What if some Trump devotees start a civil war?

Post Reply New Topic

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.

In a word: yes, especially if secession is violent, as was the case with the Confederacy. Incidentally, there is a vast difference between America, and the UK, and Syria. The UK is essentially the English empire, having brought other tribes and nations under their rule centuries ago. Same with Syria, where different ethnicities and sects were all lumped together following the carving up of the Ottoman Empire by the victors of WWI, even though all these "Syrians" hate each other. We Americans, on the other hand, are one people who take pride in our muttdom, and who had moved across the North American continent together more or less as one people. Sure, there have been racial minorities who hadn't been treated as equals in the past, though they've chosen to fight for inclusion rather than separation. The only group of people who had been forcibly colonized in America were Native Americans, and they're the only ones who'd have a legitimate cause to secede, though I don't see any of that among Native Americans today.

At least you admit it, you see how that's a bit odd and maybe disingenuous right considering this unwarranted fear about Trump? I am not okay with killing hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans.

Secession does not have to be violent, the referendums in Quebec and Scotland went on without a hitch. There are legal means of secession, people exercising their right to self-determination should not be opposed.

FWIW btw there have been a number of Native activists who attempted to secede over the years, I'm sure you know about Wounded Knee of course?

Secession is only legal when it's recognized by the federal government. Texas can vote for their right to secede all they want, but Washington DC is never going to recognize it.
As for self determination - everyone uses modern Texas, or the old Confederacy as examples, but how would those same supporters of it feel if Latinos wanted to break the Southwest away from the Union? I doubt you'd find the same enthusiasm.
What happened at Wounded Knee in the 20th century was a secessionist movement? I thought it was primarily a struggle for equal rights and inclusion when the reality of their actual goals were considered.