Should Fanatical Trumpies Be Treated As Potential Terrorists?

That is the Democratic viewpoint. Anyone who does not agree Hillary Clinton is above the law or exposes any Clinton lies and misconduct must be imprisoned or killed as a terrorist. The Democratic Party has become the war mongering corporate fascism party ala 1930s Germany in the most real ways. All opposition the global super rich - war industry - government merger or Fuhrer Clinton must be eliminated anyway possible as an enemy of the state.

This election shows how by corporations and super rich taking over (literally buying out) the press and media allowed Hitler to rise to power, engage in mass domestic terrorism, oppression, imprisonment, mass murder and go to world war. In literally just a few months they have most Democrats essentially chanting and demanding war with Russia, Syria and half a dozen other countries. Literally, many most Clinton supporters want the USA to start a world war in the most real terms.

 

Unlike most on here, who take a view based on one political affiliation or another, I think this should be addressed neutrally.

I don't care whether someone is a fanatical Trump supporter or a fanatical Clinton supporter. I recently had lunch with a fanatical Trump supporter. Some time ago I had dinner with a fanatical Obama supporter. Neither of them seemed any terrorist risk to me. Neither of them was particularly interesting when talking about politics, either.

People should be assessed based on what they say and do, not based on who they support. People can be (and have been) included towards violence in support of various causes - left, right, race, religion to name but a few. The motivation behind their violence is irrelevant.

So no, fanatical Trump supporters should not be considered terrorist threats for that reason alone.

 

Then again, it's a Trump campaign office that was firebombed and graffitied with hateful words. I'm disturbed by the unfortunate human capacity to vilify a group and then engage in hateful and violent acts against said group, in effect becoming the very thing they claim to oppose.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that's why we're talking about "potential" terrorists, right? Not every fanatic is one. It's just that fanatical belief can and will lead people to terroristic thoughts and actions on occasion. Especially when they get organised.

 

This entire thread with all the leftist comments is more proof that the left are the one's more likely to put people into concentration camps just like their hero Democratic FDR did with the Japanese.

This just proves that the left are the fanatical extremist that will treat their dissenters as did other extreme left-wing leaders have done over the decades.

The left need to be watched regularly to make sure they don't hurt or endanger normal citizens.

 

As the paranoid egotist plunges even lower than his morals in poll after poll, Crybaby Trump is interrupting his habitual groping to flail his wee hands, playing his sissy "It's all fixed!" card with no evidence whatsoever, and whining about the system being mean to him.

His hysteria could wee wee up the unstable in his paranoid, alienated cult and provoke their lashing out irrationally at Americans.

Assurances from his own running mate, Republican Secretaries of State in critical "swing" states, and the Republican Speaker of the House will do nothing to dispel the delusion by which he seeks to undermine the integrity of the United States and foment violence against it.

Trumpoltroons went berserk when a stolid Republican newspaper that had not endorsed a Democrat in 125 years editorialized.

We chose patriotism over party.

We endorsed the Democrat.

And then the reaction started pouring in. Threats against our business. Threats against our people...​

.

 

No, that is an American point of view. Anyone who takes up arms against the United States Government should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. What Republicans have advocated is sedition.

And where is the evidence to support your assertions? You have none. None exists, because your assertions are blatantly false. Democrats have not threatened to or advocated doing what Republicans are doing and have done. Democrats haven’t advocated revolution if their candidate doesn’t win as some Republicans have done. That’s a very big difference.

In fact, in 2000 when the Democratic candidate did win the presidential election but the recount which would have validated his win was illegally stopped by Republicans on the US Supreme Court, the Democratic nominee accepted the court’s decision and gracefully conceded the election. He didn’t foment calls for revolution. Democrats at large didn’t call for revolution. Facts matter.

