Will there be violence if Trump loses?

by on November 8, 2016 at 7:13 am in Current Affairs, Law, Political Science, Sports, Uncategorized | Permalink

I say probably not.  Leonid Bershidsky writes:

Although some of these groups have made headlines with their gun-toting antics, the militiamen I met in Florida were more afraid and disoriented than fearsome…It’s hard to imagine [those] people…taking up arms for Trump if he loses and refuses to concede defeat. One reason is that they are not die-hard Trump fans. Another is that they’re realistic about how much power they have.

I think it is far more likely there is some additional violence if Trump wins.  Does “emboldening” or “disillusionment” encourage more aggression?  I am more afraid of too much enthusiasm for how much “change” is possible, then leading to overreaching among some of the less salubrious followers, backed by a belief that “now everything is permitted.”

In the meantime, it’s 1968, and Eddie Brinkman is stepping up to the plate to bat

1 Anon November 8, 2016 at 7:22 am

Eddie Brinkmnan ?? A reference to the Senate ?

2 AppleDave November 8, 2016 at 7:39 am

Per his WaPo obit, he was the quintessential all field, no hit shortstop.

Maybe it’s that he was an automatic out?

3 chuck martel November 8, 2016 at 9:24 am

Obviously Straussian.

4 J November 8, 2016 at 10:12 am

From the same obit:

Mr. Brinkman was activated as a member of the D.C. National Guard to help quell the riots in the city in 1968 and missed more than half the season.

5 Ray Lopez November 8, 2016 at 11:00 am

The stats on Brinkman are incorrect, from the website cited.
from the cited link:
Ed Brinkman , Born: December 8, 1941 in Cincinnati, OH, Died: September 30, 2008 in Cincinnati, OH (Aged 66.297) <– since Brinkman died nearly close to his birthday, he cannot have died at age "66.297" but closer to 67 (maybe 66.8). If the site cannot get Brinkman's age correct, how reliable is it for other stats?

6 Hdd November 8, 2016 at 12:18 pm

Age of 66.297 means 66 years 297 days.

7 Careless November 8, 2016 at 7:22 am

The violent people are Trump opponents, so this does not seem to be a difficult question

8 So Much For Subtlety November 8, 2016 at 7:30 am

Whoever asked this question has not been paying attention to the past eight years. The Democrats have been paying people to violently disrupt Trump events. Soros and the Justice people have been organizing riots in places like Ferguson and Charlotte. There have been continual attempts at judicial lynchings in the cases of George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson.

The violence in America has come from the Left and the Democrats for a long time. All the while screaming about non-existent Republican violence.

9 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 8:33 am

It’s another indicator of the social and psychological bubble the Mercatus crew lives in, so you get this obtuse statement from Tyler Cowen and this gem from Scott Sumner about a Trump ad with George Soros’ mug in it: “Kevin, My first reaction was fascist, then anti-semitic. It’s the sort of ad the Nazis would have run in the 1930s, if they’d had TV back then.” Between them, they’re not capable of a serious critique of the political economy or of the problems in academic life today.

10 Steve Sailer November 8, 2016 at 9:29 am

If Trump’s closing argument ad was anti-Semitic, it wouldn’t have had Janet Yellen it it, it would have had Stanley Fischer.

11 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 10:20 am

Trump used the images of 3 people in gatekeeper positions in the financial sector, all of whom are politically well-connected. One has a manufactured surname adopted in 1936, one has a surname which sounds German and is so rare (5 households in a total population of 35 million households in 1940) that it carries no Jewish vibe at all, and one with a surname that can be Norse or Jewish depending on the family. And, of course, the swing voter has to recognize the person in the image. If you can hear the dog whistle, you’re the dog, something Scott Sumner’s never going to get.

12 Doug November 8, 2016 at 10:41 am

Imagine an alternative timeline where Jeb Bush was running against Elizabeth Warren’s populist insurgency campaign. If she had run the same exact ad, many of those same critics would be going gaga that finally “someone’s calling Wall Street out”.

13 Doug November 8, 2016 at 10:38 am

Trump’s certainly a buffoon, a demagogue and a lunatic. But c’mon he’s clearly not an anti-semite. If he was, he’s the most incompetent anti-semite I’ve ever seen. For three decades he’s lived his life surrounded by Jews. From his family, to his business-partners to the places he calls home. This isn’t exactly a man who’s behavior is constrained by social decorum either. I guarantee that Trump’s much more culturally comfortable with American or Israeli Jews than Hillary.

14 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 10:50 am

Trump is neither a buffoon, nor demagogue, nor lunatic

15 prior_test2 November 8, 2016 at 11:47 am

Make Trump great again.

16 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 2:46 pm

When Trump wins I hope Mercatus gets a nice, friendly visit by some of Trump’s folks to set them straight. Cowen and Tabarrock should give Mr. Trump more respect.

17 Ty November 8, 2016 at 8:46 am

” Whoever asked this question…” is totally clueless and should be ridiculed.

Forget Trump, the people who were already elected are conducting massive, criminal violence daily in the MidEast— and have been doing so for the past quarter century.

18 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 9:19 am

Wretched intramural violence in the Near East has been a constant for nearly 60 years now. It just changes its locus from time to time. Not much to do with anything the US government does or does not do.

19 Troll me November 8, 2016 at 2:32 pm

Interesting theory. How about try the “not do” strategy for the first time in living memory and we can talk about what might happen in such a situation.

As the “not do” set is nul for observational purposes, I conclude that the involvement of the US is of non-zero relevance despite the absence of a counterfactual. Not because I consider that as “evidence”, but because I consider myself as a higher life form than a rock.

