• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Shares Post Suggesting 'Civil War'

No more walking back. Conservatives need to just be conservatives, libs need to be libs....and TOGETHER in bipartisan fashion we both MUST lay down the LAW and deliver a harsh lesson on why
the democratic process MUST BE respected at all costs.
We can go back to fighting like cats and dogs over the issues, we SHOULD go back to fighting like cats and dogs over the issues.
Thing is, we also have to go back to LIVING together as cats and dogs, and if you've owned them, you know that a cat and dog may tussle here and there but at the end of the day, Dog will most likely defend Cat to the death and vice versa. Most of us have seen at least a partial demonstration of this in real life.

I guarantee you my little tuxedo fluffball would mourn the loss of our dog, and vice versa, and either of them would fight any outside threat to the best of their ability.
I VIEW the insurrection AS an outside threat because I VIEW the entire foundation OF the insurrectionists as being largely a product from The Kremlin and their chief client.

And it is sedition, not conservatism.
I don't know exactly how to respond because our views of Jan 6th are so different.

In my view...

Some of those people got out of hand and the ones being destructive I agree with charging. However I don't think the majority of them were committing any crimes. They were frustrated and angry. They felt ignored and they wanted an audit before the election was certified.
 
I don't know exactly how to respond because our views of Jan 6th are so different.

In my view...

Some of those people got out of hand and the ones being destructive I agree with charging. However I don't think the majority of them were committing any crimes. They were frustrated and angry. They felt ignored and they wanted an audit before the election was certified.

This is why I urge you to look over what the committee has found.
For instance, did you already know about the guns stashed in the safe house across the river?

Anyway, this is not about "charging the maximum number of Capitol attendees possible"....it's not Guiness Book.
This is about employing the rule of law to send a clear message that this shall not be attempted again.

People who just milled about aren't being charged with anything. It's not possible TO CHARGE them with anything.
It's the ones who forced their way in, did damage, threatened or injured people working there, those who made plans in concert with others, and those who actively engaged in efforts to stop
certification, and last but not least, all their helpmates IN government, at any level.

This is not about you and I having different views because my view is about the letter and spirit of the law.
The laws say you can't try to halt an election certification, threaten to hang people, do damage to the Capitol and conspire to conduct paramilitary operations for the purpose of inciting riot and instilling fear.
 
The Republican Party does give a shit what he says.
You can’t ignore the person GOP voters most support.
Watching Newsmax would help you.
No it wouldn't
 
This is why I urge you to look over what the committee has found.
For instance, did you already know about the guns stashed in the safe house across the river?
I do know about the guns. The language you choose strikes me as incendiary. They traveled with guns but did not bring them to the protest.

What do you imagine their plan was? Go to the protest unarmed and start an insurrection. Leave the insurrection at some point to retrieve these guns and then rejoin the insurrection?

Am I missing something because that does not seem logical to me.
Anyway, this is not about "charging the maximum number of Capitol attendees possible"....it's not Guiness Book.
This is about employing the rule of law to send a clear message that this shall not be attempted again.
I 100% agree with people who vandalized the Capitol and/or assaulted the police.

I don't agree with holding them without bail. That's an intimidation move and severely hampers their ability to put together an adequate defense to the charges.
People who just milled about aren't being charged with anything. It's not possible TO CHARGE them with anything.
I would hope not but according to news reports they were using bank card transactions and cell phone data to round people up. Neither of those things are evidence of a crime being committed.
It's the ones who forced their way in, did damage, threatened or injured people working there, those who made plans in concert with others, and those who actively engaged in efforts to stop
certification, and last but not least, all their helpmates IN government, at any level.
I have no disagreement with charging anyone guilty of those things. I will say I don't think everyone inside the capitol building were guilty of those things. Many were oblivious that they were breaking any laws. They were following the crowd. We have even seen leaked footage of the crowd being directed by the police. Signaling what they were doing was permissible.
This is not about you and I having different views because my view is about the letter and spirit of the law.
The laws say you can't try to halt an election certification, threaten to hang people, do damage to the Capitol and conspire to conduct paramilitary operations for the purpose of inciting riot and instilling fear.
On this point I am sympathetic to what you are saying. Angry Mobs are intimidating and that should not be tolerated. The thing about that is the gov has a tradition of tolerating angry mobs and just letting them burn themselves out without police intervention. What they did this time is more the exception to the rule rather than the standard which they operate by. That's a problem for me.