As for your charges of war mongering, let’s look at the past 4 presidents. Two have been Republican and two have been Democratic presidents. George Bush Senior, a Republican, began the first gulf war. His son George Bush Junior began the second gulf war. In addition he began the Afghan war and bungled both wars. The 2 Democratic presidents didn’t start a single war. In fact, the Democratic presidents withdrew troops from combat. So history debunks your beliefs.

Actually, the press and media didn’t allow Hitler to rise to power. Hitler never won a popular election. Hitler came to power by building a collation. The irony here is that Democrats have long and steadfastly been for election reforms which take the money the special influence it buys out of our election system; Whereas Republicans have been steadfastly for increasing the influence of money in our election systems and have outright opposed reducing the influence of the “super rich”, e.g. Citizens United. So your facts are wrong yet again.

Where are these Democrats you say are chanting and demanding war with Russia? I haven’t seen or heard a single one. Are you not aware that Trump’s running mate described a very aggressive Syrian stance in which he would create a Syrian no fly zone enforced by US military power? Now that’s different from The Donald’s policy. But a number of Republicans share Obama’s policies and some as in Pence’s case goes further. Obama hasn’t called for a Syrian no-fly zone. Who are these half dozen other countries you claim Democrats want to go to war with? And please do be specific.

Where is your evidence, “Literally, many most Clinton supporters want the USA to start a world war in the most real terms.”? You have none, because that is yet another Trumpian fiction.

You should ask yourself why it is necessary for you to believe all these fictions. Unfortunately for you my friend, facts matter, evidence matters, and you have none. That should be a problem for Trump and his supporters, but it isn’t. You should ask yourself, why?

Since you brought up Hitler, let’s take a look as some of the similarities between Trump and fascist dictators like Hitler. Both were nationalists. They both opposed foreigners. Both personalized their power.

For your edification: https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...res-with-adolf-hitler/?utm_term=.1e1e4cc8c4bf

Both are autocrats. Both support suppression of the free press and media. Trump even went so far as to demand SNL be cancelled because he didn’t like how he was portrayed. Trump has long waged a war on civil liberties and the US Constitution. Trump has specifically targeted the First Amendment on a number of occasions. Trump doesn’t like the freedom of the press or religious freedom. That’s why Hilary is tied with Trump in Utah.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-unconstitutional-freedom-liberty-khan-214139

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/14/media/donald-trump-media-bias-first-amendment/

So before you go calling others Nazi’s you need to take a long and serious look at yourself my friend. I can only hope you are capable of such introspection. Clearly Trump isn’t. Unfortunately for you and those like you facts do matter. The truth matters.

 

It is the radical Trump cult that is trashing America and threatening assassination and violence against Americans, not all Republicans.

These fanatics will need to be watched closely, and any appropriate action taken to safeguard decent Americans if they attempt to fulfill their threats.

 

After the obligatory (and expected) Nazi-inspired arsons, and the expected number of murder-suicides, Trump's supporters will calm down.

 

A recent video supported investigation just proved that all that you mentioned is already happening and it is being generated BY Hillary Clinton operatives with her blessings.

 

[video=youtube_share;nQtHx5GY164]http://youtu.be/nQtHx5GY164[/video]

 

And besides that we will have seen his income taxes which he has promised to release after the audit is done. And of course we know he will keep that promise win or lose. Ha, ha,ha,ha

 

Yeah but didn't Limbaugh try that and fail. And even though he and Trump are about even on the fruitcake scale on the ability to communicate scale Trump isn't nearly as good at talking as Rush.

 

And your evidence is where or are you making this stuff up again as Republicans are won't to do? Unfortunately for you and those like you, facts do matter.

When a Trump office was firebombed, Democrats quickly raised $10,000 to help Republicans quickly reopen the office. This is the way Americans traditionally behave. Democrats demonstrated what is best about America and what makes America special.

https://www.conservativereview.com/...gop-office-shows-what-it-means-to-be-american

 

Amusing tweet:

raandy @randygdub
the north carolina gop accidentally burned their office down lighting a cross on fire inside like kkk three stooges
11:17 PM - 16 Oct 2016

http://gizmodo.com/conservative-pundits-use-dumb-twitter-joke-as-proof-of-1787905547

Gizmodo asked Raandy what he had learned from this experience. “Nothing,” he wrote in a DM. “Really, I already knew conservative media was extremely stupid and the rubes who read it believe whatever they say.”

