The Democratic party desperately wants Trump to be the nominee

[The Barbarian]

So I hear you saying there will be no riots by Democrats if Trump wins.

I'm saying that you won't have Biden telling his people to go to the Capitol and "fight like hell" to stop the election from being certified. I'm saying that you won't see democrats setting up fake electors to cheat. I'm saying you won't have phone calls from Biden, asking state officials to "find" him enough votes to win. I'm saying you won't have a majority of democrats pretending that the election was stolen. All of which Trump and his followers did. Here's how the right deals with losing an election:

Did the left riot when Trump won? Let's see...

Protests against Donald Trump’s win turn violent​

Some protesters sprayed graffiti on cars and buildings and destroyed shop windows, local media in Portland reported.

Protests against Trump’s election win turn violent

President-elect says demonstrations “very unfair” amid riots in Portland and marches in cities on East and West Coasts.

www.aljazeera.com

A riot in a notably leftist city which Hillary Clinton did not support. Compared to the losing candidate inciting his followers to an insurrection that attempted to overturn the Constitution. That pretty much sums up the difference between left and right in this country, doesn't it?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Did the left riot when Trump won? Let's see...

Protests against Donald Trump’s win turn violent​

Some protesters sprayed graffiti on cars and buildings and destroyed shop windows, local media in Portland reported.

Protests against Trump’s election win turn violent

President-elect says demonstrations “very unfair” amid riots in Portland and marches in cities on East and West Coasts.

www.aljazeera.com

A riot in a notably leftist city which Hillary Clinton did not support. Compared to the losing candidate inciting his followers to an insurrection that attempted to overturn the Constitution. That pretty much sums up the difference between left and right in this country, doesn't it?

So we CAN expect riots if Trump wins. Important to have that corrected.

And Joe Biden will read whatever is on his teleprompter.

 

[chevyontheriver]

When was the last time anybody rioted because a Republican won the presidency? 1860?

That was a tiny bit more than a riot. And The Barbarian has supplied photographic evidence of rioting after Trump won. Unless you think that was photoshopped.

 

[The Barbarian]

So we CAN expect riots if Trump wins.

In Portland, Oregon, if the past is any indication. They'll maybe break some windows and tag some graffiti. Oh, and maybe light a dumpster on fire.

But I'm saying that you won't have Biden telling his people to go to the Capitol and "fight like hell" to stop the election from being certified. I'm saying that you won't see democrats setting up fake electors to cheat. I'm saying you won't have phone calls from Biden, asking state officials to "find" him enough votes to win. I'm saying you won't have a majority of democrats pretending that the election was stolen. All of which Trump and his followers did.

Which seems like a significant difference if one is an American.

And Joe Biden will read whatever is on his teleprompter.

I thought it was Trump who blamed his teleprompter for his "George Washington seized the airports" sundowning. (Barbarian checks) Yes, it was Trump, not Biden. Maybe Dark Brandon had someone put something stupid on the teleprompter, hoping Trump would be dumb enough to just read it without thinking. Yeah, that's it; Dark Brandon strikes again.

 

[The Barbarian]

That was a tiny bit more than a riot.

In Portland. They spray-painted walls, after all. And they broke some windows! And set a dumpster on fire!

Which is almost as bad as trying to overthrow the Constitution, I suppose...

 

[chevyontheriver]

In Portland. They spray-painted walls, after all. And they broke some windows! And set a dumpster on fire!

I was replying to iluvatar5150's post about 1860. Your party started a civil war because they didn't like that a Republican won. But yes, also in Portland. I'm glad you didn't include the possibility of anything like that in peaceful Minneapolis where they burned buildings down and not just lit up dumpsters. I'm glad you are sure it would only be Portland.

The partisanship in this thread is amazing. Democrats hate all but their own. Republicans hate all but their own. Since I am neither Democrat or Republican everyone would hate me except that they assume too much. I remember way back when things were partisan but the hate was absent. Back before Nixon and Johnson.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The partisanship in this thread is amazing. Democrats hate all but their own. Republicans hate all but their own.

Hey now, that’s not true.

I hate a bunch of people on my side, too.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your party started a civil war because they didn't like that a Republican won.

Breaking windows, spray-painting walls, and igniting a dumpster in one city is hardly a civil war. It's not even an insurrection.

This is an insurrection:

Differences:
When Clinton lost, she conceded the next day, and urged her followers to give Trump a chance.

