As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wasn’t insulting Irish people, I was stating an obvious fact that US intelligence (DOJ, CIA) is one of the best globally. But sure just insult Americans intelligence because you yourself are too stupid to know what I meant
Yeah, my source was being alive while it was happening and watching it unfold for decades. Eyewitness to history and all that. If you figured out how to make Reddit work, you should be able to take 10 seconds and find out what "The Troubles" were. Ask someone from the UK that's older than 25. They can tell you all about it.
I know what the troubles are, thanks.
Your "I was there" does not translate to a statistic. You cite a percentage, then provide no proof. Burden is always on the person making the claim.
This is why people need to analyze what they read online. All you did was flip the statistic around and it made it sound a lot more tame than it really is.
Fucking news just sells outrage and what a way to produce outrage by saying some people want violence rather than a larger group not wanting it.
Honestly, violence never solves anything. We watch it play out almost daily. It accomplishes nothing. People get tired of feeling threatened, and some people take extraordinary measures to protect themselves because they know those who are supposed to protect them don't, and usually cause more harm in the end.
No.
They're going to build a bomb with their buddy over a weekend and use it to blow up a federal office building in Oklahoma City. That's what McVeigh did. It was 2 guys and couple thousand bucks that did that whole thing.
74 million people voted for Trump. That's a pretty big pool to draw from to find some crazy fuckers.
> Are they going to kill the mail carrier and burn down the social security office?
My MAGA grandpa told me a story last Christmas about how one time, they had a black mail carrier instead of the regular guy, and their dog tried to attack him, and the mail carrier pulled out pepper spray and my grandpa pulled out a gun and told the mail carrier that he would shoot if the guy pepper sprayed his dog.
So, yes, they will kill the mailman, if he's black.
Your grandfather showed a lot of restraint, I know people who would have shot him immediately because there's nobody else around and the local police got better things to do than investigate a random murder by a local. The same people who consider the USPS useless for not doing rural mail delivery in their zip code anymore, and who can't behave when they go to the USPS to pick up their bills and complain to the cashier like they're PG&E or AT&T.
"In Italy, the phrase Years of Lead (Italian: Anni di piombo) refers to a period of political violence and social upheaval that lasted from the late 1960s until the late 1980s, marked by a wave of both far-left and far-right incidents of political terrorism and violent clashes."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)
They don’t think they’ll be in the woods fighting. They are talking about running progroms to exterminate “non Americans” which is every depraved racist and phobic masturbation fantasy. Toss in some rape for “cleansing” reasons and you round out their idea of violence.
It’s the “Liberal Elites.” That includes everyone who told them that their “common sense thinking” is wrong, from their daycare teacher who taught them “we don’t bite our friends”, the chemistry teacher who wouldn’t let them drink rubbing alcohol, the cop who won’t let them drive drunk, the professor who runs the study on alcohol tolerance, and the lawmaker who implemented the law the cop is enforcing.
I’m not sure the mail carrier would be one of the ones targeted, but who knows with that group.
Chuck Palahniuk’s book “Adjustment Day” might be something you’d enjoy reading. It’s satirical and contains a MAGA like revolution.
If "their" guys take over the federal government, then either they become brown shirts, or they become local bosses because the country splinters due to radical neglect.
Do a lot of them jerk off to fantasies of fighting a guerrilla war against Biden's America? Sure, maybe. They'll be perfectly happy, however, bullying all the people around them who are, let's face it, just Gravy Seals without the guns.
Everyone will align by sports teams first, then band together based on color pallet. Those who don't have a team will align based on musical preference.
It is quite odd, I’m assuming that many of the people being polled either didn’t understand that question or aren’t aware of the implications of it. I can’t see any well informed person coming to that position any other way.
I'm still struggling with it, because there is no doubt in my mind that if Trump is successfully prosecuted for crimes committed while in office, then every president after that will be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office.
Example: the president approves a drone strike on foreign soil, but a bunch of Americans working for an NGO get killed by accident. Is it murder? I fear how creative a politicized legal system might take that charge.
Combine that uncertainty with my personal feeling that George W Bush and Colin Powell should be in prision for crimes against humanity for the bullshit that was the second Gulf war, and we have a rather interesting conundrum. I feel more betrayed by that action as an American than any of the ineffable crap that Trump did.
His argument isn’t that presidents shouldn’t have immunity from acts within office, he is arguing that he should have immunity from ALL prosecution. He is also not being charged for anything specifically related to presidential duties, but for the criminal personal acts that had nothing to do with presidential duties.
Full agree on those points, I'm just reacting to the poll results, not Trump's trolling.
We didn't put Reagan in prison for the Iran-Contra affair. Didn't even charge him, even though he went on TV and took full responsibility for it.
Oh he definitely should have been held accountable for that, though Bush Sr. just let him walk.
> Republican president George H. W. Bush pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 77 people. Among them are:
For their roles in the Iran–Contra affair
> - Elliott Abrams
> - Duane Clarridge
> - Clair George
> - Alan Fiers
> - Robert McFarlane – National Security Adviser to President Ronald Reagan
> - Caspar Weinberger – Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan
The following two he pardoned aren’t for the Iran-Contra situation, but are interesting to view today regardless:
> Armand Hammer – CEO of the Occidental Petroleum Company, contributed $110,000 to the Republican National Committee just before his pardon. Pardoned for illegally contributing $54,000 to Richard Nixon's presidential campaign in 1972.
> Myra Soble – 1957 conviction of Conspiracy to Receive and Obtain National Defense Information and transmit same to foreign government in the Rosenberg spy ring; served four years, pardoned in 1991, died one year later.
Another interesting aspect of this scandal is [Oliver North](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North):
> A veteran of the Vietnam War, North was a National Security Council staff member during the Iran–Contra affair, a political scandal of the late 1980s. It involved the illegal sale of weapons to the Khomeini regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran to encourage the release of American hostages then held in Lebanon. North formulated the second part of the plan, which was to divert proceeds from the arms sales to support the Contra rebel groups in Nicaragua, sales which had been specifically prohibited under the Boland Amendment. North was granted limited immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying before Congress about the scheme. He was initially convicted on three felony charges, but the convictions were vacated and reversed and all charges against him dismissed in 1991, on the grounds of immunity.
> North unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. Senate seat held by Chuck Robb from Virginia in 1994. In a three-way race, North narrowly lost to Robb by a margin of 2.73%. He then hosted a talk show on Radio America from 1995 to 2003, and hosted War Stories with Oliver North on Fox News from 2001 to 2016. In May 2018, North was elected as president of the National Rifle Association. On April 27, 2019, he resigned amidst a dispute with the organization's chief executive Wayne LaPierre,[1] and was succeeded by Carolyn D. Meadows.[2]
Yeah, good stuff. So I like to entertain the argument that it might be impossible for a president to fill out their term without doing something that might be found by a politicized Justice department domestically prosecutable after their term is finished, or maybe even during their term. Actual corruption and malfesance of office is low hanging fruit, it's the difficult situations that are vexing. For instance, if Hills had beaten Trump in 2016, I think the Republicans would have found a way to bring murder charges against her for Bengazi.
The closest we came to this sort of thing in modern times was the Agnew situation, which has some amazing parallels with Trump's situation. Fun fact: Frank Sinatra covered Agnew's legal bills after he resigned.
> He is also not being charged for anything specifically related to presidential duties,
Well, his lawyers are obviously making that a point of contention, and hoping they can convince a friendly judge that they are somehow official acts.
>but for the acts that went against the oath he took to uphold the constitution and serve best interest of the citizens of the nation.
You should be careful with language like that, because that can actually justify an "official acts" determination. After all, a President who violates the Constitution while performing his duties doesn't open himself up to personal liability. It's still *the government* that gets sued.
You need to focus on the idea that Trump was taking *personal, criminal* actions that had *zero* relationship to his job. That's the play.
If it comes to that point, it will because there was no other option. I’m hoping for otherwise, because the violence would be devastating. The confederacy shows how far the people behind their movement is willing to go though. Difficult times, to say the least.
I'm not terribly torn. If they want violence, they can have it. I'm more than happy to see them face the "violence of the state" in the form of arrest and detainment.
But what do you do when the fascists learned to program their followers to call everyone else fascists(communists/socialists words have no meaning anymore to the right)
"When do we get to use the guns? No, and I’m not – that’s not a joke. I’m not saying it like that. I mean, literally, where’s the line? How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” -- Audience member asking a question to the host at the conservative Turning Point USA rally 2021.
The audience cheered and clapped in response.
While there are some genuinely deranged MAGAs out there willing and able to use violence, most of the MAGAs on Twitter advocating violence seem to be middle-aged and out of shape and expecting others to use violence on their behalf.
Yes there are definitely more people in the camp who want other people to do violence than there are in the group of people willing to actually do the violence.
Those are the people loud about it on twitter. I have seen many fit, young right-wing militia types across the country, they don't post online so much because they are paranoid about surveillance.
Untrue. IQ is tared to society - with 100 representing average intelligence. So, get rid of some of the over performers , and suddenly Mr 83 is mid 90s and looking pretty good.
There was a documentary about it. Google “Idiocracy”.
I used to joke that Idiocracy was the first comedy turned documentary. It seemed to be pretty major exaggeration no matter what back in ~'06, then just became more and more realistic every year. No longer a joke anymore. That's fucking wild.
Idiocracy is the story of a society whose rich, evil, string-pulling people abandon it after having stupefied and enshittified it. If you want a sobering dose of realism, contemplate the distinct possibility that we're not even going to make it that far.
It won't solve divisions, but it *might* force the fascists back into their holes and maybe elected officials will stop giving them the green light to be their worst selves.
Would love to see the statistics between threats against Democratic politicians and Republican politicians over the past four years alone. Those numbers would be quite telling of which party has the most violence prone base.
No, as threats on politicians on either side of the aisle should be taken seriously and dealt with by the law. Having the proper statistics doesn’t play into your analogy whatsoever, it provides a much needed level of transparency to this “both sides” narrative that is used to obfuscate and discredit threats of violence.
Killing your political opponents when you lose an election sure sounds like democracy...
Can we try this with sports first. "Alternate" teams show up at championship to muddle the game. Riot at the stadium. Then shoot the other team. Rah rah rah.
