Zactly. 'Nuff said.
So…what are we thinking will happen on Nov 9, if Trump loses, with these people threatening violence? Will they piss out and grumble at home? Or are we facing civil disorder in parts of the country?
What would be the response to it? Would the GOP leadership react differently to Democrats? Would Congress have to do something? What would be the political fallout of, frankly, armed insurrection?
Cheer up. Maybe you can find a typo to nitpick soon.
Something tells me that the Republican party and candidates are not going to stand up and defend these winners anytime soon.
I hope there are few problems, and those that arise are handled quickly by local law enforcement. The Trump supporters with violent tendencies are not the sharpest tools in the shed; they will be caught.
I state opinions of my own all the time, sometimes while criticizing someone else’s argument. If you don’t like maybe you should start a blog and turn off commenting.
Low end, you get a bunch of Bundy family shit.
High end, you get the governor/attorney general of a state defying a federal court order. Which could become a rallying point and escalate.
Yeesh, the latter scenario would be serious. Although it would inevitably be crushed, and I’d love for the myth of 2nd Amendment = liberty to be blown away. That, and hardcore Trumpers to be exposed as traitors.
I think it would be unlikely to happen though…right?
I just hope the Secret Service agents keep an extra-close eye on Trump during the third debate. He seems to be becoming unhinged enough to resort to violence. I can see him leaping over the pedestal.
I can’t see Trump leaping over a shoestring.
Is Trump going to call these guys what they are:
White Right Wing Terrorists.
He has to use those exact words. Repeatedly. Otherwise we will know that he supports them.
Come on Trump. Use the words.
I doubt he’d get more than a foot off the ground. 
“Trump attacked during debate. Secret Service agents wrestle lectern to the ground.”
(Fans of the early years of SNL should recognize the origin)
Wallace in the schoolhouse door.
Five years later, Wallace won 5 states in the 1968 presidential election.
Seriously, he’s taking the exact accusations and questions over his own performance in the first debate and attributing them to Clinton. The man is truly a marvel.
Don’t. Her last event was full of hand-picked loyalists with softball questions like “What was it like to grow up with someone as amazing as your father?” and “Tell me about how your father supports women”. Not a single breath was spend on the scandals.
I see nothing in JohnT’s post that says any of that.
As to his expressing his thought specific to people posting here and not doing things in real life (Twitter? Where did you get that?) etc. … clearly in the few minutes after posting it and while you were composing he realized he could have said it better by being less specific and edited his post to remove it.
And FWIW I would mostly agree with how he originally posted as you quoted as well. If someone limits their expressions of disapproval of hateful speech and actions to the safety of semi-anonymous message boards mostly filled with those who agree with you, like this one, but stays silent if/when they encounter it in real life then their lack of moral courage enables the behavior.
Honestly I think you actually agree with what he said. It’s really not a very controversial position.
Who’s this “us”? There are plenty of reasonable debaters around here. Plenty of people who make reasonable points without getting into a debate too. I don’t recall if you, Bayard or Euphonious Polemic are one of those people but I suspect not so much. Perhaps if you all feel so strongly you can go make a Pit thread rather than make this thread about me.
Absolutely right. He is a textbook example of Projection. Seriously. When he blathers a comment like this you can almost be 100% positive that it applies to himself.
Is it me, or do people seem to give Ivanka Trump a lot of “benefit of the doubt” when it comes to her total support of her father’s candidacy?
I’ve seen suggestions that she doesn’t really believe or condone all the horrid stuff coming from the campaign, that she has some ulterior motive or even a kind of “Stockholm syndrome”.
Why is that? Do we have any evidence that her motives are any more pure than her father’s? Or that she’s not making her own decisions, and is therefore less responsible for them?
And if we are giving her more credit than she deserves, is it because she’s pretty? Because she’s so much more poised and graceful than her father (takes after her mother in that department, I guess)? Would she get a pass like this if she were plain and awkward?
Basically I’m saying there’s a slight but perceptible phenomenon of “Ivanka apologism” going on, and it doesn’t quite sit right with me.
So it also has elements of preemptive inoculation.