20 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 4:33 pm

For the record, there were no American troops stationed in the Near East from the end of the 2d World War up until 1990, bar a brief patrol in Lebanon in 1958 and a patrol in Lebanon during the period running from 1982-84 which went terribly awry. American troops stationed in the Near East were only placed there in 1990 in response to the government of Iraq conquering and despoiling a harmless oil principality.

Not only were there no American troops, there were no American treaty commitments. The British erected something called the Baghdad Pact. It was dissolved in 1978 and we were never a member.

Now, during this 45 year period, you had 4 wars between Israel and surrounding Arab states, a wretched tit for tat between Israel and Egypt which ran on for about a year, on again off again insurgencies of Kurdish militias in Iraq and Iran and Turkey, an insurgency in Yemen which dragged on for years, an insurgency in the South Arabian sheikhdoms, an insurgency in the Dhofar province of Oman, and a civil war in Lebanon that ran on for 15 years. In the course of that, Israel had two operations in Lebanon to attempt to suppress the PLO therein. Iraq was an abattoir house throughout 1963 and again from 1968 to 2003. And, of course, there was the Iran-Iraq War. The appendix to this was the multi-stage violence in the Caucasus.

Adjacent to the Near East, you had an insurgency in Algeria that ran on for 8 years, an insurgency in the old Spanish Sahara from about 1975 onward, and a multiphase grisly bloody insurgency in the Sudan which started in 1955 and is still not quite settled. Afghanistan’s been a mess since 1978, starting with a communist coup, then an insurgency, then a Soviet invasion, etc. Tajikisan was left in ruins by five years of civil war. Kashmir’s faced on and off political violence for decades.

The Canadian school system gave the world you, Nathan.

21 Moo cow November 8, 2016 at 10:19 am

Soros!!

Drink!

22 Scott Mauldin November 8, 2016 at 10:42 am

Interesting how you just drop in an unsubstantiated opinion as fact.

23 firingline November 8, 2016 at 11:26 am

Against the “open society” establishment consensus, any patriotic nationalist or traditionalist will seem like a retrograde Nazi and he will be portrayed that way.

24 The Original Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 7:24 am

>I think it is far more likely there is some additional violence if Trump wins.

Very obviously, yes.

Who the hell do you think has been rioting in US cities for the last couple years? Evangelicals and small business owners? Or Democrats?

25 ChacoKevy November 8, 2016 at 11:39 am

I’d be willing to bet $6 Tyler was talking about violence coming from Trump supporters. If the Brexit vote was a precursor to a Trump victory, then we too, in turn, might see a spike in violence against muslims and immigrants just as in the UK.

26 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 7:24 am

Trump won’t lose unless the voting is rigged. All the unskewed polls have him ahead.

27 Anon November 8, 2016 at 7:59 am

Definition of unskewed : ” Those in favor of my candidate”

28 Moo cow November 8, 2016 at 10:21 am

Yes. Just ask President Romney.

29 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 10:52 am

Another example, Obama rigged the polls in the major cities – magically the population of Philadelphia quadrupled overnight in 2012 and then went back to its previous population a day later…hmmm….

30 Moo cow November 8, 2016 at 11:02 am

The Other Jim – Parody account. No other explanation. You go girl.

31 Careless November 9, 2016 at 11:18 pm

Obviously.

32 joe November 8, 2016 at 7:30 am

I honestly think there is a much bigger chance of violence if he wins.

33 AppleDave November 8, 2016 at 7:36 am

Speaking as a Clinton fan, a higher chance of rioting if Trump wins, but not something super serious. If trump loses, there’s a lower chance of much more serious violence (from a more organized militia type group or groups).

34 Heorogar November 8, 2016 at 8:26 am

Congratulations! That (admitting Clinton support) took courage, even in an anonymous comment box.

I

35 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 9:51 am

This nation was founded on God and we need God to lead this country and it ain’t gonna be Hillary. Hillary is wicked she’s a very evil person and she’s not good for the next generation or the next generation. We need someone who is going to get a hold of God and pray for this country and that person is Trump. Anyone who would destroy a baby is not fit to run this country, we need Hillary to repent and repent to this country and before almighty God.

36 KM November 8, 2016 at 10:14 am

So vote for that God-fearing man Trump???

37 Moo cow November 8, 2016 at 10:22 am

Right. Certainly don’t vote for the Methodist who carries a bible around in the purse and prays with The Family when she’s in DC.

38 Careless November 8, 2016 at 1:44 pm

learn to stop feeding the trolls.

39 diversity macht frei November 8, 2016 at 7:50 am

wikileaks shows the clinton campaign instigated rally violence

40 leppa November 8, 2016 at 8:27 am

What is puzzling is why the leaks are uni-directional.

Is Assange trying to be the Ralph Nader of 2000?

41 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 8:34 am

Or maybe he doesn’t have any interesting dirt on the Republican candidate.

42 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 8:36 am

Stop typing on this blog and go vote for Trump you cuck!

43 msgkings November 8, 2016 at 9:17 am

The plastic surgeon says I’m hopeless.

44 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 8:45 am

The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. For those who control the levers of power in Washington, they partner with people who do not have your interests in mind. The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals, mass illegal immigration, and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry. Its a global power structure that is responsible for the decisions which have robbed our middle class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.

45 leppa November 8, 2016 at 8:56 am

…….”foreign policies that have bled our country dry…….

Granted the establishment including the military industrial complex may have a momentum of its own , but isn’t the GOP also complicit ? Who has bled more Americans’ blood with reckless wars ?
………”into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.” and Trump.

