The point about Obama, was as per the prior. Not what followed, which is what you based your question on, but hey.

Trump's Gov was exactly like Bush Jr. Gov, and Bush Sr. Gov prior...

Biden's Gov will be exactly like Obama's Gov, and Clinton's Gov prior...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-truth-reconciliation-kass-20201021-f4krpwvpvjgxvb2fv7hxnapdfy-story.html

Robert worked for Billy didn't he?

And while he is saying that, he is also saying that Trump just sat back and didn't lash out against Dem states which....he did. Repeatedly. 

I was being sarcastic when it came to my last few first points. I was being overly absurd to make a point. Guess I need to make that a little more clear.

I can see violence escalating quite a bit, but not full out civil war. Not unless a split was attempted and quashed. Peaceful separation or cooperation is certainly the preferred route, but peace for the sake of peace in certain circumstances isn't an option because it will eventually lead to anything but peace.

2 years of full Dem Gov control is going to cause major tension, but I don't see the disobedience from Rep states until they have some Fed Gov control again. Could very well end up like Obama's first term. The Dems won't just sit back and watch like Trump did. If you go against them they'll make you pay and make an example of you for other states who dare disobey. Unless it's a bunch of Rep states that do so in unison with the intention of separating if they can't come to terms, I think it would take a few years before any big moves were attempted on a political level.

Reich is not suggesting attacking states on the basis of not going along with the Democratic party. Whether or not a truth and reconciliation commission is a good idea or not is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Robert Reich served for Clinton and Obama, both times in an economic role, which would have had nothing to do with anything like a truth an reconciliation commission. He has no power that would enable him to implement one now. Again, completely irrelevant. 

Now, this is a very simple question, and I have no idea why you are having trouble answering it.

When the Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency, did they use that to attack states that make states that dared go against them pay? 

It's a yes or no question. If the answer is yes give examples of how they did so. 

How exact and direct would I have to be I wonder? You're assuming the future can only happen if it's already been done exactly as described in the past. Guess man is never going to Mars so forget about that idea.. So much for world peace...

Reich, who worked for Billy and advised Barack, who's backed by Dems like Warren and AOC, etc, wants to make those who were tied to Trump pay. Only the bad ones who helped Trump do bad things of course. Not just people either.

A very simply answer for a very simple question.

No GOP senator objected to Georgia after tonight. Now I leave you with righteous brothers georgia on my mind.

You are claiming that Robert Reich wants to make "only the bad ones who helped Trump do bad things" pay. This is not the same thing as making any state who fails to go along with Democratic agenda pay. So, again completely irrelevant.

I am not assuming a thing. I am asking if we have evidence based on the past that they will do this. If there is not, then we can discuss whether there is a reason to believe things will be different this time (and if Reich is the best you've got, then I'm guessing no). But, things have to be taken one step at a time.

As for the question, you would have to be direct enough to actually answer it, which you still haven't done. Instead you're talking about mars, world peace,  and claiming I made assumptions that I never made. 

It's a yes or no question, so a direct answer would include a yes or a no. If the answer is yes, then it should contain a follow up explaining the exact actions taken. So, if you are interested in engaging in an actual conversation, please demonstrate that by answering. I cannot possibly be any clearer.

Edit: If you're going to post a link, explain why the link is relevant, I'm not going to read any more since this is the second time you've posted something that has nothing to do with punishing states that don't go along with the democratic party.

It referred to the prior, because that would make sense, as what followed wouldn't.

... what?

You said " If you go against them they'll make you pay and make an example of you for other states who dare disobey."

So, we've seen two situations where Democrats have had control of the house, senate, and presidency. When they did, did they do what you have suggested they will now? If so, give me examples of how.