If Trump loses his Presidency this year do you think his followers will retaliate with violence?

Hypothetically, if Trump loses the 2020 election and concedes, it's a high possibility that there won't be mass violence. Maybe some outliers by some far-right wing nutjob on a small scale though since that's a given. It's not really based on anything since I can't predict the future so I'm just going by common sense and what I think will mostly happen.

Given other scenarios such as Trump not conceding, the 2020 election being questioned, Trump impeached but refusing to leave office, I honestly don't know, it certainly wouldn't be good, but I don't think it'll happen....

@warmblur:

Hey now, the right wing nutjobs on these forums say Republicans are peaceful and non-violent and these facts contradict their falsehoods. You should be careful not to hurt their feelings or something, I don't know.

You seem to be having a problem following a conversation. Not surprised though by that.

Considering that Trump has the support of Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, it's not out of the realm of possibility. Though most are gutless cowards who talk big but of course never follow through with their threats, or they wind up getting arrested because they're incompetent.

The trial was conducted there, were witness and 28,000 pages of documents from the house. There were 18 witnesses all called by Democrats Adam Shiff would not allow Republicans to call any witnesses. It goes to the senate and the Democrats want more witnesses they didn't call when the house was in charge and you say it wasn't a fair trial in the senate. You are the one that is wrong.

Right now we are in the mist of a cold civil war in the country. There will be no problems if Trump loses the election, but if the left tries to impose their socialist radial ideas and try and take guns away from the American people it will become open warfare.

i agree that's when shit is going to hit the fan

Oh please, you Republicans have been saying that for years that the left are going to take your guns away. I would be more worried about your boy doing it.

Trump has already walked back on his red flag law comments, his biggest offense was with bumpstocks.

Personally i find bumpstocks worthless.

Besides, there isn't one Democrat running for pres that has came out in support of the 2nd amendment, not one.

My biggest concern at this point is at the state level because my state recently flipped Blue and their only focus seems to be on restricting anything and everything related to guns. The president cant do much for me at this point, if anything i hope the supreme court eventually curbs it or we kick their redcoat asses out of the state and flip it back red.

Most of them want common sense gun reform that over 70-80% of the country agrees with. It's not the Democrats fault that your policy positions are super unpopular and frankly trash.

Don't lie.

Oh here's some more data on this btw:

https://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-deaths-ideology-charlottesville-anomaly

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/12/study-shows-two-thirds-us-terrorism-tied-right-wing-extremists

I'll take your silence as a clear concession.

I'm curious on how a link on "extremist killings" is a retort to who's more responsible for violence? Are you saying there was only *17* violent incidents (only murders) linked to ideological basis in the whole of 2018? This is a very myopic focus on a specific kind of violence.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Would you rather I provide no links like the guy I quoted? He made a baseless claim and gave zero data. A quick Google search showed multiple studies and articles stating the opposite and none showing what he said. No, the data isn't perfect as it only looks at the worst of the political violence.....but it's sure better than what he provided.

At least I'm giving some relevant data pointing towards my claim. I gave three links giving credence to the opposite of what he wrote. Degree of violence matters too. Usually murder is worse than a milkshake. Do you guys have any data set showing more left wing caused violence? I'll give more,

"Over the past decade, attackers motivated by right-wing political ideologies have committed dozens of shootings, bombings and other acts of violence, far more than any other category of domestic extremist, according to a Washington Post analysis of data on global terrorism. While the data show a decades-long drop-off in violence by left-wing groups, violence by white supremacists and other far-right attackers has been on the rise since Barack Obama’s presidency — and has surged since President Trump took office."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-the-united-states-right-wing-violence-is-on-the-rise/2018/11/25/61f7f24a-deb4-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html

i'm convinced left leaning politicians who talk about gun control are really marketers for the firearm industry.

whenever they get in power, the gunnies lose thier mind and start buying up weapons like they're going out of style.

if you're a gun manufacturer and need to boost revenue growth for the next few years? support a left-leaning politician.

I do not know if I would go that far, but I do know that while the NRA supports the republican candidate, they're hoping the democrat wins. It's better for business. And when you realize the NRA has endorsed and supported every major piece of gun legislation to date, as they opposed major court challenges to existing gun laws, the politicians on the left do not hate them as much as they claim to for sound bites.

as always

Ok, first of all, you are linking to a "non-peer reviewed a report by the ADL" a very far left-wing NGO.

So not sure what you are trying to prove there?

1. ADL is still "high fact" reporting. But I understand (and expected) your concern, so I linked 3 other sources in the following posts showing right wing violence (as far as terror/deaths is concerned) are far higher than left wing. This isn't even contested anymore, I can for a fact tell you violence from right wing terror is far greater.

This includes the FBI, a source which you used earlier in this thread.