46 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 9:05 am

Hillary pushed for and voted for the Iraq War. Trump was against it. The 2001-2009 Republican administration wanted to take a cautious approach but Hillary pushed for the war vigorously from the Senate.

47 leppa November 8, 2016 at 9:14 am
48 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 9:20 am

Thanks for linking to a rabidly Pro-Hillary source for your news. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/2003-clip-backs-up-trump-on-iraq-war-opposition.html

49 leppa November 8, 2016 at 9:23 am

Time to think outside the Fox , the ultimate non-partisan source.

50 prognostication November 8, 2016 at 9:34 am

There is a clip of Trump pre-Iraq War saying he’s in favor of it. It is dated. You can go listen to it. It’s not ambiguous. Yes, he turned against it earlier than most politicians did. No he is not telling the truth when he says he was never in favor of it.

51 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 9:36 am

Check out other sources. Alex Jones (which for some reason I can’t like to on this site) has a great take down of the liberal lies about Trump’s Iraq War support.

52 Anon November 8, 2016 at 8:58 am
53 David Ptr November 8, 2016 at 8:36 am

Perhaps, but Assange is also a slave of sort to his sources, who likely have a spoiler agenda.

54 chuck martel November 8, 2016 at 9:28 am

Isn’t a “spoiler agenda” pretty much the definition of “opposition”?

55 Careless November 8, 2016 at 7:51 am

I suppose the real question is “will there be celebratory shootings?”

I’m guessing no.

56 Thiago Ribeiro November 8, 2016 at 8:30 am
57 Careless November 8, 2016 at 8:33 am

Shockingly, this is not footage from your third world shithole.

58 Thiago Ribeiro November 8, 2016 at 9:18 am

Taking in account that America has become more violent than African countries like Seychelles and São Tomé and Principe… The first step is admiting you have a problem. Not to mention an increasingly impoverished, alienated and desperate populace. Sad.

59 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 11:36 am

The Seychelles and Sao Tome are tiny insular states with only small cities. Both were settled in the early modern period. The former population has a mixed phenotype and the latter a negroid phenotype, but neither is culturally African or ever has been. They speak creoles and European languages only.

60 Thiago Ribeiro November 8, 2016 at 12:00 pm

Yet, they are way poorer than America, and São Tomé e Príncipe wwas colonized by the Portuguese, whose African colonies are not my favorite example successful colonization (see Angola for example). Those are just a few examples, though, America is a violence outlier among rich countries. All non-Subsarian Africa plus a good chunk of South America plus virtually all Europe plus most of the Middle East plus all East Asia plus Vietnam plus all the “stans” plus Haiti have homicide rates around America’s or way better. It is a disaster, social order is breaking down.

61 Josh November 8, 2016 at 7:51 am

I think it’s obvious that the kind of people who support trump are not the kind of people who riot, we shouldn’t discount agents provocateurs, though.

62 Steve Sailer November 8, 2016 at 7:58 am

What % of political violence in the U.S. in 2016 has come from Hillary’s side of the spectrum? 95%? 98%?

63 Anon November 8, 2016 at 8:04 am

Those in the South may remember it differently.

64 Careless November 8, 2016 at 8:07 am

I’m unaware of any political violence in the South in 2016. Can you provide some links?

65 The Anti-Gnostic November 8, 2016 at 8:23 am

Oh my land, have we got violence. Every Sunday a group of us plantation owners gather at the local country club (Jews not allowed!) and chase colored folk with our 9-irons.

66 JFA November 8, 2016 at 8:40 am

Those burned out black churches with Trump on the side aren’t a hint?

67 Careless November 8, 2016 at 8:44 am

Genuinely unaware of such a thing, and already asked for links

68 JFA November 8, 2016 at 9:16 am

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/11/02/vote-trump-painted-on-wall-of-burned-out-black-church-in-mississippi/

I have no doubt if you Googled “violence Trump supporters” you will get a mix of news reporting violence committed by both Trump and Clinton supporters, just try not to ignore the ones that don’t confirm your bias.

Here’s some homework. Google “trump supporters assault protester”. It will probably be like taking the red pill for you.

69 anon November 8, 2016 at 9:20 am

Trump supporters shove kid in wheelchair.

But then they blamed it on progressives so it was ok.

70 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 9:31 am

JFA, that was a false-flag operation done by progressives

71 anon November 8, 2016 at 9:34 am

I know Jim, the kids in Macedonia have the truth! Or at least the gullible clicks.

72 gregor November 8, 2016 at 12:31 pm

I wouldn’t just assume that was done by Trump supporters. A lot of these sorts of things end up being hoaxes.

73 Jan November 8, 2016 at 1:31 pm

The false flag operation is rich. It’s like we’re like living in Putin’s Russia. Feed the sheep enough bullshit sandwiches and they’ll be convinced one can’t be sure that anything is true anymore. Everything can be questioned. Facts don’t exist.

74 gregor November 8, 2016 at 2:18 pm

Jan, the only facts in evidence are that someone burned a church and wrote Trump on the wall. If you know who did it and why you should contact the authorities.

It could be a Trump supporter, but there have been enough hate crime hoaxes to warrant some caution in drawing conclusions. Tawana Brawley is a classic example. The gay guy who claimed Whole Foods put a slur on his cake but actually did it himself to get attention is a more recent case. There have been quite a few on college campuses as well.

75 Jan November 8, 2016 at 3:39 pm

Gregor, it’s not impossible, but Jim is implying it is obviously a false flag operation, which is idiotic. Which is more likely?

76 careless November 8, 2016 at 3:48 pm

Well, Jim’s an idiot and troll, but it’s also true that most of the recent notorious “hate crimes” have been hoaxes. So I’m putting very little stock in either.

