Will a Second Civil War Happen in The US?

[DirtyChai]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Would the election of Oprah make a civil war more likely or less likely?

Less likely if she gives everyone a free car. . .

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Would the election of Oprah make a civil war more likely or less likely? [/backontopic]

I do not think it is likely either way. Obama (a black Muslim from Kenya) was POTUS fro 8yrs and there was no civil war. Rather we had 8yrs with a POTUS the majority of the nation approved of. 

Oprah doesn't need to win the nomination. Just her running would be enough to help Dems achieve a semblance of equal time. 

1 hour ago, DirtyChai said:

Less likely if she gives everyone a free car. . .

Oprah for President seem ridiculous but so did/does Trump. Currently Trump get 23 hours and 50 minutes of airtime per day. Everything else share the other 10 minutes. I kept hearing people who are centrists to progressive argue that Democrats don't have any strong contenders. The sentiment confuses me a bit because I think Warren, Biden, Harris, Newsome, Booker, and etc would all make excellent 2020 candidates. Problem is casual political observers have no idea who they are because Trump gets all the political coverage. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I do not think it is likely either way. Obama (a black Muslim from Kenya) was POTUS fro 8yrs and there was no civil war. Rather we had 8yrs with a POTUS the majority of the nation approved of. 

Oprah doesn't need to win the nomination. Just her running would be enough to help Dems achieve a semblance of equal time. 

Oprah for President seem ridiculous but so did/does Trump. Currently Trump get 23 hours and 50 minutes of airtime per day. Everything else share the other 10 minutes. I kept hearing people who are centrists to progressive argue that Democrats don't have any strong contenders. The sentiment confuses me a bit because I think Warren, Biden, Harris, Newsome, Booker, and etc would all make excellent 2020 candidates. Problem is casual political observers have no idea who they are because Trump gets all the political coverage. 

Now your equivalency is absurd...

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Now your equivalency is absurd...

Does it seem ridiculous because Oprah actually is a self made Billionaire? 

[StringJunky]

36 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Does it seem ridiculous because Oprah actually is a self made Billionaire? 

No such thing.  They both knew the right people to suck up to. As the old saying goes: It's not what you know, it's who you know.  

Edited October 12, 2018 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Does it seem ridiculous because Oprah actually is a self made Billionaire? 

No. It's more because she's not obnoxious and rude. She would have a great demeanor for a president.

But does she want to lead the current Democrat "mob"?

Edited October 12, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

16 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. It's more because she's not obnoxious and rude. She would have a great demeanor for a president.

But does she want to lead the current Democrat "mob"?

In pondering the likelihood of a second U.S. Civil War the thought accorded to me that a Canadian coup might be the easier solution for U.S. Conservatives looking for their our country. At just 10% the population of the U.S. there would be far less people to sway via propaganda. There is just 36 million people in Canada. By contrast Trump received 63 million votes. U.S. Conservatives have the money and the numbers to possibly take over Canada ideologically. As is stands most Canadians live within a couple hundred km of the U.S. border and the majority of U.S. citizens living near the Canadian border are among the most politically extreme in the nation. Coeur d'Alene Idaho is known for its White Nationalists and Coeur d'Alene is just 195km from the Canadian border. If things ever got to the point here in the U.S. where Second Civil War was brewing I suspect a hostile take over of Canada might be the easier solution. What are your thoughts? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

38 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In pondering the likelihood of a second U.S. Civil War the thought accorded to me that a Canadian coup might be the easier solution for U.S. Conservatives looking for their our country. At just 10% the population of the U.S. there would be far less people to sway via propaganda. There is just 36 million people in Canada. By contrast Trump received 63 million votes. U.S. Conservatives have the money and the numbers to possibly take over Canada ideologically. As is stands most Canadians live within a couple hundred km of the U.S. border and the majority of U.S. citizens living near the Canadian border are among the most politically extreme in the nation. Coeur d'Alene Idaho is known for its White Nationalists and Coeur d'Alene is just 195km from the Canadian border. If things ever got to the point here in the U.S. where Second Civil War was brewing I suspect a hostile take over of Canada might be the easier solution. What are your thoughts? 

Don't forget the Democrat "mob". They could easily be lead North. They don't seem to be able to think for themselves.

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Don't forget the Democrat "mob". They could easily be lead North. They don't seem to be able to think for themselves.

