If Trump wins reelection, will there be a civil war?

[Loren Pechtel]

By 2020, Trump fatigue will be so dominant in our culture, Trump will lose, badly. He is driving women out of the GOP in large masses. As is, his approval rating is 52% negative, only 42.5% positive. When he goes down, he will drag the GOP down with him. He's a one term president.

You're assuming an honest election. I consider that questionable.

 

[fast]

There are those that will vote regardless. It's those that wouldn't otherwise vote that matters. If those have someone they want to vote for, they'll vote, but many people who wouldn't otherwise vote was neither positively moved by Trump nor Hillary and stayed home. If there is no second coming to move the otherwise voters, it's going to take unbridled hatred of Trump to Trump their laziness.

Can you actually back this up, or are you just going to repeat it every time?

I'm not rightly sure why you'd object. Sure, from a tactical perspective, my laying out the claim may carry the burden of proof, but it seems like a rather sensible position to hold, almost as innocuous as saying what party I'd be inclined to claim being affiliated with--with you taking advantage of the fact I've left my identification behind. Why not meet my claim with ammunition of a different kind? How about a sensible reason to think I'm in error. It's not as if I'm being fanatical and making wild claims.

Is it the negativity in my regarding people as lazy? Maybe if I broached the issue with tempered care in wording.

I don't know of any studies--any claim-backing evidence that supports me. So then, dismiss it? There are people (other than those newly eligible) that came out of the wood work to vote for obama, people that could have but did not previous vote with any regularity. How preposterous of an idea is it to think they may not have been moved to do so. Same with Trump. There are those that might not have otherwise voted if not for having a candiadate to vote FOR.

I originally responded because of the notion of voting AGAINST. Sure, the regulars who vote regardless just might not find any one particular candidate worthwhile, but if they have a particular distaste for someone, they're already motivated to vote.

I don't see it as a grand stretch to think that the irregulars will not come out the wood work when there is no worthwhile candidate to vote for; that's partly why in the wake of no great pickings that the unmotivated will stay home; it'll take a visceral dislike of trump by irregulars to go vote AGAINST him.

Yes, Hillary got more votes, but not enough to become president. Had she had the following that obama had in his first term, things would be different now.

 

[RavenSky]

Yes. Compared to Trump's Republican party, it's the Democrats who are going to act irrationally if they lose an election. Are you fucking serious? Trump won the presidency and still cried "cheating!" like an infant. Win, lose or draw it won't matter how the Democrats react, it will be the mature response out of the two available options.

^^^ This.

And, besides Trump, I'd like to know exactly who is claiming that Democrats will start a civil war.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are those that will vote regardless. It's those that wouldn't otherwise vote that matters. If those have someone they want to vote for, they'll vote, but many people who wouldn't otherwise vote was neither positively moved by Trump nor Hillary and stayed home. If there is no second coming to move the otherwise voters, it's going to take unbridled hatred of Trump to Trump their laziness.

Can you actually back this up, or are you just going to repeat it every time?

I'm not rightly sure why you'd object. Sure, from a tactical perspective, my laying out the claim may carry the burden of proof, but it seems like a rather sensible position to hold, almost as innocuous as saying what party I'd be inclined to claim being affiliated with--with you taking advantage of the fact I've left my identification behind. Why not meet my claim with ammunition of a different kind? How about a sensible reason to think I'm in error. It's not as if I'm being fanatical and making wild claims.

Is it the negativity in my regarding people as lazy? Maybe if I broached the issue with tempered care in wording.

I don't know of any studies--any claim-backing evidence that supports me. So then, dismiss it? There are people (other than those newly eligible) that came out of the wood work to vote for obama, people that could have but did not previous vote with any regularity. How preposterous of an idea is it to think they may not have been moved to do so. Same with Trump. There are those that might not have otherwise voted if not for having a candiadate to vote FOR.

I originally responded because of the notion of voting AGAINST. Sure, the regulars who vote regardless just might not find any one particular candidate worthwhile, but if they have a particular distaste for someone, they're already motivated to vote.

I don't see it as a grand stretch to think that the irregulars will not come out the wood work when there is no worthwhile candidate to vote for; that's partly why in the wake of no great pickings that the unmotivated will stay home; it'll take a visceral dislike of trump by irregulars to go vote AGAINST him.

Yes, Hillary got more votes, but not enough to become president. Had she had the following that obama had in his first term, things would be different now.

That’s a of text saying, ‘just gonna repeat myself.’.

In Trumbull County Ohio, Obama beat Romney by a good margin. 5000 fewer people voted there in 2016 and Trump won by a huge margin. So according to you, had voters not been lazy, turnout would have skyrocketed in 2016.

 

[fast]

I'm not rightly sure why you'd object. Sure, from a tactical perspective, my laying out the claim may carry the burden of proof, but it seems like a rather sensible position to hold, almost as innocuous as saying what party I'd be inclined to claim being affiliated with--with you taking advantage of the fact I've left my identification behind. Why not meet my claim with ammunition of a different kind? How about a sensible reason to think I'm in error. It's not as if I'm being fanatical and making wild claims.