77 careless November 8, 2016 at 3:50 pm

Anyway, I’m looking for more links to try to see the trend, JFA. support your claim

78 JFA November 8, 2016 at 4:33 pm

Careless, you said, “I’m unaware of any political violence in the South in 2016”. I provide you a link. I give you instructions on how to use Google. Now you say you want more.

This has some links to various violent incidents (not all in the south and not all what I would consider pro-Trump violence but you can sift): http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/a_list_of_violent_incidents_at_donald_trump_rallies_and_events.html

North Carolina: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/donald-trump-rally-protester-attack/
and http://usuncut.com/news/police-search-trump-supporter-sucker-punched-69-year-old-woman-rally/

Alabama: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-protester-confrontation/

79 The Original D November 9, 2016 at 1:13 am

Dylan Roof

80 Steve Sailer November 8, 2016 at 9:02 am

So, more like 99%?

81 Steve Sailer November 8, 2016 at 9:43 am

It’s fascinating how many people remember things that haven’t quite gone through the formality of taking place, such as pro-Trump violence at his rallies.

Youtube is full of videos of anti-Trump violence at Trump rallies, but actual events don’t register to the same extent as fallacious warnings.

82 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 9:56 am

The media is a part and one of the vital cogs in the rigged system under which we live. They never show the crowds, they never show what’s happening.

83 JFA November 8, 2016 at 10:20 am
84 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 10:40 am

YES we are well aware that Clinton has staged a variety of false-flag operations to try and frame Trump supporters. What do you have that’s new?

85 Steve Sailer November 8, 2016 at 11:00 am

Count people murdered for political reasons in the United States over the last 12 months.

86 JFA November 8, 2016 at 11:20 am

So first you say pro-Trump violence at rallies didn’t happen. I give you evidence that it did, in fact happen (false flag conspiracy theories aside). Then you respond with “Count people murdered for political reasons in the United States over the last 12 months.” Clearly you are uncomfortable with truth, but I’ll bite. I googled “data people murdered for political reasons” (as well as a few other things) and not much in terms of “counting people murdered for political reasons.” I understand you want the smart kid in the class to do your homework for you, but why don’t you put in a little effort and inform me of how many people were killed because of political reasons and how this shows that Clinton’s side is more violent than Trump’s? As always, show your work.

I imagine if you had the data, you wouldn’t have been so confused on the percentage attributable to Clinton’s side.

87 Steve Sailer November 8, 2016 at 12:45 pm

Try keeping up with current events.

88 JFA November 8, 2016 at 1:16 pm

So you don’t have evidence… or or is it supposed to be a Cartesian “clear and distinct” concept that I can intuit and know with certainty. You are a hack.

89 The Original D November 9, 2016 at 1:15 am

Steve, does Dylan Roof count in your political violence body count?

90 Axa November 8, 2016 at 8:00 am

I’ve met revolutionary types in several countries. Some of them read a couple books from Lenin, some of them like guns, some of them perhaps said freedom before mother while learning to speak……the common thing among all these people is they love to talk above anything else. Having an audience is more important than executing any action. It’s tempting to believe that an election result will trigger action among the people that loves to talk. This temptation disappears when you realize history books only contain causes and consequences. Nothing in a history book is random or contingent, every action was caused by an ideal and is part of the great drama of history.

If violence does arise, the things they say should be interpreted as the Unabomber Manifesto. Words like politics, freedom, political correctness will be said and Trump have said them too. But, after putting attention to the violent people words it becomes clear they are effectively fearful and disoriented. Anything can trigger them into shooting other people, attributing it to an election result is just clickbait.

91 Thiago Ribeiro November 8, 2016 at 8:33 am

“Anything can trigger them into shooting other people, attributing it to an election result is just clickbait.”
Yet thet haven’t shot anyone. If they start doing it after the election, I guess there will be good reason to attribute it to the election (evidently, not only the elction or everyone would go around shoting people after the vote counting).

92 Axa November 8, 2016 at 10:29 am

Scratch the part about militia people “all talk no action”, they do act https://www.splcenter.org/20100126/terror-right

93 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 11:24 am

No, they ‘act’ when the $PLC is trolling for dollars.

94 Clc November 8, 2016 at 8:13 am

I love watching the alt-right basement dwellers twist when one of their (unwilling?) paragons goes off Trump.

95 Careless November 8, 2016 at 8:15 am

I know all the words, but this post makes no sense

96 Laguna Beach Fogey November 8, 2016 at 8:26 am

I’ll be very direct here.

If and when Trump wins, I won’t hesitate to find local Hillary supporters, NeverTrump cucks, SJWs, blacks, Muslims, etc., get in their face, and gloat.

It’s time for payback and for settling scores.

97 Butler T. Reynolds November 8, 2016 at 8:34 am

You’ll get your payback good and hard when the national debt problem hits the fan.

98 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 8:36 am

Shut up you Beta Cuck

99 anon November 8, 2016 at 8:56 am
100 Sam Haysom November 8, 2016 at 9:37 am

Troll fail. That’s part of Hilary’s problem she’s running up the score in states she doesn’t need. Meanwhile Trumps picking off battleground states that Romney lost.

101 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 9:42 am

Its pretty clear that if Trump doesn’t end up winning tonight it will be because the polls were rigged and Hillary sent people to vote two or three times. Period. There is no path for Hillary to win in a fair way at this point. Period.

102 anon November 8, 2016 at 9:49 am

If you read for content, it is interesting. It says that OC, once a national bastion for the Right is losing not due to immigration or increased minority voting, but because they are losing the affluent white suburbs.