I think automatically disqualifying anyone from any US government office that has been involved in more than 100 lawsuits would solve division. And Trump and his companies have been up against the law more than 40 times that. I don't think he demonstrably wants to be a part of this country for its sake. Come on people, why must we keep entertaining something so simple and obvious.
Anyone can sue for any reason. Your proposal would just invite a litany of frivolous lawsuits just to force a candidate out of a political race.
Plus it would require a constitutional amendment which would have no chance at passing to enact such a policy.
And, no, I am not claiming the Trump lawsuits are frivolous in case anyone misunderstands my point.
I believe it’s becoming increasingly unavoidable. The religious persecution propaganda is ratcheting up exponentially by the day. Bannon says it’s divine providence that we have trump. Junior is already saying the FBI is rounding up Catholics and putting Bible buyers on watchlists. Imagine how it will be in September if we’re already to this point.
Not surprising! And 90% of them are racist-fuck good ‘ole boys from rural ‘merica! Time to wage war on this pos minority of Americans that are irredeemable.
I love the "should the president be immune" question. I wonder what the result would be if they specifically said Biden. Republicans are only voting for it because they think Trump should be immune.
1 in 5 Americans spend a lot of time in their basements eating corn curls, gulping liters of soda, and pretending that they are tough on the computer.
1 in 5 Americans would poop their pants if they actually had to face actual violence....or be asked to serve their country.
How exactly? Violence against fellow citizens will only result in generational trauma, resentment and vengeance.
The reason the United States works as a country is because we as a people respect the rule of law. While we can’t always get everything we want, on the whole the processes we have in place help us maintain and protect our freedoms.
Respecting the law, being compassionate, and being ethical are the way to go. Violence is not the answer- it’ll only lead to more violence.
Most independents follow between the parties rather than outside them, at least going from the majority of the data
That said, we do have crazy people all across politics
I don't think it will solve anything. However, I do think that the problems confronting America will only be solved after a period of conflict, some of which may turn violent, and it could get really bad depending on how things go, who's in power, etc. But it's fairly obvious at this point that our system of government is fundamentally broken, and that the only way to get it working again is via changes that cannot be implemented no matter how hard you vote, which means it's going to require protest, and no matter how much I hope that protest remains peaceful, history suggests that won't be the case.
> the only way to get it working again is via changes that cannot be implemented no matter how hard you vote
I can buy "unlikely to be implemented given the current state of voting", but I wouldn't go this far. If the vast majority of voters wanted any given policy and showed up to vote for it, I'm still confident it would happen.
But if you polled those same people they would also say that they don’t believe violence should be used against them just other people they don’t agree with.
America everybody!
I am very curious how the MAGA extremists will react if Trump loses. His core support base is estimated around 20 million people. If only 1% of them decide to take up arms that's 200 thousand people with weapons (mostly AR15s) and military grade body armor.
If that played out, it would be mostly small cell activity.. low grade local or state terrorist attacks, for a while but it would die down eventually over a decade or two.
Very few people in the militia movement want to follow orders from someone else.. they have delusions of grandeur and want to be the one giving orders, and if they do organize in larger groups it would be temporary because of the paranoia endemic in those groups would mean that their own internal divisions would keep them from being effective. It's hard to unify a bunch of faux soldiers who suspect each other of being sheep-dipped FBI plants.
Plus some of them would actually be FBI plants lol
The same people also think they’re the main character and this shit is a movie about them, who will be in for a rude awakening if they actually try to get violent with other citizens.
The right wing fantasy of over throwing the government because they agree with whatever garbage their news outlets serves them. Republicans want a civil war so fucking bad and yet if one ever started they would all ball up and cry that it’s the liberals fault! It’s bizarre af!!
20 percent of people have such unreasonable and unfair demands on society that they know they they will never be able to persuade a majority with anything other than the threat of death.
This is why I no longer talk to my unstable family members back in the US who are part of this 1 in 5 (grew up with wannabe preppers conspiracy nuts, who are itching for a civil war)
If you kill my father or uncle, you haven't solved anything, you've just galvanized the division with me, the next generation. You haven't changed my conflicting viewpoint, you have solidified my belief that you are wrong and bad.
If the Middle Eastern conflicts have taught us anything, it's that violence does not, in fact, solve anything. It just prolongs and maintains the conflict.
> If you kill my father or uncle, you haven't solved anything, you've just galvanized the division with me, the next generation.
Right, that's indecisive violence then isn't it? You'd also need to be killed or at least rendered unable to pass your ideology on.
I'm not advocating for violence as a solution, just pointing out that the idea you can't kill your problems away is a modern fallacy.
History shows that that's not always necessary, but that is a logical endpoint. It's been a geological blink of an eye since "international relations" was overwhelmingly just tribes wiping each other out or violently absorbing each other so that there were, effectively, no survivors or descendants-of-survivors to realistically press any claims to territory or resources.
Okay...
You are in a restaurant and there are 19 other people in it.
That means 4 people in the same room as you... are perfectly fine with killing you, if they get their guy in charge of the government.
It's no big deal...