When Trump lost, he declared he had been cheated and his people set up fake electors. Trump called on other officials to "find" him more votes, and told his followers to go to the Capitol to "fight like hell" to prevent Biden from being certified as the winner. The insurrection failed, but Trump refused repeated pleas from his own party to send troops to end the insurrection.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Breaking windows, spray-painting walls, and igniting a dumpster in one city is hardly a civil war. It's not even an insurrection.

This is an insurrection:

Differences:
When Clinton lost, she conceded the next day, and urged her followers to give Trump a chance.

When Trump lost, he declared he had been cheated and his people set up fake electors. Trump called on other officials to "find" him more votes, and told his followers to go to the Capitol to "fight like hell" to prevent Biden from being certified as the winner. The insurrection failed, but Trump refused repeated pleas from his own party to send troops to end the insurrection.

The original question (which was mine) was about the actual civil war, not any hyperbole.

 

[The Barbarian]

I was replying to iluvatar5150's post about 1860. Your party started a civil war because they didn't like that a Republican won.

I don't think there was a libertarian party back then.

But seeing as republicans are now the dominant party of most states of the old Confederacy, I haven't been a republican for decades.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So I hear you saying there will be no riots by Democrats if Trump wins. That's really really good to know. Because ... like ... only Republicans are terrorists. I feel safer already. But of course only if Trump wins. Because if he loses then you are ... what ... guaranteeing riots?

Generally speaking, Democrats are less likely to think of violence and carrying around guns as a default response to things they don't like. Now, that's not to say that it's impossible for Democrats or Democratic voters to be violent or use violence--that's certainly possible. But ask yourself of the two major parties, and the sorts of people who vote for candidates in either party, which is more likely to view the use of force as a valid means of accomplishing an end?

Again, this isn't about absolutes, but probabilities. Let's try to be objective here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BPPLEE]

Generally speaking, Democrats are less likely to think of violence and carrying around guns as a default response to things they don't like. Now, that's not to say that it's impossible for Democrats or Democratic voters to be violent or use violence--that's certainly possible. But ask yourself of the two major parties, and the sorts of people who vote for candidates in either party, which is more likely to view the use of force as a valid means of accomplishing an end?

Again, this isn't about absolutes, but probabilities. Let's try to be objective here.

-CryptoLutheran

So you think it was all Republicans setting fires and rioting during the BLM protests in 2020?

 

[The Barbarian]

So you think it was all Republicans setting fires and rioting during the BLM protests in 2020?

Mostly white supremacists. I don't think they were identified as republicans specifically. In one case, white supremacists murdered police officers and then tried to blame BLM. In another a white supremacist fired on a police station with an automatic rifle, pretending to be with BLM. That guy rather stupidly bragged about it on social media.

In once case, the police commended BLM leaders for helping them reduce disorder in their protests.


I think you've confused BLM (which far as I know has never had an actual member arrested for rioting) with antifa, which has rioted and damaged property. But of course, antifa is predominately white, which doesn't fit the narrative of racists.

 

[BPPLEE]

Mostly white supremacists. I don't think they were identified as republicans specifically. In one case, white supremacists murdered police officers and then tried to blame BLM. In another a white supremacist fired on a police station with an automatic rifle, pretending to be with BLM. That guy rather stupidly bragged about it on social media.

In once case, the police commended BLM leaders for helping them reduce disorder in their protests.


I think you've confused BLM (which far as I know has never had an actual member arrested for rioting) with antifa, which has rioted and damaged property. But of course, antifa is predominately white, which doesn't fit the narrative of racists.

Looters who hit L.A. stores explain what they did

Some looters are pure opportunists. But others are frustrated about systemic racism, citing issues ranging from President Trump to the racial privilege exposed in the college admissions scandal.

www.latimes.com

”The looters were mostly young and male, some of them teenagers and a few of them middle-aged. There were some women in the group, which was mostly black and Latino.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/

Who caused the violence at protests? It wasn’t antifa.​

But if you like to agree with President Trump that most of the looting and damage was caused by Antifa go right ahead. As for your claim about BLM members:

Fact check: Thousands of Black Lives Matter protesters were arrested in 2020

Estimates put the cost of protest-related damage in 2020 at about $2 billion. But it's wrong to say protesters didn't face consequences.

www.usatoday.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hey now, that’s not true.

I hate a bunch of people on my side, too.