That’s gotta hurt.

103 Fishbane November 8, 2016 at 10:54 am

” It says that OC, once a national bastion for the Right is losing not due to immigration or increased minority voting, but because they are losing the affluent white suburbs.”

It doesn’t provide any, you know, evidence for that proposition, apart from interviewing a few people. OC was only 44.0% non-Hispanic White in 2010, so it’s much more likely to be due to the fact that the county is following California’s transformation into Mexifornia. Article also claims:

“That possibility symbolizes how the American political map has been upended by Donald Trump’s campaign: He has sped up a decade-long shift in which the GOP has gathered strength in white, blue-collar regions that once routinely elected Democrats, but traditional Republican suburbs increasingly have turned blue.”

Utter BS. The Republicans did a lot better in working class neighborhoods in Ohio, Michigan, ect, in 2000 and 2004 than they did in 2008 and 2012. They’ve done a lot worse then they did in the 1980s, but who remembers that time period?

104 anon November 8, 2016 at 2:09 pm

This may be shocking news to you, but votes at the precinct level are publicly available information.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/county-377086-obama-percent.html

It looks like Laguna Beach, the very home of Laguna Beach Fogey is a rich but blue region.

105 Jan November 8, 2016 at 1:34 pm

North Carolina. Oops.

106 Adam November 8, 2016 at 10:59 am

Oh wow, Orange County turning blue?

Trump’s chances of taking California just disappaered!

107 Butler T. Reynolds November 8, 2016 at 8:40 am

The honor culture that votes for Trump may have a violent streak and sometimes they may do really sick things to animals, but generally they don’t indiscriminately attack people and burn things down like progressive voters do.

108 AlanW November 8, 2016 at 9:09 am

Black church says what?

109 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 9:30 am

John McCain had a secret Black Baby!

110 Mike W November 8, 2016 at 8:41 am

Excuse me please, what means “cuck”?

111 FXKLM November 8, 2016 at 9:23 am

In the context of an online comment, it means you can ignore everything else the writer says without the risk of missing anything worthwhile.

112 JFA November 8, 2016 at 8:41 am

“afraid and disoriented” men have certainly never engaged in violence.

113 Enough November 8, 2016 at 8:42 am

Absolute nonsense, listen to yourself. The violence is on the Left. If Trump wins, there will be patriotic cheering and relief, but no winning-inspired violence. Get a grip.

114 Mike W November 8, 2016 at 8:47 am

“The group is intensely political. Its members all agree on some basic principles:”

Is there a similar list for sub-groups of the BLM and OWS movements?

115 Gianni November 8, 2016 at 8:56 am

This is embarrassing, Tyler.

Either you don’t know that Trump voters profile as extremely law-abiding, or more likely, you do and simply want to engage in a bit of the ‘mood affiliation’ at their expense.

Not a good look..

116 anon November 8, 2016 at 9:13 am

This is what makes you guys so weird. Tyler talks about a thing that is real, and in the world, and rather than Google it, you just cry that it is made up.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-hillary-clinton-victory-donald-trump-armed-group-militia-3-per-cent-security-force-a7393556.html

I agree with Tyler that there seem few actually motivated, more like just enough to say the wrong things to a reporter.

More likely Trump will concede. He has to. It is his time of maximum coverage to launch TrumpTVm

117 Fishbane November 8, 2016 at 11:09 am

Tyler’s just trying to bait his readers while maintaining PD. He’s very good at it. All that link shows is that a group of people own guns and said they will defend themselves if attacked. They said that they “won’t be taking the first shot” in the event of violence after the election. Which you, being a “center right” concern troll, will surely tell us is completely illegal and downright “deplorable” behavior.

118 anon November 8, 2016 at 11:26 am

I think I just agreed that these were a few pull quotes.

119 A Definite Beta Guy November 8, 2016 at 9:05 am

I noticed you used the word “if.” I guess you’re not part of the crew that has written off the election already.

I casted my vote to MAGA at 6 AM this morning, #4 in line. My Wife was #3: ladies first.

120 Anon November 8, 2016 at 9:45 am

Presumably ladies first in the results too.

121 A Definite Beta Guy November 8, 2016 at 10:06 am

There are no proper ladies in this race, only corrupt party bosses.

122 Steve Sailer November 8, 2016 at 9:07 am

The first anti-BLM counter-demonstration took place on Sunday in Chicago’s Mt. Greenwood neighborhood. It was peaceful, but pointed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i5GoVD5u8A&feature=youtu.be

The national media seems to be putting the kibosh on reporting it until the election is over.

123 anon November 8, 2016 at 9:18 am

I certainly hope Blue Lives Matter is not As you claim “anti” anyone else’s life mattering.

124 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 9:35 am

Except that’s exactly what it is. But Blue Lives Matter too. All lives matter.

125 anon November 8, 2016 at 9:45 am

As I observed long ago, the BLM protests could have been quick and done if people did answer them with sympathy that all lives matter, and not push-back that their lives do not matter other than in a general and abstract sense.

But of course, right? The year of a mainstream white power movement is not going to make sympathetic noises, it is going to push back, as Steve does above, setting Blue Live as “anti” Black Lives.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_majority_of_trump_supporters_surveyed_described_black_people_as_less.html

126 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 10:24 am

As I observed long ago, the BLM protests could have been quick and done if people did answer them with sympathy that all lives matter,

I’m not sympathetic to undocumented shopping. I doubt the (largely black) property owners in Ferguson, Mo. are either.

127 firingline November 8, 2016 at 12:42 pm

Do you realize how annoying your cloying emotionalism is? Why are liberals so sappy?