Yes, you keep stating that. I have asked repeatedly what exactly Democrats are doing you object to but have yet to receive an answer. Currently it is Republicans in control of all 3 branches of the U.S. govt.. In practice what specific policies of the Democratic "mob" do you find objectionable? It is the U.S. Republican President who is insulting your Prime Minister and mis-characterizing your country as hostile towards the U.S. rather than the the historical  ally Canada has been. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Yes, you keep stating that. I have asked repeatedly what exactly Democrats are doing you object to but have yet to receive an answer. Currently it is Republicans in control of all 3 branches of the U.S. govt.. In practice what specific policies of the Democratic "mob" do you find objectionable? It is the U.S. Republican President who is insulting your Prime Minister and mis-characterizing your country as hostile towards the U.S. rather than the the historical  ally Canada has been. 

I can't remember you once asking, never mind repeatedly.

I object to the extreme rhetoric. It may help in getting the vote out but I don't believe it speaks well to the majority of Americans, who have more moderate views than the extremes of either side. I think it enables Trump, and in some cases almost makes him seem like a reasonable man, if only by comparison.

When there is no one moderate to vote for...what can you hope to get?

[Ten oz]

59 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I can't remember you once asking, never mind repeatedly.

I object to the extreme rhetoric. It may help in getting the vote out but I don't believe it speaks well to the majority of Americans, who have more moderate views than the extremes of either side. I think it enables Trump, and in some cases almost makes him seem like a reasonable man, if only by comparison.

When there is no one moderate to vote for...what can you hope to get?

Can I get some examples of the extreme rhetoric? 

[Sensei]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Can I get some examples of the extreme rhetoric? 

Insulting of immigrants/emigrants/refugees in public media comes to mind as the first, in modern times..

 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Sensei

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Insulting of immigrants/emigrants/refugees in public media comes to mind as the first, in modern times..

Democrats did this, where exactly?

[J.C.MacSwell]

34 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Can I get some examples of the extreme rhetoric? 

Are you serious? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/10/hillary-clintons-approval-incivility-democrats-overreach-conundrum/?utm_term=.e7bc51223917

https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-editors/hillary-clinton-attacks-republicans-defends-incivility

What do you think Clinton is defending? She at least recognizes that it exists. Do you not?

Where can a moderate go to vote in the upcoming election? What can be considered a win for anything that is not extreme?

Who is going to lead a return to respectful political discourse?

Edited October 13, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

You mentioned Hillary Clinton and then ask where can a moderate go to vote. Are you under the impression Hillary Clinton is on the ballot someplace this election? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You mentioned Hillary Clinton and then ask where can a moderate go to vote. Are you under the impression Hillary Clinton is on the ballot someplace this election? 

Again. Are you serious? 

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Again. Are you serious? 

Clinton is not running for office or in office. So yes, I am serious. 

*Edit, you are claiming equivalent vitriolic rhetoric coming from the Democratic "mob". Surely you have more examples than the standard anti-Clinton line. 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Clinton is not running for office or in office. So yes, I am serious. 

*Edit, you are claiming equivalent vitriolic rhetoric coming from the Democratic "mob". Surely you have more examples than the standard anti-Clinton line. 

Did you actually check out the links? There are a number of examples that are not from Clinton.

She is defending fellow Democrats calling for uncivil behaviour, and the links include a number of examples. (which you requested)

Are you seriously unaware there is a concern with the current political discourse? Do you believe it is only Trump, or only the Republicans?

Your tendency to confirmation bias is pretty consistent, so should I take you at your word that you are serious, and never really able to see both sides? Apologies if I am wrong, but I believe you are much smarter than that, but being disingenuous.

When will we see a return to mutual respect in American politics?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/26/john-mccain-death-barack-obama-reaction-nr-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/mccain-bashing-trump/

Edited October 13, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Did you actually check out the links? There are a number of examples that are not from Clinton.

She is defending fellow Democrats calling for uncivil behaviour, and the links include a number of examples.

Are you seriously unaware there is a concern with the current political discourse? Do you believe it is only Trump, or only the Republicans?

Your tendency to confirmation bias is pretty consistent, so should I take you at your word that you are serious, and never really able to see both sides?

What specific thinks are Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton (both hold no office) calling on people to do specially? Both of your links were just punditry criticizing sentences from much larger statements. What specifically do you feel the Democratic "mob" is advocating for? It seems you are latching on to a single word, incivility, and letting imagination will fill in the blanks. 

Perhaps because you are Canadian your understanding of the context of what Holder and Clinton said differently than I do. Here in the U.S. it was incivility, civil disobedience, protest, defiance of the status quo, and/or etc has been used to fight against many terrible things in society. Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times. Rosa Parks literally was breaking the law when she refused to give her seat up on the bus. Likewise countless U.S. Citizens broke the law when they burden their draft cards or like Muhammad Ali  committed felonies by refusing to step forward for the draft when his name was called. Today In an act of defiance against Marijuana laws people smoke marijuana in public all over the U.S. on April 20th. Whether is it taking a knee during the national anthem or whatever there is a long tradition of U.S. citizens rejecting the status quo when it is believed to be unjust. Most of it has been for the greater good in my opinion. What are Holder and Clinton asking people to specifically do that you object to? 

