had soldiers who grew up in an environment that lended itself to warfare (gun culture, etc) but the North won. Why? Economy. They could simply outproduce the south. They had more industry. It's the same reason why we beat the Germans in WWII. They had superior technology. We just outproduced them. That's how we win wars.

So yes, the south has more gun owners, and more people that can shoot, but in a war of attrition they're going to lose. They will be painted as extremists. As racists. As bigots and religious zealots. The moderates and the liberals will band together.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-approval-rate-time-low-slip-support-base/story?id=49015043

Trump currently has a 33% approval rating among registered voters, and conversely he has a 61% DISAPPROVAL rating. I don't think their "civil war 2.0" will gain as much momentum as they think.

where your argument fails is in equating States as a totality. Look county by county. Take Oregon as an example. It is true that population carried the vote but that was centered in a few areas. Get away from Benton, Lane and Multnomah and the demographics change.

So, while PDX puts up with every goof ball social misfit breaking windows burning shit and being a general asshat while the local government stands aside, those actions would not be tolerated in most communities in the remainder of the state.

Next lets look at where most of the gun owners and Vets reside. For the most part, not entrenched in liberal industries of government or education that inhabit the previously mentioned counties.

To think that a bunch of mash wearing fools or road blocking shit bags wearing pink pussy hats are going to be able to stand toe to toe with working class Joes that want to protect their families and homes, well good luck. It will not last long.

The historical reference made was for the most past correct, but in such a short encounter, would have no relevance.

 

[riverman]

Next lets look at where most of the gun owners and Vets reside. For the most part, not entrenched in liberal industries of government or education that inhabit the previously mentioned counties.

This is simply not true....I live in liberal lane county and there are many, many vets here who own guns yet aren't conservatives...The Oregon Country Fair is run by a council that includes many Viet Nam vets as well.....returning vets from Vietnam were major anti war protesters and many settled on the west coast...I'd say there are very conservative pockets of communities in logging country Oregon but they are not a majority other than some really small towns..the vote results only count those who vote

 

[MarAzul]

Not something to be afraid of

Not afraid at all barf. I see river liked your post. I would love to have you both in the class you need.

 

[Minstrel]

Next lets look at where most of the gun owners and Vets reside. For the most part, not entrenched in liberal industries of government or education that inhabit the previously mentioned counties.

To think that a bunch of mash wearing fools or road blocking shit bags wearing pink pussy hats are going to be able to stand toe to toe with working class Joes that want to protect their families and homes, well good luck. It will not last long.

You're forgetting the police, who are much better trained than the "working class Joes," much better organized than retired vets and much better armed than either. Also, they've been buying military grade vehicles and weapons from the federal government for years. The idea that hipsters in Portland need to throw their bodies at a ragtag militia in order for that militia to be stopped is extremely misguided.

And that's before any actual military become involved.

 

[riverman]

I would love to have you both in the class you need.

the middle class?

 

[riverman]

I see river liked your post

you keeping a log of these stats?

 

[Road Ratt]

Did I wake up in Nazi Germany.... again?!?

 

[Natebishop3]

The assumption that all vets and armed citizens will rise up as one fighting force to overthrow the government is highly highly unlikely.

Here's the problem - people aren't desperate enough. The water is running, the lights are on, the internet works, and people have jobs, houses, and families. It takes A LOT of unrest to push people to the point of war. We're not even close to that yet. Not even remotely close.

Pushing out Trump won't get us there. Not with his approval numbers. I think most people will be happy to see him go. He's an embarrassment. He's out of his depth. People put their hopes in him that he could clean up Washington, but he's a clown. He's a showman. He's a reality TV star. That's not that guy you put your trust in, and I think most people are realizing that now.

So while there might be a few people that would feel like violence is warranted after a Trump impeachment, I highly doubt it would be more than a select few.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

This is simply not true....I live in liberal lane county and there are many, many vets here who own guns yet aren't conservatives...The Oregon Country Fair is run by a council that includes many Viet Nam vets as well.....returning vets from Vietnam were major anti war protesters and many settled on the west coast...I'd say there are very conservative pockets of communities in logging country Oregon but they are not a majority other than some really small towns..the vote results only count those who vote

I also protested the VM war. But I have not met many that have forsaken their vow to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

 

[MarAzul]

He's an embarrassment.

He's out of his depth.

but he's a clown.

He's a showman.

He's a reality TV star.

I highly doubt it would be more than a select few.

Perhaps. But he was lawfully elected. I suspect your mouth will attract your share of the few.

 

[Minstrel]

I also protested the VM war. But I have not met many that have forsaken their vow to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Articles of Impeachment don't violate the Constitution, as they are an enumerated power in the Constitution for the legislature. Taking up arms due to a successful impeachment would be taking up arms against the Constitution, not for it.

 

[MarAzul]

forsaken their vow to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Most of these bellicose gang never took that oath or even knows what it means. Those that did and run they jaw overtime, have indeed forsaken it.

 

[Minstrel]

Most of these bellicose gang never took that oath or even knows what it means. Those that did and run they jaw overtime, have indeed forsaken it.

Any plans to explain to us how the legislature using a Constitutionally-granted power would be a violation of the Constitution?

 

[andalusian]

Perhaps. But he was lawfully elected. I suspect your mouth will attract your share of the few.

.. that's what the investigation is all about, isn't it? If he was, there should be no issues to let the investigation continue.

It sure seems that the lady does protest too much, no?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

The assumption that all vets and armed citizens will rise up as one fighting force to overthrow the government is highly highly unlikely.

Here's the problem - people aren't desperate enough. The water is running, the lights are on, the internet works, and people have jobs, houses, and families. It takes A LOT of unrest to push people to the point of war. We're not even close to that yet. Not even remotely close.

Pushing out Trump won't get us there. Not with his approval numbers. I think most people will be happy to see him go. He's an embarrassment. He's out of his depth. People put their hopes in him that he could clean up Washington, but he's a clown. He's a showman. He's a reality TV star. That's not that guy you put your trust in, and I think most people are realizing that now.

So while there might be a few people that would feel like violence is warranted after a Trump impeachment, I highly doubt it would be more than a select few.

Articles of Impeachment don't violate the Constitution, as they are an enumerated power in the Constitution for the legislature.

Yeah, you have a good point there. If it does not effect them, most would not care. There are lots of people that do not make them selves aware of the current political situation. The wild card is that half of the people voted for Trump. i have not encountered anyone that voted for him who still does not support him. If all of your belief that he is losing support is from polls, i would have thought that that mistaken path had been exposed.

 

[MarAzul]

impeachment

You have no high crime or even the hint of one. That is a crime.