128 anon November 8, 2016 at 12:56 pm

Pew Research just told me that my “political views are closest to those of Independents.”

http://www.people-press.org/quiz/political-party-quiz/

Maybe you forget that normal people actually do think all lives matter?

129 firingline November 8, 2016 at 2:14 pm

“Maybe you forget that normal people actually do think all lives matter?”

Are you trying to imply something?

130 asdf November 8, 2016 at 10:08 am

They literally said “All Lives Matter” was hate speech.

131 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 10:13 am

Exactly. We have an organisation that demands police shoot innocent white people just for the purposes of maintaining a false parity and then turns around and refuses to accept that white people’s lives and blue lives matter too.

132 anon November 8, 2016 at 10:20 am

If you say it with spittle, it might just be.

133 TMC November 8, 2016 at 7:18 pm

It was Hillary that got it first from BLM after she said all lives matter. I guess there could be spittle involved.

134 Dain November 8, 2016 at 9:15 am

From my vantage point in Oakland I’m definitely more fearful of violence in the case of a Trump win.

135 Effem November 8, 2016 at 9:31 am

From my vantage point I see more risk of violence if Hillary loses.

136 Floccina November 8, 2016 at 9:50 am

Not much, old republicans are to respectful of authorities. They like the Police for one thing.

137 Thor November 8, 2016 at 10:18 am

“Don’t stand so close to me”…

138 Jan November 8, 2016 at 1:36 pm

But they really dislike minorities, jewnolists and city dwellers. Police can’t be everywhere. 🙂

139 David Pinto November 8, 2016 at 9:52 am

1968 Was Brinkman’s worst year at the plate. MLB lowered the mound in the 1969, Brinkman was coached by Ted Williams, and his averages shot up.

Brinkman is interesting because he was the first tall shortstop who fielded his position well. It was thought for a long time that a big man could not play the position well. Brinkman paved the way for Cal Ripken, and the power hitting shortstops that followed.

Even in his poor year, however, he managed a few hits. Maybe Brinkman will come through this year with the help of a few faithless electors.

140 Floccina November 8, 2016 at 9:55 am

Will Bill Clinton’s wife continue the violence against drug marketers?

141 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 9:59 am

We will build the wall.

142 Dave November 8, 2016 at 10:01 am

Friendly reminder that the guy who offers to supply the group with explosives and target lists is always the FBI agent.

143 RJ November 8, 2016 at 10:06 am

The left OWNS the political violence and rioting space. To suggest otherwise shows how incredibly out of touch Tyler is with the real world.

144 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

Bingo! Tyler seems to ignore the 2 cops shot down the other week by the BLM activist in Iowa.

145 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 10:26 am

They wrote too many tickets and they arrest drug dealers, so Tabarrok thinks they had it coming.

146 BDK November 8, 2016 at 4:30 pm
147 GoneWithTheWind November 8, 2016 at 10:10 am

Ironically the possibility of violence is greater if Hillary loses. All/most of the violence we have seen in this election was perpetrated by the Democrats/left against Trump supporters. If Hillary loses I would expect the hard line left wing to get violent and inner cities riot.

148 Stevem November 8, 2016 at 10:14 am

The remainers committed many acts of racist thuggery after Brexit went through, so we are told.

149 Anon November 8, 2016 at 10:15 am

10/10 troll Tyler. Well done.

150 Brian Donohue November 8, 2016 at 11:23 am

Nope. I voted for Hillary, yet I gotta say Tyler, with this post, couldn’t do a better job of casting himself as an academic weenie if he tried.

151 Hazel Meade November 8, 2016 at 10:56 am

I agree that there is more likely to be rioting if Trump wins. The rioting will actually be fairly justified though.
The millions of undocumented immigrants, and their families and friends, have every reason to perceive his election as a threat of physical violence against themselves.

152 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 10:57 am

None of those people have any right to be here and should not protest their rightful removal. VOTE FOR TRUMP!

153 Dain November 8, 2016 at 11:07 am

Right. When the system itself is violent, physical violence is merely self-defense.

Nice to see you lay it out so clearly.

154 Hazel Meade November 8, 2016 at 11:18 am

Yeah. If the Jews had rioted when Hitler was elected, maybe history would have been a little different.

155 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 11:22 am

Yeah, I’m sure a segment of Germany’s shopkeepers, professionals, and civil servants numbering less than 1% of the country’s population would have had the SA quaking in their boots.

156 Hazel Meade November 8, 2016 at 11:28 am

Fortunately, Hispanics are more than 17% of the US population, and illegal immigrants are around 3.5% of the population. I think they stand a better chance.

157 careless November 8, 2016 at 3:53 pm

No, rioting because someone won in an election in a country that is not yours is not justifiable. It’s reprehensible, and should be met with force.

Sorry, you’ve gone retarded, Hazel

158 Hazel Meade November 8, 2016 at 4:59 pm

Who decides whose country is whose?

159 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 7:08 pm

The people who actually live here. Lawfully. Who have citizenship.

160 Fishbane November 8, 2016 at 11:31 am

Nah. You much prefer to let other people do the fighting, as you’re trying to stir up the Hispanics but won’t fight yourself.

161 Hazel Meade November 8, 2016 at 11:43 am

In all seriousness, if Trump wins and attempts to round up and deport all the illegal aliens, I will hide some in my attic.

162 The Anti-Gnostic November 8, 2016 at 12:21 pm

if Trump wins and attempts to round up and deport all the illegal aliens, I will hide some in my attic.

Leapfrogging loyalties.

