Categories
4chan empathy deficit entitled babies literal nazis matt forney militias threats trump

Trump’s Brownshirts? Trump supporters threaten to take up arms, form militias

This space used to contain a picture of Breitbart "journalist" Milo Yiannopoulos brandishing a gun while holding a Trump banner, but I took it down at the request of the other dude in the picture, known as DJ Pop A Titty Out. Click to see the original pic.
This space used to contain a picture of Breitbart “journalist” Milo Yiannopoulos brandishing a gun while holding a Trump banner, but I took it down at the request of the other dude in the picture, known as DJ Pop A Titty Out. Click pic above to see the original.

This election gets scarier by the day. It seems only a matter of time before someone gets shot. And if there are going to be shots fired, more than a few supporters of Donald Trump want to make sure they’re the ones doing the shooting.

On Twitter, and elsewhere online, Trump supporters are talking openly about bringing guns to political rallies and polling places. Some are actually taking steps to form some kind of Trump militia. 

The living sack of human garbage that is Matt Forney recently Tweeted these suggestions for fellow Trump lovers:

https://twitter.com/basedmattforney/status/708811928664195072

https://twitter.com/basedmattforney/status/708516727190065153

Unfortunately, Forney isn’t the only Trump supporter talking about guns.

https://twitter.com/RobinFoxNews/status/708974116653543425

https://twitter.com/LibrtyGuerrilla/status/709103137030668288

https://twitter.com/AmbikaPadmaloch/status/709142040232071168

https://twitter.com/todstertodd/status/708670247851708417

https://twitter.com/todstertodd/status/708793317178384385

https://twitter.com/todstertodd/status/708791279166038016

Meanwhile, discredited right-wing hack “journalist” Chuck C. Johnson posted the alarming picture below on Facebook, promising to “use the Second [amendment]” against  — that is, to shoot — anyone he think is threatening Trump’s right to free speech , even though he personally supports Ted Cruz.

chuckjohnson

Johnson took the post down, but not before it was screenshotted by Charles Johnson, a non-discredited journalist who unfortunately, and rather confusingly, shares the same first and last name as the dude with the red hair and beard pictured above.

Other Trump supporters think that their candidate needs to have a somewhat more organized army of Second Amendment fetishists to protect him from the “bad people” he talks about so much.

Like, say, a militia.

https://twitter.com/FoxLegChair/status/708520806716837888

Hire them? I’m fairly certain most “militia” members would be happy to do it for free. Earlier this month, in fact, the FBI arrested the co-chair of Veterans for Trump in New Hampshire on an assortment of charges related to his alleged participation in the armed standoff at Bundy Ranch in Nevada in 2014.

But hiring or otherwise working with Bundy’s militia may not be necessary, as Trump may soon have an unofficial militia of his own.

Yesterday, RT.com reports, a new Twitter account announced the formation of something called “The Lion’s Guard,” describing itself as

[a]n informal civilian organization dedicated to protecting the safety and security of innocent, peaceful Trump supporters from violent Far-Left agitators.

While the group would remain unarmed, the organizer pledged, it would  be “willing to forcefully protect people if need be.”

Whoever was behind the Twitter account took it down within hours, citing threats.

But in that brief stretch of time, RT.com reports, the account was able to pick up 500 followers and a good deal of support from other Trump fans on Twitter, including many on the far right who presumably already own the requisite brown shirts and swastika armbands.

https://twitter.com/Third_Position/status/708760325353385984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/DonnyLateNight/status/708741461773295617

https://twitter.com/TrumpLiberals/status/708738364405649408

https://twitter.com/GeorgiaAlpha/status/708738477769289732

https://twitter.com/ConciergeMthly/status/708761117074530306

https://twitter.com/lyz_estrada/status/708753037561438208

Meanwhile, over on clickhate tabloid The Daily Stormer (partially archived here), the regulars are if anything even more enthusiastic about The Lion’s Guard than their counterparts on Twitter — though some of them seem to have forgotten the bit about the group being unarmed.

 

st3 st4 st5 st7

 

On 4chan’s Trump-loving, fascist-friendly /pol/ board (archived here), some are talking about trying to resurrect The Lion’s Guard on their own.

