"how to prepare for the next civil war" Topic

ten ways to prepare for the next civil war

Enjoy.

link

Just shut off all the wifi. Americans, having completely lost the will to live, come together to share their sense of emptiness.

Thanks Doc, that made me smile :-)

Yes the BB is always fun.

Why, to make you smile, Bigfoot.

Possibly a vain hope.

Sound like some folks didn't even look at the link. It was humor.

Maybe if you live 3 miles from any convenience store that will be enough? Doubt many "future fighters" can make it that far.

Before jumping all over DocMcb, check out the link. It is not a serious article and is an attempt to lessen the tension on this site.

The Babylon Bee is a humor/political satire site. So yes, humor. I too would ask if some did actually read it. 😉

Man, playing with toys sure makes a lot of people uptight. Humor is always welcome. Thanks, Doc.

I liked the point to spend a weekend in Chicago (Baltimore, LA, etc.).

As a lifelong Baltimoron, I would urge anyone coming here for immersive post apocalyptic acclimatization to do their homework on specifically where such an experience could be had.

B'More has a lot of quaint, up scale, mellow, stable communities. Even the sketchier areas are generally pretty sleepy most of the time.

That was actually really funny

Love the B, thanks for sharing Doc

Ah the Babylon Bee, it's a humor magazine that is often on the nose about stuff. It's damn funny, I will say that.

link

I want to be Union … I don't look good in gray or butternut !

On civil war in America and other unpleasant possibilities.

link

Armand

"As the Right becomes more unified under Trump's leadership and more intellectually and morally at peace with embracing a rougher brand of politics, we're likely to see a more open embrace of tit-for-tat factional fighting."

Not sure this could get any heavier with irony. Jan 6?

This opinion article was just written, out of Claremont College. My problem with these Civil War theories is that I just don't see enough people across the country being unified to take that step. Life is pretty good in the USA for most Americans. How many millions are ready to actually take up arms against their country? Never mind thinking ahead to the consider long term consequences? Who would shoot to kill? Why?
The victim culture has become too strong. What about reality? I and millions of others enjoy a great life here. I don't want to fight off anybody opposing that. I want to address any grievances at the ballot box. I still trust many people.
And before the litany starts, we have had so many troubled times, lots of disagreements, issues, tin hat theories, etc. Never enough to push even large groups of disaffected into the madness of killing fellow citizens after our last experience.

At this point, the USA has been fractured into many various groups. And the list is long. With many divisive agendas, rhetoric, etc. So, to actually get one side vs. the other would be almost impossible. Which a good thing.

Remember the 574 BLM/Antifa riots in the summer of 2020 ? That may be as close to a civil war as we may get.

As we see some say when the illegal aliens, criminals, etc. are done destroying the big/sanctuary cities. They will head for the rural areas and suburbs. However, I'm pretty sure everybody knows many of the rural and suburb denizens are packing. E.g. weapons from pistols, assault rifles and high-powered hunting rifles. And we know how to use them.

That really won't be a civil war … it will be an uncivil war …

Legion.. you know I'm not trying to be combative, but you mentioned "assault rifle".

Assault rifle means so many different things to different people.

What do you classify as an " assault rifle"?

What do others classify as one?

I've heard, a weapon initially developed for the military. Well everything from a Brown Bess to today's modern military rifles, were designed for the military. They can't all be assault rifles.

I've heard rifles and pistols that hold more than (pick a number) in a clip. Think about that really hard and then go on the web and look at weapons that can hold multiple rounds in them with or without clips. I had a 22 long rifle as a kid that could hold over 17 rounds and was semiautomatic.

Semiautomatic is another thing. On the news, you hear: "they used a semiautomatic weapon, as if semi automatic and automatic are synonymous.
Do people actually understand the difference sometimes?

I hear clips that hold more than 10 rounds. Why? So instead of a 20 round clip, you have multiple 10 round clips and pop a new one in. Not hard and very fast.

Basically, you shoot at me with a smoothbore musket or an AR15, I will consider it an assault rifle, from my perspective. I am being personally assaulted. 😉

This is not an anti gun thing, as I am very pro gun. This is a definition thing.
As I said, everyone seems to have soooo many definitions of what qualifies as an assault rifle. Again if it's you being shot at, I guess they're all assault rifles, or assault pistols for that matter.

I am waiting for the day a reporter, reporting on the death of an individual by a knife, says: "Well thank God, at least it wasn't an assault weapon!".

Just some things to ponder 🤔

35thOVI, what is so difficult with the definitions?

Assault rifle (Sturmgewehr in German) is essentially a weapon using intermediate rifle cartridge, capable of both semi-automatic and automatic fire.

Assault gun (Sturmgeshutz in German) is essentially a tracked armoured fighting vehicle, mounting a large calibre gun in a fixed superstructure, with limited arc of fire, intended for direct fire.

Brown Bess musket as muzzle-loader is incapable of firing any modern cartridge, and as a single shot weapon is incapable of both semi-automatic and automatic fire. Thus not an assault rifle. It is also not an vehicle (never mind armoured or tracked), and does not mount any kind of big gun on a superstructure, so it is not an assault gun, either. It is, however, certainly a smoothbore musket, and you could perfectly well assault somebody with even a de-activated one by clubbing them with the rather hefty butt (never mind the possibility of sticking a bayonet under the muzzle).

Grief simple, because those are NOT the definitions used in the US by those who want to ban private ownership of weapons.

All weapons that are being referred to as "assault weapons" by the anti gun lobbies in the US, are ONLY semiautomatic.

Most refer to them as weapons of war redesigned for civilian usage. An M1 Garrand is a weapon of war, but can be used and owned by civilians.

Your usage of " capable of both semi-automatic AND automatic fire" is the correct definition of a current assault rifle and the one that SHOULD be used.

Your usage of " capable of both semi-automatic AND automatic fire" is the correct definition of a current assault rifle and the one that SHOULD be used.

Don't forget the rather essential "intermediate rifle cartridge" bit, that was a bit of a revolutionary concept in the 1940's to 1960's.

There were also also designs back in the day in combining selective fire with full size rifle cartridge (e.g. M14A1 in US military), resulting in weapons that were rather bulky and not easily controlled at full auto.

That said, if you really want to prepare for a civil war, fiddling around with assault rifles will not get you very far. Welding together your own assault gun in the garage should leave you much better prepared – with the added benefit that finding a parking lot while driving around in town should no longer be an issue. For further robustness, designing it around a steam engine should ensure that fuel availability will not be an issue anywhere with trees. However, be wary of the old school advocates promoting horse-drawn assault guns, as those horses can get quite vulnerable if left outside the armoured shell (and potentially smelly if you try to fit them into the crew compartment).

Not advocating for a civil war. I'm just annoyed at the anti gun lobbies and their veiled attempts at dissolving the 2nd amendment by nebulous "assault rifle" and "high capacity clips" definitions.

It is just a step by step program, to ultimately doing away with private firearms ownership. They get 20 round clips Outlawed, they will just then go to 10 round. Do away with the AK47 and AR15, it will then be glocks and colts. Until finally they achieve their ultimate purpose.

I'm just annoyed at the anti gun lobbies and their veiled attempts at dissolving the 2nd amendment by nebulous "assault rifle" and "high capacity clips" definitions.

Yep. NONE of what they do addresses the real gun violence in American. Over 90% of gun crimes are committed by people with illegal handguns in major metro areas (aka Blue Cities), and if you look at a heat-crime map you'll see that most of that happens with the Inner City areas of a Blue City. Chicago sees multiple mass-shootings per weekend in Summer months. Where are the Democrats marching to stop gun violence? Where are the policies to bring law, order and safety to the Inner Cities? Nada. Zero. Zilch.

No, they continue to go after lawful gun owners who do not commit crimes because their ultimate objective seems to be control, not reducing crime.

What do you classify as an " assault rifle"?

Well, IIRC an Assault Rifle as I was taught is a lightweight rifle, with selective fire, firing an intermediate sized round, with an external high-capacity removable magazine.

Similar to what Griefbringer posted.

E.g. AR-15/M-16/M-4 and the AK-47 … Even the WWII German SG-44, arguably was the first real assault rifle.

As ROTC cadets, '75-'79 we were first issued the older M-14 which was not an Assault Rifle. It was heavy, semi-auto, firing a full .30 cal. round, combat rifle. E.g. like an M-1 Garand with an external mag. Or maybe even close to a BAR.

There was a version of the M-14 that could fire semi-auto and full Auto. To be used as SAW. But we never saw it.

Later, the M-14 had a version that was converted to the M-21 Sniper Rifle, basically an "accurized" M-14. Our Snipers used them on the ROK DMZ. And were part of our MTO&E. Each M-21 had night & day scopes zeroed to each of the individual Snipers.

