Are we being pushed into another Civil War?

I dislike the insults also, O&B, but what're you gonna do? I also dislike hypocrites who lack self-awareness.

 

The worst sorts are the kind of people who pray other people will do the violence they want to see on their behalf, your post is dripping with wishcasting some sort of cleansing violence on behalf of your crummy ideology. The main reason your fantasy will never happen is because all these chuds you think exist to do your dirty work are just as craven as you, they are all too comfortable, too much to lose, why get merked like Ashley Babbit when you can buy another jet ski instead. As much as some people want to think, this isn't Weimar in 1929.

 

Wars start when there are enough people on opposing sides to make it one.

This would start a riot not a war, that the national guard would crush and people on both sides would get 15 years in a cold cell to plan their next "war".

 

Dear (Sir): would my appeasement lead you trying to take over America and install a dictatorship?

 

Seems like a tad bit of an overreaction. Stick around and you'll quickly grow tired of reporting someone to the FBI every 5 minutes for violating your personal standard

 

You should have led with this.

 

On the topic of “civil conversation,” coupled with your opening post about how Trump has done nothing wrong, may I ask whether you paid any attention to the Jan 6 congressional hearings? Assuming, for argument purposes, you are “one of those” who refused to do so because you felt they were a political hit job, did you look at any of the hard evidence collected - the memos and writings by and between Trump and his team? Forget the overwhelming testimony collected, did you review the writings?

I ask because a “civil conversation” is usually between people who are informed, not intentionally blind. You might be fully informed, I have no idea. But if not, I think it is, er … dismissive, to claim that Trump is innocent.

 

lolwut

 

Trump conspired with Roger Stone, Bannon, the Proud Boys and others to stay in office despite not being reelected. He violated federal law doing so as well as state laws in Arizona, Georgia and others.

This really isn't up for debate in a legal sense or otherwise.

 

I admit to having zero patience for bullshit posts and respond more aggressively than perhaps I should. I can't help it. Stupidity from those who ought to know better brings out the worst in me.

 

The OP buried the message in math and violence. Post 58 did it better.

 

He's pre-blaming the libs for the violence he's wishing for from people he agrees with, but would never carry out himself, because he doesnt have the courage of his convictions. Maybe he sees himself as the mob-lawyer type springing a patriot from jail on clever argument or technicality, but you don't need those in a civil war. Maybe he will run the tribunals against antifa baristas, passing out death sentences to poor bastards who used oat milk in a coffee.

 

I didn't attack you and believe I have responded rationally. I also addressed your hypothetical (that he's indicted) more directly in another post. He's already been indicted twice. After the most recent indictment, we saw a handful of protesters in Miami.

Specifically, why do you think a potential third indictment will be the spark that culminates in a civil war?

I believe political violence and domestic terrorism are legitimate concerns, and it can come from either extreme, such as with the Bernie Sanders supporter shooting Republicans at the baseball game. Screw that guy. He didn't speak for me.

I don't think you're being criticized merely for being concerned about extremist violence. Your depiction of armed Trump supporters murdering and injuring unarmed Antifa baristas doesn't make sense practically for lots of reasons. A full scale civil war would likely involve the military or factions thereof and millions of Americans killing each other. Why are you talking about baristas? A full scale civil war would also involve Americans risking the lives of their kids and grandkids in the process. I don't see a lot of Americans signing up for that or wanting their kids to either.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I've been reading this kind of stuff from the right for years. While you say you hope it doesn't happen, some of your language and imagery sounds very similar to those who are not merely fearful about political violence or terrorism but seem to be threatening it or even fantasizing about it. That's consistent with Trump always saying his people are the toughest people, referencing second amendment solutions, calling them "his" military and "his generals," and telling the Proud Boy types to "stand by."

These are veiled threats coming from some of his supporters much in the same way that those supporting Putin and Russia are saying they hope a nuclear war doesn't happen but suggesting it will be the fault of America if it does happen. I don't want Trump indicted or convicted unless he's guilty. Even then, he can fight all the way up to the Supreme Court. We shouldn't be held hostage by extremists which you seem to concede make up one half of one percent of his supporters and far fewer Americans overall. What you're forecasting is domestic terrorism.

I'm not great at chess, but I don't need to be Magnus Carlsen to see what's happening here.

 

Yeah, the other side literally refused to participate

 

Is it really your position, as a trained lawyer after reading the indictment, that the charges against Trump for failing to return the confidential records, then lying about his failure to return them, then moving and concealing them, and lying again under oath to the government about the return and causing others to likewise lie and deceive the government, are “very very weak legally”? As a lawyer, I am assuming you read the indictment. And if so, what part of that indictment do you believe will be “very very” difficult to prove?

Obviously, Trump can win. Litigation is unpredictable. But the charges are not, at least facially based upon a review of the detailed indictment, “very very weak legally.” And if accepting that the charges are “very very weak legally” is the predicate to your having a conversation with someone who is not a “orange man bad bad fanatic,” then there is no use to having the discussion.