That really was not the question was it.....

4 US presidents have been assassinated. None of them caused civil wars. Interestingly all modern presidents have had assassination attempts on them, with the possible exception of Joe Biden. Maybe people just figured he'd die any minute on his own.

It's not clear to me that a civil war is really possible at the moment. The asymmetry between the US military and the civilian population is too vast. The only way I'd see something like that happening is if there was a wildly popular general who decided to break away. I don't think that person exists right now.

Now could it get ugly? Yes, and maybe for a long time, but not in the sense of a traditional war with two well organized sides capable of each inflicting serious damage on the other.

Was there civil war after JFK was assassinated? History provides that answer.

If it is within one nation I think they call that type of conflict a civil war even though it is or can be considered a revolution.

On your percentages statement I think at the time only about 30% of the colonists backed the Revolutionary War against English oppression. I think about the same percentage were loyal to England and the king.

The above is probably similar to the Repubs vs Dems percentages with the rest ambivalent.

some civil unrest would be as much as i could imagine. I would argue it would be less than what went on with BLM, Antifa, etc. At the end of the day a vast majority of the population is generally well off, at least compared to the rest of the world. Nobody is gonna do anything to get in the way of watching football on sundays, sitting out by the pool, smoking a brisket, binge watching netflix, and happy hour drink specials. To compare where we are as a society to 100 plus years ago in eastern Europe is a giant leap. And to be clear a war with another country is one thing, A war where people are killing their fellow countrymen is totally different and that was the idea behind the post.

I thought it was, I gave you the answer of "not that I would say would be true". You put an umber on it, I cannot put a certain number on it. Factions would say, 50% would, some 25%, then you say .0001. I can't really say with any type of pure guessing what that number would be. But if a number is the answer let's say 5% and I am just throwing an umber out there without any factual substance to back it up.
But your guess is good as anyone else I'm sure.

If history is the best predictor of the future, why would you go against WAWI. Remember how right he was about the Covid hoax?

There was a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth when he proclaimed it but I don’t think one person disagrees with that one now.

There is huge difference in that event than last Saturdays.
1- most of the country liked JFK, especially Marylin Monroe.
2- JFK was not in a heated election campaign.
3- The Republicans were not calling to put Kennedy in their bullseye, they were not calling him Hitler over the TV everyday, He was not being called a threat to this country.

You have to not only look at history but look at the circumstances as to when it happened.

James Garfield,
He was in office for only 4 or so months when he was shot. His assassin, Guiteau was assessed during his trial and autopsy as mentally unbalanced or suffering from the effects of neurosyphilis. He claimed to have shot Garfield out of disappointment at being passed over for appointment as Ambassador to France.

William McKinley,
October 29, 1901. Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist, His actions were politically motivated, although it remains unclear what outcome, if any, he believed the shooting would yield. Interesting side note was because of this, the government created the Secret Service to protect the president from then on.

Theodore Roosevelt
Here we do see that Teddy was on the campaign trail, but his opponent nor the Democrats or Republicans were not calling for any violence against him. Roosevelt was running as a Progressive at the time.
On October 14, 1912, John Schrank, a saloon-keeper from New York who had been stalking him for weeks. At Schrank's trial, he claimed that William McKinley had visited him in a dream and told him to avenge his assassination by killing Roosevelt. He was found legally insane and was institutionalized until his death in 1943.

Ronald Reagan
March 30, 1981 Hinckley said he had wanted to kill Reagan to impress actress Jodie Foster.Not anything to do with politics at all. He was deemed mentally ill and confined to an institution.

Abraham Lincoln.
This is the closest that you can find that even compares to the JFK assassination. I am sure most everyone has seen and read all the similar comparisons to both these assassinations, they are interesting to compare them.
This was politically motivated, but not by parties per se but by Union/Confederate nations and a very bloody Civil War. Not only was Lincoln going to be killed but Booth formulated a plan with co-conspirators to assassinate Lincoln at the theater, as well as Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William H. Seward at their homes. Booth was looking to take out his revenge upon more than just the president.
I do believe because of this assassination the southern states suffer much more by Lincoln being killed and him not in power. Lincoln was seeking for a much easier transition of those states back into the Union. saying that a Civil War was about over, no need to start something when they have already defeated them. But they sure did make it hard, tough and with military control over those southern states that left harboring feeling for many, many years afterwards.

So as we look back into history, then we can see the Trump/JFK assassination are two different events that cannot be compared to one another. Plus one was killed and the other wasn't and not just two days before that person Convention to nominate them for their party to become president.
Then lets add what has been going on over the past 3 to 7 years with so many in this nation hating Trump and so many hating Biden. The fuel there for the fire the thing lacking is the accelerate to start it. It will not be as clean cut as the war between the states from 1861-1865, there will be no demographic lines, it will be more like partisan groups taking out whatever they choose to in that area and every area will be somewhat different.

I guess the closest we get to a civil war is just a typical Saturday night in Chicago… I always find the term “civil” war a bit funny- it’s like “gentlemen’s” club…

Very true, there they do not care who you are they just shoot and kill.

The lighter fluid might be there, the charcoal or wood is not there. Are there some small pockets of nuts out there in the woods? Sure. They have beat the drums since ruby ridge. I'm telling you right now that in my opinion outside of the occasional nut job Joe q public isn't interested in it. The economics aren't there, they aren't even close to being there.

Chicago gets a bad rap, media induced propaganda, look at the stats sheets, there are far more dangerous cities in America if we are talking gun violence and murder rates.

And let me add the concept of a Civil War in this day and age for a country this size has about a zero percent chance of success. All those bullets people have buried in their bunkers will amount to jack squat. It's a whole different world