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

originally posted by: Ohanka
Didn't Trump win the majority of the military and police vote?

He also has the Pro-2nd crowd and the gun owners if I'm not mistaken.

I'm not sure what the left is bringing to this hypothetical and unlikely war. Broadcast of feminist literature? A giant sky projection of a Richard Simmons tape perhaps?

If a civil war happened (which it won't), one side would have the U.S. military their disposal. This would be the side of whoever supported the POTUS after all the recounts were done, all the court decisions final, and the process (complicated through it may have been) had resulted in one winner.

The other side of the war would be called the losers.

I find it absurd to think the military would fracture over any this nonsense.

a reply to: Greggers

I find it absurd to think the military would fracture over any this nonsense.

Wouldn't be the first time, not even in just American history.

As for the side without the military being the loser...history also has more than a little to say about that, too. Not always.

a reply to: Byrd

I have to ask - does that mean that there is no 2016 World Series Winner seeing as both teams had scored 27 total points by the end of game 7 (even though the Cubs won 4 games)?

The President is determined by which candidate gets to 270 electoral votes, not who gets the most overall votes.

Hillary = 232 / Trump = 306

California can continue to add as many votes as they like to the total for Hillary. Hell, I hope she sets a record in LA county myself. It doesn't mean anything.

It's the big person table and second place doesn't have trophies.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Greggers

I find it absurd to think the military would fracture over any this nonsense.

Wouldn't be the first time, not even in just American history.

As for the side without the military being the loser...history also has more than a little to say about that, too. Not always.

Yep. None of that changes my opinion on the matter.

People be like, "What? Hillary's president now? Oh well, I got Christmas shopping to do and Charlie Brown Christmas is on the tube tonight."

originally posted by: loam
Our adversaries play chess, while we play checkers.

I've always thought that I'm pretty good at chess. If I were President, I think I would establish the Russian relationship unconventionally by challenging Putin to a game of chess. Get the old US/Russian rivalry going again, and do it in such a way that he would look weak if he refused.

Then beat him in a televised game.

But actually, to go back to your quote. Ever notice how it's the dictators that play chess? They're the ones who can hold power for multiple decades and maintain the political will to carry out long term plans. One of the fundamental weaknesses of democracy is that the political winds change quickly and long term plans are impossible to carry out. That's why we can't play chess. New people with new ideas are always entering the halls of power, while the established ideas leave.

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

How predictable.

I think Obama started it, but without actually saying the words "civil war". He said that overturning the will of the people sets a DANGEROUS precedent.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: suvorov
Trump is making America great

Astonishing how a candidate and her supporters can refuse to accept the results of an election and it's all somehow the other guy's fault.

This is why we're headed toward Civil War. The election had a winner, but one side won't accept that. They will keep picking until they get the result they want, and if that is the way it is going to be, then we no longer have free or fair elections no matter what the process turns up.

And if that is the way people see it is, then what stops us from a fight?

Please. If Hillary had won, you would be at the forefront of posters here wanting to go through the courts and jail her for her past scandals, just to get her out of office. Neither side wants to accept when they lose. But lose they will, elections like all competitions are designed to create losers. Very few actually win these things. People are going to complain, but I guarantee you: Trump will be inaugurated, things will quiet down, and there's probably always going to be a list of things people want to impeach him over... but never will because they're fluff issues.

originally posted by: Ohanka
Didn't Trump win the majority of the military and police vote?

He also has the Pro-2nd crowd and the gun owners if I'm not mistaken.

I'm not sure what the left is bringing to this hypothetical and unlikely war. Broadcast of feminist literature? A giant sky projection of a Richard Simmons tape perhaps?

The next American Civil War, if it should ever happen won't be fought with guns. It will be fought with IED's on the streets and cyber terrorism. You already saw what the latter part of that looks like with this election. Now imagine 100x the information leaks taking down all the corporations and billionaires that pay taxes or supply cities.

