Can we agree that a civil war would be bad?

Thistle

Well-known member

So Tim Pool points out that Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden not to concede the election no matter what. At the same time the never-Trumpers and the left have been war-gaming the election and suggesting that if Trump wins in a landslide they will just keep counting bundled ballots until they have enough votes to oust Trump. The Democrat Party changes all the election rules in an election year, from high integrity in person voting, or high integrity absentee voting to very, very, very low integrity "mail in voting," then they accuse Trump of refusing to leave the White house. Does anyone else smell a rat? They've even gone so far as to recomend that Calafornia and New York secede if Biden doesn't win.

Does anyone remember who seceded in the first civil war?
 

Mike McK

Active member
For years, I assumed a civil war would come from the right, when we got so fed up with being marginalized and our Constitution ignored.

And I would try to calm everybody down by saying, "Now, now, lads! Let's have none of that! We still have far too many legal options before a civil war is necessary!"

But now, it looks as if the left is bringing the war to us. As it is, they're already fighting a cold civil war, while we're still talking about what ifs.

They're begun a bloodless (so far) coup, even as we speak. And, make no mistake, they will become violent. If Trump loses and contests the loss, there will be violence. If Trump wins, there will be unimaginable violence, including, I'm afraid, violence against the president, himself. I pray that never happens, regardless of who is president, but I'm not foolish enough to believe they haven't sunken to that level.

Now, hypothetically speaking, I don't want a hot civil war, because people will die, many more will suffer, and, our country will be irreparably damaged.

But I'm also of the opinion, (and you know I'm serious when a Southerner quotes Grant), "If war is the remedy our enemies have chosen, then let us give them all the war they can stomach."
 

Thistle

Well-known member
For years, I assumed a civil war would come from the right, when we got so fed up with being marginalized and our Constitution ignored.

And I would try to calm everybody down by saying, "Now, now, lads! Let's have none of that! We still have far too many legal options before a civil war is necessary!"

But now, it looks as if the left is bringing the war to us. As it is, they're already fighting a cold civil war, while we're still talking about what ifs.

They're begun a bloodless (so far) coup, even as we speak. And, make no mistake, they will become violent. If Trump loses and contests the loss, there will be violence. If Trump wins, there will be unimaginable violence, including, I'm afraid, violence against the president, himself. I pray that never happens, regardless of who is president, but I'm not foolish enough to believe they haven't sunken to that level.

Now, hypothetically speaking, I don't want a hot civil war, because people will die, many more will suffer, and, our country will be irreparably damaged.

But I'm also of the opinion, (and you know I'm serious when a Southerner quotes Grant), "If war is the remedy our enemies have chosen, then let us give them all the war they can stomach."
That is quite a citation you end with there. But people have been dying at the hands of lawless people most of the year, hoodlums who have been empowered by the likes of BLM and Antifa, with their predictably crime producing defund the police campaign. So with the left already burning all of our cities to the ground [not to mention most of our small businesses], it's hard to give them too much benefit of the doubt, when I comes to judicious restraint of inflamed passions.
 

Harry Leggs

Member

So Tim Pool points out that Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden not to concede the election no matter what. At the same time the never-Trumpers and the left have been war-gaming the election and suggesting that if Trump wins in a landslide they will just keep counting bundled ballots until they have enough votes to oust Trump. The Democrat Party changes all the election rules in an election year, from high integrity in person voting, or high integrity absentee voting to very, very, very low integrity "mail in voting," then they accuse Trump of refusing to leave the White house. Does anyone else smell a rat? They've even gone so far as to recomend that Calafornia and New York secede if Biden doesn't win.

Does anyone remember who seceded in the first civil war?
Don't know how Ca will secede since it is loaded with military bases. How much of the U.S. Military is sitting in California? Assuming Trump wins he will be in his last and that means he does not have to worry about reelection. That should empower Trump to restore order in hot spots. i always suspected Trump was a paper tiger and not an iron fist. And that is what the leftists think too. Trump is spineless and this is not the time. So we will see.