Is it the negativity in my regarding people as lazy? Maybe if I broached the issue with tempered care in wording.

I don't know of any studies--any claim-backing evidence that supports me. So then, dismiss it? There are people (other than those newly eligible) that came out of the wood work to vote for obama, people that could have but did not previous vote with any regularity. How preposterous of an idea is it to think they may not have been moved to do so. Same with Trump. There are those that might not have otherwise voted if not for having a candiadate to vote FOR.

I originally responded because of the notion of voting AGAINST. Sure, the regulars who vote regardless just might not find any one particular candidate worthwhile, but if they have a particular distaste for someone, they're already motivated to vote.

I don't see it as a grand stretch to think that the irregulars will not come out the wood work when there is no worthwhile candidate to vote for; that's partly why in the wake of no great pickings that the unmotivated will stay home; it'll take a visceral dislike of trump by irregulars to go vote AGAINST him.

Yes, Hillary got more votes, but not enough to become president. Had she had the following that obama had in his first term, things would be different now.

That’s a of text saying, ‘just gonna repeat myself.’.

In Trumbull County Ohio, Obama beat Romney by a good margin. 5000 fewer people voted there in 2016 and Trump won by a huge margin. So according to you, had voters not been lazy, turnout would have skyrocketed in 2016.

Obama was a major contender that people wanted to vote for, so not only did the regulars come out and vote, the lazies did too, explaining the "good margin." How many minority's voted?

Trump was a major contender that people wanted to vote for, so not only did the regulars come out and vote, the jaded did too, explaining the "huge margin." How many minority's voted?

You speak of "5000 fewer." Explain the difference in the two numbers above!

They would have skyrocketed had there actually been a major democratic contender.

 

[Lion IRC]

It's delivered more Democrat presidents than Republicans

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Heh...Evidently not.

It seems to be his SOP.

Jimmy agreed that it has favoured Dems

Plurality of the popular vote in last 7 elections: Dems 6, Republicans 1.
Winners of electoral vote in last 7 elections: Dems 4, Republicans 3.

 

[ZiprHead]

Heh...Evidently not.

It seems to be his SOP.

Jimmy agreed that it has favoured Dems

Plurality of the popular vote in last 7 elections: Dems 6, Republicans 1.
Winners of electoral vote in last 7 elections: Dems 4, Republicans 3.

Huh?

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Gospel]

Nope, there wont be another civil war in America; ever for any reason. Take a look around you, see that 99.9% of folks looking down at their cell phones? If there is a war it wont be civil.

 

[fast]

Heh...Evidently not.

It seems to be his SOP.

Jimmy agreed that it has favoured Dems

Plurality of the popular vote in last 7 elections: Dems 6, Republicans 1.
Winners of electoral vote in last 7 elections: Dems 4, Republicans 3.

Nope, there wont be another civil war in America; ever for any reason. Take a look around you, see that 99.9% of folks looking down at their cell phones? If there is a war it wont be civil.

The term "civil war" is a two worded term with a meaning that ought not be derived by combining the meaning of its constituent words. The term, "civil," for instance, ought not be treated as an adjective; instead, treat the term, "civil war" as a term in its own right that has a meaning independent of the meaning of its constituent words. After all, a civil war, most certainly a civil war, is anything but a war that is civil.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Heh...Evidently not.

It seems to be his SOP.

Jimmy agreed that it has favoured Dems

Plurality of the popular vote in last 7 elections: Dems 6, Republicans 1.
Winners of electoral vote in last 7 elections: Dems 4, Republicans 3.

Huh?

Trolling attempt.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

View attachment 18007

Jebus! As if it was written strictly for Jolly Penguin.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not rightly sure why you'd object. Sure, from a tactical perspective, my laying out the claim may carry the burden of proof, but it seems like a rather sensible position to hold, almost as innocuous as saying what party I'd be inclined to claim being affiliated with--with you taking advantage of the fact I've left my identification behind. Why not meet my claim with ammunition of a different kind? How about a sensible reason to think I'm in error. It's not as if I'm being fanatical and making wild claims.

Is it the negativity in my regarding people as lazy? Maybe if I broached the issue with tempered care in wording.

I don't know of any studies--any claim-backing evidence that supports me. So then, dismiss it? There are people (other than those newly eligible) that came out of the wood work to vote for obama, people that could have but did not previous vote with any regularity. How preposterous of an idea is it to think they may not have been moved to do so. Same with Trump. There are those that might not have otherwise voted if not for having a candiadate to vote FOR.

I originally responded because of the notion of voting AGAINST. Sure, the regulars who vote regardless just might not find any one particular candidate worthwhile, but if they have a particular distaste for someone, they're already motivated to vote.