As noted, one of the major differences is an Assault Rifle packs an intermediate size round, closer to a carbine round. So, to support the tactic of fire & maneuver. Which required more ammo to be carried. As part of fire & maneuver i.e. while one element moved the other laid down suppressive fires, etc.

In turn, again more ammo had to be carried by each individual soldier. The smaller round was part of that concept. As it is lighter than a full rifle round.

Also, as a sidebar something that came about in more modern combat tactics. The rifleman did not have to kill a horse. As we saw in WWI more so than WWII. Regardless Horse Cav can more easily overrun Infantry in open terrain, etc. So, a full e.g. .30 cal. round was required. However, you don't really need a round that large to kill a human. And again Horse Cav was not used as much in WWII, and afterwards as it was deployed in WWI.

However, the smaller Assault Rifle round did not have the range of a full-sized Rifle cartridge. But along with that most fire fights took place a 250m or less. Depending on terrain of course

So again, the Assault Rifle's smaller lighter round allowed more ammo to be carried by the individual trooper. To be used in the fire & maneuver tactic/concept. And with many fewer horses on the battlefield. The threat they posed was not as much of a concern for the Infantryman.

I agree 35th, the media is unclear about the terms and it would be helpful for them to get it right. I am a gun owner and supporter of the second. I have many friends who are the same. There are millions of law abiding gun owners.

I have always been concerned about rates of fire and for this reason definitions matter. At Newtown the shooter was all done in 11 minutes or so, most of the kids, first graders, had multiple gunshot wounds, one girl was shot 11 times. Bullets everywhere, even in cars in the parking lot. 26 fatalities. It was a lot of firepower, whatever we call it.

America is well armed with half a billion firearms that we more or less know about. What is a "well regulated militia"? Regulating gun ownership now is basically hopeless, the horse has left the barn. But firepower has changed crime, just as it changed warfare. This is where the cartels come to buy their arsenals. I always look for middle ground, but between protecting the right to bear arms, and a society flooded with firepower, I am not sure where it is.

I believe Grief and I agree on what classifies as an assault weapon:

"Assault rifle (Sturmgewehr in German) is essentially a weapon using intermediate rifle cartridge, capable of both semi-automatic and automatic fire."

It must be capable of both. Weapons sold in the US legally(without having permits), cannot be fully automatic. To own an automatic weapon, you must have special permits and license. To convert a semiautomatic to automatic, is.. illegal without the above.

Ohio's automatic weapons law:

Subject: Machine Guns & Automatic Firearms in Ohio | Giffords


link

What is a "well regulated militia"?

George Mason, when asked during debate what he meant by "militia" replied: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole People, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426). Elsewhere he stated that "the militia is composed of the body of the People…"

So the militia is *all of the People.* Not the National Guard or the military.

Another phrase taken out of context is "well regulated." Today most people think of laws and such when they hear that, as if a law or regulation must be passed to enable a militia. But that's not what they meant at the time. It simply means that the Founders expected people to self-organize into some sort of structured, local groups that had order and discipline, and some clear volunteer chain of command. In other words, not a mob of yahoos, but an organized citizen defense group.

This was further explained by Mason that such well regulated militias would serve the People as a defense against a standing army.

Also, the use of the phrase "The People" is deliberate and in the Bill of Rights is only used to refer to Individual Rights -- not States Rights.

Well, I guess George Mason cleared that one up!

I am well versed in enforcing the intent of the law in the public interest rather than only the letter of the law. And I am not saying you are wrong in your summation, only questioning whether expectations aren't working in regard to firearms today. The last thing I want to do is keep a firearm in my house to protect myself from fellow citizens with their own expectations. And a lot of firepower.

And I am not saying you are wrong in your summation, only questioning whether expectations aren't working in regard to firearms today.

It does work. There are about 400 million privately owned guns in America. I would guess the 80/20 rule applies (80% of guns owned by 20% of gun owners), and they *are not the problem.*

The problem is one of culture and crime, and a refusal by the Left and the Democrats to enforce the laws already on the books and ensure for the safety of the people of the cities they control.

Gun deaths in the US are caused by primarily two things:

1.Su1c1de accounts for some 65% of gun deaths. This is a is a mental health issue not a gun issue.

