I just don't see how you get from any Saturday night in Anytown, USA, to Civil War. Gun violence in this country is very unfortunate, but common. I'd say riots and demonstrations and conservative talking heads cranked to Maximum Outrage are likely, but war? Just don't see it. Guess I'm just one of the dozens of close-minded minions espousing my BS, whom you deign to debate, despite your stated very low expectations.
yeah, everyone has a plan until they are punched in the face. Cosplaying idiots that need a gun to go buy a sandwich ain’t gonna do shit, captain hysteria
You know a Trumper has lost an argument when they default to "orange man bad." It's waving a surrender flag.
Its interesting that it says it oversampled older people, which definitely backs up the keyboard commando hypothesis that they are full of shit. If you want an actual civil war, make unemployment like 40-50% with people under 30.
No need for silly insults. I was responding to this from you: But the fact is the first paragraph in your OP is simply a defense of Trump. Are you really trying to claim he did nothing criminal isn't a defense?
I think you’re right. The dozen or so links I posted from the ultra right wing outlets like the NY Times, the Guardian, U of Chicago—-those neo Nazis got it all wrong. Yada yada yada…..
To know that you do not know is the best. To think you know when you do not is a disease. Recognizing this disease as a disease is to be free of it. ― Lao Tzu
but then,….as often happens on a message board,….a second paragraph appears….as if the Gods above wished upon you to go just a little further….just keep going to reach true enlightenment…..
Finally, some love for the media! On the flip side, did they get it all right? Is civil war, in fact, inevitable? Is there any room for dissenting opinions on outcomes? You seem oddly defensive regarding ideas that run counter to yours. It's like you take it personally. "If only you idiots/sheep/close-minded minions would agree with me, I wouldn't have to rant on and on for 14 pages about this looming catastrophe!"
No need for the silliness. just explain why you think saying he did nothing close to criminal isn’t a defense.
OMG, I found one who can count. I’m going to give you an A for mathematics, but you’re still getting a D for reading comprehension.
Well, let’s see. In the first paragraph I start off with this is not a post about Trump. I give my opinion that I don’t believe, based upon the public information, that Trump committed any crime related to January 6. In the second paragraph, I proffer that for purposes of my post, I will concede that Trump committed whatever crime they may, or may not charge him with. that concession, takes Trump out of the equation and discussion. I assumed that the majority of people on this message board are adults with an with a college degree from the University of Florida and have the ability to use inferences when reading, I assumed that it was clear that the post was not about Trump. I literally say Trump was guilty of the crimes that he hasn’t even been charged with yet. I’m not sure how I can be any clearer on the relevancy of Trump. So when you ask me why I “defended Trump” in paragraph one, my response to you is my “defense” of trump was irrelevant to my post. If you actually read my post, and the 50+ responses to people trying to wrongfully interpret my post, you would understand that. I hope I clarified it to your satisfaction. Let me know if I could be of any further assistance.
I think the problem is you're just really bad at writing. You could have easily said what you wanted to say in 1 paragraph rather than 6.
"Let me explain how it wasn't about Trump by talking about how Trump was relevant to everything I posted." Just throwing this out there - you could have said, "Pretend the ex-president in question is not Trump, would prosecuting the President potentially result in civil war" and then not go on to mention Trump again repeatedly. Except you can't do that, because the ONLY reason we could POTENTIALLY have a civil war is because of Trump supporters. If you take Trump out of the equation then there absolutely ZERO reason to think that prosecuting an ex-President who committed crimes would lead to a civil war. Maybe have a moment of self-reflection and think about why 50+ responses incorrectly interpreted your post. Just maybe it wasn't clear enough and at some point you should have said "My fault for not being clear enough. What I'm trying to ask is...." without lashing out at everyone who is trying to respond and understand.
Here's all he really had to say: Let's say there's an ex-president who is really popular amongst a large segment of the population. Should that ex-president be indicted and convicted of a crime if it would result in a civil war? My answer is 'yes' if the crime is serious and if the evidence supports it. We are a nation of laws and no one should be above them.
Do you need me to go back and string cite the dozens of posts where I said "no, that is not what what I said, I said x"? If 50 plus responses are unable to simply read the english language where I clearly and unequivocly said for purposes of this post let's concede Trump is guilty of all charges. I guess I could have changed the post a bit to FOR PURPOSES OF THIS POST LET'S CONCEDE THAT TRUMP IS GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES. Would that have helped the people struggling here? I don't know how to make that text blink, but feel free to post instructions. Thanks in advance.
That would work for you, but not for me....because my question was a tad bit more nuanced and hoped to start a dialogue regarding the phrenic state of Americans. Maybe I overshot for the moon with my audience. LOL
