'Epic:' Elon Musk Reacts To Russian Leader's Prediction He Will Be President In A US Torn By Civil War - Benzinga

So the Wishlist from Russia is a US civil war and then installing the GOP...

Hmmm.....

They're birds of a feather, what else could we have expected?

I'd be surprised if either of those 2 neo-fascist relics were still alive today...

Both Musk and Medvedev are idiots and have no concept of the US Constitution. Musk was not born in the USA so cannot be POTUS

I am sick of hearing about him but I thought this was off the wall.

people like him love hearing stuff about themselves

Musk was not born in the USA so cannot be POTUS

 very true under the current constitution , and the current nation as it stands .

 BUT , medvedev , is talking about the US splitting , and forming 2 different nations i think . in which case , i think both would draw up new governing documents that could allow such a thing to happen .

Not that i think thats going to happen .... it is however amusing  to even consider however remote the possability is . It is as likely as a Ukrainian being elected to rule russia  currently.

I don't think it would ever happen, I just think there are some that would love to see the US dissolve like the USSR did.

I think the states are so intertwined though it would be almost impossible.

I think you are on to something about them wanting the US to implode like the former USSR did , as for the rest of that about being intertwined ? i think that remains to be seen . i say that because no one state is actually dependent on the other. things got from one state can easily be gotten elsewhere .  about the only "United" i see in the United States , is in case the nation is attacked by a foriegn entity militarily ., and even then thats stretching it thin if that would actually happen . . 

* off topic  and side note , Im going to be in and out for the next little bit , i just final ground a mix of wild game for summer sausage   with the required spices and seasonings that is currently " resting" meaning chilling and letting the seasoning soak in , the chilling has to be just above freezing for putting into the casings for cooking . so i hope im forgiven .

President Lincoln made the case for why the states can not decouple themselves in his first inaugural address:  (Excerpt.)

Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them.

A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends?

* Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I made no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should under existing circumstances favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.

I will venture to add that to me the Convention mode seems preferable, in that it allow amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions, originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institution so the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart form my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now by implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority form the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the executive as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope, in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North or on yours of the South, that truth, and that justice, will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American people.

By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals.

While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well, upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied, still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied, hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors.

You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect and defend" it.

I am loth to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and heath-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

nps

Mr. Lincoln argued that unless this union 'votes' to dissolve itself without the entirety of the states being in agreement to do so (if ever).

* Italics, CB.

I love the quote in the last paragraph.

We doing lincoln quotes now ?

 OK here is one .

...This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it..."
-- US President Abraham Lincoln,  First Inaugural Address , March 4, 1861

Looking at that , it would appear that Lincoln had a little bit of a seditious streak in him if thats actually what he believed at the time .

Great prose, isn't it? Rendered a century plus ago.

I like this one from the speech (too)! 

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government,
while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect and defend" it.  "

Wise words ..... hear the crickets?

To be honest one has to read the entire address , in its entirety to get the real drist of what lincoln was saying at the time .

 But as with many things , what someone says , even if written word for word , can mean different things to different people , 

My thought on that is that happens because people will always pick out the parts that seem important to them at the time and gloss over the rest , in todays speak , they cherry pick , keep what they think is good , and discard what they feel is bad .

 the reason this particular paragraph always stuck with me was  considering the time frame , he almost was saying that the civil war was unavoidable and a right of those wishing to leave the union .

 It also took me a few years actually to realize , that this address was made prior to his taking his oath of office , which on that oath can and did change much of what he had said  in it  because of the obligations of said oath.

Mmmnn sausage.....

I just think there is too much infrastructure built between the states. The feds also do the highways, keeps transportation moving. Regulating the airlines, etc. Not to mention the social services.

One thing that got me was with the baby formula shortage. I was kinda shocked to learn that we only rely on one plant to make the stuff (something to say for everything being owned by just a few). Imo each state contributes in its own way. My state has several auto plants and poultry farms. Some states do cattle, etc.

There should always be a way to redress the government.

Overthrow is another thing itself, which Imo would never happen. Besides all of our yelling and screaming that we all do back and forth, for the most part, most of us love the country and want it to succeed.

Why the fuck would we do all that for this asshole Musk?

 breakfast sausage might be getting made today havent decided .

 yes each state has something they sell , my own state its gas oil coal , cattle and agricultural crops in season , many are shocked to find out the beats i haul are turned into granulated sugar .

 i knew that the state had a couple refineries , what i didnt know was thatone supplied  about 70% of the diesal fuel to california  even though that state has its own refineries .

 As for the feds doing the highways ? eh, they co manage the interstate highways , as for the intra state thats on the state , and fed involvement usually ends at funding , and contract negotiations , ever notice you never see a federal highway crew? its always a state crew  out there . so fed involvement is questionable and usually only on paper .

 i likely have a different view because i have a CDL and i see who is where doing what .

We also timber farm I forgot to add.

Overthrow is another thing itself, which Imo would never happen.

