2bltap Loc: Move to the Mainland

This is is all very serious and involves our country at the highest levels of the previous administration! There really is a C**p going on against President Trump which means the 63 million plus of us who v**ed for him! These are not happy times for either side of the ideological divide and if we are all not very very very very careful there really could be a Second Civil War as a result. Hopefully there is not one of us here on OPP that would wish this to happen. This video just one of many many sources that have shown that there has been a deep seeded push starting in 2015 even before Donald's Trump threw his hat into the ring to stop Donald Trump from becoming our POTUS. Seriously!!!!!! Why would that be?
Semper Fi
MIke

https://youtu.be/UBlnN85OWV8

Kevyn

because he is a huckster, con man and criminal.

PeterS

And when you conservatives tried to remove Bill Clinton because he lied about getting a blowjob? Were we supposed to start a Civil war over that? Why do you think Donald Trump is worth starting a war over? One of the hardest things to accomplish in our constitution is the impeachment of a president and in this case, the only way it can be accomplished is if 20 conservatives in the Senate v**e along with the Democrats. So why are you so determined to blame democrats when the only way to successfully prosecute an impeachment is through bipartisan support?

You people honest to god need to grow up. You elected the most corrupt individual to have ever held office and you are upset because he is being impeached because of his corruption. You people really need to get real.

The question to be asked is if Hillary had won instead of Trump would you conservatives be impeaching her if she had done the same things Trump is accused of doing? Well, the answer is a resounding YES!!! So why do you think a war is justified when you would impeach Hillary under the same circumstances as we are impeaching Trump?

Fodaoson Loc: South Texas

The civil war in some places is called "the war between the states". The current talk is about factions of people, not states; There are no territorial disputes. Civil war almost always involves territorial disputes. We are nowhere close to a "civil war". l

JW

JEEEZUZ, Pete, he's not being impeached. There has been no v**e in the House to impeach the President and until that happens, all it is, is harassment.

JW

A civil war, in most languages is called a brother war. There is no requirement for territorial disputes just as it wasn't territorial in nature in our past civil war. It was ideological and it evolved to include territorial disputes.

Fodaoson Loc: South Texas

It's politics. Impeachment is a political occurrence.

JW

Of course it is and political rules apply. The Constitution requires that the House, not a few chairmen, pass a resolution of impeachment.

Fodaoson Loc: South Texas

The northern states had all but officially ended s***ery. In the south, it was a way of life, The economy of the south depended on s***e labor. After the war sharecropping replaced s***es and it nearly replaced s***ery. sharecroppers barely made a living. Many former s***es moved north to work in the growing industrial revolution. Factory work paid better than sharecropping and the stigma of s***ery was not as prevalent. Teh roots of the civil war were territorial.

JW

The Hell they were. The root of the civil war was the issue of a state's right determine its own destiny. The justification was the interference by the abolitionists to the spread of s***ery.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

It isn't valid to view the US Civil War being about the liberty of each state towards self-determination versus centralized power as opposed to s***ery.

Matt Riggsby

There’s a joke that people who don’t know anything about history say that the Civil War was about s***ery; people who know a bit about history say that it was a complicated matter involving factors including economics, cultural divides between north and south, and so on; and people who know a lot about history say it was about s***ery.

Anyway, the reason that it’s not valid to think of the Civil War as being about self-determination or states’ rights is because nobody at the time claimed that it was. There’s plenty of documentation from the time in the form of published speeches, statements outlining reasons for secession, letters between individuals, and other records of public and private discourse. People openly discuss the issues. And the issue was s***ery. There was considerable conflict in the run up to the war about which territories would become s***e states and which not in order to maintain an uneasy balance of s***e vs. free states (which failed catastrophically in “Bleeding Kansas”), with that being the only significantly contentious issue in the process of creating new states. Several secession states explicitly named s***ery as their primary reason for secession. Several of those which didn’t made references to “protecting our property,” and in the context of the time, there was no property they could be referring to other than s***es. The VP of the Confederacy made the notorious “Cornerstone speech” shortly before the war outlining how race-based s***ery was fundamental to the Confederacy. The Confederate constitution was a near-copy of the US version, but in addition to a few technical matters (like, interestingly, a line-item veto), it inserted clauses specifically protecting the institution of s***ery.

So, then, without the s***er states trying to secede, there wouldn’t have been a Civil War . Essentially everybody in favor of secession either explicitly said that it was because of s***ery or for more abstract reasons of states’ rights which in the actual event ended up being a defense of their right to hold s***es. If you want to add some texture, you can note that the Union was fighting primarily to preserve the union of all the states rather than specifically to abolish s***ery (though there were strong strains of abolitionist thought), but the s***e states were nevertheless trying to leave because of no reason other than preserving the institution of s***ery. The idea that the s***e states wanted to leave the Union for broader reasons of self-determination is a fabrication. It was an idea created and promulgated only after the war as part of the Lost Cause mythology. S***ery was thoroughly discredited, so Confederate apologists had to come up with something else. States’ rights was thoroughly ahistorical, but it’s what they came up with. Before the war, the justification was always, either explicitly or slightly behind the scenes, s***ery.

Kevyn

Constitutionally mandated over-site is not at all harassment, regardless of what lie your illustrious Pumpkinfuhrer tells you.

JW

That is a very Left interpretation of the facts. Read here... https://www.historynet.com/states-rights-civil-war

States rights was at the heart of the issues before, during and after the civil war.

"What brought the question of states’ rights to the fore was changing attitudes toward s***ery. Northern abolitionists began vehemently assailing the institution and the states that continued to practice it, nearly all of them below the Mason-Dixon Line. Some Northerners aided the escape of runaway s***es (a violation of the Constitution’s provisiions that made a fugitive from one state a fugitive in every state) and mobs sometimes assaulted s***e owners and s***e h****rs seeking runaways. (S***ery originally existed in all states, and the writers of the Constitution avoided addressing the matter of perpetuating or ending s***ery in order to obtain ratification from all states.) When victory in the Mexican War (1846-48) resulted in the US expanding its territory all the way to the Pacific Ocean, the question of whether or not to permit s***ery in the new territories. The debate over s***ery intensified, creating a widening gap between s***eholding and nons***eholding states. When a “purely regional party,” the new Republican Party swept the 1859 e******ns in the North and the party’s candidate Abraham Lincoln, an avowed foe of the expansion of s***ery, Southern states seceded from the Union. See Causes of the Civil War on HistoryNet."

JW

There is no such thing as Constitutionally mandated oversight of any of the branches of government.

https://www.thoughtco.com/implied-powers-of-congress-4111399

Oversight is an assumed power of the Congress based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. In other words, It's a power Congress gave to itself.