552
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The former president made multiple chilling warnings during an interview with Time magazine.

Donald Trump hasn’t quite let go of the possibility of utilizing mob violence if he loses the next election.

In a sprawling interview for Time magazine, Trump hinted that leveraging political violence to achieve his end goals was still on the table.

“If we don’t win, you know, it depends,” he told Time. “It always depends on the fairness of the election.”

And from Trump’s perspective, that’s winning rhetoric. According to him, his incendiary comments supporting a mob mentality, his early warnings of forthcoming abuses of power, and his threats to be a dictator on “day one” are only inching him closer to the White House. “I think a lot of people like it,” Trump told Time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

Not really, because he's not in power this time.

He can't hold a protest in DC without approval and given how 1/6 turned out, nobody will give him approval if he loses.

[-] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

I mean, he could tweet about how people should show up anyway. I don't know if it would be effective or not, but knowing how rabid his fans are, it could lead to something. This is just more of his plausible deniablitity shtick. "Oh, a juror I don't like very much lives here. It sure would be a shame if a bunch of folks harassed or threatened them into doing what I want"

Dude lost 4 years ago and still has a fanatical base that swears it didn't happen.

[-] baru@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

I mean, he could tweet about how people should show up anyway

Last time Trump ensured that police and so on couldn't prepare. Plus denied any assistance on the day. That alone is a huge difference.

[-] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

I hope so. The alternative is they show up armed this time.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Yeah, and then you get stopped and arrested on gun charges before you even get there.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

It might be good if something like that were to happen - if thousands and thousands of them were to get arrested on the way to some dumb insurrection that donnie egged on long before they are able to get anyone killed. Get more of them in the prison system to help cripple their movement.

Unfortunately, last time a lot them were simply allowed to go home.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Yes and then where hunted down and arrested later on. 600+ convictions is not nothing.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

True. I wonder how many they missed, but yes.

It's interesting to note the difference between the way an insurrection is treated vs. the way someone selling loose cigarettes...

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I believe there is a whole website dedicated to jan6 people that the FBI would like to talk to.

So if you have time, scroll there and if you know one of the people, the FBI has a contact us form.

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/capitol-violence-images

Well over 500 people still on the list. That including the 600+ convictions means over a thousand people wanted. I would imagine that half these peoe could be found if ran through a dmv database check.

[-] mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 months ago

And this time around he can’t prevent deployment of the national guard

this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
552 points (95.7% liked)

politics

18075 readers
2586 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS