I don’t care to make any predictions, but just speaking for my current home state of Texas, if there’s going to be any violence, they’d better get after it. It appears that more than 10% of the electorate may have voted in the first two days of early voting. At this rate, there won’t be anyone left to harass by election day.
I’m voting Saturday. If anyone tries anything with me, I’m fully prepared to give them a reproachful look.
I would expect a considerable amount of violence in the event that Trump is elected, and that it will continue sporadically for quite some time, possibly for his entire term in office.
Well, he did say he’d bomb the shit out of them, so that makes sense.
I’ll treat this prediction with the same accuracy as your certainty that Trump would “wipe the floor” with Clinton during the debates. 
Yes, let us hope I’m equally mistaken.
However, 50-odd years of watching the behavior of impassioned/outraged left-wing do-gooders in high dudgeon gives me pause.
Did the Civil Rights murders, church bombings (and children killed), protesters brutalized by Sheriff Bull Connor, and the like, have a similar effect on you? When you first saw the hose, the dogs, and the batons turned on those peaceful black protesters, what did it make you think?
Another way to ask this: in your opinion, was their more violence in the 60s by the liberals in the Civil Rights movement alongside MLK Jr. and John Lewis, or by the conservative Southerners who opposed them?
I assume that, regardless of the outcome, there will be little violence. Perhaps an isolated incident or two, but it will just be business as usual after the elections. Then again, I am generally regarded as an optimist. But I really don’t see any wide-scale violence.
No, I have to admit my impressions aren’t based on having cherry picked a few instances from 50 years ago, and which were more societal in the main (i.e., Democrats and Republicans both participating) than political anyway.
But lefties are all about revolution. And in order to achieve revolution you have to get people outraged over things. And to get them outraged over things you have to villainize the opposition and their supposed motives. And out of that outrage and manufactured villainy you get decades of angry protests, school administration buildings taken over, opposition speakers shouted down on campuses, people screamed and yelled at for expressing (or even appearing to express) non-policially correct words and attitudes, and more recently Trump supporters and their vehicles physically and violently attacked.
Thus I have little doubt whatsoever that enough people have become convinced Trump is the second coming of Hitler, only worse, and that they’re going to be furious not only at him but at those who voted him into office, and being on the irrefutable side of goodness and light such as they are, violence will be seen on the part of a certain percentage as the only correct and proper response to such an outrageous turn of events, both because it’s deserved and because to do less would be unconscionable.
But we shall see, Trump would have to be elected first
Well, Ammon Bundy found not-guilty so that disincentive gone. I mean, “Four of the seven defendants are charged with possessing guns in a federal facility.” and found not guilty of that.
Forget about what Trump’s supporters are saying. Trump himself says that he won’t accept the results if he loses, and Trump himself has encouraged violence from his supporters. There’s no tu quoque answer to that.
You do realize that the exact same thing can be said about Trump supporters, right? I mean, surely you see the irony there, don’t you?
Do you mean by lefties? Do you think there was a considerable amount of lefty violence during the GWB era, or is Trump a special case?
I think Trump is a special case (in this regard as in so many others).
If you look at the links in post #11, and other stories of that sort, you’ll see there’s already been quite a lot of anti-Trump violence by lefties and I would assume that would have to magnify in the (unlikely) event Trump is actually elected.
That was 2000. You’re just now getting the ringing sound in your ear from the alarm bells?
Enter the “alt-right,” a movement so well-organized it has no leaders, a philosophy so dark it has no books, a movement so confounding it has… a cartoon… frog… as a mascot??? My my my, those clever white supremacists! This is how they get you. But the nearly-perfect union of e-celeb nobodies representing nothing, and apparently invisible and indistinguishable racists lurking around every corner is definitely a surprising turn of events I didn’t see coming this year.
By any means necessary, to hear some tell it.
I disagree. These are petty criminals who can barely aspire to get out of bed at the same time every day, who think the height of political activism is running around stealing signs from people’s yards. When the election is over regardless of the winner they’ll go back to complaining on twitter, if it doesn’t go out of business in the meantime.
Which article did you read? The statements I have bolded in your post are demonstrably false.
Holbrook says nothing about accepting the outcome of the election and predicts violence.
Pillath says nothing about accepting the outcome of the election and predicts violence.
Stelling says nothing about accepting the outcome of the election.
Sabonjohn says nothing about accepting the outcome of the election and predicts violence.
Later in the piece, the reporters imply that the following speakers would accept the outcome…
But…
Threatening revolution.
Predicting violence.
Homeless woman tries to defend Trump’s new star on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame. Mob assails her with vile language, orders her to leave (“Get yo’ ass outta here, bitch/muthafucka”), tears up her signs, trips her and makes her falls (maybe knocks her out), etc., etc.
[quote=“Starving_Artist, post:37, topic:769858”]
Homeless woman tries to defend Trump’s new star on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame. Mob assails her with vile language, orders her to leave (“Get yo’ ass outta here, bitch/muthafucka”), tears up her signs, trips her and makes her falls (maybe knocks her out), etc., etc.
[/QUOTE] What was it her signs said, exactly?What possible difference does it make? Have we at last reached the point in this country where free speech is an anachronism and it’s okay to assault people and destroy their property if they say things we don’t like?
And would it still be okay if conservatives began to act that way too?
Begin to act that way?
Nobody told me this was a joke thread.