A new Civil War would be relatively non violent. Economic tools are less bloody and more destructive.

a reply to: BlueMule


A recount is in fact not cheating.
But those big states that had illegal voting is cheating.
How about we do the whole election over.
Only this time it will be overseen buy the military.
All the people that are legal Americans get to vote.
This would would mean the voter show a proper legal American ID.
Would you go along with this?

originally posted by: carewemust

I think Obama started it, but without actually saying the words "civil war". He said that overturning the will of the people sets a DANGEROUS precedent.

Yeah, well the last I checked people aren't living in fear or losing sleep or arming themselves over "Dangerous Precedents". We hear about 15 times a week in fact.

The same can't be said when it comes to the words "Civil War". When people on the news say "If the election is overturned there will be a civil war" that is nothing at all the same as a "Dangerous Precedent".

Sorry, you'll have to do better than deflecting to Obama this time.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: ketsuko
The election had a winner, but one side won't accept that.

Technically, we had two winners.

Trump (presumably) won the electoral college. Clinton, however, won the popular vote by a margin of over 2 million votes - before a recount. That's almost 2% of the voters.

We'll see what the recount says. (For the record, I voted Clinton and did not suspect fraud...but when various statisticians and scientists pointed out the statistically unusual pattern of voting AND officials reported that there were discrepancies I agree that a recount is needed to confirm that the data given is real.)

No, technically we do most assuredly do NOT have two winners since the popular vote isn't even the measure of success.

Man, is this REALLY that hard to understand?

The total tally MEANS NOTHING.

I swear I'm getting dumber coming to this site.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: ketsuko
The election had a winner, but one side won't accept that.

Technically, we had two winners.

Trump (presumably) won the electoral college. Clinton, however, won the popular vote by a margin of over 2 million votes - before a recount. That's almost 2% of the voters.

We'll see what the recount says. (For the record, I voted Clinton and did not suspect fraud...but when various statisticians and scientists pointed out the statistically unusual pattern of voting AND officials reported that there were discrepancies I agree that a recount is needed to confirm that the data given is real.)

No, technically we do most assuredly do NOT have two winners since the popular vote isn't even the measure of success.

Man, is this REALLY that hard to understand?

The total tally MEANS NOTHING.

I swear I'm getting dumber coming to this site.

I'm not a fan of Trump (just to get that out of the way), but you are absolutely correct. I too am amazed at the number of people who don't seem to understand the basic underpinnings of our republic.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

As opposed to blatant idiots rioting for no reason very lame answer,some people stand up for their rights,others like you whine and cry but do nothing,just like a liberal

a reply to: grayghost

I would, assuming of course that the right wing has more evidence of millions of illegal votes than just a fake news story.

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: grayghost

I would, assuming of course that the right wing has more evidence of millions of illegal votes than just a fake news story.

You want evidence for that, but not for the real actions being taken by alt leftists who are trying to subvert the election?

a reply to: TheBulk

Are you referring to the recount? Recounts aren't subversive, by definition.

And yes I expect right wing news to support claims with evidence. Otherwise it's fake.

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.

Kinda sounds like the ME.... dont ya think ?

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: TheBulk

Are you referring to the recount? Recounts aren't subversive, by definition.

And yes I expect right wing news to support claims with evidence. Otherwise it's fake.

And yet it was the left wing mass media that were saying these things.....

I can understand people expressing woe at the idea of faithless electors changing the outcome, particularly in the context of the threats some have reported receiving. I can't see how it's anything but bellicose ignorance to suggest civil war over the notion of a recount leading to a different outcome. Supervise the recount. Have another recount if you're worried about this one. But what's wrong with pursuing accuracy in the tally?

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY

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

An election CANNOT be overturned no matter what the vote is if either candidate CONCEDES to the other before the nomination was made. Which HILLARY DID....

If the election is overturned it would be unconstitutional.....

Thats not true at all. Conceding is not legally binding. Why would Clinton care about a recount if it was illegal for her to win post concession?

You're not well informed.