As it is now, they are probably taking names and looking for funding sources and if these leftists are being funded by China then they are agents of CCP. Against the interests of the United States. The articles are about selling and making a profit and if they can stir up the pot to sell their product then that is what they are going to do. None of it is relevant in my part of the country. Schools are opening up, restrictions are being lifted. There is no chaos. They need to take names and identify funding sources and then crackdown. Esp if paymasters are from the CCP. If they are acting as agents of China then they forfeit rights. The left here is not revolutionaries yet. We will see if they will fish or cut bait when the time comes.
 
Last edited:

SteveB

Well-known member

So Tim Pool points out that Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden not to concede the election no matter what. At the same time the never-Trumpers and the left have been war-gaming the election and suggesting that if Trump wins in a landslide they will just keep counting bundled ballots until they have enough votes to oust Trump. The Democrat Party changes all the election rules in an election year, from high integrity in person voting, or high integrity absentee voting to very, very, very low integrity "mail in voting," then they accuse Trump of refusing to leave the White house. Does anyone else smell a rat? They've even gone so far as to recomend that Calafornia and New York secede if Biden doesn't win.

Does anyone remember who seceded in the first civil war?
The secession that started it all, or after it was all said and done?
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Don't know how Ca will secede since it is loaded with military bases. How much of the U.S. Military is sitting in California? Assuming Trump wins he will be in his last and that means he does not have to worry about reelection. That should empower Trump to restore order in hot spots. i always suspected Trump was a paper tiger and not an iron fist. And that is what the leftists think too. Trump is spineless and this is not the time. So we will see.

As it is now, they are probably taking names and looking for funding sources and if these leftists are being funded by China then they are agents of CCP. Against the

interests of the United States. The articles are about selling and making a profit and if they can stir up the pot to sell their product then that is what they are going to do. None of it is relevant in my part of the country. Schools are opening up, restrictions are being lifted. There is no chaos. They need to take names and identify funding sources and then crackdown. Esp if paymasters are from the CCP. If they are acting as agents of China then they forfeit rights. The left here is not revolutionaries yet. We will see if they will fish or cut bait when the time comes.
I don't know what to think. Recently, you had the Secretary of Defense expressing his personal opinion about whether or not the president should invoke the insurrection act. Of course it's his department who would carry out the presidents orders were that to happen. He said he didn't think it was called for. So if you are just a good Cabinet level official who considers his job to carry out the presidents policies, why would you answer that question in public? Of course this is speculation, but it's invited by his unusual behavior, one reason may be that you are an enemy within the wire, and you want to signal to your comrades in arms that you can be counted on when the moment comes to count noses and see whose on what side. If Trump wins expect a new Secretary of Defense and a new Director of the FBI. Christopher Wray has not been doing Trump any favors either. But to your assessment of the resolve of the left, I'm not sure I can agree. You personally have not been killed by a rioter. The people who have, can't say that. In fact, they can't say anything. It never happens that every business is burned down in a revolution, nor is every citizen murdered. Just some are. The left has demonstrated that they are willing to do exactly what is required to pull off a civil war. But that is a moral yard stick and there is of course the capability question you rightly address above.
 

Harry Leggs

Member
I don't know what to think. Recently, you had the Secretary of Defense expressing his personal opinion about whether or not the president should invoke the insurrection act. Of course it's his department who would carry out the presidents orders were that to happen. He said he didn't think it was called for. So if you are just a good Cabinet level official who considers his job to carry out the presidents policies, why would you answer that question in public? Of course this is speculation, but it's invited by his unusual behavior, one reason may be that you are an enemy within the wire, and you want to signal to your comrades in arms that you can be counted on when the moment comes to count noses and see whose on what side. If Trump wins expect a new Secretary of Defense and a new Director of the FBI. Christopher Wray has not been doing Trump any favors either. But to your assessment of the resolve of the left, I'm not sure I can agree. You personally have not been killed by a rioter. The people who have, can't say that. In fact, they can't say anything. It never happens that every business is burned down in a revolution, nor is every citizen murdered. Just some are. The left has demonstrated that they are willing to do exactly what is required to pull off a civil war. But that is a moral yard stick and there is of course the capability question you rightly address above.
I am not convinced as they really have not been tested. There may be a few hard cores mixed in but they riot in Dem run hellholes mostly where there is little resistance. To put a stop to it political leaders must be held to account and paymasters must be identified. The police chief here is a born again Christian who meets with BLM and everything was kumbaya until afterward when the BLM guy is bad-mouthing the officer. What ticked me off is the officer did not see it coming. He is on the news saying they have come to an agreement and all that crap. They had black armed militia marching and this is something to be concerned about. They need to take names and find out funding and then at some point they need to engage because they will be emboldened if ignored. And i don't mean kumbaya meetings. This all will not go away easily and the normal rules may not apply here.