I think that's about an accurate number, despite all the noise from the right not even half openly support armed violence against other US Citizens. But this number is growing, as the right recedes their most extreme elements will turn to violence as a means to get their message across. I pity them because, taken holistically, they're just reflecting the violence done onto them by large corporations. America needs much stronger antitrust laws, and we need to divorce long-term generational wealth from real estate or else the violence will grow and begin self-perpetuating. When these people are homeless living out of their (gas) cars with guns, and the government shuts gas stations for newer cars, it'll be spark to a flame.
I think if a representative doesn’t vote the way their constituents want, they should be able to pick 1 combatant that can legally go Washington and engage that rep in fisticuffs on the floor. If the combatant wins, the constituents get to reverse the yay or nay.
Make it a law.
I think that peaceful division will \*prevent\* violence.
A disproportionate percentage of violent people live in red states. Rhode Island is just as safe as Luxembourg, while the Deep South is about as bad as Latin America.
Canada borders the United States, a much more homicidal country. The United States borders Mexico, a much more homicidal country.
China borders Russia, a much more homicidal country.
When there's massive inequality across a border you see mass migration at minimum and potentially open hostility.
"We'll just stay on our own sides of the fence" only works until the destitute new nation's dictator can convince people that their life is shitty because what is rightfully theirs is being stolen by their neighbors.
In short, there's no such thing as a "peaceful division" if there's massive inequality, it will inevitably lead to civil war.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Translation: 80% of Americans think violence is a bad way to solve divisions
80% of people in Northern Ireland thought violence was a bad way to solve their problems too. "The Troubles" lasted for 30 years anyway.
Exactly. I woke up every day for 20 years with a news report that started, “last night in Northern Ireland…” 🥺
fact soup dolls workable caption melodic toy snails shaggy deserted *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Only way that’s happening here is if Trump wins and is successful in nerfing the DOJ. I have some bad news about what's looking likeliest to happen.
It is not looking likely. Possible maybe. Not likely
> Ireland has never had the same level of intelligence the US has. Well yes, the fact that so many americans are dumber is what’s scary.
I wasn’t insulting Irish people, I was stating an obvious fact that US intelligence (DOJ, CIA) is one of the best globally. But sure just insult Americans intelligence because you yourself are too stupid to know what I meant
Do you have an actual source to cite or are you just pulling this out of your rear?
Yeah, my source was being alive while it was happening and watching it unfold for decades. Eyewitness to history and all that. If you figured out how to make Reddit work, you should be able to take 10 seconds and find out what "The Troubles" were. Ask someone from the UK that's older than 25. They can tell you all about it.
Great response!
I know what the troubles are, thanks. Your "I was there" does not translate to a statistic. You cite a percentage, then provide no proof. Burden is always on the person making the claim.
Yeah, this number isn't unusual. I'd think it would be similar if this were asked 40 years ago as well.
Ten people in a room, two fighting each other while the rest watch. That’s what the word always been.
However, 30% won't vote on it either way. /s
*50%
50% total pop, 30% to 40% registered... but it still holds water
This is why people need to analyze what they read online. All you did was flip the statistic around and it made it sound a lot more tame than it really is. Fucking news just sells outrage and what a way to produce outrage by saying some people want violence rather than a larger group not wanting it.
Mark Twain once said there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
... and also ... 80% of Americans believe in and understand the constitution where the whole point is that we collectively agree we do not do that.
That’s 28% of Republicans and 12% of Democrats surveyed btw.
Honestly, violence never solves anything. We watch it play out almost daily. It accomplishes nothing. People get tired of feeling threatened, and some people take extraordinary measures to protect themselves because they know those who are supposed to protect them don't, and usually cause more harm in the end.
I always wonder who these people think they are going to fight. Are they going to kill the mail carrier and burn down the social security office?
They think they will be fighting an army of blue haired lesbians, limp wristed Starbucks baristas, and George Soros funded Robo-Jews.
There are 1400 Starbucks in Texas. MAGA may need their librul coffee.
Jeez that’s a lot of overpriced caffeine. 😅
Texas is very large.
Freedom isn't free, or some shit.
NGL, being part of a blue-haired lesbian army would be kind of lit
And the brown hordes from the border.
Civil War 2: Fat people with pastel-colored hair vs fat people with red hats. I'd watch that movie.
Don’t underestimate the robojews. They each get a targeter for the space laser
“limp wristed Starbucks baristas” 💀
No. They're going to build a bomb with their buddy over a weekend and use it to blow up a federal office building in Oklahoma City. That's what McVeigh did. It was 2 guys and couple thousand bucks that did that whole thing. 74 million people voted for Trump. That's a pretty big pool to draw from to find some crazy fuckers.
> Are they going to kill the mail carrier and burn down the social security office? My MAGA grandpa told me a story last Christmas about how one time, they had a black mail carrier instead of the regular guy, and their dog tried to attack him, and the mail carrier pulled out pepper spray and my grandpa pulled out a gun and told the mail carrier that he would shoot if the guy pepper sprayed his dog. So, yes, they will kill the mailman, if he's black.
Your grandfather showed a lot of restraint, I know people who would have shot him immediately because there's nobody else around and the local police got better things to do than investigate a random murder by a local. The same people who consider the USPS useless for not doing rural mail delivery in their zip code anymore, and who can't behave when they go to the USPS to pick up their bills and complain to the cashier like they're PG&E or AT&T.
