Republican Lawmaker Blasts Trump Over Civil War Threat

[Guitar's Cry]

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

Like any person, Trump has his own intelligence. I suspect he has a fair bit of social intelligence given his record of munipulating his base.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I suspect he has a fair bit of social intelligence given his record of manipulating his base.

From where I sit, don't look like he needs much.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I doubt anyone is going to have a civil war over Trump.

I am curious what would happen if Trump wins in 2020 however.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

Sure, your action was hollering.

If however you tweeted that you might go yell fire in some theater but never did, I don't know what they could charge you with.

 

[Stanyon]

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

"A radical far right group" the above ground groups of any stripe are not the ones you you really need to worry about. These guys just put a huge target on their backs (not condoning murder of them) another thing I never understood about M.C.' s, I get the whole f*** you aspect but when you wear the patch you just told every law enforcement officer in the country to keep an eye on you. The one's that you have to worry about are the one's that never advertise.

 

[Enoch07]

Like any person, Trump has his own intelligence. I suspect he has a fair bit of social intelligence given his record of munipulating his base.

Ironic because it's his opponents that he manipulates.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

From where I sit, don't look like he needs much.

Vitriolic platitudes seem to do the trick.

 

[Nakosis]

I doubt anyone is going to have a civil war over Trump.

I am curious what would happen if Trump wins in 2020 however.

If Trump wins I suspect the Democrats will spend another 4 years trying to impeach him. And, if they do impeach him, do you think they will give up after the first impeachment. Maybe Trump will be the first president to be impeached 3 or 4 times.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Ironic because it's his opponents that he manipulates.

Right...social intelligence. Enough to understand the nuances of a veiled threat.

 

[Stevicus]

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?​

At least based on the information provided in the link, it doesn't appear that there was any threat to start a civil war. The actual quote stated "it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation."

So, it indicates a "civil war like fracture," which isn't the same thing as a civil war.

I wouldn't characterize this as an actual "threat," either. It seems it's more of a projected expectation as to what some people might do under the circumstances. I can't see how it can be regarded as any kind of serious "threat." Likewise, Trump quoting this statement doesn't appear to be a direct threat to start a civil war.

If anything, it seems more a statement about the current polarization among the people themselves.

(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.

"Union is dissolved"?

We've had people in this country talk about revolution and civil war in the past. They're mostly considered extremely remote possibilities and such discussions are better left in the realm of the abstract and hypothetical.

(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 wouldn't even venture to guess. Why does it matter?​

 

[Enoch07]

Right...social intelligence. Enough to understand the nuances of a veiled threat.

I think perhaps it's just the paranoid schizos that the left has become. Always reading in between lines, listening for dog whistles, everything is implied or veiled etc. The DNC just needs to add a tin foil that to their donkey mascot to update it as a current representation of the party.

 

[Shad]

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.

Wasn't a threat. Yawn. Dem TDS

 

[Terry Sampson]

three questions

• Technically, Trump's tweeted a quote from Baptist preacher, Robert Jeffress', conversation with a couple of FOX News folks.
• 
  
• Specifically, Jeffress said:
  • 02:26
    I do want to make this prediction this
    02:28
    morning if the Democrats are successful
    02:30
    in removing the president from office
    02:32
    I'm afraid it will cause a civil war
    02:36
    like fracture in this nation from which
    02:39
    this country will never heal
• And Trump tweeted:
• • 
    
  • 
• Now, I'm not a lawyer, but the way I see it is this: Trump conspired with Robert Jeffress to commit willful neglect.
  • Willful neglect has been defined as a "conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference.”
  • Jeffress' comment, coming from a leading Christian evangelical, was, at the very least, "reckless indifference".
  • Trump's tweeted quote from Jeffress televised comments is prima facie conspiracy to commit, at the very least, "reckless indifference". And if I or a family member gets hurt as a consequence of those two knucklehead's comments, I'm suing both of them.

• how politically astute, sophisticated do believe [myself] to be?

  
  
  • I'd say 3.0+/- on a scale of 0 to five.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I took it more as meaning that it would be one more "fracture" to add to the already existing fractures and polarization among the people. The country is already sharply divided on many issues. There has been talk of civil war and revolution from both sides of the spectrum.

Realistically, though, it's hard to see how such a thing could be possible - unless the military itself has divided loyalties.

Also, if Trump is removed from office, then these militant Trump supporters would be rebelling against a government led by Pence. So, it's hard to say what that could lead to.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think perhaps it's just the paranoid schizos that the left has become. Always reading in between lines, listening for dog whistles, everything is implied or veiled etc. The DNC just needs to add a tin foil that to their donkey mascot to update it as a current representation of the party.

So he's not intelligent enough to make a veiled threat?

 

[fantome profane]

Just a reality check for everyone. The Republicans hold the Senate. It requires a two thirds vote to remove the President.

This means two things.

First there is a very small (approaching zero) chance that Trump will be removed.

Second, if somehow the unlikely thing happens and Trump is removed, it will be the Republicans who removed him, not just the Democrats.

 

[Shad]

Just a reality check for everyone. The Republicans hold the Senate. It requires a two thirds vote to remove the President.

This means two things.

First there is a very small (approaching zero) chance that Trump will be removed.

Second, if somehow the unlikely thing happens and Trump is removed, it will be the Republicans who removed him, not just the Democrats.

Ergo peach mint wont convict as it is purely political. The vote will be mostly down party lines.

 

[Terry Sampson]

If Trump wins I suspect the Democrats will spend another 4 years trying to impeach him. And, if they do impeach him, do you think they will give up after the first impeachment. Maybe Trump will be the first president to be impeached 3 or 4 times.

Yup. I've said this before and will say it here, again:

The purpose, assuming that the House of Representatives impeaches the bugger and the Senate votes against impeachment, is:

• To tag Trump with the label "Impeached by the House", like Clinton was;
  • To drive Trump so stark-raving mad that they have to take him out of the White House in a straight-jacket and on a stretcher; and
    • To force Placid Pence into the Presidency just to show everybody what a stupid idea it is to have a dedicated evangelical as a POTUS ; or
  • To decrease the chance that Trump will be elected in 2020, which may be enough to give him a stroke or drive him nuts permanently, given his narcissistic ego; or
    
  • In the off-chance that impeachment backfires and Trump gets elected in 2020, he--predictably--will imagine that he is invincible, and will be sure to do something that only the most obtuse Trump-supporter would excuse, but which really does actually earn an impeachment vote in the House AND the Senate.
• Then Democrats can focus on Trump-supporting Congressmen and Senators.

 

[fantome profane]

Ergo peach mint wont convict as it is purely political

Yes. Impeachment is a political process. It has never been anything else.

 

[Shad]

Yes. Impeachment is a political process. It has never been anything else.

Ergo not criminal. Just political games to get soundbites for 2020.