 

Still doesn't change the fact that the true violence is on the democrat side.

 

Well, here is the thing, do you have any evidence the "true violence" is on the Democrat side? No you don't. And that should be a problem for you, but it isn't. Before you go pronouncing guilt, you should have some evidence to back up your accusations, and unfortunately in the vast majority of cases Republicans have little to no evidence to back up their accusations.

Would you feel any guilt, if the police found Republicans firebombed their office in order to blame Democrats? People shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence.

 

Limbaugh has been entertaining morons and the Archie Bunker set for almost 30 years. And, for a while, Clear Channel spent themselves to the verge of bankruptcy paying him to do it.

This year, Limbaugh took a huge haircut when they renewed his contract (on top of the one he had to take the keep Cumulus).

Trump's campaign is one of the last gasps of the angry white man. The average Hannity viewer is almost 70 years old, exclusively white, and Republican.

That's the only place you'll see Trump on TV. Which tells you everthing you need to know about the scope and demographics of his audience.

 

Most Trumpsters will leave the political realm more embittered, unrepentant and more cynical and suspicious than they were when they started and that is what they will teach their kids. There is a problem with this. They need representation. Their concerns are no less real because Trump exploited them. Think of this demographic. They are largely less educated, and less affluent white males sitting in small towns, and rural counties, who are the opposite of 'upwardly mobile' . if we turn them into the butt of jokes, sneer and ridicule, we are forgetting that they are supposed to have part of the American dream we talk about for everyone else. The anger and cynicism will not dissipate unless their economic prospects improves. That means better jobs reaching depressed areas outside of urban areas.

 

Would it have been even more humorous to you if Republicans had died in that arson? Who the government needs to watch is people who say things like you do in your message. What is someone who finds arson funny called?

Hillary Clinton smiles and even hysterically laughs when the topic is rape, particularly if a child and death. I call that being a psychotic sociopath. What would you call someone who laughs about arson of a building regardless of who caused it or why?

 

Very nice.

 

A Trump supporter probably started the fire.

Some disgruntled hillbilly that didn't like the "GOP establishment".

Trump voters should be ashamed that one of their "comrades" is responsible for this heinous arson.

 

Seriously? I ask should fanatical Clinton supports be treated as terrorists.?
And perhaps due to the recent bombing of a republican trump office, the answer could be yes.

 

You make very good points.

In truth, the no nothing tendancy of the hard right wing has been a part of our political culture (admittedly a very dark one) for most of American history.

The only part of your post I disagree with is the assumption that this core is all rural or small town. Go to the depressed suburbs of any industrial mill town in America and you'll see Trump signs growing like weeds.

It is true that most of these people are not well educated, nor are many of them intellectually curious, or truly knowlegable about politics, history, policy or world affairs.

Their surrogates demonstrate that base ignorance on almost every thread in this forum.

They don't read newspapers, never consider a variety of sources, or seek to understand the world around them.

The seek validation, and are ripe targets for a demogogue like Trump, who panders to their fears (without actually laying out any sort of real solution to any of them), and packages it in bar room braggadocio, which this audience eats like catnip (it worked for Sarah Palin, why not?)

If Trump starts a network or appoints himself head of an imaginary movement (which he already has), they may follow him at least as far as the mid term elections.

Certainly, the GOP will cynically try and demogogue this audience by trying to recreate its success with the tea party. In 2010, the GOP played to this audience's fears, ignorance and resentment with an astroturf movement designed to win Congress. Once that was won, the money abruptly dried up and the tea party foundered.

However, that experience is a cautionary tale, as the same mob coalesced behind Trump and hijacked the GOP.