2 90% of the remaining deaths are by people using illegal handguns in the Inner City, and this is where most "mass shootings" occur, as defined by 4 or more people shot in one incident. Most of this is drug gang-related violence. NONE of the laws and strict controls the Democrats want on our 2A Rights will address this at all. The drug gangs don't get their guns from Bob's Gun Shop after filling out the background check paperwork, but from the same crime syndicate sources they get their illegal drugs…which wash across our completely unsecured southern Border.

So if you want to reduce gun violence you have to fix the Inner City. You have to fix the same mess in other parts of the US where opportunity and hope has given way to despair and dysfunction.

We have to ask big questions and be prepared for answers we don't like. Such as -- why is drug demand so high? Why do so many Americans want to escape into a quick-hit high? How do we address that? And why are so many young black men shooting each other in such high numbers in the Inner City? How do we solve for that? If 65% of gun deaths are Su1c1de, how can we address this mental health and despair problem?

Newtown was a well off suburban town. All the victims were shot with an AR15, legally purchased. A lot of decent churches and schools have been shot up over the years. Better to assume this can happen in a variety of settings, be prepared. I draw no conclusions, see no answers.

You are right about the questions. Whatever laws pass, somebody will always have a gun if they want one. I keep saying here that drugs across the border have always been market driven. The inner cities I knew ran on a crack economy in the 80s, the coke coming in through Miami. Customers in the suburbs, not just urban. Only shifted with the market switch over to meth in the 90s. When I realized that people from every walk of life are users, going far back in time. At one point we were basically a nation of alcoholics in our early days.

I know the results, still don't know the answers. We are stressed to the max and self medicate. It drives a lot of crime. It's a war with no end.

Newtown was a well off suburban town. All the victims were shot with an AR15, legally purchased.

All of these type of shootings are still rare compared to "normal crime" and are all carried out by people with severe mental illness, usually unsupervised on psychotropic drugs. In many cases the authorities failed to act on multiple red flags, like the Parkland shooter. He had not only conducted criminal acts in school and made death threats, he even tried to turn himself in as a danger before the shooting – and the authorities ignored him.

So again, the core is mental illness.

Yes, clearly…

Some things to ponder.

Reading about the 3 most recent mass shootings, I don't believe any laws would keep us safe.

I've said this before, but will again. If the MSM does not immediately give you the name and information of a mass shooter, you can be sure the shooter(s) does not fulfill the liberal agenda and narrative. The shooting story will quickly disappear and only an anti gun narrative will be talked about by the MSM and politicians.

3 most recent cases in point.

The execution of 2 white officers and a white PM in MN by a black man with a history of felonies and abuse and a dislike of whites. (Why is this not a hate crime?). 🤔 He was a felon, how could he legally own a firearm!?

"That same year he posted the quote, "You'll never take me alive, I'm a tiger." The Facebook page also contains a video showing a man with a gun in a garage and the caption, "Shooting with (a woman's) prescription glasses." A similar video read, "Back in day target shooting." It shows a man with a gun in the garage.

"I'm picturing a white person," he says in one of those videos, which is still visible on his Facebook page."

"In 2013, he wrote, "I'm so sick of people posting sh** about Barack Obama, Just negative negative sh** negative sh&&. how well would you control the United States."

Subject: Burnsville shooting suspect identified by sources | kare11.com


link

Subject: Shannon Cortez Gooden: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know


link

….
NEXT you have the mass shootings at the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl celebration.

2 black juveniles with handguns get in an argument and start spraying bullets everywhere. One has to ask how they managed to miss each other, but hit over 20 others. 🤔 I doubt that either owned legal guns and I would guess have past juvenile criminal records.

…..

LASTLY we have the Trans Gender woman who went into a church with her son and started shooting. Reading about her, there is no state in my knowledge that would allow her to own a gun. Again, could this classify as a potential hate crime? 🤔

She had: "long gun bearing a "Palestine" sticker.
"
Genesse Moreno, 36, a "Hispanic female." According to Hassig, Moreno used "multiple aliases, including Jeffrey Escalante.""

identified as a female but has a criminal history in the name of Jeffrey Escalante

Police confirmed that they recovered antisemitic writings.

"As soon as we married, my wife became abusive," Moreno's ex-husband Enrique Carranza said an affidavit obtained by ABC News, adding she was "a diagnosed schizophrenic, so daily it was a new battle or fight in her realm" adding that she put him "through hell to appease her delusional thought pattern."

