Trump Supporters promising violence if he loses!

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tru ... c624846eb5

So the guy apparently didn't get in trouble and just put his shirt over the gun. Horrible.

A person with a gun asking who people are voting for shouldn't be at ANY election spot, period. It's none of his business who people are voting for, and it is intimidation.

During and after Radical Reconstruction, following the Civil War, there were men outside southern polling places with guns too, who discouraged "certain" people from voting

I'm saying this as a Jewish person, with a conspicuous, last name (or, so I am told.)

Why are social conservatives expected to tolerate, in good spirits, something, which you have just called radical.

Even if whiteness is just a social construct, I am probably the whitest of all minorities.

In that Rev. Niemöller list, in which he speaks up for noone, so there is noone left to speak up for him, I see myself as being the lowest on the list of priorities, although the jq is forever in the background.

That being so, how is a reactionary backlash not a natural, equal, and opposite reaction, to a perverse form of tyranny.

The Klan won't have me, and I am probably not a suitable example for a reductio ad hitlerum, as I am concerned that this can affect me. I mean, it is stereotypically, Jewish interests which back this, right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciyzOUmkSHA

It seems to me that there is a reflexive, objective sort -of way to deal with that, and I wouldn't want to be associated with it.

I have an attic - does that count? I just installed another $18 webcam for a better view of the driveway. And I have my weapon by the front door - it can blind an attacker temporarily while I go out the other door and hit him from behind. It's a police style 3 D cell flashlight.

You're not a policeman, right?

And, hopefully, not headed to any political rallies...

Radical Reconstruction was trying to ensure that black freedmen could vote, hold office, making an equal wage, essentially everything any American expects. Radical or not, social conservatives of that era didn't have a moral leg to stand on, despite the fact that they had won for the next hundred years, till the dawn of the civil rights movement.
Incidentally, the ideological descendants of those Ex-Confederate social conservatives would be the same people who would hold your Jewishness against you.
Whether you're talking about unreconstructed southerners yearning for the glory days of Dixie, or Antisemites in Nazi era Germany as well as modern America, their social conservative reaction to radical efforts to right wrongs is on the wrong side of history.

This is the era of the Homestead Act. The only way blacks could have property, belongings, and status, is to take those from civilized whites, in lawful secession?

Astute blacks later found records, in the Library of Congress, to the effect that Manifest Destiny extended southward, into the Caribbean. Lincoln had told them it was selfish, to integrate (as well as making countless, other, racist comments, in the historical record) and had "Sixteen Tons" working conditions in store for them, more to south of the Golden Circle.

He was simply requisitioning farm equipment, for his own use.

Reconstruction was used as a means of punishment, and, if you look at the Lincoln monument, his hands rest upon two fasces (as in fascism.)

Lincoln had changed his opinion about shipping blacks elsewhere at the end of his life. In fact, the speech which literally cost him his life (John Wilkes Boothe was in the audience), Lincoln had said full citizenship and voting rights would be given to blacks. And so it really was a war of liberation, and not just seizing war material.
And civilized whites? We're talking about traitorous Confederates here. But as a matter of fact, that forty acres blacks were supposed to get were mostly in largely inaccessible, unsettled areas, and so for the most part weren't taken from anyone.
And sure, blacks had had it worse than anyone else in the years between the Civil War and the civil rights era, but how is that anyway Lincoln's fault? The blame should be pinned on those social conservative reactionaries who hated Lincoln for emancipation, and who wanted to undo his work.
What is it with you conservatives beating up Lincoln for unfortunate racist language (even though his actions proved him to be very racially enlightened), but give a pass to white southerners who defended the inhumanly brutal and racist system of slavery?

Yes it's funny those on the right seem to pretend the south was an "antebellum heaven"

Confederacy was simply pro-slavery

conservatives since the days of locke have decried the "levelers" who kept trying to "pervert the natural order of things" [with themselves the bullies on top of everybody else, of course]

Thanks.

Danke.

^^^ prego, mon frere

Got my beans in. Stockpile had dwindled some since the Ebola outbreak. Beans and rice, baby. I can hide in my house for a few weeks if the shyt hits the fan.

Why no discussion or prediction of violence if Trump wins?

I think there is going to be violence either way but significantly more if Trump wins because
1. The anti Trump violence has been more organized then the pro Trump violence this year.
2. Trump supporters trend older. The under 30 group is much more progressive. Older people have have jobs, families to protect and are well older. You do not see many 50 and 60 somethings participating in riots.
3. Trump has pissed off a lot of different groups. In World Cup play dispite bitter differences when the persons home country is elimiminated hispanics will root for the remaining Hispanic country almost as if it is thier own. This suggests that Trumps statements about Mexicans are bieng viewed in a negative light by Hispanics in general.

The above is not meant to suggest or imply the groups I mentioned are into violence. The vast majority of people of all groups do not want and certainly will not participate in any post election violence.

goddamn only a day left before 0-hour