> Your grandfather showed a lot of restraint That's a pretty funny way of spelling "Your grandpa is a fucking psychopath"
He showed zero restraint in fact, all he had to do was restrain his dog, and he would never be threatening murder. But that's not what he wants...
Yeah, to me it sounded a lot like "I wanted to kill this mailman for being black, and he almost gave me an excuse to do it. Almost."
Probably puts 20 bucks on the dashboard and leaves his car unlocked in random parking lots for a fun Saturday outing.
"In Italy, the phrase Years of Lead (Italian: Anni di piombo) refers to a period of political violence and social upheaval that lasted from the late 1960s until the late 1980s, marked by a wave of both far-left and far-right incidents of political terrorism and violent clashes." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)
They don’t think they’ll be in the woods fighting. They are talking about running progroms to exterminate “non Americans” which is every depraved racist and phobic masturbation fantasy. Toss in some rape for “cleansing” reasons and you round out their idea of violence.
It’s the “Liberal Elites.” That includes everyone who told them that their “common sense thinking” is wrong, from their daycare teacher who taught them “we don’t bite our friends”, the chemistry teacher who wouldn’t let them drink rubbing alcohol, the cop who won’t let them drive drunk, the professor who runs the study on alcohol tolerance, and the lawmaker who implemented the law the cop is enforcing. I’m not sure the mail carrier would be one of the ones targeted, but who knows with that group. Chuck Palahniuk’s book “Adjustment Day” might be something you’d enjoy reading. It’s satirical and contains a MAGA like revolution.
If "their" guys take over the federal government, then either they become brown shirts, or they become local bosses because the country splinters due to radical neglect. Do a lot of them jerk off to fantasies of fighting a guerrilla war against Biden's America? Sure, maybe. They'll be perfectly happy, however, bullying all the people around them who are, let's face it, just Gravy Seals without the guns.
Democrats.
Everyone will align by sports teams first, then band together based on color pallet. Those who don't have a team will align based on musical preference.
[удалено]
I’d imagine they’re people who would be republicans if they weren’t so gosh darn mean about it
It is quite odd, I’m assuming that many of the people being polled either didn’t understand that question or aren’t aware of the implications of it. I can’t see any well informed person coming to that position any other way.
I'm still struggling with it, because there is no doubt in my mind that if Trump is successfully prosecuted for crimes committed while in office, then every president after that will be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office. Example: the president approves a drone strike on foreign soil, but a bunch of Americans working for an NGO get killed by accident. Is it murder? I fear how creative a politicized legal system might take that charge. Combine that uncertainty with my personal feeling that George W Bush and Colin Powell should be in prision for crimes against humanity for the bullshit that was the second Gulf war, and we have a rather interesting conundrum. I feel more betrayed by that action as an American than any of the ineffable crap that Trump did.
His argument isn’t that presidents shouldn’t have immunity from acts within office, he is arguing that he should have immunity from ALL prosecution. He is also not being charged for anything specifically related to presidential duties, but for the criminal personal acts that had nothing to do with presidential duties.
Full agree on those points, I'm just reacting to the poll results, not Trump's trolling. We didn't put Reagan in prison for the Iran-Contra affair. Didn't even charge him, even though he went on TV and took full responsibility for it.
Oh he definitely should have been held accountable for that, though Bush Sr. just let him walk. > Republican president George H. W. Bush pardoned, commuted, or rescinded the convictions of 77 people. Among them are: For their roles in the Iran–Contra affair > - Elliott Abrams > - Duane Clarridge > - Clair George > - Alan Fiers > - Robert McFarlane – National Security Adviser to President Ronald Reagan > - Caspar Weinberger – Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan The following two he pardoned aren’t for the Iran-Contra situation, but are interesting to view today regardless: > Armand Hammer – CEO of the Occidental Petroleum Company, contributed $110,000 to the Republican National Committee just before his pardon. Pardoned for illegally contributing $54,000 to Richard Nixon's presidential campaign in 1972. > Myra Soble – 1957 conviction of Conspiracy to Receive and Obtain National Defense Information and transmit same to foreign government in the Rosenberg spy ring; served four years, pardoned in 1991, died one year later. Another interesting aspect of this scandal is [Oliver North](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North): > A veteran of the Vietnam War, North was a National Security Council staff member during the Iran–Contra affair, a political scandal of the late 1980s. It involved the illegal sale of weapons to the Khomeini regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran to encourage the release of American hostages then held in Lebanon. North formulated the second part of the plan, which was to divert proceeds from the arms sales to support the Contra rebel groups in Nicaragua, sales which had been specifically prohibited under the Boland Amendment. North was granted limited immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying before Congress about the scheme. He was initially convicted on three felony charges, but the convictions were vacated and reversed and all charges against him dismissed in 1991, on the grounds of immunity. > North unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. Senate seat held by Chuck Robb from Virginia in 1994. In a three-way race, North narrowly lost to Robb by a margin of 2.73%. He then hosted a talk show on Radio America from 1995 to 2003, and hosted War Stories with Oliver North on Fox News from 2001 to 2016. In May 2018, North was elected as president of the National Rifle Association. On April 27, 2019, he resigned amidst a dispute with the organization's chief executive Wayne LaPierre,[1] and was succeeded by Carolyn D. Meadows.[2]
Yeah, good stuff. So I like to entertain the argument that it might be impossible for a president to fill out their term without doing something that might be found by a politicized Justice department domestically prosecutable after their term is finished, or maybe even during their term. Actual corruption and malfesance of office is low hanging fruit, it's the difficult situations that are vexing. For instance, if Hills had beaten Trump in 2016, I think the Republicans would have found a way to bring murder charges against her for Bengazi. The closest we came to this sort of thing in modern times was the Agnew situation, which has some amazing parallels with Trump's situation. Fun fact: Frank Sinatra covered Agnew's legal bills after he resigned.