Well at one point , the british thought it would never happen either , same could be said about the 1860s  that no state would ever desire to leave the union , even with the fact it was discussed  during the one and only constitutional convention ever held .

 What this brings to mind right now is the 4 boxes  available to people  3 have been used pretty extensively , the forth , as it should be very sparingly and with some hesitation and trepidation .

Those 4 boxes are:

 the soap box 

the ballot box 

 the jury box 

 and finally 

 the ammo box 

 my thinking is it gets to the point that last one is used , something is definitely wrong .

Another industry we have up in the delta areas threw me a little off guard. They actually farm grass. When harvested they roll it up...I just thought it was a little strange. I guess that new sod has to come from somewhere.  Haha

my thinking is it gets to the point that last one is used , something is definitely wrong

I would have to wonder if something wrong with the person wielding the gun...

Personally I think if it did happen it would all depend on where the military would fall.

cant really answer for where the military would fall , but can give you something to think about .

 officer oaths , are not to the president  or the government , it is solely to the Constitution .

thats one thing to think about right there .

 enlisted oaths states they will follow all "lawful orders " to disobey they are placed in a  situation where at their own risk they choose to follow an order or not  and todays enlistees can be said to be some of the most intelligent and thoughtful  ever to enlist. i think a good place to look as to kind of see what the military and its members MIGHT do is look to what happened at the outbreak of the civil war , i personally dont think todays troops would be or do anything different than was done back then . but i do think it will depend entirely on the situation and the individuals involved if it ever came to being .

 have to remember , these troops are human beings , they each have their own levels of lets say morality , senses of right and wrong , which will also dictate their own actions . they are not robots . so actually its not which side the military would side with , but what each individual troop would do according to what they believe , and that is something to think about .

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I made no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should under existing circumstances favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.

I will venture to add that to me the Convention mode seems preferable, in that it allow amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions, originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institution so the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart form my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now by implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority form the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the executive as such, has nothing to do with it.

His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.

This is Lincoln's emphasized point (above)! While the people (of all the states of the time) could choose to amend the Constitution for the good of wholly all the states (at that time juncture), and in the process preserve the Union of states; the people of wholly all the states (of that period) could choose to dismember or overthrow the government. (It being an act of last resort! And not favored by Lincoln.) Furthermore, Lincoln makes it known ("the executive as such, [will have] nothing to do with it.").

That is, Mr. Lincoln soon to take office would agree to proper amendments to the constitution; he would, by the same token, not prefer or agree to partial states choosing to pull out of the government of the United States, because he viewed his 'duties and responsibility' as executive ("to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.") to defend the whole of the country and not its component 'sectionals.'

The military must come down on the side of the president who is authorized to issue (this is critical) lawful orders. That is, constitutional laws have been accepted as passing 'muster.' The military must not act on behalf of a self-serving leader or break proper laws, for in each case that an official does or causes others to do so, collectively and individually, those responsible parties shall be held accountable.

The military must come down on the side of the president who is authorized to issue (this is critical) lawful orders.

Within the context of this thread, I’m not sure of the point that you are trying to make.  The uniformed military is under civilian leadership, The President, SecDef and the Service Secretaries.

2.2.15 Personally I think if it did happen it would all depend on where the military would fall.

2.2.18 The military must come down on the side of the president who is authorized to issue (this is critical) lawful orders.

Certainly, you know our president is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed forces of the United States.Thus, our military authorities and corps shall respond to the person holding the office who issues proper (lawful) orders. Hope it helps!

Actually, they respond to the SecDec, Service Secretaries and Combatant Cdrs. Those individuals respond to the Commander in Chief.  I still don’t understand the point that you were trying to make.  Do you think that someone was questioning who the CiC is?

First, let me be clear, I was not addressing your comment. I was 'piggy-backing' off something Ender wrote (I supplied the comment). Second, military cabinet member RESPOND to the orders of the CIC/President or President/CIC if you prefer. Lastly, it is not too far a stretch to see what I am saying from what I have indicated, and you can read the thread through in hopes of it aiding context, nevertheless. Finally, we are on the way to a new year! My wish is for better written 'intercourse' between us as humans, citizens, and sharers on this site! That is, let's not let any 'malignancy' exist in sharing the truth across this platform (as we see it) simply for its own sake.

We can advance a lot better if we don' do word 'wars' just because, and if we accept that our two political "houses" should have something in common: Finding and engaging in truthfulness on this site.

I wonder when the Tesla and Twitter boycotts are scheduled to begin and continue. . . . Apparently, Tesla and Twitter have a new social agenda and are not 'loyal' and patriotic to the peoples of the lands they 'serve.'  Well, boycotts are better than Tesla-'burnings' on a cold dark night/lane!  /Sarc.

Oh, and I want my crystal ball back especially if it's going to be abused

Musk can act juvenile at times while his Twitter critics go melodramatic.

Musk can act juvenile at times

That’s why buying Twitter works so well for him.    He fits right in.

Square peg, square hole.