As it applies to a 2nd Civil War or the succession of any portion of the country please example what it is you think the Democratic mob might do which would cause such to occur. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

What specific thinks are Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton (both hold no office) calling on people to do specially? Both of your links were just punditry criticizing sentences from much larger statements. What specifically do you feel the Democratic "mob" is advocating for? It seems you are latching on to a single word, incivility, and letting imagination will fill in the blanks. 

Perhaps because you are Canadian your understanding of the context of what Holder and Clinton said differently than I do. Here in the U.S. it was incivility, civil disobedience, protest, defiance of the status quo, and/or etc has been used to fight against many terrible things in society. Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times. Rosa Parks literally was breaking the law when she refused to give her seat up on the bus. Likewise countless U.S. Citizens broke the law when they burden their draft cards or like Muhammad Ali  committed felonies by refusing to step forward for the draft when his name was called. Today In an act of defiance against Marijuana laws people smoke marijuana in public all over the U.S. on April 20th. Whether is it taking a knee during the national anthem or whatever there is a long tradition of U.S. citizens rejecting the status quo when it is believed to be unjust. Most of it has been for the greater good in my opinion. What are Holder and Clinton asking people to specifically do that you object to? 

As it applies to a 2nd Civil War or the succession of any portion of the country please example what it is you think the Democratic mob might do which would cause such to occur. 

Again, I am asking the opposite. What can you do to strive for political gains while reducing the risk of violence? (OT, what can be done to move further from Civil War?)

Here you are defending incivility and civil disobedience on one hand (all examples given are good causes) and at the same time claiming none of the democrats are calling for it...

Here is another example:

How is it so clear to you that he is asking for law abiding protest? Who does he think will "get in Congresspeoples faces"? Why is he so sure those people will take part in a mature protest? Where does he make it clear no one should be made to feel threatened?

[Sicarii]

30 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Again, I am asking the opposite. What can you do to strive for political gains while reducing the risk of violence? (OT, what can be done to move further from Civil War?)

Here you are defending incivility and civil disobedience on one hand (all examples given are good causes) and at the same time claiming none of the democrats are calling for it...

Here is another example:

How is it so clear to you that he is asking for law abiding protest? Who does he think will "get in Congresspeoples faces"? Why is he so sure those people will take part in a mature protest? Where does he make it clear no one should be made to feel threatened?

He did not offer to pay their legal fees.

[Ten oz]

26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Here you are defending incivility and civil disobedience on one hand (all examples given are good causes) and at the same time claiming none of the democrats are calling for it...

What Democrats are calling for violence?

26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How is it so clear to you that he is asking for law abiding protest? Who does he think will "get in Congresspeoples faces"? Why is he so sure those people will take part in a mature protest? Where does he make it clear no one should be made to feel threatened?

I am asking you for specifics and you link a 17 second video of Booker, come on. I imagine that finding the full video of Booker's speech rather than the 17 seconds of it would answer the questions you are directing at me. Moreover Booker do not call for violence anywhere in that 17 seconds. Go to Capital hit and "get in  congress peoples faces" is not a call for violence. It is a call to be heard. You seem to be placing a greater emphasis on style than you are substance. I am plainly asking you what the Democratic mob is advocating for which you think is equivalently vitriolic and divisive as what Right is advocating for and thus far all I got it Clinton nonsense and a misrepresentation a Cory Booker line.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

What Democrats are calling for violence?

I am asking you for specifics and you link a 17 second video of Booker, come on. I imagine that finding the full video of Booker's speech rather than the 17 seconds of it would answer the questions you are directing at me. Moreover Booker do not call for violence anywhere in that 17 seconds. Go to Capital hit and "get in  congress peoples faces" is not a call for violence. It is a call to be heard. You seem to be placing a greater emphasis on style than you are substance. I am plainly asking you what the Democratic mob is advocating for which you think is equivalently vitriolic and divisive as what Right is advocating for and thus far all I got it Clinton nonsense and a misrepresentation a Cory Booker line.

Where did I claim they were? I accused them of extreme rhetoric, without qualifying to make it clear. (which can incite violence they won't be taking part in, and would quickly distance themselves from)

Your confirmation bias read what I have been saying as "Democrats calling for violence". You might want to ask why you read it that way...but I doubt you will.

[MigL]

Invade Canada ?

We kicked your ass in 1812, and we'll do it again Ten oz.

And please turn off auto-correct.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Invade Canada ?

We kicked your ass in 1812, and we'll do it again Ten oz.

And please turn off auto-correct.

How quickly they forget...