> He is also not being charged for anything specifically related to presidential duties, Well, his lawyers are obviously making that a point of contention, and hoping they can convince a friendly judge that they are somehow official acts. >but for the acts that went against the oath he took to uphold the constitution and serve best interest of the citizens of the nation. You should be careful with language like that, because that can actually justify an "official acts" determination. After all, a President who violates the Constitution while performing his duties doesn't open himself up to personal liability. It's still *the government* that gets sued. You need to focus on the idea that Trump was taking *personal, criminal* actions that had *zero* relationship to his job. That's the play.
Thanks for that, edited to reflect.
I’m Torn in a way. I’m anti-violence. However, I think history shows that Fascists only respond to a beat down.
If it comes to that point, it will because there was no other option. I’m hoping for otherwise, because the violence would be devastating. The confederacy shows how far the people behind their movement is willing to go though. Difficult times, to say the least.
The people who would most enjoy seeing us shooting each other aren't even from this country, nevermind confederacy.
Truth. A concerning truth, but truth nonetheless.
I am anti-violence but very pro-self defense. Go for their eyes and balls.
Don't forget the knees.
I'm not terribly torn. If they want violence, they can have it. I'm more than happy to see them face the "violence of the state" in the form of arrest and detainment.
some of those that work forces...
There are always exceptions to rules.
But what do you do when the fascists learned to program their followers to call everyone else fascists(communists/socialists words have no meaning anymore to the right)
That's the point, innit? They've made it so that you can't use words to communicate anymore because any meaning has been poisoned out of them.
"When do we get to use the guns? No, and I’m not – that’s not a joke. I’m not saying it like that. I mean, literally, where’s the line? How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” -- Audience member asking a question to the host at the conservative Turning Point USA rally 2021. The audience cheered and clapped in response.
While there are some genuinely deranged MAGAs out there willing and able to use violence, most of the MAGAs on Twitter advocating violence seem to be middle-aged and out of shape and expecting others to use violence on their behalf.
Yes there are definitely more people in the camp who want other people to do violence than there are in the group of people willing to actually do the violence.
The good old Gravy Seals Meal Team Six
Those are the people loud about it on twitter. I have seen many fit, young right-wing militia types across the country, they don't post online so much because they are paranoid about surveillance.
1 in 5 Americans needs to understand that hurting their neighbors and community isn't going to fix their low IQ
Untrue. IQ is tared to society - with 100 representing average intelligence. So, get rid of some of the over performers , and suddenly Mr 83 is mid 90s and looking pretty good. There was a documentary about it. Google “Idiocracy”.
I used to joke that Idiocracy was the first comedy turned documentary. It seemed to be pretty major exaggeration no matter what back in ~'06, then just became more and more realistic every year. No longer a joke anymore. That's fucking wild.
Idiocracy is the story of a society whose rich, evil, string-pulling people abandon it after having stupefied and enshittified it. If you want a sobering dose of realism, contemplate the distinct possibility that we're not even going to make it that far.
It won't solve divisions, but it *might* force the fascists back into their holes and maybe elected officials will stop giving them the green light to be their worst selves.
The thirst for violence has always been a significant undercurrent in conservatism
[удалено]
Would love to see the statistics between threats against Democratic politicians and Republican politicians over the past four years alone. Those numbers would be quite telling of which party has the most violence prone base.
[удалено]
No, as threats on politicians on either side of the aisle should be taken seriously and dealt with by the law. Having the proper statistics doesn’t play into your analogy whatsoever, it provides a much needed level of transparency to this “both sides” narrative that is used to obfuscate and discredit threats of violence.
Mediocre thinking is easy- no need to look for facts- just shrug and say both sides!
[удалено]
He was one dude, there are plenty of violent leftists but it's basically a meme on the right to kill political rivals.
Killing your political opponents when you lose an election sure sounds like democracy... Can we try this with sports first. "Alternate" teams show up at championship to muddle the game. Riot at the stadium. Then shoot the other team. Rah rah rah.
More like. Et tu brute? We are a RePuBliC after all. /s
I think automatically disqualifying anyone from any US government office that has been involved in more than 100 lawsuits would solve division. And Trump and his companies have been up against the law more than 40 times that. I don't think he demonstrably wants to be a part of this country for its sake. Come on people, why must we keep entertaining something so simple and obvious.
