30 Percent of Republicans Say True Americans May Have to Resort to Violence to Save U.S.

But they still live in the community and not above it, They pay their taxes and send their kids to school just like we all do. I think the "thin red line" is a myth and one that keeps them from doing their real job, which is to help us when we need it.

 

I believe the seeds were sown at The Watergate and the forced resignation of Nixon. Clinton was payback and since then it's to the death across the board.

 

That's what they do, it's in their job description. Both put their lives on the line when they clock in and with the military the clock is always running.

 

I think you are right. The Vietnam era and the following years was very divisive time for the US. Johnson (D) was not divisive himself, but he escalated the war to a point where it became a very divisive force.

 

Thank you, exactly my thoughts.

What 30% of GOP think about a hypothetical question seems to pale compared to the violence brought last summer by the left. Yes it could be argued that those actually practicing violence were being paid by George Soros, but still.....

 

There is a label for being supportive of being a violent far right winger.
The label is "fascist".

 

Mussolini said that 'corporatism' is synonymous with 'fascism'. His definition seems more accurate than yours.

Under Biden we have corporations doing the bidding of the government's illegal demands by ordering employees to take a dangerous shot that protects you from nothing.

That is fascism in action, under a Democratic POTUS.

To keep things in perspective, we have seen similar corporate behavior under GOP POTUS, so it's not limited to one party.

 

Which tells me that the right overall are the most violent people in the country when compared to the left.

 

No it tells you the right are the most trained on how to do violence. If you look at actual violent crime statistics the majority of actual violence committed is predominately in democrat controlled areas. Detroit, chicago, etc. which isn’t really a surprise to anyone of course. People who are trained in how to do actual harm usually respect its use better.

 

Violence is violence regardless of how it is used or done. It's like being pregnant; either your pregnant or your not.

On a side note, (keep in mind that I'm not promoting nor do I support the use of violence) the only good thing that could possibly come from violence is that the violent people kill each other off while the non-violent sit back and watch. They'll be gone and I'll still be here; when enough die off, the violence will stop.

 

There are people in the world that you can push around and scream incoherently at about injustices you think they have inflicted and you have endured. Then there are people it's best to stay with civil discourse because they don't call the cops, they bust a lip because that's just who they are. The left doesn't understand that. Should though, it's pretty much how we came to be a country and a nation.

 

And so? That fascist got hanged to death at a gas station. Does it look like I care about his opinion? lol It remains a fascist thing to take power through violence, just like that 30% of the GOP are supporting.

Uh... Fascism is about support corporatism... as in Donald Trump lending money like crazy and giving it away to Wall Street. I can't say Biden is supporting corporatism by demanding that corporations must comply to his will even when that is not corporations biggest interests since they see some of their staff quit because they are freaking out over a very normal vaccination which is scientifically proven to be in everybody's best interest.

 

We've been on the path to civil war for some time now. It's inevitable.

1,600 to 1,800 is the standard. For certain issues, 2,500 would give a more accurate measure. Note that the higher number has no bearing on confidence intervals, but it does control for statistical outliers.

If you could muster up the courage to come out of your Ivory Tower at least once a decade, you might have a clue about what's going on.

You don't get it.

It doesn't matter what LE does and anything LE might do would only exacerbate, escalate, and accelerate the problems.

Yes, when one group becomes marginalized and disenfranchised, the rift widens to the point that only it can only be resolved through conflict.

Um, no, because 53.3% of murders and 54.2% of robberies are committed by Blacks and they are Dummicrats.

 

Probably. They focus on only Manchin and Sienema on their next spending package, why not go for some moderate R's like Snow and Murkowski? Unless they've already put a firm no in the ground.

It's all about the economy most of the time. So that will be a bid decider.

 

It certainly stemmed out of the 1990s.
At least this recent round of good cop/bad cop they parties play.

 

Helping us is their job description. Apprehending lawbreakers is important, but incidental. Military rarely even have policing duties, they're more an arm of foreign relations

 

What kind of help are you talking about? You want them to wash the dishes and mop your floors?

 

It isn't everybody's best interest that is being contested, it's how gets to make the call for everybody.

 

the numbers on black on black murders is staggering in this country and it's not slowing down ...
for 11 years I lived on Biscayne Bay in Miami just 5 blocks from Overtown ... my rear balcony faced the hood but I liked it out there for the lights and flightpaths ... the sound of gunfire every night ... then the sounds of sirens ... sometimes I would have the police scanner on my phone and the nonchalant conversations of yet another victim ...

the councilpersons and the civic leaders wanted reduced patrols in their hoods and the police gladly obliged as the snitches die rule has always been in full effect ... so the murders rise ... and you still can't get a pizza delivered in the hood ...

 

That is right-wing ANTIFA mentality. It's a fantasy. It's part of an inner narrative that they may also be sharing externally with like-minded people. They don't feel like they'll have to do this, they secretly WANT to. The thought of it appeals to them. That's what drives the ANTIFA-esque crowd just as much as it's driving these folks.

 

Do you have an idea how many people have suffered severe after affects from the so called vaccine? No you don't know because Pfizer and the other companies won't tell you. Anyway it's not a vaccine, it works on a completely different principle.

The minute the government said that the companies cannot be sued, that should have rung a bell. Now they want to give it to children when children can fight the disease and no one knows what kind of affect the so called vaccine will have on them later on in life.

 

People keep saying that, but who would the combatant be? The armed forces split in two and fight each other + some help from armed civilians while the rest (99% of US citizens) stuck in the rubble? To assume its red states vs blue states is silly because most States are pretty close to evenly split between red and blue voters. Armed citizen groups terrorizing / killing people they consider 'enemies', marxists' or 'unamerican'?

Seems obvious it would be the last option. That's what the poll is talking about.

 

It might start with another riot organized by Democrats.

 

Approx. 40% of the electorate is Republican. 30% of that is 12%.

Thus, about 12% of the electorate is in favor of this nonsense. In turn, about 88% is not.

 

What you forgot to say is that Democrats feel the same way.

https://www.amren.com/news/2020/10/...violence-is-justified-if-the-other-side-wins/

• Among Americans who identify as Democrat or Republican, 1 in 3 now believe that violence could be justified to advance their parties’ political goals—a substantial increase over the last three years.
• In September, 44 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of Democrats said there would be at least “a little” justification for violence if the other party’s nominee wins the election. Those figures are both up from June, when 35 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of Democrats expressed the same sentiment.
• Similarly, 36 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats said it is at least “a little” justified for their side “to use violence in advancing political goals”—up from 30 percent of both Republicans and Democrats in June.
• There has been an even larger increase in the share of both Democrats and Republicans who believe there would be either “a lot” or “a great deal” of justification for violence if their party were to lose in November. The share of Republicans seeing substantial justification for violence if their side loses jumped from 15 percent in June to 20 percent in September, while the share of Democrats jumped from 16 percent to 19 percent.
• These numbers are even higher among the most ideological partisans. Of Democrats who identify as “very liberal,” 26 percent said there would be “a great deal” of justification for violence if their candidate loses the presidency compared to 7 percent of those identifying as simply “liberal.” Of Republicans who identify as “very conservative,” 16 percent said they believe there would be “a great deal” of justification for violence if the GOP candidate loses compared to 7 percent of those identifying as simply “conservative.” This means the ideological extremes of each party are two to four times more apt to see violence as justified than their party’s mainstream members.