Twitter: twitter.com/realLionsGuard Chat: chatstep.com/#Lions_Guard The Lion's Guard has been recreated to help protect Trump supporters from the violence which has been growing over the past few days. The Lion's Guard is formed to be an unarmed, nonviolent civilian organization dedicated to protecting the safety of peaceful, nonviolent Trump supporters from the far-left, or others who would want to do them harm. The original creator was forced to delete his account due to threats against his children. Therefore, it only makes sense to bring in as many Trump supporters as we can, so not only can we protect people in public and over the internet but we can also protect ourselves

Whether or not The Lion’s Guard is resurrected, by its founder or by sympathetic Trump fans on 4chan or somewhere else, it’s clear that the idea of a “Trump militia” has an appeal to many of the orange-faced demagogue’s fans — and not just Daily Stormer readers posting pictures of a well-armed Pepe.

Writer Sarah Kendzior, who spent many hours with Trump supporters while waiting in line to see The Donald on his recent visit to St. Louis, noted in a piece for the Guardian that

Several Trump fans vowed that the next time, they would come armed. Some warned that if Trump was not chosen by Republicans, a militia would rise up to take him to power.

On Twitter, other Trump fans are making similarly chilling “predictions” and threats.

https://twitter.com/BLang71/status/709123350233280512

https://twitter.com/DXint/status/709151004030341121

Normally, I would dismiss this sort of talk as empty blathering. But this time this talk is attached to a dangerous demagogue who’s managed to rile up a very noisy minority of disaffected white people, millions strong, many of them already heavily armed.

If even a fraction of those people “march on DC” or anywhere else, the results could be bloody. I really hope that things aren’t heading where they seem to be heading, because that’s a very dark place indeed.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

206 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Victorious Parasol
Victorious Parasol
4 years ago

@Dalillama

No, there isn’t a percentage in that for them, which is why I also said, “I’m not holding my breath on any of that.” If they did, then once I recovered from my swoon, I would think better of the Republican Party and I would actually consider believing them when they said things like “Country First.”

I anticipate my breathing to remain regular and normal for many years to come.

Paradoxical Intention - Resident Cheeseburger Slut

Here’s a story that makes me just want to hex the fuck out of Trump supporters.

I hope their asses get haunted for this shit. That is so fucking disrespectful and just straight up obscene.

MPCDOT
MPCDOT
4 years ago

Literally laughing out loud at the shit tier political commentary on these pages, but for the few of you who (no doubt, halfheartedly) express the desire to understand the nature of the phenomenon you’re soiling yourselves over, have you considered paying a visit to the web’s preeminent gay racist bodybuilding forum, My Posting Career?

I know courage is in short supply among you at the best of times, and that goes double any time you venture outside manboobz’s safe space, but would one (or many, or all) of you please please please work up the lady balls to come defend your convictions in the heart of enemy territory?

Here’s the link: http://mpcdot.com/forums

If you can work up the nerve for it, we can even chat over Skype.

Lets see what you’ve got. Join us, you fucking chickenshits.

Leftwingfox
Leftwingfox
4 years ago

It never fails to amaze and infuriate me how the violence shell game is played.

Trump talks about how terrible protesters are and says they should be attacked in language that starts coded, and becomes more opwn.

Trump’s supporters take potshots at protestors being escorted out, and assault reporters.

Protesters turn out to a rally peacefully.

Trump bails citing “violence”, which to that point has been completely one-sided in his favor.

Angry, and now scared, fans react with violence, and start preparing it to go to the next level based on fear, rumors and lies, despite themselves being the violent ones.

It’s kind of amazing, but the GOP has been driving this wagon well of the rails of reality for a very long time. This shit is absolutely going to get worse, even if Trump loses.

This is the same shit that happened during the civil rights marches and “race riots” of the 60’s and 70’s, which were largely pogroms against black citizens.

Saphira
Saphira
4 years ago

WWTH —

I also should mention that I don’t exactly like either party too much anymore. Neither one of them is really in touch with the average American voter. Neither one of them has any real plan to help bring back good jobs. Neither one really cares that much about reining in corporations. It’s just politics as usual with normally expected lip service during election years. So, I guess staying registered independent is one small way I can protest the two-party system that is obviously broken.

I also admit looking at two candidates, hating both and simply voting for the one I think is going to do the least amount of damage. That’s becoming more and more common for me on all levels of government.

