39% of republicans say political violence may be necessary!

Yeah, there's nothing that spells dehumanizing more than calling others 'pocahontas' , 'low energy Jeb' "Lyin' Ted" "Sleepy Joe" ( etc, and the list is long ), accusing democrats of 'taking away your guns' and 'taking away your religion' and installing totalitarianism, so who started that sort of lowering the tone of the body politic? But if we call those who would attack the capitol in order to 'stop the steal' ( a big lie) resulting in 5 deaths, if we call those people domestic terrorists, this is a problem? You do know that among the definitions of 'cult' is the kind of group where they surrender their intelligence to a single person ( kinda like how Trump supporters would attack the capitol because 'Trump told them to', as they are telling us).

And what is this 'threat by democrats'? Threat of raising the minimum wage to a liveable standard? Providing health care to each and every person in America? Threat of saving the planet from becoming uninhabitable via extreme climate change? Threat of making the super rich pay more taxes so as to reduce the deficit? Threat of ending tariffs (especially those on raw materials) which are a de facto tax on working class people and are responsible for destroying markets for their produce? Threat of allowing enough immigration so that farmers quit having difficulty getting their produce to market? Threat of putting competent people in government? Threat of ending the policy of permanent separation of children from their parents for a misdemeanor? Threat of ending the practice of usurping congress's power of the purse by redirecting funds from congressional appropriated programs to pay for a border wall that is both a waste of money and ineffective?

In my view, the real threat are those who surrender their intelligence to a man who opposes all of those things.

That is the real threat to the planet.

 

Same old same old on this forum. The OTHER parties politicians are bad but mine are wonderful. Folks, BOTH parties are playing us for suckers divide and conquer rules............

 

Well, it wasn't due to 'being the most popular' it was due ENTIRELY to a defect in the Electoral College system, i.e., that Trump won was a fluke of the EC, a fact which completely deflates your 'hypocrisy' premise.

The entire premise of 'democracy' is, essentially, majority rules. that's not tyranny, that's democracy. Not a great system, but all the others are worse.

You got a better system, I'm all ears.

 

If the past summer taught us nothing, it was that Democrats as a group fully support violence over debate. That the news media (there are exceptions) tolerated said violence, advocated for it, produced glowing (literally as the idiot from CNN was framed by arson) reports about "mostly peaceful", etc.

And democrats of all stripes, across the nation applauded. That's where the wheels fell off of your OP....

 

60%? One wonders why it's not 97%? That 40% and only 60% do not IS rather startling. It doesn't take a gullible person to understand it.

 

Would you be so kind as to post the methodology?

 

I don't vote.

 

Wow, what an HONEST and PERFECT time to survey a group of people that are pissed about losing all branches of government and half of them thinking there was election fraud. yeah, I'm sure thats gonna give some real accurate results. Its like asking someone if they like star wars (but the only movies they've seen is the new crappy trilogy)
So very clever!
In other news, lets pole blacks on their views of police, 5 minutes after they are victims of police brutality. I'm sure they'll say some really kind and sweet things.
Don't take the bait folks.
The left up to their dirty tricks as usual (although they used to be a lot more slick and sneaky about it)...they aren't even trying now, haha

 

Which means that 40% DON'T OPPOSE THE IDEA.

 

Please post the methodology supporting that claim.

 

Math.
60%do 100%-60%=40%.

 

Maybe they are just "Centrist" too....priceless.

 

This whole thread is based on a false premise. Direct quote from the reference:
"In the new survey by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), 39 percent of GOP voters said they agreed with this statement: "If elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions." However, the majority (60 percent) of Republicans said they opposed the idea."

"Will not protect American". What does that mean?

I am opposed to violence. However, if I was asked "If elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions." I would likely answer that I agree with that statement. That could very well include a foreign power attacking our shores and our government refusing to take action. We should be protecting America. Period. End of discussion.

If they asked me whether we should overthrow our government through violent action, that is a very different question.

 

Yes, I noticed the ambiguity of the question as well. It's a loaded question. The two sides have different interpretations of what it means to protect.

I don't find this to be reliable, and it seems to be a politically driven question with a predetermined outcome. Isn't there a name for this type of polling?

Nobody is half anything. We all have our own opinions in a free democratic society. Democracy is what keeps us free, which is why questions of this type seem a bit peculiar.

 

Considering what happened last summer I have doubts about the veracity of the numbers for the Dems.

 

Apparently, it's a LOT more of a problem than you folks believe. You seem to be justifying rhetoric that could lead to death and potential mayhem on a large scale as a result of his incivility. Believe as you wish but if you expect others to toe that line, you're going to be sadly mistaken. I expected more of a reasoned argument from you. My bad... I should remember that most of you on the Left are so comfortable looking down the nose at others that you don't bother with factual discussions. Arrogance is ugly, no matter WHO is displaying it.

 

You'd have doubts anyway, so what else is new?

 

You want facts?

Trump's actions over the last four years are well beyond 'incivility', and your failure to see that point is a FACT.

 

Yeah....damn me first not taking people at their word.

 

Wut?