26 million Americans believe that Violence is justified to keep DJT out of the WH: additional 58mil OK with it -

[Manimal]

How do you feel about this? 9 million of the 26 million are armed.

https://d3qi0qp55mx5f5.cloudfront.net/cpost/i/docs/June_2024_CPOST_Survey_Report.pdf?mtime=1720925000

Lefties make it about the guns, not the people:

Sunny Hostin horrified by poll that found millions of Americans support violence to stop Trump: 'Despicable'

"The View" co-host called out the results of a July poll that found 10% of Americans supported violence to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president again.

www.foxnews.com

Remember, an additional 58 million are "ambivalent" which means that they actually support it but are not willing to act.

Those are beyond revolutionary numbers....

 

[sil-40]

I'm not dropping my ad-blocker to read the article. Is this the survey it is referencing?

https://d3qi0qp55mx5f5.cloudfront.net/cpost/i/docs/2023-06_CPOST-NORC_Political_Violence_Survey_Report.pdf

 

[Manimal]

Oops, you article seems to be older as they cite different numbers. I didnt read through the whole thing, tied up with work.

my first link is the new one.

 

[krotsman]

That's insane that people actually think that way. (don't get me wrong, there always small percents of crazies on both far sides)

Whereas the vast majority of moderate to harder right conservatives just think, "well, hopefully next time" and then go back to work...

 

[Gator 45/70]

What in the hell are the overlords pushing for to begin with? Violence so sloeux Joe can declare martial law.

 

[Manimal]

What in the hell are the overlords pushing for to begin with? Violence so sloeux Joe can declare martial law.

Kamala, Joe wont make it to the end. They will get rid of him.

 

[sil-40]

Any acts or words that call for anything other than putting ice on partisan violence is part of the problem. If you look at the survey results (the link I posted) from last year, there is one glaring positive that can be taken:

Vast Support for Bipartisan Solutions to Political Violence across both the Right and the Left
77 percent of American adults – the equivalent of 200 million people -- agree with that statement. These 200 million represent the vast majority of Democrats (81%), Republicans(78%), and Independents (60%).This indicates a vast, if untapped, potential to mobilize widespread opposition to political violence against democratic institutions and unify Americans around the commitment to a peaceful democracy.

My take on that is that if we can find a candidate that can walk the tight rope dividing the aisle, a large portion of the population will be receptive to cooling the temperature. We all have to be reasonable and understand it's both give and take and neither side is going to concede 100%.

 

[krotsman]

Any acts or words that call for anything other than putting ice on partisan violence is part of the problem. If you look at the survey results (the link I posted) from last year, there is one glaring positive that can be taken:

On the flip side, the VAST majority of of idiots calling for violence don't have the intestinal fortitude to actually do anything. They are just mouthing off. The problem is them inciting/encouraging the real crazies hide in the bushes.

 

[Manimal]

On the flip side, the VAST majority of of idiots calling for violence don't have the intestinal fortitude to actually do anything. They are just mouthing off. The problem is them inciting/encouraging the real crazies hide in the bushes.

Just remember who takes to the streets with violence...and who talks about that being the wrong thing to do...

The people who want violence are certainly willing to engage in it, openly.

 

[krotsman]

Just remember who takes to the streets with violence...and who talks about that being the wrong thing to do...

The people who want violence are certainly willing to engage in it, openly.

It's still a very small percentage on all sides.

 

[Manimal]

It's still a very small percentage on all sides.

From the last 20+ years I'd say it's almost exclusively Leftists.

 

[sil-40]

On the flip side, the VAST majority of of idiots calling for violence don't have the intestinal fortitude to actually do anything. They are just mouthing off. The problem is them inciting/encouraging the real crazies hide in the bushes.

Dead on (no pun intended). The problem is statistical inevitability. Let's make up some statistics for the sake of mathematical demonstration: say 2% of people who say "We need to take the White House by force, if necessary" are willing to actually take up arms and drive to DC. Let's say 50% of those people are gun owners. Let's say 25% of those people are willing to point that weapon at someone to threaten loss of life to get results and then 1% of those people are willing to shoot someone.

We'll start with a nice round number like 10 million people fit into the first category.
2% of 10 million is 200,000 people willing to say that we should take the White House using any means.
50%% of 200,000 is 100,00 people who actually own guns.
25% of 100,000 is 25,000 who would be willing to point that weapon and threaten a life for the desired outcome.
1% of 25,000 is 250 who would carry out those plans.