 

Thistle

Well-known member
I am not convinced as they really have not been tested. There may be a few hard cores mixed in but they riot in Dem run hellholes mostly where there is little resistance. To put a stop to it political leaders must be held to account and paymasters must be identified. The police chief here is a born again Christian who meets with BLM and everything was kumbaya until afterward when the BLM guy is bad-mouthing the officer. What ticked me off is the officer did not see it coming. He is on the news saying they have come to an agreement and all that crap. They had black armed militia marching and this is something to be concerned about. They need to take names and find out funding and then at some point they need to engage because they will be emboldened if ignored. And i don't mean kumbaya meetings. This all will not go away easily and the normal rules may not apply here.

I didn't have the two hours to sit through the whole thing but it looks like there were no incidents of violence. That is good, so far. But this illustrates an important distinction. Where were the counter protesters from the right? There weren't any. Had this been an armed group perceived to be aligned with the right, left wing agitators would have been all over them constantly trying to provoke some violence to video for the six o'clock news. This is the sensibility of the right. You want to demonstrate with rifles? Knock yourself out. The Constitution says you can. But conversely the left attacks the right for doing exactly the same thing. That makes the left dangerous and the right, not dangerous.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
You asked the question

So..... which secession?
The one that started it or who had seceded by the end?
The south seceded from the Union. The North did not. The war resolved the erstwhile secession with reunification, so I don't know what you are driving at. If I'm to grasp your meaning you'll have to be more explicit.
 

Harry Leggs

Member
I didn't have the two hours to sit through the whole thing but it looks like there were no incidents of violence. That is good, so far. But this illustrates an important distinction. Where were the counter protesters from the right? There weren't any. Had this been an armed group perceived to be aligned with the right, left wing agitators would have been all over them constantly trying to provoke some violence to video for the six o'clock news. This is the sensibility of the right. You want to demonstrate with rifles? Knock yourself out. The Constitution says you can. But conversely the left attacks the right for doing exactly the same thing. That makes the left dangerous and the right, not dangerous.
If any of the participants are felons then they hold arms in violation of law unless they are dummy arms and who knows the distinction. You can't tell me there are no felons in that crowd.

What did you think of the great debate? I mean Trump against Biden and Wallace? Smokin Joe got a pass on refusing to answer the legit question about packing the court. Also would not name his picks for the supreme court which means he does not have any. Wallace is a Dem stooge.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
If any of the participants are felons then they hold arms in violation of law unless they are dummy arms and who knows the distinction. You can't tell me there are no felons in that crowd.

What did you think of the great debate? I mean Trump against Biden and Wallace? Smokin Joe got a pass on refusing to answer the legit question about packing the court. Also would not name his picks for the supreme court which means he does not have any. Wallace is a Dem stooge.
I'm very sorry to say I didn't watch it all. From the reviews I've heard, every time Biden was about gaff himself to death, Trump carpet bombed him with an interruption, ostensibly fishing his chestnuts out of the fire. I expect Trump won't make that mistake in the next debate.
 

Harry Leggs

Member
I'm very sorry to say I didn't watch it all. From the reviews I've heard, every time Biden was about gaff himself to death, Trump carpet bombed him with an interruption, ostensibly fishing his chestnuts out of the fire. I expect Trump won't make that mistake in the next debate.
Donald Trump & Joe Biden 1st Presidential Debate Transcript 2020 - Rev


I liked it. Kept me glued. Listened on C-Span Radio while at work. Overall Trump kicked butt. Trump did say he acquired 128 judge vacancies from Obama/Biden. I don't think the number was that high and during the last two yrs Repubs held both Senate and House if i remember so they blocked Obama. Remember all the Repub victories during the last stretch of Obama Presidency?