"She is a diagnosed schizophrenic and [Child Protective Services] has told her that she cannot have a gun," he said, according to ABC. "I am afraid of her having my address. She has guns and she brags about it while having my son in the car."

"

What laws would have stopped these, that are not already in effect?

Another thing that could result in a Civil War -- the unjust persecution of opponents through a partisan, politicized legal system.

In the Trump NDA filing case, the Judge is single-handedly destroying the American legal system with instructions like this to the Jury:

* Merchan has instructed the jury that the first count of falsifying business records in the first degree must show that Trump made or causes a false entry to be made. He said the Prosecution doesn't have to prove intent to defraud, only that records were made incorrectly.

*Merchan has instructed the jury that ANYTHING THEY VOTE ON WILL RESULT IN A GUILTY VERDICT! Merchan said that there is no need to agree on what occurred, and it doesn't have to be unanimous. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices he's presented (yes, they can choose from a menu of alleged crimes from the Prosecution). Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous…

link

An easy solution would be to use Wikipedias definition of assault rifles. Then at least you can compare apples with apples.

Next, avoid discussing gun controll/legal or illegal use in the US. It is a moot point. It is what it is. No one will change their point of view.

The ten points are satire, but not especially funny IMO. Low class writing.

I don't think this will be cause for civil war. Whatever you think of this case, and it does have some vague components, there are some substantive issues that made it through the grand jury process. Still,it is by far the least compelling case, tawdry and unpleasant, but not worth a war.

The more critical questions are apparently not even going to make it to trial in the other cases. As serious as this may be, Trump has been able to work the system. Many don't like it, but that's how two tier justice works. He has the team to make it happen,it's legal.A regular guy with a public defender, is long done before this.

I don't think these issues would bring civil war. . I think people will look for the system to eventually right itself. We have already made our candidate choices. But who feels that life has gone so wrong here that civil war is a necessary choice?
I could never bring myself to do it, especially over these issues.

Still,it is by far the least compelling case, tawdry and unpleasant, but not worth a war.

Why is it "tawdry" -- it's super simple. Daniels signed a lawful NDA that was then reported as a corporate expense on Trump taxes.

So how was it "secret" when it was declared to the IRS? And NDAs are common, especially if you've worked private sector.

But Bragg campaigned on getting Trump, right? So here's what happened:

Bragg just decided, based on nothing, that lawful NDA payments that were declared corporate taxes were something that COULD have influence the 2016 election. So BRAGG FELT they SHOULD have been declared as a Campaign Expense instead of a Corporate Expense, which if done with intent to deceive is a Misdemeanor. And *usually* the State's Tax Board would issue a filing correction request with some penalty, and it's handled as an administrative issue

Then BRAGG FELT that it was sooooo serious that HE FELT the Misdemeanors should be Felonies, something the FEC DETERMINED it was not. So BRAGG just changed the Misdemeanors into Felonies – did he have that authority? I don't think so, but the Judge whose family personally profits by attacks on Trump just decided it was ok.

And do you know how he arrived at so many Felony counts? Every mention or filing of the NDA expenses was declared a Felony. So did you list the NDA expense on line 12a of a tax return? FELONY! On Line 22b in the same filing you listed it again? FELONY! Was there a finance email discussion about the NDA expense and it didn't refer to it as a Campaign Expense, and it was mentioned three times in the same email? THREE FELONIES!

Oh, wait, there's more! Since that aforementioned email discussed the NDA payments as Corporate expenses as opposed to Campaign expenses, that's also CONSPIRACY! And let's say that I agreed with you on the email thread that it was a Corporate expense, that's also COLLUSION!

That's it. Bragg fabricated this whole thing as a political attack on a political rival. That's why it was a circus show, putting Daniels up to talk about salacious sex gossip, that's why Bragg prevented a former head of the FEC to give expert testimony, that's why they've issued gag orders.

And this may not be the tipping point, but how long can a society totter along when one of the major political parties abjectly rejects the system, manipulates it and abuses it to get what it wants? At some point the other side decides they don't believe the system anymore either…

I think the case was uncertain except maybe in one area, but the grand jury bought it. That means they thought it should be tried, not that anyone was guilty it has legal sufficiency as a process. I don't really know much about these business trials, not my area of the system. A defendant back then would end up in trouble for calling the prosecution "human scum" or remarking about families or jury members.

Trumps attorneys work the system too and we may never hear the big cases which are far more serious. I think this is unfortunate. But perfectly legal. again, not a tipping point, right or wrong, IMO. At least I don't think it should be.