You claim this isn't about ideological differences but it's hard to believe that when you look at how aggressively the prosecution attacks these protesters and how gently the addressed left wing aggressions.
 
This is why I urge you to look over what the committee has found.
For instance, did you already know about the guns stashed in the safe house across the river?

Anyway, this is not about "charging the maximum number of Capitol attendees possible"....it's not Guiness Book.
This is about employing the rule of law to send a clear message that this shall not be attempted again.

People who just milled about aren't being charged with anything. It's not possible TO CHARGE them with anything.
It's the ones who forced their way in, did damage, threatened or injured people working there, those who made plans in concert with others, and those who actively engaged in efforts to stop
certification, and last but not least, all their helpmates IN government, at any level.

This is not about you and I having different views because my view is about the letter and spirit of the law.
The laws say you can't try to halt an election certification, threaten to hang people, do damage to the Capitol and conspire to conduct paramilitary operations for the purpose of inciting riot and instilling fear.
He doesn't want to know. He wants to live in his fantasy.

Seems that cult members are that way.
 
I do know about the guns. The language you choose strikes me as incendiary. They traveled with guns but did not bring them to the protest.

Maybe that's not a big deal to you but it is to me.
Pretend we're Ukraine and they are Russians and this is the first week in February.
Yeah, like that...it's WAR plans, and whether or not they brought them is irrelevant because the committee has found messages that prove that they were just waiting for the go ahead.
Okay? The. GO. AHEAD. the GREEN LIGHT.

You claim this isn't about ideological differences but it's hard to believe that when you look at how aggressively the prosecution attacks these protesters and how gently the addressed left wing aggressions.

And? If this was under Obama and Democrats pulled a stunt like this?
Sorry but this is not partisan.

You

don't

invade

the

Capitol

and

try

to

stop

an


election

You just don't do that...not ever.
And if the Democrats were to have pulled a stunt like that, you would see the Republican reaction, guaranteed.
 
Maybe that's not a big deal to you but it is to me.
Pretend we're Ukraine and they are Russians and this is the first week in February.
Yeah, like that...it's WAR plans, and whether or not they brought them is irrelevant because the committee has found messages that prove that they were just waiting for the go ahead.
Okay? The. GO. AHEAD. the GREEN LIGHT.



And? If this was under Obama and Democrats pulled a stunt like this?
Sorry but this is not partisan.

You

don't

invade

the

Capitol

and

try

to

stop

an


election

You just don't do that...not ever.
And if the Democrats were to have pulled a stunt like that, you would see the Republican reaction, guaranteed.
I don't want to get into a whole whataboutism match because honestly two wrongs do not make a right and saying the other side does it to isn't a defense.

However, it is worth pointing out that Democrats are guilty of similarly bad behavior without being on the receiving end of a similar government or media response.

Democrats did in fact attempt to intimidate senators into voting how they wanted during scotus confirmation hearings, they did take over a police station and commondeered a two block area that they declared as autonomous.

Whatever the standard is going to be here it must be enforced uniformly across the board and I don't think anyone can in good faith say that it is.

I'm kinda curious what's gonna happen when the SCOTUS overturnes Roe v Wade (if they do) if the pro-choice activists hold true to their threat of no peace and being ungovernable. What if anything is the government going to do to stop them?

I dare say im not expecting them to do much and for them to receive rave reviews from the overwhelming majority of the media.
 

"Any of my fellow Republicans wanna speak out now?" GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger said of the incendiary post.

Former President Donald Trump shared a post on his social media platform that appeared to propose or predict a civil war in the U.S.
A Truth Social user suggested “civil war” in response to a March 19 tweet from El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, which was screengrabbed and posted to Truth Social by former Fox Nation host Lara Logan. Trump “retruthed” the comment about civil war.

“The most powerful country in the world is falling so fast, that it makes you rethink what are the real reasons,” Bukele’s tweet read. “Something so big and powerful can’t be destroyed so quickly, unless the enemy comes from within.”

snip

Why aren't Republicans speaking out against this?

They ARE the enemy within.
 
Back
Top Bottom