FBI director to Congress: Most domestic terror cases are driven by "white supremacist violence"

https://www.salon.com/2019/07/24/fbi-director-to-congress-most-domestic-terror-cases-are-driven-by-white-supremacist-violence/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-the-united-states-right-wing-violence-is-on-the-rise/2018/11/25/61f7f24a-deb4-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html

https://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-deaths-ideology-charlottesville-anomaly

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/12/study-shows-two-thirds-us-terrorism-tied-right-wing-extremists

2. Why did you not go after Eoten for making the opposite claim, but unlike me providing 0 sources - peer reviewed or not? His claim appears to be completely fictional.

Thanks for those links.

But a key difference here is "higher than left" is not the same as "all"

Anyways, I do not disagree with the fact that when the nuts on the far-right commit violent acts, it´s usually with a far more lethal end result than when left-wing nuts do the same.

So can we say that right-wing nuts commit more violence? no not really since there are no reports that look into the whole spectrum of violence and also hate crimes against - let's take a republican staff member is not ticked as a hate-crime but a normal crime, which is wrong.

I can guarantee less meltdowns if Trump loses to if Trump wins. If Trump does pull this out the left will go bat shit crazy. I really don't want either side to win, but watching the meltdown by the left may just be worth it.

Are you talking about throwing milkshakes and angry tweets? Probably true.

If you're talking about political terrorism, and you know people being killed, the right will take the cake going by stats.

So are you saying some violence is ok? because from this post it seems like you are.

No. I'm not saying that.

I am saying (with the information we do have) available statistically it's more likely the right wing give a far greater violent response if we account for the most severe types of violence.

For minor offenses I have seen no data.

He is fine completely fine with liberal violence. Heck just this weekend a guy got punch in the head for wearing a Make Fifty Great Again hat. The thing is this lady that punched this man will never be classified as a hate crime and it is one of the main reasons stats get blown out of wack.

I am always say violence is violence and none of it should be tolerated and it is all equal.

Ok, but can we agree that violence is violence

So sure while left-leaning violence is of a more weak nature, except for the Californian representatives who go for the more harsh violence approaches. it does not excuse or negate the violence.

Also, that is the problem, most reports we see are from biased sources like ADL or from FBI where their hate crime is not defined probably.

No I'm not.

Just noting how the guy who I originally quoted made a baseless claim. That being said, the worst violence is by far from the right.

Think you mean more severe not "worst" since all violence is "the worst"

Using a word such the worst is a value judgment and cannot be applied across the board.

So are you saying some violence is ok? or not "the worst"

Because violence is violence no matter what and is the worst.

That's not what I said. But someone pushing you objectively not considered the worst when you compare it to being punched in the face. Words have meanings.

That is a very subjective opinion and also how do you know how someone feels?

Especially today considering that the left has an idea that even words can be considered violence.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/tech-support/201308/why-words-can-hurt-least-much-sticks-and-stones

@Jacanuk: Use words correctly. Worst is a value judgment. Period.

Nah. It's the liberals that hold riots after they lose elections. Oh my bad, "peaceful protests".

And again how do you know how someone else feels?

You only need to listen to the people on the left on this thread. A good amount of them, while saying people on the right are violent, have stated themselves that shoving people, throwing stuff at them, is okay, and full on assault and battery is alright, if they have the inclination you might be a "nazi." It's not hard to see why the left is more prone to violence when they admit they think violent acts are okay, depending on the political leanings of their opponents.

Typical con...……..basing things on feelings rather than facts.

Riot? There was no riot the first time.

Anti-Trump protesters march for 3rd night; Portland police call it a 'riot' - CNN

Third link after Googling "riots after Trump won election."

@LJS9502_basic: Yes there were riots in Oakland CA and Portland OR that I know of offhand, maybe more. But those were the most documented riots following Trump's win.

I think the more important question would be "Will conservatives continue to be the top source of domestic terrorism and kill the most people for political violence if Trump is not re-elected?"

You really need to do some research before speaking. There were plenty of riots after the election and it was all the left.

Also will the left chill out if Trump is reelected or will they have violent riots after the election again. You seem to be down playing that important FACT. I know you are okay with the left being violent and have proved it in many post. I even remember you down playing throwing milkshakes at people.

Both sides need to chill out and that is a FACT!

Calling out false equivalencies and/or degrees of violence is not the same as saying it's okay.

I think people who throw milk shakes are stupid.

I think people who shoot up synagogues are worse.

Heck no. The most passionate and devoted Trump supporters are too stupid and unorganized to do this.

The GOP ruling class, however, is hoping for a Trump loss. The GOP is at its strongest when they have a boogeyman to point to and rile up the rabble against, which the next Democratic president would fill that role nicely.

@ad1x2: Protests aren't riots. And yeah there are always some criminal elements taking advantage of that but the core wasn't rioting. Per your link.

See above.

The FBI doesn't find it ironic.

So your rebuttal is to try and say it "technically" wasn't a riot despite the violence? I guess plausible deniability isn't limited to politicians.