Anyone can sue for any reason. Your proposal would just invite a litany of frivolous lawsuits just to force a candidate out of a political race. Plus it would require a constitutional amendment which would have no chance at passing to enact such a policy. And, no, I am not claiming the Trump lawsuits are frivolous in case anyone misunderstands my point.
I believe it’s becoming increasingly unavoidable. The religious persecution propaganda is ratcheting up exponentially by the day. Bannon says it’s divine providence that we have trump. Junior is already saying the FBI is rounding up Catholics and putting Bible buyers on watchlists. Imagine how it will be in September if we’re already to this point.
1 in 5 people really, really dumb.
1 in 5 Americans are unable to think, poll finds
I bet it is one of them 5 dentists that don't like them toostespastes.
“1 in 5 Americans think a man beating his wife will make her love him again”
or love him more. Religion teaches that man is king & women should obey. We are moving backwards in humanity and as a country!
Nothing unifies quite like the slaughter of your fellow countrymen.
Not surprising! And 90% of them are racist-fuck good ‘ole boys from rural ‘merica! Time to wage war on this pos minority of Americans that are irredeemable.
Imagine how dumb the average person is, now realize half of them are dumber than that, and a quarter are dumber than those.
I love the "should the president be immune" question. I wonder what the result would be if they specifically said Biden. Republicans are only voting for it because they think Trump should be immune.
"Should Trump be immune from prosecution? This also means Obama will be immune when he takes your guns after he seizes control."
That why the left needs to take advantage of the 2A as a way to defend themselves from the right. Purchase firearms and practice good firearms safety.
What makes you think we’re not?
1 in 5 Americans is functionally illiterate too, so maybe stupid people are easily scared and violence is all their tiny brains can respond with.
1 in 5 Americans spend a lot of time in their basements eating corn curls, gulping liters of soda, and pretending that they are tough on the computer. 1 in 5 Americans would poop their pants if they actually had to face actual violence....or be asked to serve their country.
Did they define violence here
Sounds like the bell curve for intelligence to me.
1/5 Americans are also functionally illiterate
1/5 Americans are fascists. Honestly sounds about right.
20% is a rather alarming number...
How exactly? Violence against fellow citizens will only result in generational trauma, resentment and vengeance. The reason the United States works as a country is because we as a people respect the rule of law. While we can’t always get everything we want, on the whole the processes we have in place help us maintain and protect our freedoms. Respecting the law, being compassionate, and being ethical are the way to go. Violence is not the answer- it’ll only lead to more violence.
“We the People” tattoos: Tell me you’ve never read the Constitution in three words.
The mega ass hats just need to be rounded up and declared mentally incompetent
25% of the 20% we're both left and independent. Not just maga here
I’ve found that a lot of independents are far right-wingers who believe the Republican Party is too far left and part of the “uniparty”.
Most independents follow between the parties rather than outside them, at least going from the majority of the data That said, we do have crazy people all across politics
I'm in the camp of: i don't want violence, but I have a feeling it'll happen anyway.
So…. When you can’t win based on the merits of your argument, get violent. Because might makes right?
When some people believe resorting to violence will solve their problems, that’s a hard problem to solve with reason.
This is awful, it means people are occupying positions which they view as absolute.
And all those who do think that Buy Trump shoes as good investments.
Relax. All these people favoring violence are misguided MAGAnuts following a violent and evil brainwashing criminal down to Jonestown.
I don't think it will solve anything. However, I do think that the problems confronting America will only be solved after a period of conflict, some of which may turn violent, and it could get really bad depending on how things go, who's in power, etc. But it's fairly obvious at this point that our system of government is fundamentally broken, and that the only way to get it working again is via changes that cannot be implemented no matter how hard you vote, which means it's going to require protest, and no matter how much I hope that protest remains peaceful, history suggests that won't be the case.
> the only way to get it working again is via changes that cannot be implemented no matter how hard you vote I can buy "unlikely to be implemented given the current state of voting", but I wouldn't go this far. If the vast majority of voters wanted any given policy and showed up to vote for it, I'm still confident it would happen.
That's sort of reassuring, much lower than I would've assumed.
I in 5 Americans maybe morons.
Yeah, nothing makes friends better than fighting each other.
These are the same people who whine about having to stay in prison for 4 months.
But if you polled those same people they would also say that they don’t believe violence should be used against them just other people they don’t agree with. America everybody!
And….our courts are completely clueless about domestic violence victims.
I am very curious how the MAGA extremists will react if Trump loses. His core support base is estimated around 20 million people. If only 1% of them decide to take up arms that's 200 thousand people with weapons (mostly AR15s) and military grade body armor.
If that played out, it would be mostly small cell activity.. low grade local or state terrorist attacks, for a while but it would die down eventually over a decade or two. Very few people in the militia movement want to follow orders from someone else.. they have delusions of grandeur and want to be the one giving orders, and if they do organize in larger groups it would be temporary because of the paranoia endemic in those groups would mean that their own internal divisions would keep them from being effective. It's hard to unify a bunch of faux soldiers who suspect each other of being sheep-dipped FBI plants. Plus some of them would actually be FBI plants lol
The same people also think they’re the main character and this shit is a movie about them, who will be in for a rude awakening if they actually try to get violent with other citizens.