Ron
Ron
4 years ago

They’re nothing but the Trump version of the Manson Family waging a modern-day Helter Shelter race war. The biggest difference is that they have far more weapons, but they’re every bit as brainwashed.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

I guess it depends on your personal pet issues. My biggest one is LGBT+ rights, so I look at the Dems and see the party that gave me full legal rights as an equal human being in at least one of my two home countries. (I don’t care that they were against equality years ago and I don’t care if they only changed their minds because the voters wanted it – learning and listening are what politicians are supposed to do.) It’s a bit selfish of me, I admit, but… Still.

Especially compared to Australia, where our current PM promised to fast-track same-sex marriage on inauguration day and took it back the next week… *annoyed sigh*

antisocialite
antisocialite
4 years ago

*Standing ovation for WWTH*

It really bothers me how many people don’t get that local and state governments, Congress, and the Supreme Court make far more direct decisions that decide our lives than a President does.

Women’s reproductive health is literally on the line in many states, labor is being decimated, and the interests of the Kochs and other billionaires are being prioritized at the expense of the American people. Not to mention the stagnating financial lives of most Americans.

The idea that someone would pick up their proverbial toys and go home just because their candidate of choice didn’t win the nomination is sickening to me. There is WAY too much at stake right now. Very few people think of any of the candidates as perfect. People need to grow the fuck up and make the best decision for right now to insure the fascists don’t win the White House.

If you think its disappointing that Bernie’s revolution may not be taking place this year, you’re in for a very long wait if the Republican nominee wins the election because their decisions on who gets on the Supreme Court, and those decisions of Congress will insure that any revolution won’t be taking place for generations.

Johanna Roberts
Johanna Roberts
4 years ago

@authorialAlchemy

Oh yay! A playlist, I’ll have to help you with that. I’ve been kicking around songs too. The Radiohead ones are good suggestions. 😀

hedin
hedin
4 years ago

@Ooglyboogly

Half the time your candidate was supporting Goldwater, a segregationist and was against LGBT rights til around it was political suicide to be against it.

Oh how liberal and for the people.

Yes! How do so many people not understand this? There’s no excuse for anyone who calls themselves liberal, progressive or radical to vote for Clinton in the primaries.

@Leftwingfox

Yes! And it’s not like his fans are that stupid. They’re acting in bad faith the same as he is. He gives them a moderately plausible reason to get angry and lash out, and they cheer in gratitude.

Also, Derp Fox FTW!

sbel
sbel
4 years ago

@Ooglyboogly

Half the time your candidate was supporting Goldwater, a segregationist

Half the time? She supported Goldwater when she was in Highschool. When she was 17.

and was against LGBT rights til around it was political suicide to be against it.

Not true. The Clintons have always been fairly supportive of gay rights.

@hedin

Yes! How do so many people not understand this? There’s no excuse for anyone who calls themselves liberal, progressive or radical to vote for Clinton in the primaries.

I call myself a liberal and I’m supporting Clinton.

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
4 years ago

I call myself a liberal and I’m supporting Clinton.

There are many reasons I don’t like Bernie, ranging from his embrace of Daniel Ortega to his current problems with the FEC.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

No one’s tastes or opinions can ever change. What you like as a teen is what you like your whole life.

Brb. I’m gonna rock out to some Sugar Ray and Eve6 now. Hit me up on AOL instant message if you want to chat later.

authorialAlchemy
authorialAlchemy
4 years ago

Dude, c’mon.

Alright, I’ll remove it. I’m pretty sure the song is talking about taking down a potentially apocalyptic dictator elected in a democratic system. I also hope it doesn’t come to THAT because I don’t want him to be president anyway. He doesn’t deserve to die yet and I hope he never earns his deserving. An assassination could happen if that was the only way to stop him if he becomes a true monster.

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

have you considered paying a visit to the web’s preeminent gay racist bodybuilding forum

Can’t say that I have.

OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
4 years ago

@sbel
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago

Meanwhile Clinton was against passing marriage equality in ’08.

I’m not so quick to forget the general attitude of ‘LGBT, what LGBT?’

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

Which troll of old is MPCDOT? They’ve called us manboobz, so it must be someone who’s visited before.

sbel
sbel
4 years ago

@OoglyBoggles

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago

Meanwhile Clinton was against passing marriage equality in ’08.

I’m not so quick to forget the general attitude of ‘LGBT, what LGBT?’

You said she “was against LGBT rights til around it was political suicide to be against it.”

You’re going to have to do a lot better than that ^ to prove that statement. “Bernie was better” is relevant because we weren’t even talking about him. Hillary was against gay marriage in 2008, yes. But so were most Democrats, including Obama.

