Sarah Palin says a civil war is possible

[atpollard]

I agree. If a state did secede, would it make financial sense? Sure, no one remaining in the state would pay federal income taxes. But Medicare (in most all cases) doesn't cover treatment in a foreign country. If even a populous state like TX or FL seceded, could it cover health care costs for elderly citizens? Seceding states would also lose half of the funding they get for their Medicaid programs. And I'll bet that Congress would quickly amend Social Security so that payments would be suspended in any states that left the union. I'm sure that'll go over well with older residents. Not to mention the other federal funding that states get, would disappear--like grants for highway and infrastructure, and educational support. And if hostilities would break out, the states are totally on the hook for their military expenses. Realistically, I'd bet seceding states would lose half of their populations. And maybe 75% of their large, national employers. As I see it, the idea that 10, 15, or even 20 states could--on their own--form a successful new country is absurd. It's crackpot thinking on stilts.

While I agree with every word you said ... that is not the only form that Civil Wars can take. We could also have a situation like the riots of the 1960's with a collapse of Law and Order only on a larger scale. Imagine Federal Buildings burning instead of poor neighborhoods. Nearly EVERY state is 50/50 Red and Blue [60/40 to 40/60] so the potential for violence is EVERYWHERE at once. It has happened in other countries at other points in history.

 

[atpollard]

Another thought that a civil war will be started on account of trump.

The reason that we currently is a low confidence in the election process is on account of trump crying 'election stolen', 'election interference' and 'they're out to get me'. trump has single-handedly destroyed the election process.

I agree. [The 2020 election was LOST not stolen.] However, attempting to disqualify a candidate from the ballot for sedition when that person has never even been TRIED, let alone convicted [and Trump was not part of the 1860's Civil War] is "Election Interference" on a par with what that IDIOT Trump claimed happened in 2020. His enemies are turning the DT lunacy into a prophecy.

THAT is definitely not confidence building.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

As Trump enters the discussion yet again! HaHaHa

He part of the discussion. Since the article is about him.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

He part of the discussion. Since the article is about him.

O

Sarah Palin says a civil war is possible​

 

[B Griffin]

Are you willing to go to war with your family, friends, neighbors or anybody you deem as the other side? You've been saying this for years, yet here we are without a civil war. It won't happen because there are just too many reasonable people in this country to be caught up in violence due to a very small percentage of people who want to burn it all down.

Like the mostly peaceful protests with looting and buildings on fire in the background?

 

[Nithavela]

O

Sarah Palin says a civil war is possible​

If you would read articles beyond the headline, you'd see that her comment was in response to Trump being arrested.

 

[JustOneWay]

I agree. [The 2020 election was LOST not stolen.] However, attempting to disqualify a candidate from the ballot for sedition when that person has never even been TRIED, let alone convicted [and Trump was not part of the 1860's Civil War] is "Election Interference" on a par with what that IDIOT Trump claimed happened in 2020. His enemies are turning the DT lunacy into a prophecy.

THAT is definitely not confidence building.

Aren't you jumping the gun? He has not been disqualified.

 

[JustOneWay]

O

Sarah Palin says a civil war is possible​

It helps to read the articles or watch the videos.

 

[FenderTL5]

Aren't you jumping the gun? He has not been disqualified.

further, trial dates are also being set.

 

[hislegacy]

the former Alaska governor said. “Do you want us to be in civil war? Because that’s what’s going to happen. We’re not going to keep putting up with this.” Addressing Bolling, Palin went on to say: “I like that you suggested that we need to get angry. We do need to rise up and take our country back.”

While it is an observation - her further explanation that I cited brought more balance to the message. Unlike what the media is portraying

 

[hislegacy]

As Trump enters the discussion yet again! HaHaHa

I could be completely wrong, and this is only an opinion - but it seems possible IMHO - the very moment anything negative about our dear friends on the left or the current administration is brought up - Trump is totted out.

 

[durangodawood]

While it is an observation - her further explanation that I cited brought more balance to the message. Unlike what the media is portraying

As often happens:
- person says something outrageous
- media picks it up and people freak out a little
- person issues "clarification" to walk back the thing they actually said.

Other times a media outlet misrepresents what a person said in the first place.

Not sure which one this is. But Palin certainly has not earned herself the benefit of the doubt over the years.