The Dems could easily think your last paragraph was about the other party! But should we fight it out? Even with "retribution" coming, I am not willing do it because I think we will eventually settle down with a new generation of elected leaders as we used to.

Has anyone seen the movie "Civil War"? I have not, but I am wondering what it evokes in people.it is apparently NOT about politics,

I think the case was uncertain except maybe in one area, but the grand jury bought it.

A Deep Blue Judge giving instructions to a Deep Blue Grand Jury? As someone once said, a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich. None of the cases being shotgunned at Trump to influence the 2024 election have merit. They are all manufactured legal cotton candy spun into crimes.

The Dems could easily think your last paragraph was about the other party! But should we fight it out?

And they would be projecting. it's not should we "fight it out," it's MUST we fight it out.

That's all dependent on whether or not the Democrats can be restrained from their current totalitarian constitution-busting impulses to Rule and not Govern.

When we have violent Antifa punks being let go, and on the other hand the Feds prosecute a Concentration Camp survivor for peacefully praying outside an abortion clinic -- justice isn't equal, and that undermines faith that system can work. There are many many examples, Trump's abuse by a politicized legal system is just the most visible case.

If people can't trust their institutions to protect them and meet their interests, and if they don't think peaceful elections are meaningful and result in desired change, at some point, historically, it all falls apart.

I agree with your conclusions. I live in the middle, hoping the pendulum never swings. My childhood with Ike, I guess. I think if Trump is innocent he should demand that these trials be moved along and take the stand to give evidence, explain what he did and why he is innocent. He has a chance to prove he is still worthy of our vote. The excuse that the trials are not legitimate doesn't cut it. Tell us why. Put some substance behind the name calling so we can figure out what is going on. Not easy, I know. But he is a former president and wants to be one again. I can't think of a better way to show us he can take the heat and stay on the rails.

Millions of people are frightened by the thought of either candidate in the future. It may be that civil war would be fed by this more than anything else. One candidate will not accept the election results. So why bother even having an election? This could drive even moderates to believe things have gone to far.

I do not agree with you all the time, but I do believe you are informed and concerned for the country. That's the common ground, but we cannot get past the wall that has been built between us.

I could not use deadly force against another American based on political beliefs, but some of those beliefs might involve core foundational American freedoms like the right to bear arms. Too important not to respond, Maybe it will get that crazy. Right now I don't see it.

. I think if Trump is innocent he should demand that these trials be moved along and take the stand to give evidence, explain what he did and why he is innocent.

Really? How?!?

1. The "rape case" that wasn't. A woman writes in a "tell all" that Trump forced himself on her the dressing room of a department store in NYC. He say's she's crazy, don't know her, didn't happen. She sues for libel. Well, she's out of time because the Statute of Limitations had expired -- so New York passed a special law that extends the deadline that ONLY EFFECTS TRUMP. So in a CIVIL case a jury in deeply Democrat-Controlled New York ends up siding with the accuser -- even though she has no physical evidence of any kind, even though she can't recall the exact day/time, even though the dressing rooms she says the event happened aren't where she says they are, even though the area has high foot traffic and would never be isolated, even though the dress she says she wore wasn't designed until several years later, even though she'd made false rape allegations in the past, even though she wrote about "rape fantasy."

How do you testify against that?

2. The "Financial Fraud" case also brought against Trump in New York. Even though what the Trump business did was normal non-criminal business practice, even though no Bank ever declared they had been defrauded, and even though the loan in question was paid in full and on time -- a partisan AG who ran on Get Trump filed charges against Trump, because she FELT so. She alleged on behalf of the State the SHE had determined a crime had taken place, that based on no evidence SHE FELT that Trump misrepresented the value of his properties to get a business loan, therefore Trump had committed a crime. She had no evidence, she created her own evaluation of Mar-a-Largo and other properties out of thin air, then declared how much fraud she calculated had happened, and then made up the damages.

None of that was real or made sense. If you want to get an asset-backed loan from a bank or other lender, there's a negotiation. Say you want to get essentially a Second Mortage loan to invest in another property or for whatever. You tell the Bank the value *your* appraiser says your property is worth – let's say $500,000. USD The Bank doesn't just accept this at face value, they will do their own due diligence and will investigate -- they will check on who holds the Title to the property, is it free of any liability claims or tax obligations, and what is the quality of the property. The Bank says they think the property value is only $300,000. USD And then you negotiate and settle on a final evaluation, let's say $375,000 USD -- and that's what the loan is based on.