Plus, I’m kinda sick of people acting like Marriage Equality was the only gay rights issue ever. As I said before, the Clintons have always been reasonably supportive of lgbt issues.

guest
guest
4 years ago

Here’s the paper on the Second Amendment and slave militias:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114

sbel
sbel
4 years ago

is relevant

is irrelevant I meant. or isn’t relevant. darn spellcheck.

brooked
brooked
4 years ago

The author of that Alt.net article can’t tell the difference between the socially progressive libertarian ideology Sanders is writing about in that letter, which includes abolishing sodomy laws, and the ideology of the gay liberation movement.

Also, while Sanders admirably voted against DOMA, he argued gay marriage was a State’s rights issue and did jack all for gay rights. That’s fine and typical, as almost all US gay rights victories outside of local progressive enclaves were made through court decisions until very recently.

OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
4 years ago

@sbel
The point is that despite being all for lgbt, when it comes to actually standing up for those beliefs, silence. You do know my point WAS that no one stood up for those rights at the time right? And the fact that in her previous run for presidency she could’ve but didn’t?

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
4 years ago

Thanks for that link, guy.

Also: WWTH for VP. I’m calling it right now. Clinton may not pick you but dammit, she should.

sbel
sbel
4 years ago

You said she “was against LGBT rights til around it was political suicide to be against it.”

I’m still waiting for evidence.

So far you have “she didn’t support marriage equality in a year when almost no Democrats did.” But at best that’s just evidence that she didn’t support one form of lgbt rights when it would have been political suicide to support it.

EJ (The Other One)
4 years ago

@MPCDOT:
Dear sir, you picked the wrong place to advertise your sad little site; and you picked the wrong approach too. Negging feminists into joining a misogynist bodybuilding community, really? Tell me, how’s that working out for you?

OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
4 years ago

@sbel
http://gawker.com/remember-when-hillary-clinton-was-against-gay-marriage-1714147439

I distinctly remember her supporting Defence of Marriage Act as well.

“…the fundamental bedrock principle that [marriage] exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”

I must be misinterpreting her message.

sbel
sbel
4 years ago

Again with the marriage equality. Don’t you care about any other rights? So previously you found that she didn’t support marriage equality in 2008. Now you found a quote indicating that she also didn’t support it in 2004, 4 years earlier. That must have been a shock. *smh* I don’t know what you think you’re proving.

Look, I hate to break it to you, but I basically stopped listening when you mentioned Goldwater. When you attack Hillary over a candidate she supported as a teenager, over 50 years ago, you pretty much destroy your credibility. That kind of attack suggests that you hate her too much to present her views and actions fairly.

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
4 years ago

Well, caveat that I know next to nothing – beyond the broad outline – about politics in the US, but I also live in what is effectively a two-party system. And as somebody (possibly right here on this very site) cogently pointed out recently, those who say that as long as party X isn’t fielding a perfect candidate they will abstain or vote third-party because “there’s nothing to choose between” the two giants X and Y – those people overwhelmingly tend to be in a relatively comfortable position economically.
When you’re towards the bottom end of the scale, the “little” differences (a couple of percent difference in the minimum wage here, a few quid difference in the benefits cut-off there) make a huge difference in your life. Likewise, the “little” differences when you’re in a vulnerable demographic.

Taking your ball and going home with an abstention or a protest vote – unless you live in a rock-solid red or blue area – potentially means preserving your own high standards at the cost of the most vulnerable. And the argument that voting party X in anyway, despite their current condition, only delays the day when X might eventually be forced to clean up its act – that argument is all very well if you personally can afford to wait an election cycle or two.

As others have pointed out upthread and elsewhere, it’s usually more constructive to try to make party X work better, at local level. Even at times when I’ve had to hold my nose, grit my teeth and take smelling-salts I would never risk abstaining or voting third-party if there were a chance of a tory win where I vote.

sbel
sbel
4 years ago

Anyway, @anyone refusing to vote for Hillary:

if you want to see more liberal candidates, not voting is stupid. You think not voting sends the message that you want more liberal candidates, but the message they receive is that Hillary must have been too liberal. Why else would the ‘conservative’ have won? A better plan would be to vote for the democrats consistently, and support liberal candidates in the primaries.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

For crying out loud, Oogly. Bernie Sanders is a politician, not a pop star. Stop being such an obnoxious squealing fanboy and stop derailing threads. Feel free to prefer him for whatever reason, feel free to be disappointed if Clinton wins – most of the others here do and will – just stop being such a BernieBro about it. Not even Bernie likes BernieBros.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

Quick query for any of the US election law experts on here. On the BBC last night they were taking about the primaries (the BBC coverage of all this has been pretty good). Someone said that when candidates win delegates, technically it’s in the gift of the party to appoint those delegates and those delegates can cast their votes for whichever candidate they choose. It would be expected that they’d cast in line with the popular vote but they don’t have to.