I don't see it as a grand stretch to think that the irregulars will not come out the wood work when there is no worthwhile candidate to vote for; that's partly why in the wake of no great pickings that the unmotivated will stay home; it'll take a visceral dislike of trump by irregulars to go vote AGAINST him.

Yes, Hillary got more votes, but not enough to become president. Had she had the following that obama had in his first term, things would be different now.

That’s a of text saying, ‘just gonna repeat myself.’.

In Trumbull County Ohio, Obama beat Romney by a good margin. 5000 fewer people voted there in 2016 and Trump won by a huge margin. So according to you, had voters not been lazy, turnout would have skyrocketed in 2016.

Obama was a major contender that people wanted to vote for, so not only did the regulars come out and vote, the lazies did too, explaining the "good margin." How many minority's voted?

Trump was a major contender that people wanted to vote for, so not only did the regulars come out and vote, the jaded did too, explaining the "huge margin." How many minority's voted?

You speak of "5000 fewer." Explain the difference in the two numbers above!

Actually, I'm asking you to explain them. You are the one blaming the lazies.

2012

About 102,000 voted
Obama/Biden 61672 60.48%
Romney/Ryan 38279 37.54%

2016

About 96,000 voted
Trump/Pence 48,152 51.2%
Clinton/White Bread 42,130 44.8%

Trump up'd 10k, Clinton down 19k.

This is where Trump won.

 

[Elixir]

"If Trump wins reelection, will there be a civil war?"

I can tell you with great confidence that whatever war(s) erupt due to a Trump win or a Trump loss, it will be anything but civil.

 

[Lion IRC]

Huh?

Trolling attempt.

Is it not the case that the electoral college system has delivered more Democrat Presidents than Republican?

Jolly Penguin rightly observed that if it was such a huge obstacle to democracy - why is there a conspicuous lack of effort to fix it?

... and the Electoral College which even the orange nazi is on record saying is a bad thing.

But where is the outcry to get rid of it? *crickets*

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is it not the case that the electoral college system has delivered more Democrat Presidents than Republican?

Jolly Penguin rightly observed that if it was such a huge obstacle to democracy - why is there a conspicuous lack of effort to fix it?

... and the Electoral College which even the orange nazi is on record saying is a bad thing.

But where is the outcry to get rid of it? *crickets*

More trolling.

 

[Jarhyn]

Is it not the case that the electoral college system has delivered more Democrat Presidents than Republican?

Jolly Penguin rightly observed that if it was such a huge obstacle to democracy - why is there a conspicuous lack of effort to fix it?

... and the Electoral College which even the orange nazi is on record saying is a bad thing.

But where is the outcry to get rid of it? *crickets*

No, it is not in fact true to say that the EC has delivered more democrats than republicans. This is because the valid metric on which to make that claim, specifically the EC portion, is exclusively the set o situations where the EC would have been different from the alternative. All the rest are irrelevant and must be excluded because the EC did not actually have any impact on the results of those elections. pretty overwhelmingly, when the EC has impacted our election process, it has tipped the balance towards conservatives.

What you propose would be like giving the Vice President's tie breaking authority in the senate credit for every piece of legislation passed by the senate; in this analogically example, the tuebreaking authority only matters to cases where there was, in fact, a tie.

 

[phands]

No, it is not in fact true to say that the EC has delivered more democrats than republicans. This is because the valid metric on which to make that claim, specifically the EC portion, is exclusively the set o situations where the EC would have been different from the alternative. All the rest are irrelevant and must be excluded because the EC did not actually have any impact on the results of those elections. pretty overwhelmingly, when the EC has impacted our election process, it has tipped the balance towards conservatives.

What you propose would be like giving the Vice President's tie breaking authority in the senate credit for every piece of legislation passed by the senate; in this analogically example, the tuebreaking authority only matters to cases where there was, in fact, a tie.

Why would you even be surprised that reason and logic don't figure in xtian thought processes?

 

[Gospel]

Nope, there wont be another civil war in America; ever for any reason. Take a look around you, see that 99.9% of folks looking down at their cell phones? If there is a war it wont be civil.

The term "civil war" is a two worded term with a meaning that ought not be derived by combining the meaning of its constituent words. The term, "civil," for instance, ought not be treated as an adjective; instead, treat the term, "civil war" as a term in its own right that has a meaning independent of the meaning of its constituent words. After all, a civil war, most certainly a civil war, is anything but a war that is civil.

With my last sentence I meant civil as in not only involving Americans & did not mean civil in the courteous and polite sense. Where did I use civil war as an adjective? I basically said there will not be another war between citizens of the same country happening here in the US again.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If and when Trump wins in 2020, what will happen in the Democrats?

It depends on the Democrat, but mostly nothing in particular.

Launching a civil war?

No.

Dissolving forever as a party?

No. Also, it will likely have a House majority, and prominent Democrats will continue to criticize the Electoral College. Maybe there will be more support for federalism and state authority (vs. the federal government) among Democrats.

Mass exodus to Canada?

No, but if they were to move for political reasons, California is probably easier for most - if they're not already there.