 

SteveB

Well-known member
The south seceded from the Union. The North did not. The war resolved the erstwhile secession with reunification, so I don't know what you are driving at. If I'm to grasp your meaning you'll have to be more explicit.
well, if you don't know what I'm talking about, apparently you didn't understand what your original question was.

there is no secession.
The south tried leaving, so they could continue to enslave humans/Americans, and the north explained to them in quite clear terms, they don't have the right to destroy human lives. Over 600,000 lives were lost fighting to free blacks from slavery, and stop the secession attempt.

In 1868, I believe, Texas relinquished their right to secede, and that was incorporated into the constitution.... no more secessions allowed-- period.
As I recall, in 2016, a massive highly uncoordinated attempt by numerous states, and cities within states, to secede was mounted, and it disappeared as quietly as it arose..... I recall reading numerous articles on it at the time. I think that if people hate the US as much as we're seeing, they should be allowed to leave.

 

Thistle

Well-known member
well, if you don't know what I'm talking about, apparently you didn't understand what your original question was.

there is no secession.
The south tried leaving, so they could continue to enslave humans/Americans, and the north explained to them in quite clear terms, they don't have the right to destroy human lives. Over 600,000 lives were lost fighting to free blacks from slavery, and stop the secession attempt.

In 1868, I believe, Texas relinquished their right to secede, and that was incorporated into the constitution.... no more secessions allowed-- period.
As I recall, in 2016, a massive highly uncoordinated attempt by numerous states, and cities within states, to secede was mounted, and it disappeared as quietly as it arose..... I recall reading numerous articles on it at the time. I think that if people hate the US as much as we're seeing, they should be allowed to leave.

That is interesting. Thanks for the link. If Texas split into four states that would be a Bonanza for the Republican Party. Sadly I live in Illinois, and everything south of I-80 would like to secede, as it would be very Republican. I know that sounds hard to believe, but it's sadly true. The so-called collar counties around Chicago are mostly blue, I happen to live in one that is very, very red. In fact in my county, Republicans run up and down the ballot unopposed in many cases. Even that is not as utopic as it sounds. For the most part, Republicans in Illinois are like incompetent Democrats. It the most hopeless political situation I've ever seen.
 

Torin

Member
I do not want a civil war.

Maybe we need a common enemy so we don't fight each other. I propose the creation of a giant, deadly robot capable of destroying entire cities for everyone to fight.

Or we could all just stop fighting. But then there would be introspection, and introspection is scary.
 

Gus Bovona

Member

So Tim Pool points out that Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden not to concede the election no matter what. At the same time the never-Trumpers and the left have been war-gaming the election and suggesting that if Trump wins in a landslide they will just keep counting bundled ballots until they have enough votes to oust Trump. The Democrat Party changes all the election rules in an election year, from high integrity in person voting, or high integrity absentee voting to very, very, very low integrity "mail in voting," then they accuse Trump of refusing to leave the White house. Does anyone else smell a rat? They've even gone so far as to recomend that Calafornia and New York secede if Biden doesn't win.

Does anyone remember who seceded in the first civil war?
My understanding is that Hillary only told Biden not to concede *on election night." That puts a completely different connotation to her comment.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I do not want a civil war.
I highly doubt that the people in 1860's USA were rarin' for a civil war either.
That war set parents against their children, fathers killed sons, sons killed fathers, and brothers.
It was a vile thing on levels that surpasses adequate description even today.

Maybe we need a common enemy so we don't fight each other. I propose the creation of a giant, deadly robot capable of destroying entire cities for everyone to fight.
Did it ever occur to you that is exactly what the democrats are seeking to do?
Remember, Hillary called half of us a basket of deplorables. The other day she'd posted a video which told Joe B that under no circumstances whatsoever is he to concede the election.
So..... it appears that people like me are that enemy.

Or we could all just stop fighting. But then there would be introspection, and introspection is scary.
shhh...... no common sense allowed.
Although, I genuinely wish common sense was allowed.
The people who think people like me are the enemy, view themselves as the Spartans on the battle of Thermopylae, fierce, strong, battle-born.
Sadly, we view them as whiny, spoiled children who act tyrannical, and just need a really stiff spanking.

Some feel that the real problem is that foreign parties, and maybe even governments are feeding this rage, pumping money into it, hoping we will go to war with each other, so they can swoop in and divide up the spoils.

I know one common theory is that George Soros--- a well known financier of destabililizing governments he doesn't like--- is behind this.
 
Top