The new civil war

[barb012]

We are at the beginning of our civil war but most of our population did not get the memo.

[ripmeister]

I think he was equating this--quite correctly, in my view--with the so-called "Resistance," which intends to obstruct a duly elected president.

Does this not amount to a type of civil war?

Kinda like McConnels statements after Obama was elected regarding obstruction? Was that sedition based on your definition?

[Standing Wolf]

Note the use of or, not and. Not claiming to be an attorney but conspiring to overthrow or put down doesn't appear to be subject to the use of force.

True. However, again, opposing a President's policies, impeding his actions or even attempting to remove him from office by legal means does in no way meet the legal definition of either to "overthrow" or to "put down".

[Standing Wolf]

I think he was equating this--quite correctly, in my view--with the so-called "Resistance," which intends to obstruct a duly elected president.

Does this not amount to a type of civil war?

If it does, the U.S. has been engaged in a civil war since 1789. Horowitz specifically characterized the Soros-organized meeting after the 2016 election and the resulting agreement to oppose or resist Trump's policies as "sedition", which is grossly incorrect. Similarly it no more signals a "civil war" than do the words or actions of any other group of politicians who have ever agreed to oppose a President's stated plans or accomplished actions.

[Ransom]

Kinda like McConnels statements after Obama was elected regarding obstruction? Was that sedition based on your definition?

I don't believe 'statements' are a good analogy to make regarding obstruction. The resistance pjohns refers to travels a little further than mere statement making. Don't you think?

[Ransom]

If it does, the U.S. has been engaged in a civil war since 1789. Horowitz specifically characterized the Soros-organized meeting after the 2016 election and the resulting agreement to oppose or resist Trump's policies as "sedition", which is grossly incorrect. Similarly it no more signals a "civil war" than do the words or actions of any other group of politicians who have ever agreed to oppose a President's stated plans or accomplished actions.

Sorry Sir. Altering documents, lying to judges, spying on your opponents incoming Presidency, we already have many testifying to how they would not have signed off on the FISA warrants knowing what they know today. The information the FBI and Justice were acting on now known to be the Russian propaganda the Left so often warns us about. This was as close to sedition as it gets if not meeting those standards, I cannot agree with your erred interpretation here.

And I don't need another whine and cheese session from you about how I pick on you either Wolf, I'm merely disagreeing with you here. If that's alright with you.

[ripmeister]

I don't believe 'statements' are a good analogy to make regarding obstruction. The resistance pjohns refers to travels a little further than mere statement making. Don't you think?

Are you saying that McConnel didn’t follow thru on his stament about obstruction? Of course he did. I didn’t care for all the executive orders but that was the result of McConnels obstruction.

[Section31]

Civil war?

Well, if you want to end it, just take away all the left's freebies and make them get a job. After an 8 to 5, one tends to be too tired to riot, loot, burn, and kill.

[MMC]

We are at the beginning of our civil war but most of our population did not get the memo.

The leftness does all it can to deny the fact. Horowitz could have referenced Prager. The Left has major troubles debunking Prager.

[pjohns]

Kinda like McConnels statements after Obama was elected regarding obstruction? Was that sedition based on your definition?

I am not quite sure what you mean.

Are you referring to his statement we should elect a Republican the next chance we get? (I simply do not think that this was a "seditio[us]" statement.)