Would *they *think so?
Any living citizen over the age can. You can even be a registered Republican.
We already have plenty of evidence against Trump. We have his own confession for sexual assault, and we have all of the “donations” made to a nonprofit that turned out not to exist, which I’m pretty sure would amount to tax evasion. There’s also a strong case for fraud, in a number of his business dealings.
And the Mueller investigation has already turned up plenty, too. It hasn’t yet revealed ironclad evidence against Trump personally, but that’s just another way of saying that it’s still ongoing. But it has turned up a lot of evidence against a stunning variety of people close to Trump.
You’re going to impeach Trump for things he did before he was president? I doubt it. And, really. “His confession for sexual assault”? You really think that Access Hollywood clip amounts to a confession?
Hasn’t Trump himself suggested that Americans who get in the way be eliminated via “second amendment” solutions? If you want to argue who has moral superiority, merely suggesting the same for Trump himself makes you even, not worse.
Here is what Trump said:
“So here, I just wrote this down today. Hillary wants to raise taxes – it’s a comparison. I want to lower them. Hillary wants to expand regulations, which she does bigly [I think he means “big league” when he says this]. Can you believe that? I will reduce them very, very substantially, could be as much as 70 to 75 percent. Hillary wants to shut down energy production. I want to expand it. Lower electric bills, folks! Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if – if – Hillary gets to put her judges in.”
That semi-coherent uttering could be parsed different ways, but I don’t think it would be unfair to say that he is at least condoning a “2nd amendment solution” if not suggesting it as a viable option. At least in the case of Hillary being elected. At best it is a sick joke or the rantings of an idiot who doesn’t understand the consequences of his own declarations.
Lyndon LaRouche also runs as a Democrat. The only thing that makes his supporters is lunatic.
It was just one occasion? His restraint surprises me.
Anyway, removing from office by violence just turns him into a martyr and makes the election of someone like him more likely in future, I’d guess. Him resigning in disgrace or being thoroughly destroyed in the 2020 election are a better way of blunting the determined forces of American ignorance that made “President Trump” a possibility in the first place.
Shodan said “an anti-Trump Progressive”. That sounds like a pretty good description of James T. Hodgkinson. He also supported Obama in 2012, so it’s incorrect to say “there is nothing that shows he was actually a Democrat”. His politics seems to align pretty well with the progressive wing of the Democratic party.
Not sure. Were there other instances? That’s the only one I remember, but that is not to say I know there were no others.
I looked it up. September 16, 2016:
As with the first incident, he was campaigning at the time. I admit not knowing if he’s engaged in similar rhetoric (i.e. suggesting some Americans could or should get shot) while in office, but I’d be more surprised if he hasn’t than if he has.
That doesn’t seem to rise to he level of encouraging people to shoot her like the example I gave-- just a statement that someone probably would if given the chance.
I think in any case it’s enough of a departure from typical presidential decorum that Shodan, were he consistent, would declare Trump no countryman of his.
If you’re going to demand consistency like that, then Trump would have had to actually locate someone and get them to kill Hillary. His hypothetical wasn’t about someone ranting on a street corner, but actually getting someone to do the deed. Trump hasn’t done that.
However, if we could disown someone as a countryman, I’d disown Trump. He absolutely disgusts me beyond measure.
I’m not demanding anything, though I don’t quite see the extra requirement from Trump that you suggest.
OK. If you’re going to politely request… 
In Shodan’s hypothetical, the people he is talking about recruit a person and actually have that person kill Trump. They actually organize an assassination. Call that situation A. That is not the same as making a comment in a stump speech, however crass and disgusting that comment might be. Call that Situation B. Situation A >> Situation B, and so I don’t see where someone needs to treat the perpetrators of two situations the same. YMMV.
Still, it’s a hypothetical advanced by some schmo(-dan) on a website, versus what was actually said by an actual candidate for the actual presidency.
And a sizable number of Americans didn’t seem to have the slightest problem with it.
In my experience with magic genies I recall the standard deal being they offer up THREE wishes. So I would suggest:
C. Trump loses reelection in 2020 to the Democratic nominee, is arrested and tried for various state crimes and spends his remaining days penniless, locked up in a state prison.
I feel confident the vast majority of Anti-Trump progressives would be just fine with C if the only other options available are the two you offered.
I think we have a winner here! (bolding is mine)