I expect that Trump will dissapate slowly. He will cry sore loser and make noise about challenging the election. He won't actually do it. But he'll get on Sean Hannity's show plugging the idea, and right wing talk radio will work their audience by teasing them with the prospect. I suspect that there will be more than one election challenge scam pac out there raising money (and pocketing all of it) in Trumpster land. It wouldn't be the first time. Several tea party groups were scam pacs.

After that, Trump will go back to trying to sell a TV show or some naming rights (if his name is still worth anything at that point).

Faced with an establishment GOP candidate in 2020, I suspect that most of the Trumpsters will go back to doing what they used to do, not voting at all.

OF course, none of this solves the problem of how we address the economic decay in their world. History shows that training and technology are the only things that work in a capitalist society.

Trump's vision of trade wars and walls is a moron's fantasy.

The real answers are a lot harder than that.

 

That of course is the issue. There is no possibility under our economic system of more and better jobs in the future. Both political parties knowigly ignore the fact that automation of jobs is going to continue and even escalate on the future resulting in less and less available jobs. In fact automation growth will guarantee that a higher percentage of the jobs that remain will be the low paying jobs where there is less incentive to automate.

I know this is pessisimistic but I believe it is also inevitable. So as the value of labor both intellectual and physical goes down the value of capital will continue to rise resulting in ever greater economic inequality.

There of course are solutions but they do involve income redistribution or job sharing or guaranteed minimum income etc which the rich have cleverly managed to convince the lower class represents communism or socialism and so the bottom of society continues to rabidly oppose the only real hope they have over the long term.

 

Here's what really happened in 2010: The Tea Party was a party of Fiscal Conservatives.(And at first, Libertarians started through the Ron Paul movement.) Ironically, Liberals and Fiscal Conservatives have more in common than the ultra-hawks(the neo-cons) at least, one would think if Liberal theory were applied rationally. But the truth is different. The truth is that Liberals and Neo-Cons are coats in arms, and in reality probably always were.

We're seeing this with every neo-con virtually(and even Kagan himself) aligning with Hillary Clinton. The sane choice? Perhaps. But it's telling in a way that the GOP didn't try to put a better effort to unify with Donald Trump. This is because if the GOP could not be the ultra-conservative wing, then the ultra-conservatives were simply not going to bother. After all, they have newfound support in the 'Liberals' who will support as much of the status quo war ambitions as possible, while trying to sell it's base that we're going to fight this war without boots on the ground.

It might not be pure gung-ho as Kagan would like. But it's better than not existing at all.(This internal battle has been shown in fact to fracture the Obama White House. Since Obama refrained from the Green Revolution and had to be convinced on Libya.)

But what once was an internal battle, is now a coalition of corporate power with Hillary Clinton at the behest. Sanders Voters have been exposed in a very harsh manner to what I was exposed to in 2010: Liberalism is a lie. The very tenant, philosophy is not realistic and is a cover up for corporate power by promising lip stick on a pig.

If honest Liberals had joined with the tea party, it was possible to give Obama a working congress in his second term. But they weren't willing to do this. And GOP Senators weren't willing to help out their freshman counterparts. Indeed, once there had been a grassroots revolt inside the GOP it was time to take the merger that was all in name, to a physical reality.

Should those same ultra-conservatives go back to the GOP, you're right: They would have not made progress. But they also would have alienated the new Republican voters. The end result being that the GOP is dead, for good. There's no revival, there's no process. They can pretend to nominate a candidate, but as much as no one will like paux-Liberalism, no one likes neo-conservative policies either.

But it's not like the Democratic Party is in good shape. Hillary professed privately to be the pro-corporate party that anyone who researched politics knew she is. If Hillary's regime is not a successful one, Sanders voters have two choices: To try and do with the Dems what the Trump Brigade could not. Or they too, will simply say "screw this" and leave the Dems.

Which means the Obama Impact would have been very short lived, and politics will return to the rut it was in from the mid-70's to 2004. Nonexistence.