I implore you to stop being credulous before it's too late. Trump supporters deeply believe, and are not shy about saying, that anyone who stops Trump from achieving his political goals should be imprisoned or murdered.
My theory is that there are a whole lot of really good people in the middle, with the extremes on each end having some brain issues with empathy and whatnot. To cast such a wide blanket on conservatives doesn't seem like critical thinking to me and will not help anything.
It is. What's more, such support is roughly the same across both parties, but both parties vastly overestimate the other side's support.
The difference between the two parties is that one elected a leader that agrees with that minority. This 2012 scene from The Newsroom outlines the difference:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGsLhyNJBh8
The GOP let (?) the inmates run the asylum.
How's this different than say...
>polls show 99% (or whatever) of people are against crime
>voters elect a soft-on-crime politician, crime goes up
>"I consider the fact that the soft-on-crime politicians got elected to have falsified all research that people are against crime"
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/trump-says-democra...
No, of course not, but I'm sure you knew that, hence constructing this straw man so you can knock it over and claim victory.
However, and more to the actual point, calling for capital punishment strictly because you disagree with the factual words someone chose to write might reasonably be considered "political violence". Especially when the words in question clearly call out your potential political intentions and remind people that said intentions can be battled in a particular way.
I thought they were upset about her emails or whatever?
Meanwhile, 34 actual felony convictions, court finding misuse of millions in charity funds, an attempted coup, being found liable for sexual assault, SCOTUS having to formally place the president above the law to avoid prosecution... none of it even moved the needle for those same folks.
None of it is about law and order.
From a 10s skim on wikipedia:
>Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that Clinton's use of a private email system and a private server violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1924, regarding the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials, as well as State Department protocols and procedures, and regulations governing recordkeeping.
I'm not saying those allegations are true, but to claim "none could name a crime" suggests you didn't even try.
>Meanwhile, 34 actual felony convictions, court finding misuse of millions in charity funds, an attempted coup, being found liable for sexual assault, SCOTUS having to formally place the president above the law to avoid prosecution... none of it even moved the needle for those same folks.
If you're talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in..., that has the same air of credibility as him going after Fed governors for mortgage fraud.
Whereas everyone thinks that all child rapists should be in prison!
I think the world would be a better place if politicians with access to critical information were held to suitable security requirements under threats of punishment for laxity.
This would absolutely also include Hesgeth inviting a journalist to an airstrike planning meeting on Signal.
And likewise Trump putting boxes full of state secrets in a disused bathroom and on a stage.
The Trump administration are clearly hypocrites, clearly trying to throw the book at everyone else while bemoaning even the slightest consequences for themselves. I wouldn't call for Clinton's arrest, but I will say that anywhere that would arrest her should've given a much more severe punishment to Trump.
Then again, I'm not even American so I genuinely don't actually care if y'all leak state secrets like a basketball net leaks water.
In the context of the previous comment, the "non-rabbid" (and probably median) supporter would be someone voting Trump because they think they trust him more on the economy/immigration or whatever. They might be indifferent to his claims that he'll lock up his political opponents, or think that they're actually guilty of something, but that's not the same as being "rabbid" (ie. showing up to rallies and chanting "lock her up").
You're basing this off... what? You're missing the options of "I'm indifferent about this", or "I don't agree with him on this but still think he's better as a whole than the alternative".