Are you one of those people they call 'haters' then?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Generally speaking, Democrats are less likely to think of violence and carrying around guns as a default response to things they don't like. Now, that's not to say that it's impossible for Democrats or Democratic voters to be violent or use violence--that's certainly possible. But ask yourself of the two major parties, and the sorts of people who vote for candidates in either party, which is more likely to view the use of force as a valid means of accomplishing an end?

Again, this isn't about absolutes, but probabilities. Let's try to be objective here.

-CryptoLutheran

For every Idaho wannabe you have a Weather Underground wannabe. The political violence in my city has been from the Left. I think the probabilities are close to even nationally but leftward where I am and leftward in most big cities.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Breaking windows, spray-painting walls, and igniting a dumpster in one city is hardly a civil war. It's not even an insurrection.

I'm going to have to ask you to go back a few cycles and read about what iluvatar5150 was saying about 1860 when your party DID start a civil war because Lincoln won. Yes, that was a long time ago, but you can either blow it off or own it. Your not getting what iluvatar5150 and I were referring to makes me wonder if your comprehension is subservient to your politics.

 

[Solo81]

I don't think there was a libertarian party back then.

But seeing as republicans are now the dominant party of most states of the old Confederacy, I haven't been a republican for decades.

The GOP only swung the ex-Confederate States red after a blinder by Nixon. They were solid blue up to then. And coincidentally, it was only after the "Solid South*" swung red, that they were started to be called racist, bigots, backwards, etc...by the scorned Democrats. Total coincidence!

I'm from Ireland and score slightly left of centre on every political test i've taken.

*Called "solid South" for being solidly Democrat for 80 years.

 

[The Barbarian]

The GOP only swung the ex-Confederate States red after a blinder by Nixon.

Mostly after the Civil Rights law was signed by President Johnson. He said that the democrats would lose the South for a generation. Nixon made sure it was longer...

In truth, it was both. Phillips’s projection was grounded in his assessment of recent Republican strategies. At the same time, he asserted that his analysis offered the best hope for the party’s future: pitting racial and ethnic groups against one another and capitalizing politically on the competitions and resentments that followed. “The whole secret of politics,” he told the journalist Garry Wills during the 1968 presidential campaign, is “knowing who hates who.”

That year, the GOP had convincing reasons for following Phillips’s lead. The segregationist Governor George Wallace made a strong showing in the South and elsewhere with a shoestring campaign as an independent, demonstrating that opposition to integration played well with some working- and middle-class white voters. Phillips saw the potential: If Republicans exploited tensions over civil rights, he argued, they could attract white voters in traditionally Democratic southern states, as well as in the Midwest and West. And if Republicans won those voters, they’d win the mantle of power too.

Fifty years later, it’s tempting to draw a straight line from The Emerging Republican Majority to the Republican Party today. The GOP has come to dominate every part of the Sun Belt, just as Phillips predicted, and President Donald Trump has mobilized the politics of division in a way no modern president has before. “Objects in the mirror really are closer than they appear,” Louis Menand wrote in The New Yorker last year. “It’s not that far from Wallace to Trump.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/emerging-republican-majority/595504/

All the talk about Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. Even 'Jake the Snake' [liberal Republican Senator Jacob Javits of New York] only gets 20 percent. From now on, Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote, and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
Nixon Advisor Kevin Phillips

https://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm going to have to ask you to go back a few cycles and read about what iluvatar5150 was saying about 1860 when your party DID start a civil war because Lincoln won.

I just checked. No libertarian party then. Sorry. As you see, when the national democrat party went for the Civil Rights Act, the "negrophobe" southern democrats went to the GOP, which welcomed them.

Your not getting what iluvatar5150 and I were referring to

I just showed you. It was a major realignment where today democrats pretty much universally support equal rights for all races, and the "negrophobes" remain where Nixon welcomed them.

makes me wonder if your comprehension is subservient to your politics.

It's far from the first realignment in American pollitical history. I know it would be great if labels and parties remained constant, but that's not how things work. This is why Louisiana republicans voted a KKK leader and a neoNazi ( David Duke ) as their candidate for governor. I was stationed there when it happened. His opponent was only marginally better; Edwin Edwards was a conservative democrat with all sorts of crooked deals in his history. The state republican committee was horrified at what the rank and file republicans had done, and actually supported Edwards. The billboards read: "Vote for the Crook; it's important."