In that respect it sounds a bit like how the electoral college works.

That’s my understanding but either the commentator or I may have misunderstood so can anyone clarify? Cheers.

Playonwords
Playonwords
4 years ago

Reminds me of what I find the most frightening scene in film.
https://youtu.be/29Mg6Gfh9Co

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
4 years ago

@Alan:
Slate did a good introductory piece on it here.

@Playonwords:
It’s also the only outdoor daylight scene in the film, I believe.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ EJ

Wow! Say what you like about the Burr v Hamilton way of sorting between rival politicians, at least you could understand that.

Inkswitch
Inkswitch
4 years ago

Two awesome quotes I saw on my FB feed the other day (sorry but I forgot who the authors are)

1: Donald Trump blamed violence at his rallies on Bernie Sanders because you can’t truly be Hitler until you blame all your problems on a Jew.

2: Dear America: you may see these as just primaries, but the rest of the world sees it as a national IQ test. And the results don’t look good.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
4 years ago

Didn’t Hillary also support DADT? If so, that’s pretty disgusting.

That’s an honest question, by the way. The quality of my wifi won’t allow much googling right now.

Skiriki
Skiriki
4 years ago

Playonwords:
For some reason I’ve been thinking about that scene a lot in recent months. I forget when was the first time I saw that scene — I wasn’t too old; I remember one of our movie critics talking about this specific scene, the mention of the troubled old man looking away in an awkward manner — but I felt the chill all around me. And sitting on euroside of the world, thinking about all the pseudo-patriotic pageantry and lies that are currently put on all over places…

…I’m getting that chill again.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
4 years ago

@IP:
Clinton didn’t comment on her private views on DADT during her husband’s presidency, but upon running for public office herself came out against it.

1999 New York Times article.

It’s easy to forget that at the time, DADT was seen by some gay groups as a step forward. How the Overton Window has shifted on that one.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

@dhag

Technically, but DADT was actually a small step forward at the time. Before it, gay people weren’t allowed in the military at all, with background checks and everything, and DADT was the Clintons’ way of meeting the ridiculously homophobic military half way. It’s gross nowadays, but by the standards of the early ’90s, at least it forced them to respect gay recruits’ privacy.

(Ninja’d, but whatever. =P)

guy
guy
4 years ago

@Alan

The states set their own rules for how the parties are allowed to allocate delegates and then the local party committee sets rules within those. In general, the delegates are legally bound/bound by local party rules to vote for a certain candidate during the first ballot; I’m not aware of any exceptions. The delegates will tend to be members of the party apparatus, but that again depends on the state.

Incidentally, as it stands the actual electors of the electoral college are pretty much a formality. Nearly every state (I think there’s an exception somewhere in the midwest) requires the electors to cast their votes for the candidate they were listed under on the ballot. The system was originally concieved on the theory that most voters wouldn’t be able to form a clear opinion on all the candidates due to the limited communications technology and difficulties with travel of the time, but that’s no longer a factor.

Bina
4 years ago

Literally laughing out loud at the shit tier political commentary on these pages, but for the few of you who (no doubt, halfheartedly) express the desire to understand the nature of the phenomenon you’re soiling yourselves over, have you considered paying a visit to the web’s preeminent gay racist bodybuilding forum, My Posting Career?

I know courage is in short supply among you at the best of times, and that goes double any time you venture outside manboobz’s safe space, but would one (or many, or all) of you please please please work up the lady balls to come defend your convictions in the heart of enemy territory?

Here’s the link: http://mpcdot.com/forums

If you can work up the nerve for it, we can even chat over Skype.

Lets see what you’ve got. Join us, you fucking chickenshits.

Literally no one cares.