Now, I pulled those percentages from out of a hat and they're not meant to represent anything close to actual statistics. It really only takes one damn lunatic to be a little too unstable or a little too "patriotic" to cause irreparable harm to the country via violence. That's why hyperbolic rhetoric is so dangerous. Stable people aren't going to take it and feel like they need march on DC and shoot someone but it's the one's that take it too far. When you put the rhetoric out there, you can't filter who gets to listen to it and who doesn't. Its there for everyone to listen to/read and interpret through their own lenses. Perfectly safe for most. Insanely dangerous for a tiny part of the population.

From the last 20+ years I'd say it's almost exclusively Leftists.

Jan. 6th: "Hold my beer"

 

[krotsman]

Stable people aren't going to take it and feel like they need march on DC and shoot someone but it's the one's that take it too far. When you put the rhetoric out there, you can't filter who gets to listen to it and who doesn't. Its there for everyone to listen to/read and interpret through their own lenses. Perfectly safe for most. Insanely dangerous for a tiny part of the population.

Yep, good point. Small % can still be decent sized numbers of idiots.

 

[Manimal]

The American Revolution started with 1-2% support and turned into 10% before the end. Not counting silent support, but still.


Jan 6th doesn't count, Antifa, CIA, FBI, and the Police beat a woman essentially to death before it started. People were flagged in, instigated, and responding to a protester being beaten to (unresponsive or) death by a cop. We're not ABC/CNN here.

 

[sil-40]

"Doesn't count" and "they started it".

Rules for thee but not for "me" again, I suppose.

 

[Manimal]

"Doesn't count" and "they started it".

Rules for thee but not for "me" again, I suppose.

What do you mean? Have you watched footage? Some people definitely did the wrong thing, but factually there were numerous non-"right" people and groups involved...factually, and people were flagged in and welcomed into the building by police, a literal fact.

How many Antifa and BLM do you think are Right-Wingers in disguise, and what advantage would that provide them?

 

[Gator 45/70]

Lib's will be calling for the Trumpster supporters to bring in your phone for a tune-up
Mossad style?

 

[thperez1972]

My take on that is that if we can find a candidate that can walk the tight rope dividing the aisle, a large portion of the population will be receptive to cooling the temperature. We all have to be reasonable and understand it's both give and take and neither side is going to concede 100%.

That sounds good on paper and might eventually become true in reality but it'll take a while. I believe there are enough people in each party that simply don't trust someone with a different letter after their name. It will turn into a debate on which side's candidate is the better tight rope walker. Too many on both sides will be unwilling to concede enough to allow the other party to get elected.

Jan. 6th: "Hold my beer"

For the sake of argument, let's pretend Jan 6 was full of violence. On the other side, we can look at the "mostly peaceful" protests that took place over about the course of a year after George Floyd.
Birmingham
Little Rock
Washington DC
Fort Lauderdale
Jacksonville
Miami
Tampa
West Palm Beach
Atlanta
Indianapolis
Louisville
Boston
Detroit
Grand Rapids
Minneapolis
Omaha
Las Vegas
Trenton
New York City
Oklahoma City
Providence
Sioux Falls
Salt Lake City
Seattle
Madison

So, yeah, not exclusively leftists, but certainly almost exclusively leftists.

 

[sil-40]

That sounds good on paper and might eventually become true in reality but it'll take a while. I believe there are enough people in each party that simply don't trust someone with a different letter after their name. It will turn into a debate on which side's candidate is the better tight rope walker. Too many on both sides will be unwilling to concede enough to allow the other party to get elected.

Agree....we'll be lucky to see that kind of politics in our lifetime given the history and current trajectory. That's why I can't stand supporting a candidate based on party affiliation. The choice we have now is, do we actively widen the divide or start to work to close it for future generations? It's easy to burn a house down....it's a lot harder to build one.

So, yeah, not exclusively leftists, but certainly almost exclusively leftists.

The difference is that those protests were for civil rights issues for what was perceived as police brutality against a race. They didn't march for "D vs. R" or "stolen elections" nor were the "sides" of the protest divided amongst left and right. I don't have stats but I imagine there was plenty of bleed-over from both. I don't see that as a left vs. right but I do get the intent behind the comparison.

 

[thperez1972]

The difference is that those protests were for civil rights issues for what was perceived as police brutality against a race. They didn't march for "D vs. R" or "stolen elections" nor were the "sides" of the protest divided amongst left and right. I don't have stats but I imagine there was plenty of bleed-over from both. I don't see that as a left vs. right but I do get the intent behind the comparison.

Plenty of people were peacefully marching. And there were fine people from both sides of the aisle. However, the violence coming from the marching (which did not happen with all the marches) seems to have been from people with an anti-police ideology and from antifa, both segments of the population with ideals that tend to align more with leftists. So much so that I would feel comfortable saying the people committing the violence were almost exclusively leftists.