Economist Steve Moore: Civil War in the US If Election Results Overturned

a reply to: Hazardous1408

No, it's the truth. Why should a bunch of people who are packed on top of each other and consequently living a vastly different lifestyle than the rest of the nation rule all the other areas?

This is part of what the EC is for.

No, it is a Civil War. You have two separate contenders claiming to be the rightful executive to the government and those who would back each one.

a reply to: TheBulk

I disagree. No one is going to take up arms over Hillary Clinton. Overturning the vote would be 4 years of massive protests, and huge public support for a Congress that does nothing other than paralyze the country but that's all.

So in this hypothetical civil war what would constitute who would be on which side?

And how would you identify them?

a reply to: olaru12

According to the "real" news, it would be Russians v. Hillary Clinton.

originally posted by: olaru12
So in this hypothetical civil war what would constitute who would be on which side.

Ultimately, the idea that you want to take up arms and kill your fellow countrymen for the sake of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I could see some Trump supporters doing that, he already has the "Amerikkka for Americans" crowd, but it still wouldn't be all that many people. I don't think anyone would take up arms to defend Hillary.

In the end it would come down to who the military backed. If the military picks a side, that's who wins. If the military splits over the right to decide who should lead... that's where you'll have a war and the winner will be a general, not a politician.

a reply to: Aazadan

It would likely start as a march on DC to clean the swamp. And it would look a lot more like the Bundy protest group doing it. Or perhaps Clinton decides to take retribution on her political enemies which now include half of America ... the ones who don't like in those little extra lakes and bays and things become intolerable.

The Founders left us the means to rebel and told us it was our duty when government becomes intolerable. An overturned election would be pushing it, especially in these circumstances.

a reply to: Aazadan


Interesting. Who is currently rioting in the streets? Has anyone been injured/killed?


Is it only violence when the right does it?

a reply to: TheBulk

If the recount unearths proof that putin&co tampered with votes, then trump must not be sworn in.

There has been enough cheating.

Recounts aren't cheating.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Aazadan


Interesting. Who is currently rioting in the streets? Has anyone been injured/killed?


Is it only violence when the right does it?

There are no riots currently going on. There are small protests that have been losing steam by the day.

When I talk about riots, I'm referring to 1992 LA Riots type activity. If votes are overturned, riots like that will be a daily occurrence until Hillary is out of office AND power goes to Republicans. But even then, there won't be war... just massive civil disruption.

Hillary Clinton already has the majority of the popular vote. Adding the electoral vote to her majority would merely be icing on the cake. No need for a civil war.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

It would likely start as a march on DC to clean the swamp. And it would look a lot more like the Bundy protest group doing it. Or perhaps Clinton decides to take retribution on her political enemies which now include half of America ... the ones who don't like in those little extra lakes and bays and things become intolerable.

The Founders left us the means to rebel and told us it was our duty when government becomes intolerable. An overturned election would be pushing it, especially in these circumstances.

It still wouldn't be a war. Calling it even one battle is being generous. If a group started on the west coast or the midwest and formed an armed convoy with the objective of throwing out elected officials, the military would defend the government in place and open fire on the citizens if they didn't turn around. The end result is that the convoy would be bombed into oblivion before an on the ground battle took place. The USAF alone, using just the fighter's that are on permanent standby would be able to stop the convoy without deploying a single ground troop.

a reply to: TheBulk

We're already at war.

a reply to: Aazadan

I'd be willing to bet the same kinds of projections of how quickly the war would be over were made when the civil war started. In most cases from the history I have read, the war is only supposed to last for a few days. Funny how those projections have managed to be off so far so many times. Sort of like the projections about Trump not being able to win... Overconfidence can be a mother%#@ker!

a reply to: Aazadan

You are assuming that the government and armed forces would all act in concert to support the overturning of the election and Hillary Clinton. Further, if ordered to fire upon angry civilians marching on DC, you are assuming they would do so without question.

If the government shatters, then there is war.

At least it'd be a short war

Apparently we can't even get people to protest Donald Trump getting elected (of all people) unless they are PAID.

Who's going to pay for people to take up arms and start shooting at each other? You must be kidding. This is America. Most people don't even care who the President is, or if they do care, they care for about 2 weeks every four years and then go back to doing whatever they were doing.

People are too busy playing XBOX and watching Netflix to start a civil war.

Good old Fox news. Right on time to start fear mongering and threatening civil war if anything happens!!!

How predictable.

a reply to: TheBulk

Civil War 2.0 already began when protesters (many of whom didn't even vote) took to the streets, rejecting the outcome in advance of any credible allegations of fraud, screaming "not my president" and "take him out", burning, beating and looting along the way, with the silent and/or open support of the MSM and the POTUS himself.

The only question that remains is how far are we as a nation prepared to escalate our differences?

This move to recount in MI, WI and PA, is but another escalation. It's not about vote integrity, or that initiative would be framed as a national endeavor by both sides for all future elections.

As I have said repeatedly elsewhere, whether the result is confirmed or overturned, the other side will never accept the outcome.

This is only the start. Mark my words. And nearly everyone seems clueless of the peril. One might recall, even the Battle of Bull Run was attended by people who saw it as an opportunity to picnic and be entertained.



So now the left is saying, 'What is there to be afraid of? We're just recounting the votes..."

But it wont play out that way.

If anyone has read the Wisconsin recount site, I think you will see what I mean: Election Recount Process

In particular, one should pay attention to this page: Authenticity of Ballots and Responsibility for Conducting Recounts

So if people think the days of the hanging chads are behind us, they aren't paying attention.

As I have said, I firmly believe at this point, regardless of the outcome, in WI or any other states where a successful recount is mounted, the damage has already been done.

No one wins under these circumstances. Whether you are left or right, a lack of faith in the institutions or process guarantees continuing and most likely escalating conflict between both sides.

There doesn't appear to be any way of putting the genie back in the bottle.

I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

The nuts on both extremes have drawn the battle lines and with each passing escalation, the middle will be forced to choose sides.

This is how nations fail.

originally posted by: Greggers
Apparently we can't even get people to protest Donald Trump getting elected (of all people) unless they are PAID.

Who's going to pay for people to take up arms and start shooting at each other? You must be kidding. This is America. Most people don't even care who the President is, or if they do care, they care for about 2 weeks every four years and then go back to doing whatever they were doing.

People are too busy playing XBOX and watching Netflix to start a civil war.

This is what you all rely on -- one side won't do anything. That's the way it is.

People were astonished and caught off guard when the TEA Party happened and came out. No one guessed the people would come out and protest on the side of the spectrum opposite the left. Not like that ... but it happened.

Then the media mocked it and shoved it under the rug like it never happened. That anger never went away. It's still there. It elected Donald Trump despite all the same dirty tricks that usually derail every other candidate in our living memories.

And now, you want to say there won't be any repercussions of any kind of this recount business somehow manages to overturn the results?

I'd like some of what you all are smoking. It must be really strong.

a reply to: Aazadan

I disagree. The Air Farce bombing a civilian target on American soil would lead to massive insurrection.

It's all well and good to think that the military would "take 'em out", but the people being taken out are the mothers, brothers, sons, and fathers of the soldiers.

Give that a thought for a second.


Even if "Squadron 4 from Mississippi" was used to bomb some podunks out of Nevada, those podunk's relatives stationed in Florida are going to want revenge. So, more people go over to the insurrectionist side which leads to more bombings. That leads to more people going AWOL to avenge family/citizens. We'd be fighting a war to create our own enemy. The same thing we've been doing in the middle east for the last 15 years. It's the hazard of all gorilla wars and it's 100 times worse when it's conducted on home soil.