Literally fuck off, wanker.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ guy

Our Labour Party’s “Pay three quid for a vote” approach for selecting a leader doesn’t seem as daft now!

hedin
hedin
4 years ago

@Hippodameia

Clinton helped a right wing coup overthrowing a left wing democratically elected leader in Honduras in 2009, and Sanders support of the Sandanistas is the unforgivable crime? Lets remember, Ortega overthrew a US-backed dictatorship and, with the Sandanistas, voluntarily held free and fair elections in 1984 and was elected president by the people of Nicaragua.

Meanwhile, Clinton has been an active supporter of brutal, right wing US imperialism around the world for decades. Don’t fall for her red baiting. It’s well documented which of the candidates has blood on their hands.

hedin
hedin
4 years ago

Personally, I’d be suspicious of Bernie if he hadn’t been pro-Sandinista; it was the only tenable left wing position, when the US was backing dictator after dictator, committing atrocity after atrocity in Latin America.

Incidentally, Ortega is popular enough in Nicaragua to have been elected in 2006 for a second term.

WeirwoodTreeHugger
WeirwoodTreeHugger
4 years ago

Hillary Clinton has her issues for sure, but supreme Court appointments alone are enough to make voting for Democrats necessary and I’m getting really sick of people acting like things that would be affected by that, like abortion rights aren’t important. Anyone trying to keep people from voting can fuck right off.

hedin
hedin
4 years ago

@WeirwoodTreeHugger I agree we should vote, whoever gets the nomination. I’m just saying we should give Bernie the nomination.

@MPCDot, in the small, backwoods hovel known as your brain, that seems like a pretty clever, devious troll, doesn’t it? Well bless your pointed little head. Now go away. Literally everyone here is bored by you.

Freemage
Freemage
4 years ago

WWTH: Agreed. The “Bernie or no one” idiots are the worst part of being a Bernie supporter, frankly.

On DADT:

It’s true it was presented as a step forward by Bill Clinton, however it was one of the most egregious examples of him reneging on a campaign promise. Worse, when it became clear that DADT was actually resulting in MORE gays being expelled from the military, rather than fewer, he did nothing to amend the policy.

Keeping in mind what I said to WWTH, I do want to express my utter disgust at her whitewash of the Reagans’ history with AIDS this past weekend. She did the walkback/notpology pretty solidly, including coming out with a damn fine set of HIV proposals for going forward, but it was still disheartening–in many ways, the Reagans are the reason we have an AIDS problem in this country at all. Had we responded to the initial outbreak the way we do to every other infectious disease, we would’ve saved hundreds of thousands of lives over the long run.

OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
4 years ago

@sbel
I could bring up other reason why I do not believe she is a good candidate, but it’s already been said by other people.

@Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Ugh with the BernieBro, am I using discriminatory rhetoric? Am I supposed to hate Elizabeth Warren for holding her endorsement because she wants to do her job without being hindered by powerplays? Yes I’ll vote for her should she become dem nominee, it’ll be miles ahead of whatever GOP nominee comes along.

In other news, Trump is expected to win Super Tuesday 2. Unless he somehow underperforms on a level unprecedented, the chances of a brokered convention for the GOP to elect a candidate they can control become slimmer and slimmer. He’s already 1/3 done, if he were to win big on the rest of these states where he’s polling well, it would indicate yes, he’ll be the GOP nominee, and the rest of the party will follow in suit. Cruz is running out of evangelical states, Rubio hasn’t been winning anything and Kasich is way too far behind to ever catch up.

So the strategy that the rest of the GOP needs is attempt to leech as many delegates as possible, just enough to deny Trump automatic nominee status. Thing is I don’t think they’d actually be willing to criticize what they’ve been spewing and using for decades.

Robert
Robert
4 years ago

Have their been any Clinton supporters announcing that they won’t vote for Sanders in the general?

As for me, I have taken the Yellow Dog pledge. At this point they could run with Gore/Kerry and get my vote.

brooked
brooked
4 years ago

Have their been any Clinton supporters announcing that they won’t vote for Sanders in the general?

Pretty much no. It’s apparently an indie purity thing to threaten the cowards who vote for the bad lady no one likes. Seriously, vote for Jill Stein, write in Sanders or don’t vote in the general, it’s your right to vote for whoever you want, just share your hissy fit elsewhere with people who care.

David can start a election thread for OoglyBoggles, hedin and anyone else who wants to argue the same talking points being argued throughout the interwebs.

This thread is a Trump grief center, not a Bernie rally.