163 A Definite Beta Guy November 8, 2016 at 12:31 pm

Roflmao, harboring criminals is not a noble act.

164 msgkings November 8, 2016 at 12:41 pm

@ADBG: said the slave catcher to the Underground Railroad

165 Hazel Meade November 8, 2016 at 12:52 pm

Ahh, the fearsome criminality of exchanging money for labor without the government’s permission.

166 Urso November 8, 2016 at 12:58 pm

A lot of times when Cowen talks about “virtue signaling” I roll my eyes, but this is the most hilarious example of virtue signaling I’ve ever seen.

167 A Definite Beta Guy November 8, 2016 at 1:00 pm

If you want to escort the illegal immigrants North to Canada I am sure no one would complain. America obviously oppressed them by violently abducting them and bringing them here against their will.

168 Yappy November 8, 2016 at 1:09 pm

They’d rather go back to Mexico than hide in your attic. Hazel, in 100% seriousness, if Trump wins, are you going to fight? You’re just another sh*tlib trying to stir up nonwhites to do “justified” violence you’re too much of a coward to do yourself.

Trump 2016

169 Hazel Meade November 8, 2016 at 1:28 pm

Fortunately, it’s an empty threat because Trumps going to get creamed. 😉
I’m just enjoying stirring your shit, losers.

170 careless November 8, 2016 at 3:55 pm

Why aren’t you already harboring illegal aliens in your home, Hazel? Hell, why haven’t they forced themselves in while you sat there powerless to do anything? They have a right to be there! Freedom!

171 Hazel Meade November 8, 2016 at 4:59 pm

Illegal aliens are welcome to visit me in my home. Especially if I am paying them to do work for me. Got a problem with that?

172 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 7:38 pm

You should be arrested Hazel. Be VERY careful after January 20th. Trump is WINNING!

173 The Anti-Gnostic November 8, 2016 at 8:37 pm

said the slave catcher to the Underground Railroad

This is hilarious. Like Central America is this prison where Americans keep the indigenous peoples locked up. This is basically an acknowledgment that Central American countries are loser cultures incapable of self-governance. Tell me again why we abandoned imperialism?

174 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 11:20 am

The rioting will actually be fairly justified though. The millions of undocumented immigrants, and their families and friends, have every reason to perceive his election as a threat of physical violence against themselves.

Well, as long as we’re calling out the National Guard, I’ll offer the hope they drop kick you to Saskatoon.

175 Hazel Meade November 8, 2016 at 11:26 am

More threats of physical violence! Delicious.

176 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 4:42 pm

You endorsed rioting by turnstile jumpers up thread. Maybe you need to take your lithium and you’ll have a better handle on your thoughts.

177 Hazel Meade November 8, 2016 at 4:57 pm

What’s worse? A) Smashing some windows, B) Kidnapping someone and transporting them to another country?

178 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 7:07 pm

1, I take it the word ‘riot’ is one you’ve never heard used before. See Detroit, 1967.

2. Hazel, the person loaded into the trebuchet and catapulted across the border will be you, so it’s all good

179 Li Zhi November 8, 2016 at 11:13 am

What a pathetic question. Yes, there will be violence if he loses. Yes, there will be violence if he wins. Yes, there will be violence – there always is in America. But Tyler apparently lives in some other Bubble Universe.

180 Bill November 8, 2016 at 11:28 am

Li,

What is it like to live in an alternative universe?

181 Art Deco November 8, 2016 at 4:46 pm

No one can fire you and you’re handsomely paid for giving 225 lectures a year and writing a half-dozen exams (from the notes you drew up in 1995). You also live in a crime-free suburb of detached houses where the real estate prices never fall. If you’re really rolling in it, your wife can land a handsomely compensated job with an agency one of your colleagues described as ‘a stew of rent-seeking and regulatory arbitrage’.

182 Jay November 8, 2016 at 11:38 am

Wait so one side is burning down the campaign centers of the other, beating up their supporters outside of rallies, paying people to violently disrupt the other’s rallies, and we’re asking if the OTHER side is going to be violent?

183 Wonks Anonymous November 8, 2016 at 11:58 am

A CTRL+F for the phrase “victory riot” oddly turned up nothing here. It has happened a number of times after a local sports team won a game, although it fortunately didn’t happen recently in Chicago.

184 Thiago Ribeiro November 8, 2016 at 12:02 pm

It has happened in Chicago for more than a century now.

185 TallDave November 8, 2016 at 12:04 pm

Violent criminals are generally overwhelmingly Democratic, so unless the violence is from Democrats reacting in horror to Donald Trump’s unlikely victory, widespread mayhem seems unlikely.

186 Greg G November 8, 2016 at 4:44 pm

Violent criminals are generally overwhelmingly non-voters.

Half the country doesn’t vote anyway. Violent criminals generally lack the capacity for deferred gratification that attempting change through the ballot box requires.

187 cowboydroid November 8, 2016 at 12:26 pm

The hysterical Left is always voicing fear over boogeymen militias coming to take over their precious nature reserves and subject them to an unfathomable amount of anxiety.

The paranoia of social collapse finds a welcome home in the Left.

188 MattW November 8, 2016 at 12:36 pm

The most dangerous scenario is if Trump wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote.

189 Jan November 8, 2016 at 1:36 pm

Because it reminds us our democracy is a joke?

190 Yappy November 8, 2016 at 1:44 pm

So you support abolition of the first past the post system?

191 Jan November 8, 2016 at 3:37 pm

Are you saying we couldn’t abolish the electoral college while retaining a first past the post system?

192 Trump Fan November 8, 2016 at 6:26 pm

Of course we could. Then, we’d still have an unfair system, just one which benefits you. You’d like that, wouldn’t you?