That's what the Trump corporation did. Totally normal, but spun into a criminal fraud case to a highly biased Jury in a Democrat-dominated State.

How do you testify against that?

3. THIS case, also brought in New York. See a pattern here? Again, a "crime" about the tax specification of a lawfully executed NDA that he has fabricated from thin air by a politically motivated DA who campaigned on "Get Trump," who invented charges, created Felonies where none exist and is supported by a highly partisan Judge who has pre-declared to the Jury that they can pick from one of three crimes that Trump may have committed and that he accepts no "hung Jury" results. Oh, Daniels, btw, owes Trump $500,000 USD for violating the NDA terms, but I guess that doesn't make for splashy "HUSH MONEY!" headlines.

How do you testify against that?

And that's just New Youk -- we have two other similar political attack cases on Trump in Deep Democrat DC (Mar-a-Largo Raid), and in Deep Democrat-controlled Fulton County Georgia, also brought by a person who campaigned on GET TRUMP!

Do you see a pattern here? And given that pattern, can you see how that would erode the foundations of our American legal system and faith that the system works?

One candidate will not accept the election results.

2000 Election: Democrats lost. Gore didn't accept the results and tried to manipulate the count in FL to win, Democrats tried to block the EC confirmation in Congress and accused Bush of being a dictator who was "Selected, not Elected!"

2004 Election: Democrats lost. Leading Democrats again alleged Bush stole the election through rigging voting machines and voter suppression, and tried to block EC confirmation in Congress and accused Bish of being an illegitimate president.

2008 Election: Democrats won. See, they declared, the system works!

2012 Election: Democrats won. See, they declared, the system works!!

2016 Election: Democrats lost. The opponent, Hilary and leading Democrats declared that Trump was a RUSSIAN AGENT and that he had stolen the election through being a Putin Puppet, and was illegitimate. They accused him of being a traitor. and launched a 4-year harassment and impeachment campaign against him. In alliance with Big Media and Big Tech they spread this meme and punished those who resisted their messaging.

2020 Election: Democrats won. See, they declared the system works! Only this time there appeared to be a large number of irregularities with the count in key swing states, allegations of mass mail-in ballot fraud, and so on. In Fulton County, GA, for example, where Trump is being accused of trying to influence the election count, we have camera footage of poll workers AFTER HOURS when all the observers had gone home and the count was supposed to be suspended for the night, taking out hidden boxes of ballots and running then through counting machines again and again until whattya know, Joe won Fulton County. DA of Fulton county says nothing to see here, move along, TRUMP's a CRIMINAL!

And then if you expressed concern about the election results and wanted to see a transparent audit of results you were attacked, doxed and silenced by the Democrat-controlled Establishment and allied media and social media. Companies like My Pillow that questioned the results were literally punished and harmed by Democrat-controlled IRS audits, EPA investigations and death of a thousand legal cuts while Democrats also coordinated a de-platforming and boycott of products, pressuring key retailers to drop the company's high sales product line.

See a pattern here? Does this strengthen or weaken faith in the system for many Americans?

That's the common ground, but we cannot get past the wall that has been built between us.

I think we all have more in common than we differ about most subjects. So what do we do about it? I feel, for instance, that an Establishment Grifter class comprised of leading members of both main parties, corporate interests and special interests have been exposed blatantly wielding power for their own benefit at the expense of the People. And this is the source of all the tension. Tens of millions of Americans perceive this, feel the system has been rigged by people who want to Rule and not Govern, and most people want to right the ship before it sinks.

Oh, another news report says that the DOJ and FBI though Trump would be present at his Mar-a-Largo home for their armed no-knock raid where deadly force had been explicitly authorized by the Attorney General of the United States, including against Secret Service, AND the entry team was accompanied by medics. Trump was called away to testify in one of the many New York cases and wasn't home.

Banana Republic much?

So how do we do that? Trump is just a symbol of this, not the cause of it. If not Trump, another strong voice would be elevated.

Trump is more than a symbol….

His strategic use of misinformation and exaggeration is well documented by his allegations over the documents warrant search. You can find verifiable documentation of this from multiple sources. It was apparently boilerplate procedure for executing the warrant, except agents dressed down out of respect for an ex president. But we can't get into details here. Had he complied with the previous requests and supoena with sincere intent, none of this ever would have gone down.

I agree completely about Establishment Grifters, on both sides. . I hope most people do want to right the ship. Trump has come to represent dissatisfaction with the country and I can understand how this occurred. In that way he is a symbol. If civil war is unlikely, disturbances after this election are not. People believe they have been grievously wronged. With or without proof. And, there will be worried public officials in every state. I don't know the answer. For now, we cannot change the personalities involved.

@Escapee, nothing about this is boilerplate. Nothing, this is unprecedented in US history to have a political Party jail their top political opponent.

1. After leaving office Trump disclosed he had taken materials as was his right, and in-line with his position of top Executive had declassified them and even left a memo for DOJ with more explicit details on what he declassified.

2. Then when NARA wanted access he negotiated with them, DOJ asked the documents be secured, which he did in a storage room with a lock provided by the FBI.

3. Then an interim Biden appointed head of NARA who was highly political worked with DOJ to launch a political assault on Trump under the pretext of their document demands. In a precedent breaking move DOJ decided to treat this as a criminal matter, not the civil issue it was -- and while the Trump lawyers were still talking to NARA the FBI launched an armed no-knock raid on Trump's home.

4. We now know the Raid was given deadly force authority for frickin papers that had already been declared, secured and under negotiation. This authority from the BIDEN ADMIN included approval for blue-on-blue combat and the breach team was accompanied by medics. This was not a drug dealer's home, this was the home of a former US president and leader of the opposition party and the warrant was for papers -- not bombs, guns and drugs. Luckily Trump wasn't there.

5. When Trump's local legal team got to the house with the raid in progress and demanded to see the search warrant, they were refused -- which is a violation of Trump's rights and law. The FBI further refused to allow legal representatives accompany the search – as was their right – to make sure it comported with the warrant. Also denied. So the FBI spent hours ransacking Trump's home, staging photos and doing who knows what because there was no oversight – which has been revealed. We know they took boxes of materials out of scope of the search, including personal effects, that were returned after months of lawsuits and negotiations.

And now DEMOCRATS have engineered the arrest of a US president on fabricated charges related to tax status of a lawful NDA payment!

The whole thing is highly political lawfare that endangers our system of justice – no matter what party you're in. The US has lost all claim on being any example of representative Democracy, we are little more than a Banana Republic at this point.

If civil war is unlikely, disturbances after this election are not.

I expect the Democrats to unleash their Antifa/BLM blackshirts to so chaos and fear, could be a new pandemic, and now Biden can refuse to debate "felon Trump," right?

After just finishing our points yesterday, suddenly the trial was over. I did not expect it, or the result. I don't blame you for being PO'd. It was a sleaze trial and I thought a hung jury possible. It's one thing to do sleazy stuff, but not always illegal.

I honestly don't know much about your details on the raid, SB. Much of it does not agree with what I have heard. I have been recently cut off from Fox by my wife! She does not like the tone! Also MSNBC. It's PBS or the papers.

Part of the problem – we have to decide what's the truth or not..and there is way too much. But deadly force scares the crap out of everyone,I doubt it was on their minds at Mara Lago unless there was reason to believe somebody there might get crazy.

"Part of the problem – we have to decide what's the truth or not..and there is way too much. But deadly force scares the crap out of everyone,I doubt it was on their minds at Mara Lago unless there was reason to believe somebody there might get crazy."

Going in with guns, vests, etc., in the early morning (6am sometimes), getting wives and children out of bed and scaring the crap out of them, against political opponents, since the 2020 election, seems to be the modus operandi of the FBI and DOJ recently.

Think on this. They went after Trump for having "classified documents" at his home. Supposedly in a locked room, with armed FBI agents. Documents Taken while he was President. Opps… also making sure to notify CNN ahead of time, so they can be on site.

Biden had classified documents at multiple locations, including next to his car in boxes, in his garage, all unsecured. He had taken them as a Senator and Vice President.

"Biden's personal attorney said on January 21 that the Justice Department discovered six items containing classification markings during a consensual search of his home the previous day, some of which dated to his tenure in the Senate"

Having them as a Senator is totally illegal. I believe the same as a VP. Mike Pence also had some.

No one cared until they wanted more reasons to go after Trump when he decided to run again. Just as they found a way in this case in NYC to raise misdemeanors to felonies and bypass statute of limitations provisions.

Yes it a banana republic farce. 🍌

FYI, get your news from the web, bypass the TV, then your wife won't know. 😉