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
@FoxNews Do us Trump supporters, have to start carrying our Guns For Protection at Rally's, WE WILL…..
— Radical Republican. (@todstertodd) March 12, 2016
@FoxNews I would encourage Trump supporters, To be armed when attending Rallies. This is for Your own protection. The Left Wants WAR.
— Radical Republican. (@todstertodd) March 12, 2016
You Liberals do not want to take it the streets, we will wipe the sreets up with your Blood.
— Radical Republican. (@todstertodd) March 12, 2016
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.
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
@wearelionsguard You are doing what needs to be done. God bless. Can I donate?
— Jordan (@realJordanIV) March 12, 2016
@Third_Position @wearelionsguard Where do I sign on
— Concierge Monthly (@ConciergeMthly) March 12, 2016
https://twitter.com/Jenixian/status/708760475354288128
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.
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.
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
https://twitter.com/_America_First/status/708819001959276545
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reminds me of what I find the most frightening scene in film.
https://youtu.be/29Mg6Gfh9Co
@Alan:
Slate did a good introductory piece on it here.
@Playonwords:
It’s also the only outdoor daylight scene in the film, I believe.
@ EJ
Wow! Say what you like about the Burr v Hamilton way of sorting between rival politicians, at least you could understand that.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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)
@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.
Literally no one cares.
Literally fuck off, wanker.
@ guy
Our Labour Party’s “Pay three quid for a vote” approach for selecting a leader doesn’t seem as daft now!
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.