What if some Trump devotees start a civil war?

Post Reply New Topic

I wanted to provoke a debate, so I started with the most outlandish scenario as to head off the thread getting too crazy. It did anyway. I personally think that a terrorist campaign along the lines of the IRA in 1970s England or the Basque separatists in 1980s Spain is more likely, only the movement here in the US won't let people evacuate before the bomb goes off like the IRA did. They'll happily blow to shreds anybody and everybody who is perceived to be an "enemy". Remember McVeigh saying that the little kids in the federal building that he blew up deserved to die as "collateral damage".

If that does happen, then the big danger becomes an overreaction by Hillary and the Dems. There's a risk they might go off the deep end and tear the government apart trying to protect themselves. There's a short story by underground right wing novelist Matt Bracken called What I Saw At The Coup, google it, it's free to read. Bracken imagines disgruntled military snipers picking off politicians and journalists one by one. The pols then go nuts trying to save themselves, demanding massive protection forces and basically barricading themselves in armed camps. When that doesn't work, they flee the country and leave their underlings to face the gallows manned by victorious "patriots".

To jrjones9933


It's banning rifles because they look scary mostly cause their black. A mostly wood colored rifles were left out.

There's not loop hole. It's legal in the us for a private citizen to sell their property to another private citizen who is legally able to process such property without a background check. Be this at home, a park, a Walmart parking lot or yes at a gagging of pro gun owning citizens aka a gun show. What they make it out to be, gun shops selling guns at gun shows to avoid background checks, is just false. Only businesses are required to do background checks this is what the writers of the bill intended. They never intended for it to cover private to private transfers. They passed it in the 80s if they'd meant to cover that then they'd brought it up as Ann amendedent in the 80s.

On top of that most if not all the guns used in shooting were legally bought background check and all from gun shops or stolen from people who bought them and passed background checks. Expanding to cover private to private transfers will do nothing and even those pushing it admit it won't do anything. That is beeides make it a felony to shoot guns with your friends or lend your gf s gun when she's had attempted break ins or a stalker.

When this comes up why antis always say the government would start carpet bombing cities as a whole to get the rebels. Killing thousands if not millions of loyal citizens. Which will only push more people to the rebels as we found out in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Populace doesn't respond well to being killed by thousands. They've even suggest nukes might be used to eliminate bigger pockets of rebels. Most the military and equipment will probably disappear off basses and reappear on rebel units if such a civil war broke out. If the military didn't just remove the current government in line with protecting the constitution which they swore an oath to.
As soon as any us gov orders bombing if us cities they've lost the war. What's left of the military will be unable to be used in cities due to the high civilian casualties that will come from its use.

There's an 80s movie with Bruce Willis where they deploy the military in ny to stop terroist. The military general is like " you do not want to deploy us military forces in a us city ......"

They do and it goes all wrong, they start locking up and torturing citizens and declare a Curfew and cut the city off into sections.
Would you really want to turn the us into Iraq? Would anyone?

You're right, in the case of crime I don't worry about them. Domestic violence, maybe, but not in any other kind of crime except for a hint of worry about politically-motivated mass shootings. I mean, these folks get really worked up sometimes and talk about all kinds of stuff worse than grabbing someone by the p**** or on the same level at least.

I don't know if they'll act out on it. "Some people say" that they will. Them.

You guys worry about violence from Trump supporters when it was Hillary who hired paid goons(including mentally ill homeless people) to attack Trump rallies, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It was the North Carolina GOP headquarters that was firebombed not the Democratic one, the brownshirt tactics have all came from their side and they have nerve to try to accuse Trump supporters of being violent. Hillary is the person who will do or say anything to be president, she is the person that the media or even the FBI refuse to hold accountable so who has more potential so the question is what happens if Trump wins? Are you going to accept the result and disavow any violence? Again, it's not Trump supporters going out there and shooting at cops.

Thank you very much. She didn't deny that it was her side who started the Trump riots - she can't because the evidence is in the emails.

Cops shoot at anyone, and I'm sure if it happened to you or a relative you wouldn't go "hm, how come they did that even though I voted for..." - and no, some Democratic place was vandalized too (with "death to capitalism" even though Republicans represent capitalists much more)... so, if you've never heard of it that means you must only read one source of news.

It seems kind of pointless for leftist extremists to attack RNC offices. The Republican nominee has thrown more firebombs than they could carry. However, I will rarely be accused of underestimating how stupid some people can be, so I consider a raid by idiots on the left to be more likely than a false flag operation by idiots on the right. I mean, it's easier than rigging an election, but still...

I am concerned about the toxic atmosphere Trump is promoting and how he may not accept the results of the election if he loses. He is attacking our democracy.

Whether anyone will fight for the Clintons or not isn't the point. The point is, most Americans will stand by the rule of law, which includes whoever wins the election is President. It's about the process of our experiment in democracy, not some fascistic cult of personality.
And who cares if the UK allows it's members to separate, we have a different history and a different way of doing things. Last time part of the country had tried to secede, the other part beat it into submission.

Do you know who raised the money to rebuild the burned down Trump HQ? Hillary Clinton had. Incidentally, the same night, a Democratic HQ had also been vandalized.

Yeah. It wouldn't be the first time Texas tried to secede. Didn't go so well for them the first time.

So what is that then? A threat to 'beat' whoever doesn't cooperate into submission? And you're worried about "Trump devotees" starting a civil war? If Texas had a referendum on secession then I would say the federal government would be obliged to honor it as Canada and the UK have. You know who else is beating seceding parts of his country into submission? Bashar al-Assad.

Would you be willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands or millions of lives to deny one or however many states the right of self-determination?

I've always found it funny we go fight for others rights to secede or be free, but won't allow it ourselves. Such hypocrisy. Technically the constitution was a contract entered by the states and they held/hold a right to leave said contract when they feel the terms aren't being upheld. Which is why president Lincoln got the south to attack first. They'd legally left. All the talk about free will and democracy but if the majority voted to leave their forced to stay, is that really free will and democracy? No it's called protecting the federal government and its income. Same reason they won't let Northern California break off or eastern Oregon to break off into states. At least w still kinda protect the minority .

Lincoln didn't get the south to attack first, they just attacked on their own. Fort Sumter was a federal installation, and no one had the right to seize it. Incidentally, the north ended up fighting a true war of liberation, as slavery was outlawed at the end of the conflict, freeing millions of African americans from involuntary servitude.
I fail to see how secession by the south was at all legal, as there was no legal precedent to base secession on. And that's not even mentioning the moral component to secession, as the south was fighting for the continuation of slavery. The laughable irony is, slavery ended because the Confederacy had attempted to break away, thereby setting into motion events that led to emancipation.

I things get violent I think it will be more anarchy then civil war.