193 MattW November 8, 2016 at 5:28 pm

Because 90% of the violence so far has been from anti-trump people attacking pro-trump people, and if that scenario happened it would be the most likely to result in real violence. Addressing the point of the post.

194 MattW November 8, 2016 at 11:38 pm

Looks like this is the most likely result at this point. fffffffffffffff

195 Troll me November 8, 2016 at 2:28 pm

There will be plotting, and most will fade into nothing as they come to realize the extent to which brainwashing, hysteria and a general abandonment of rational thought or respect for truth had featured heavily in the campaign.

OK, now let’s see who is how deluded. Which campaign was operated with more flagrant disregard for truth? How much willful blindness is there in apologist lines for lies that a 7 year old could see through, for example one candidate repeatedly denying having said things after it was demonstrated that he in fact said those things?

Blinded by partisanship in an electoral campaign, this might be understood. But to what extent will Trump’s partisans try to rewrite how these portrayals arrive at the ears and eyes of those who have already proven vulnerability to having the wool pulled over their eyes? For example, in two years time, how many people who voted Trump will respond “yes” to the question “I believe that Trump saw Muslims dancing in NY City after the WTC bombing” or other lies that Trump doubled down on after repeatedly being shown to have lied about something?

No apologism is needed for Clinton. We all know what she did and none of those things warrant jail.

As president, other situations will have outcomes which are different from the optimal outcome when calculating foreign lives as worth zero and American lives as worth whatever they are. However, Clinton is less likely to have quite such a calculus as compared to Trump’s short-sighted approach, and is far less likely to stoke anti-American sentiment globally and/or any sorts of arms race out of concern for what else an America that would elect Trump could approve.

Trump is not a known quantity in political office, so risk factors are through the roof. And, whatever problems there are with the status quo that Clinton will also do nothing about, there are essentially no reasons to believe that Trump will have anything positive to offer on any such files.

196 J November 8, 2016 at 3:26 pm

According to fivethirtyeight.com, in three of the last five elections, the polls were off by about 3%. They could be off by a similar amount this time. If it’s 3% one way, then it’s extremely close and maybe Trump wins. If it’s 3% the other way, Hillary wins easily and may even carry states like Ohio and Arizona.
Let’s say she wins Arizona, because, you know, more registered voters cast ballots for her than Trump. Considering that the standard republican voter narratives include 1) the polls are skewed against Trump, and he is actually performing better than the biased media admits, 2) the democrats have rigged the election/are committing voter fraud as we speak and 3) illegal immigrants (!), do you believe that republicans would just say “well, we played hard, but we just got beat by a better team today” or, given that their beliefs cannot account for such a (statistically possible) result actually happening, they might be inspired to take action?

197 careless November 8, 2016 at 4:10 pm

Yes, I remember the mass murders after Romney lost. This seems completely plausible

Look: a large part of the left has gone (or revealed itself to already be) insane during this election season. Yglesias wrote “My guess is that in a Trump administration angry mobs will beat and murder Jews and people of color with impunity.” and I haven’t gotten a single person on the Left to come out and admit that he’s nuts.

And he’s nuts.

198 msgkings November 8, 2016 at 4:32 pm

I’m in the center and that statement is obviously nuts. But it’s also lacking a source.

199 Careless November 8, 2016 at 4:59 pm

What part is lacking a source?

If you’re talking about the Yglesias post, it’s been deleted, http://archive.is/3tDrt

The quote is “My guess is that in a Trump administration angry mobs will beat and murder Jews and people of color with impunity.”

200 J November 8, 2016 at 4:43 pm

I agree with you. Mass murders are implausible.

I suppose I should have been more specific about what I meant by “action”, but I (and anyone else) can only speculate on what form it may take. What I was thinking of was something along these lines:

https://www.ft.com/content/d6c3c43e-3c66-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0

I merely point out that it’s easy to say “it’s the left that are the real violent ones” and “the left is nuts”, but in the (still admittedly hypothetical) scenario where Hillary legitimately wins Arizona, there doesn’t seem to be anything in the republican belief system that would accept it as legitimate, people will be angry, and some of those people might express that anger.

201 static November 8, 2016 at 4:34 pm

if trump wins, we will see years of protests from the “occupy wall st” “style morons- although they seem to agree with him on trade. if dems take the senate, sanders and warren will be well positioned to destroy the economy once and for all.

202 anon November 8, 2016 at 6:33 pm

A moment of honesty before the results roll in – if Trump is elected President, I will probably take advantage of California’s newly legal marijuana to maintain my chill.

203 The Other Jim November 8, 2016 at 7:36 pm

First data point of the night: Trump supports gunned down in California by Democrat Whacko.

204 Dave November 9, 2016 at 5:07 am

Update: Trump won. Will there be violence from the left now?

205 Yawar November 10, 2016 at 11:20 am

I guess we already saw it all and things have been rather crazy, but everything is pulling the weight behind now and is moving well quickly. I trade with keeping my safe side and that’s easier to do with broker like OctaFX which is world class having lowest possible spread available from 0.1 pips for all major pairs while there is also epic rebate scheme where I get 50% back on all trades even with the losing one too which makes it so good.

206 bill reeves November 11, 2016 at 10:57 am

We’ll never know about Trump’s followers but we do know that ten of thousands of triggered snowflakes protested with hundred of arrests and destruction of property. One aspect of elite privilege such a your is that you always impute base motives and reactions on those beneath you while assuming the best for your class. I think working class morality is far more admirable than academic morality. And far less predatory or fraudulent.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: