Republican Lawmaker Blasts Trump Over Civil War Threat

[Sunstone]

GOP lawmaker blasts Trump for quoting pastor warning of civil war over impeachment

I have three questions for anyone who is interested in answering them...

(1) I'm genuinely curious. How many people reading this believe -- or at least are willing to say they believe -- Trump did not intentionally threaten to start a civil war should he be successfully impeached and removed from office?

(2) Again, I'm just curious. If you think Trump did not intentionally threaten to start a civil war, then could you please state exactly and precisely what words you believe Trump or just about any national American politician would most likely use to threaten to start a civil war -- if that is what they wanted to do.

(3) On a scale of one to five, how politically astute, sophisticated do you believe yourself to be? The larger the number, the more astute, sophisticated.​

I myself will NOT be debating any answers to those three questions. I am personally just curious. However, others might or might not debate responses to this OP.

 

[metis]

Trump threatens very often, so I do believe he intended to say what he said as a threat.

What an utter disgrace he is, and it's beyond my comprehension why anyone would support him at this stage of his utter depravity on this and so many other things.

 

[Skwim]

1) I don't think he intentionally threaten to start a civil war should he be successfully impeached and removed from office.

2) I assume you meant to say ". . .what words you believe Trump or just about . . . ." In answer, I have no idea.

3) I rate myself at about 3.5 - 4, depending on the issue.

.

 

[Father Heathen]

A morbid, macabre part of me would be curious to see just how far Trump supporters would be willing to go for their godking. A shocking many have already sacrificed their integrity and even humanity upon an altar to him. I just can't wrap my head around how cults tend to form around the goofiest of characters.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

1. I think it was more of a veiled threat.
2. I suspect he will call attention to this as being someone else's words, and focus in on the "...civil war like fracture..." part and blame the Democrats for being divisive. This doesn't change the fact that he used language not dissimilar to what his more violent supporters have already threatened to do, making this, like many of his other political moves, a veiled threat.
3. 3ish, I suppose. Much of it goes over my head in terms of the legal nuances, but I consider myself a thinker and have some understanding of language and human psychology.

 

[Sunstone]

I just can't wrap my head around how cults tend to form around the goofiest of characters.

Same here. It's as if being a wacked-out nutjob is the best way to attract cultish followers.

 

[Enoch07]

I have three questions for anyone who is interested in answering them...

1. He didn't intentionally or unintentionally threaten civil war. He was just stating a fact, that if he was impeached illegally. Nothing to worry about impeachment will fail so.

2. There are no words that could be spoken by a politician that would ignite a civil war, actions would though. Actions like getting rid of the 1st or 2nd amendment, raising taxes too high, thought policing, you know the entire Liberal agenda basically.

3. Can't apply a value that which is invaluable.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

1. He didn't intentionally or unintentionally threaten civil war. He was just stating a fact.

Stating a fact within the right context can be a threat. Is suspect he is aware of this.

 

[Enoch07]

Stating a fact within the right context can be a threat. Is suspect he is aware of this.

And what kind of threat is a "civil war like fracture"?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

And what kind of threat is a "civil war like fracture"?

Something well-known by writers, lawyers, politicians, and public speakers (including preachers) is that often the connotative meaning of words carries more value than the literal. By including "civil war" when the preacher could just as easily left it out or used another adjective, he is invoking all the gravity of the Civil War, and especially evocative is the fact that it has been suggested before that militant Trump supporters may take violent action should he be removed.

In the context of being impeached, this quote can easily be considered threatening.

 

[Nakosis]

GOP lawmaker blasts Trump for quoting pastor warning of civil war over impeachment

I have three questions for anyone who is interested in answering them...

(1) I'm genuinely curious. How many people reading this believe -- or at least are willing to say they believe -- Trump did not intentionally threaten to start a civil war should he be successfully impeached and removed from office?

(2) Again, I'm just curious. If you think Trump did not intentionally threaten to start a civil war, then could you please state exactly and precisely what words you believe Trump or just about any national American politician would most likely use to threaten to start a civil war -- if that is what they wanted to do.

(3) On a scale of one to five, how politically astute, sophisticated do you believe yourself to be? The larger the number, the more astute, sophisticated.​

I myself will NOT be debating any answers to those three questions. I am personally just curious. However, others might or might not debate responses to this OP.

Officially Trump couldn't start a civil war. I suppose if Trump was removed from office, then if he had enough of a base, he might start one but it would be treason.

Since we can't read Trump's mind, I don't know how you'd prove intent without action. Maybe an opinion, what could happen... .

An actual threat, that's treason. Just don't know how you would prove intent.

I don't think words alone can prove intent. They'd have to be caught in the act.

 

[Jose Fly]

FWIW, a militia group has seen, and responded to, the President's tweet.

 

[Stanyon]

And what kind of threat is a "civil war like fracture"?

It isn't but when it comes to things Trump says those opposed to him will find something nefarious with it. Their conclusions remind me of the introduction to the old "in Search of" show with Leonard Nimoy:
"This series presents theories based in part on theory and conjecture, the producers purpose is to suggest some possible explanations but not necessarily the only one's to the mysteries we will examine"
The difference is that they pass it off as fact without the honest disclaimer.


Here is another interesting relevant piece from the O.P.'s source The Hill From 7/17/17:

"Legendary reporter Carl Bernstein says U.S. politics is in a “cold civil war” over the frequent revelations related to Russian election interference.
Bernstein, famous for covering the Watergate scandal for The Washington Post, said Sunday on CNN’s "Reliable Sources" that today is a “different media universe” than the one that existed during Watergate.
“It’s a cauldron taking place in this hothouse of political debate, in which a fact-based debate is becoming impossible in this culture,” Bernstein said. “And that’s part of the difficulty here, we’re just lobbing accusations back and forth in which a fact-based environment is almost impossible to maintain.”
Bernstein said Americans believing some sources of news more than others has led to this “civil war.”
“Part of the cold civil war itself is the configuration of media, with Fox News, with CNN being perceived by different sets of viewers as representing different truths,” Bernstein said."
Carl Bernstein: US is in a 'cold civil war' over Russia news | TheHill

 

[Enoch07]

Something well-known by writers, lawyers, politicians, and public speakers (including preachers) is that often the connotative meaning of words carries more value than the literal.

That would mean Trump is intelligent though. That directly conflicts with the lefts view of him.

In the context of being impeached, this quote can easily be considered threatening.

"IF" he was being impeached.


Which he is not.

 

[sun rise]

1. I think he's doing what he usually does - bluster and threaten and exhibit the hubris of those who feel entitled.

2. The same words or close to those words. I just don't think he has that intent. He is trying to scare those who are bringing him to justice.

3. I'd rank myself 4-4.5.

 

[Enoch07]

It isn't but when it comes to things Trump says those opposed to him will find something nefarious with it. Their conclusions remind me of the introduction to the old "in Search of" show with Leonard Nimoy:
"This series presents theories based in part on theory and conjecture, the producers purpose is to suggest some possible explanations but not necessarily the only one's to the mysteries we will examine"
The difference is that they pass it off as fact without the honest disclaimer.


Here is another interesting relevant piece from the O.P.'s source The Hill From 7/17/17:

"Legendary reporter Carl Bernstein says U.S. politics is in a “cold civil war” over the frequent revelations related to Russian election interference.
Bernstein, famous for covering the Watergate scandal for The Washington Post, said Sunday on CNN’s "Reliable Sources" that today is a “different media universe” than the one that existed during Watergate.
“It’s a cauldron taking place in this hothouse of political debate, in which a fact-based debate is becoming impossible in this culture,” Bernstein said. “And that’s part of the difficulty here, we’re just lobbing accusations back and forth in which a fact-based environment is almost impossible to maintain.”
Bernstein said Americans believing some sources of news more than others has led to this “civil war.”
“Part of the cold civil war itself is the configuration of media, with Fox News, with CNN being perceived by different sets of viewers as representing different truths,” Bernstein said."
Carl Bernstein: US is in a 'cold civil war' over Russia news | TheHill

Yeup the media has been talking about a possible civil war for months now. Even @Sunstone made a thread not too long ago asking people opinion of we might be headed into a civil war. It's in the minds of just about everyone. But Trump brings it up and it's a threat all the sudden. The left is so dishonest and deceitful is there any question as to why they have lost all credibility?

 

[sun rise]

And by the way, it's not "the left" any more. Thoughtful member of the right are also doing the same. It's the Trumpistas against those who care about good government, honesty, justice, integrity and the like and that includes a few on the right who have the chutzpah to stand for what they believe in against the Trumpistas.

 

[Sunstone]

FWIW, a militia group has seen, and responded to, the President's tweet.

Bound to happen sooner or later. I wonder what the Trumpetttes thought they would end up getting when they voted for this guy. Because I have friends on the left who accurately predicted soon after the election that it would go at least this far.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

A civil war is inevitable in the U.S. again. The divisions between the two parties cannot be bridged. And they constantly grow wider.

At present the conflict is in the political arena, yet at times it bleeds out into the public arena. Antifa and Charlottesville for example. The attack upon the Republican softball senators. The attack on the country music fans in Las Vegas.

History does repeat itself because man is the same. If you know anything of the War between the States, this is exactly the same road it took.

Once there is no unity in the political arena, and the divisions insurmountable, war is the next stage. All the cries of 'unity' is nothing but trying to hold up a house of cards.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Terry Sampson]

I don't think words alone can prove intent. They'd have to be caught in the act.

Interesting.

• So if I was to holler "Fire" a couple of times in a crowded theater,
  
• and the audience stampeded to and through the doors,
  
• and a couple folks were stomped to death by a goodly number of the stampeding crowd,
• nobody could successfully sue me for "murder"
• because I didn't intend for anybody to get hurt in the stampede,
• I just wanted folks to clear the theater so I could watch the movie in peace?

Could families of the dead sue me for willful neglect?