 

[Taker }SoC{]

I've always thought that a Civil War was a highly unlikely outcome, even in today's climate. If we look to the original Civil War (1861) we can see that the political (as well as military) landscape was far different from the way it is structured today. Firstly, back in that time state militias were extremely common and were typically relied upon as a first response to any invader. Nowadays militias are much smaller in scope.
Secondly, you had one clear issue to divide over, slavery, which was just as much a moral and political divide as it was a geographic one. You could clearly draw a line across America to see which states were pro-slavery and which were anti-slavery. Given that this line divided roughly half of the country that meant that the south could reasonably succeed and form a unified front against the North. The idea that they could actually win such a war was, at the time, believable.
Compare that to the modern day and things are far more complicated, firstly it's not easy to draw an east vs west or north vs south comparison today. Red and Blue states checker the map. Beyond that you have the daunting task of forming a union that will have arms that could rival our federal Govt. Good luck finding such a collection of states in 2023 who all want to succeed for similar enough reasons to unite over. This would be a herculean task in and of itself. Then there's the internal conflicts within each state, each state has red, blue and purple areas. If everyone took up arms to fight that would be a huge mess and it would be up to the feds to clean things up. Also, we don't really have a unifying issue anymore, is it gun ownership? trans kids? or abortion? Which of these issues is enough to cause people to actually take up arms an fight their neighbor? As far as I can tell, the closest we have to a unifying, yet also divisive, issue is Donald Trump. And even he divides the Republicans into 2 camps. This is all just to complicated to turn into a Civil War, it would just be rioting and chaos with no unified goal that could actually be accomplished.

 

[hislegacy]

It helps to read the articles or watch the videos.

Post #51 especially listen in her own words

 

[JustOneWay]

Post #51 especially listen in her own words

I listened to her words, and that is how I know she said we could have a civil war on account of trump.

 

[Pommer]

Xi and Putin would lurve for this to occur.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

It's seems like a lot of people have stumbled over Trump. Because of Trump and the media on the extreme right are constantly lying to them. Yes, I can see how easily people , even Christians can stumble over the antichrist. This is what I seen for years. Trump is not God. It's time for people to stop stumbling over him. If Trump is found guilty of a crime. There's no reason for war or the hate. As for Palin , she seems to be a bit crazy and brained wash. And doesn't act like a Christian at all. Or she wouldn't be encouraging this craziness .

 

[SimplyMe]

I agree. [The 2020 election was LOST not stolen.] However, attempting to disqualify a candidate from the ballot for sedition when that person has never even been TRIED, let alone convicted [and Trump was not part of the 1860's Civil War] is "Election Interference" on a par with what that IDIOT Trump claimed happened in 2020. His enemies are turning the DT lunacy into a prophecy.

THAT is definitely not confidence building.

Who is trying that? The closest I've seen is a paper, written by legal scholars on the Right, who claim that Trump should be disqualified -- by Republicans -- from being their candidate because of the 14th Amendment. I've seen zero effort by the government or Democrats to prevent Trump from running. Even under the current charges -- even if Trump is convicted of all the indictments (which would be after a trial and verdict, not before) -- none of the indictments are for "sedition" so would not disqualify Trump from running.

 

[atpollard]

Who is trying that? The closest I've seen is a paper, written by legal scholars on the Right, who claim that Trump should be disqualified -- by Republicans -- from being their candidate because of the 14th Amendment. I've seen zero effort by the government or Democrats to prevent Trump from running. Even under the current charges -- even if Trump is convicted of all the indictments (which would be after a trial and verdict, not before) -- none of the indictments are for "sedition" so would not disqualify Trump from running.

Lawsuits are being filed in multiple states to bar Trump from appearing on the ballot in those states. So far, Courts have rejected a few cases for lack of standing (ie. You are not the person to file this lawsuit). Others have yet to be ruled on and state election officials are consulting legal experts to decide how to handle the issue WHEN it arrives in their state. Whatever they do, they will be sued for that decision.

The consensus is a court decision will lead to a SCOTUS fast track decision. While the issue will be likely decided by the General Election, it could impact primaries. So the attack is real and working it’s way through the courts now.

 

[atpollard]

Aren't you jumping the gun? He has not been disqualified.

There are lawsuits to remove Trump from the primary ballot in several states working their way through the courts. If DT is removed from the primary ballot of just one critical state, it could impact his chance to be nominated (and, therefore run for President). We are 1 court decision away from “Election Interference”.