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

originally posted by: BlueMule
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.

The people calling for the recount ASSURED us that no voter fraud existed and it was only a right wing scare tactic. They also said not conceding deafest after an election was a direct threat to democracy. Suddenly all those standards and claims mean nothing?

I also find it amazing that people who agreed with Clinton that Trump voters were irredeemable deplorables are now suddenly "fellow Americans" again when it turns out that things might get serious.

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

The job of the military is to protect the government. I already qualified my stance with this but I'll repeat it. As long as the military remains unified behind a single person (whoever that person is) there won't be a war. There may be a civilian uprising, but that will be put down as soon as it begins. We would only have a civil war if the military splits, and a military split comes down to a few generals breaking away. The generals who would be likely to do that, have been purged over the past decade, so it's very unlikely.

The military would shoot at civilians if their goal was to go to DC and force politicians out at the point of a gun. They would try other things first like destroying the roads or immobilizing the cars with caltrops but if the enemy continued to advance lethal methods would be used. It's right there in their job description... protecting the country from all enemies foreign and domestic. You're a domestic terrorist if you rise up and use a gun to force politicians out of office.

But, no one is going to spill significant amounts of blood over Trump or Clinton. They're just not inspiring figures.

Am I understanding that the recount would only be in the states hillary lost by a fairly small margin? what about states that she won? is the fraud only suspected in those she lost?

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: BlueMule
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.

The people calling for the recount ASSURED us that no voter fraud existed and it was only a right wing scare tactic. They also said not conceding deafest after an election was a direct threat to democracy. Suddenly all those standards and claims mean nothing?

Putin fraud isn't voter fraud.

So I say wait and see. I want to see if an investigation and/or recount can explain the variance. I won't accept a right wing explanation.

a reply to: loam

Interesting point.



A) A country under rule of a corrupt Hillary

B) No country at all

We might have to choose.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Both options are the same because there will be nothing but ruins and ash after a nuclear war.

In my opinion, as a female, I get the vibe that Hillary is glad it is over. She conceded and holed up in NY. I do not believe she wants to deal with the recount and the aftermath.

Her PEOPLE and those controlling her, on the other hand, want a war.

And I smell Soros all over this.

a reply to: 200Plus

It wouldn't go far. Answer this. Do you want to leave behind a widow or orphan for the sake of either Trump or Clinton? Do you want to lose your home? Go to prison? For the sake of either of the two least popular candidates for President of all time?

It takes an inspiring leader to make people do stupid things on a large scale. Regardless of the side you choose, we don't have that.

The recounts are going to happen. The recounts are going to come up with the same result. Life will go on. If the election results were changed, life will still go on because those with the power to actually make things happen aren't going to stand up and contest it.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
And you brave warriors are going to be at civil war with who, exactly?

Your fellow voter?
For voting?


You're all nut cases.

The government for stealing what does not belong to them and any who decide to back the usurper.

See those tiny little areas of extra water? That's Hillary's America. It wants to rule the land which voted for Trump.

I like that map. It provides a point of view that differs from the irrelevant "nationwide popular vote". According to the supporters of the losing side this election: Hillary won the majority of the popular vote so she should be president. It was a very narrow margin.

According to the map you provided Trump won the election by a landslide. Going by state/county, as the process does, Trump has a huge majority.

According to my point of view the "nationwide popular vote" is meaningless compared to the huge majority Trump has by area. Indeed the majority did vote for Trump from this particular point of view.

Sorry for waxing off-topic but I've heard enough about the "nationwide popular vote" since the election. I'll respond to the topic now.

I can see major civil unrest developing if the President-Elect is robbed. I doubt internecine war will develop. Perhaps this has to do with my pessimestic view of many of my countrymen. Left and right alike I see as causing much grief and suffering in the streets but when mass bloodshed erupts I would expect many to flee to safety(can't really blame them). I can also see the usurper crushing armed resistance without hesitation and making public examples of any captives.

In short, I hope the recount upholds the will of the people as recorded on Novermber 8th.

a reply to: Ohanka

That's a wee bit alarmist, don't you think?

a reply to: Aazadan

You think people would do it over Trump?!

You haven't been paying attention to government approval numbers overall have you?

When government loses the consent of the governed, there is no government except by force.

As to the military, generals only command those who will follow. If you, yourself don't believe in the government and then it orders you to fire on others who also don't believe in the government ... what will you do? The soldiers who volunteer are less likely to hold as a monolith than the bureaucrats. Why do you think the government has made such an effort to stock arms and ammo into so many different depts. that you wouldn't think of as needing to be armed like a light army?

originally posted by: ketsuko
As to the military, generals only command those who will follow. If you, yourself don't believe in the government and then it orders you to fire on others who also don't believe in the government ... what will you do?

In times of uncertainty, soldiers follow whoever gives them a paycheck for their family. The official government, not the outsider trying to take over, is the one that has the ability to issue paychecks.

originally posted by: Willtell
Listen to the Trump hypocrites. You do not think Trump would ask, no demand, a recount if he were in the same place as Hillary.

Trump is the foulest hypocrite ever, a noxious human being.


A candidate has every right to ask and get a recount.


And the recount doesn’t overturn anything if it reveals a mistake or corruption.


So if Hillary wins in a recount

Bring on your civil war

Of course after Trump would demand another recount himself

No trump voter would , nor would Trump contest a landslide electoral college Clinton victory if roles were reversed.

Trump won the electoral college vote by a massive LANDSLIDE. That is how it works. That is how it has worked for a couple hundred years, and it isn't going to change just because a bunch of butt hurt losers aren't educated enough to understand how our USA election system works.

a reply to: BlueMule

I keep seeing you push this Putin narrative, but in a way that makes little to no sense.

Has it occurred to you that rather than actually trying to hack the US elections, it would be far easier to simply suggest Russians did, so as to undermine the confidence the US public has in its own institutions, regardless of who wins????

Our present political situation certainly works for him. While we are all pointing fingers and metaphorically burning the place down, he's telling Russian school children Russia's borders 'do not end anywhere'.

I can think of no better example of a 'useful idiot' than those who in this country continue to push the Russian election hacking story.

ETA: Or better yet.... Maybe Putin didn't even plant the story. Maybe it was the Chinese who planted it. That works even better for them. They certainly have been very busy in our hemisphere. I wrote this thread the other day...nearly total *crickets*. WTFU, ppl.

Our adversaries play chess, while we play checkers.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

There hasn't been an EC margin of victory this large since '89.

Last one was over if states could leave. This one would be if we could kick a few out.

a reply to: ketsuko

2008 was pretty enermous...

Edit: ohh you mean for the Republicans. Sorry my mistake.

a reply to: Ohanka

For a Republican.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Last one was over if states could leave. This one would be if we could kick a few out.

Which one's do you want to kick out and how would you accomplish that?