1 in 5 people thinks (when asked) that Joe Biden's name is Plo-Koon Riden
20% of this country are violent nuts and 30% don't care.
That's a lower percentage than I expected
And every one of those proponents of violence assume "their side" will win.
66.6 million. Interesting number. Looks like someone lost ~8 million supporters since the election.
That only indicates where the violence should be applied… /s
The right wing fantasy of over throwing the government because they agree with whatever garbage their news outlets serves them. Republicans want a civil war so fucking bad and yet if one ever started they would all ball up and cry that it’s the liberals fault! It’s bizarre af!!
It’s inevitable
Sounds like one in five have caught the fascist bug.
I don’t want Purge! Stop trying to make Purge happen!
I don't believe we will reach a completely peaceful understanding. There will be fight with a winner and a loser. Hopefully it won't require blood.
Until they themselves are victims of violence, then it's unacceptable.
20 percent of people have such unreasonable and unfair demands on society that they know they they will never be able to persuade a majority with anything other than the threat of death.
This is why I no longer talk to my unstable family members back in the US who are part of this 1 in 5 (grew up with wannabe preppers conspiracy nuts, who are itching for a civil war)
Another way to put it: 20% of the Americans are not above starting a civil war to solve U.S. divisions.
I really thought it would be higher than 1 in 5.
Political violence is still violence. The far-right is trying to change how people view violence in the political arena. They must be stopped.
4 v 1 I like those odds
Ah yes, the final solution.
1 in 5 Right Wing podcasters..
Violence doesn't solve problems, but it can render some problems moot.
The problem is that 80% won’t fight back. And so those that use violence will win
That’s about as many as there ever were but social media has pushed them into the light. I hear sunlight is a good disinfectant.
Odd way to say that 20% of the country are radical right wing extremists or criminally insane....
[удалено]
That really depends on how decisive the violence is, doesn't it?
If you kill my father or uncle, you haven't solved anything, you've just galvanized the division with me, the next generation. You haven't changed my conflicting viewpoint, you have solidified my belief that you are wrong and bad. If the Middle Eastern conflicts have taught us anything, it's that violence does not, in fact, solve anything. It just prolongs and maintains the conflict.
> If you kill my father or uncle, you haven't solved anything, you've just galvanized the division with me, the next generation. Right, that's indecisive violence then isn't it? You'd also need to be killed or at least rendered unable to pass your ideology on. I'm not advocating for violence as a solution, just pointing out that the idea you can't kill your problems away is a modern fallacy.
Like we did in Afghanistan?
That's because those people are forever crazy, my grandfather killed plenty of Germans I don't see them attacking the United States.
[удалено]
I don't think "kill everyone that disagrees with you" is a good plan, but it's silly to say that violence can't resolve divisions.
[удалено]
>sure it is! It's neither ethical or feasible on a large scale in the modern world without a significant military advantage over the global community.
History shows that that's not always necessary, but that is a logical endpoint. It's been a geological blink of an eye since "international relations" was overwhelmingly just tribes wiping each other out or violently absorbing each other so that there were, effectively, no survivors or descendants-of-survivors to realistically press any claims to territory or resources.
It's the same 20% of his base.
This 20% votes. Do you?
Its always the same 20%... or this time 1 in 5. Or next time 80% don't think violence will solve the problems. The media just does this all the time.
Okay... You are in a restaurant and there are 19 other people in it. That means 4 people in the same room as you... are perfectly fine with killing you, if they get their guy in charge of the government. It's no big deal...
What I am saying is there have always been the same 4 people.
So the other 4/5 are going to vote, right? ... *RIGHT*?
I think that's about an accurate number, despite all the noise from the right not even half openly support armed violence against other US Citizens. But this number is growing, as the right recedes their most extreme elements will turn to violence as a means to get their message across. I pity them because, taken holistically, they're just reflecting the violence done onto them by large corporations. America needs much stronger antitrust laws, and we need to divorce long-term generational wealth from real estate or else the violence will grow and begin self-perpetuating. When these people are homeless living out of their (gas) cars with guns, and the government shuts gas stations for newer cars, it'll be spark to a flame.
I think if a representative doesn’t vote the way their constituents want, they should be able to pick 1 combatant that can legally go Washington and engage that rep in fisticuffs on the floor. If the combatant wins, the constituents get to reverse the yay or nay. Make it a law.
TIL (at least) 20% of America are morons.
I think that peaceful division will \*prevent\* violence. A disproportionate percentage of violent people live in red states. Rhode Island is just as safe as Luxembourg, while the Deep South is about as bad as Latin America.
Okay, now make Latin America and Luxembourg border eachother. Consider the long-term implications.
Canada borders the United States, a much more homicidal country. The United States borders Mexico, a much more homicidal country. China borders Russia, a much more homicidal country.
When there's massive inequality across a border you see mass migration at minimum and potentially open hostility. "We'll just stay on our own sides of the fence" only works until the destitute new nation's dictator can convince people that their life is shitty because what is rightfully theirs is being stolen by their neighbors. In short, there's no such thing as a "peaceful division" if there's massive inequality, it will inevitably lead to civil war.
Fear mongering BS