The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[The Romulan Republic]

What it says of one part of one party, maybe. He sure as hell doesn't represent the Democratic part of the voting base.

[Raw Shark]

With 17 initial candidates, it's really not very surprising that the crazypants vote initially coalesced around one or two loud, insane guys and the rest took a while to sort out.

[Civil War Man]

I mean, I've been scared of what the Republican Party was trying to do for a long time, but the stuff we're seeing now is just so blatant. At the risk of sounding alarmist, I honestly have to wonder: if Trump wins in 2016, will their be a remotely free election in 2020?

It actually gets worse. They aren't presidential candidates, but there have been several local and state officials in different parts of the country (mostly, but exclusively, Republican) who have openly advocated putting refugees in internment camps.

It's that blatant. The extremists in the US have all but abandoned any pretext of not being fascist.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course, it was a Democrat, Roosevelt, who did that to the Japanese in World War II. But it was inexcusable then, and its even more inexcusable 70 years later.

[SpottedKitty]

Of course, it was a Democrat, Roosevelt, who did that to the Japanese in World War II. But it was inexcusable then, and its even more inexcusable 70 years later.

Heh, have you heard of the reaction from George Takei (who was himself in one of those camps for a few years)? Set phasers to "zing", Mr. Sulu. Ooh, my...

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, I've been scared of what the Republican Party was trying to do for a long time, but the stuff we're seeing now is just so blatant. At the risk of sounding alarmist, I honestly have to wonder: if Trump wins in 2016, will their be a remotely free election in 2020?

It actually gets worse. They aren't presidential candidates, but there have been several local and state officials in different parts of the country (mostly, but exclusively, Republican) who have openly advocated putting refugees in internment camps.

It's that blatant. The extremists in the US have all but abandoned any pretext of not being fascist.

I think the most appalling thing I've read in all of this might be from your second link. The part about a Tennessee Republican official suggesting using the state militia to detain refugees, while referring to Tennessee as a sovereign state. I hear definite echoes of the 1860s their.

Considering the vile bigotry on display and the fact that from what I've read on the subject the states get zero fucking say in setting refugee policy, I can say, in all seriousness, that if Tennessee Republicans attempt to do so, and cannot be persuaded to back down by more peaceful, Obama should be prepared to deploy the National Guard against the state militia. Not that I think for an instant that he'd have the balls to do so.

[Tribble]

If the Republicans nominate Trump or Carson and lose the presidential bid, what do you think will happen? Would they realise that their choices aren't working? Or will they nominate someone even more right-wing and batshit crazy under the belief that Carson / Trump "wasn't conservative enough"? It would be difficult to imagine a more right-wing candidate exists, but I suppose they would manage to find someone.

[Elheru Aran]

It's more likely IMO that we'll see a serious fragmentation of the GOP. The Tea Partiers are likely to start going their own way (even more so than now), the religious conservatives will go another, and the straight Republicans will either run frantically in place trying to cover all the bases or just flip everybody the finger. Candidates will start running on platforms that are aligned more along these sectarian lines rather than an overall GOP platform. Oh, sure, the GOP name will still be out there, the candidates will still say they're Republican, because that's how the American party system works-- if you're not one or the other, you're nothing-- but effectively the Republican party is not going to have any more consistent messages. It's going to be extremist, extremist, and extremist, with a few moderates stuck in the middle.

[Ahriman238]

If the Republicans nominate Trump or Carson and lose the presidential bid, what do you think will happen? Would they realise that their choices aren't working? Or will they nominate someone even more right-wing and batshit crazy under the belief that Carson / Trump "wasn't conservative enough"? It would be difficult to imagine a more right-wing candidate exists, but I suppose they would manage to find someone.

This seems to be the Republican motto. When they win, they keep doing what they're doing, because clearly they're doing something right. When they lose, they double down on what they think the base wants.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah. If they follow the pattern and Trump loses, I expect them to go for something like an outright Neo-Nazi or KKK member next, running on a platform of banning the Democratic Party and deporting or segregating all minorities (or secession).

Edit: Or, yeah, split. We can always hope.

Apparently a lot of the Christian Right are actually showing some faithfulness to their religious beliefs about charity and are unhappy with the anti-refugee rhetoric.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/r ... ans-215991

Faith-based groups, who play a key role in resettling refugees to the United States, say they are dismayed by the wave of anti-refugee fervor set off by the Paris terrorist attacks and are urging supporters to contact elected officials on behalf of victims of the Syrian civil war.

Evangelical Christians, as well as Christians more broadly, are a core group in the Republican electoral base and are among the most passionate advocates for aiding refugees.


A push by Republican presidential candidates to ban Syrian refugees "does not reflect what we've been hearing from our constituencies, which are evangelical churches across the country," said Jenny Yang, vice president for advocacy at World Relief, an evangelical organization that helps resettle refugees. "Most of the people have been saying we want to continue to work with refugees, that what happened in Paris ... doesn’t reflect who refugees are."

Reports that a Syrian migrant may have played a role in last week's attacks in Paris, which killed around 130 people, have set off a GOP-led backlash over the Obama administration's plans to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees next year. More than half of U.S. governors have said they do not want Syrian refugees resettled in their states, while House Speaker Paul Ryan says he wants a vote this week on GOP-drafted legislation to halt the administration's plans.

World Relief is one of nine not-for-profit organizations, several of them faith-based, that help resettle up to 70,000 refugees from around the world in the United States each year. Others include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and the Church World Service. Many other faith-based groups, including evangelical Christian organizations, also perform aid work overseas specifically aimed at refugees fleeing conflicts.

151117_Paul_Ryan_AP_1160.jpg
House likely to vote Thursday on Syrian refugee bill
By JAKE SHERMAN
For Republican presidential contenders such as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who have been working hard at shoring up evangelical support in a crowded field, harsh words against refugees carries a risk of looking politically opportunistic instead of compassionate. Some advocates were particularly shocked when Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie, New Jersey's governor, said that the U.S. should bar Syrian orphaned toddlers if necessary.

"That was offensive. That was mean-spirited," said one advocate with a Christian group that resettles refugees. He added: "it’s disappointing because there have been Republican senators and presidents who have strongly supported this program over the years. There’s a proud tradition in the Republican Party of welcoming those who are fleeing persecution, and this takes the party in a negative direction. It’s easy to pick on vulnerable refugees who have no voice. But there are immigrant groups who have voting power that understand what is going on. They understand that it’s an anti-immigrant message."

Even though many on the Christian right have reservations about immigration overall, and may in particular be unhappy about people who illegally enter the United States, there's long been a recognition that refugees fall under a different category. The 11 million Syrians who have either fled the Arab country or are displaced within it are dodging terrorist groups such as the Islamic State or the barrel bombs of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Many are elderly, widowed or in need of medical care.

Some Republican candidates have suggested that only Syrians who are Christian be allowed on U.S. soil, something President Barack Obama has blasted as shameful. Yang said many evangelical Christians would also oppose such a religious test, especially because many are eager to share their faith with new arrivals.

The United States so far has admitted roughly 2,100 Syrians since the conflict in the country began in March 2011. To be allowed in, refugees have to undergo the most stringent security checks of any traveler heading to the United States, according to the State Department. Officials from the Obama administration on Tuesday began reaching out to the media and lawmakers in a bid to explain the screening process, which takes an average of 18-24 months.

Meanwhile, faith-based groups have also stepped up their advocacy efforts for refugees. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement expressing distress over calls by elected officials to halt the resettlement program.

151117_syrian_refugees_AP_1160.jpg
White House pushes back against GOP on refugees
By NAHAL TOOSI
"These refugees are fleeing terror themselves — violence like we have witnessed in Paris," said the statement by Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, chairman of the conference's committee on migration. "Instead of using this tragedy to scapegoat all refugees, I call upon our public officials to work together to end the Syrian conflict peacefully so the close to 4 million Syrian refugees can return to their country and rebuild their homes. Until that goal is achieved, we must work with the world community to provide safe haven to vulnerable and deserving refugees who are simply attempting to survive."

Since the Paris attacks, World Relief has used a website to urge people to contact their governors to express their support for resettling Syrians. The Anti-Defamation League also has spoken out in favor of helping the Syrian refugees, noting that U.S. wariness to accept Jewish refugees during World War II is an example that must not be repeated.

Jonathan Greenblatt, the chief executive officer of the ADL and a former Obama aide, stressed that much remains unknown about the Paris attacks, including the exact nature of the allegation that a Syrian migrant was one of the eight or nine attackers. Even if a terrorist posed as a migrant to reach France, it's less likely that the U.S., with oceans to protect it and a stricter screening process, faces the same level of dangers, other advocates said.

"Republicans and Democrats have to tread very carefully here," Greenblatt said. "Faith-based voters are very attentive to these issues. They’re very sensitive to helping those in need."

Joanne Kelsey, assistant director for advocacy with Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said she hoped that the sound and fury over refugees would soon be replaced with reason as Republican lawmakers and officials get more details about how the refugee program works.

"This is a very reactionary time," she said.

[Purple]

A lot of politicians are dishonest and manipulative. However, to embrace Nazi-like ideals for personal gain is taking it to an unusually disgusting level.

I disagree. It's simply a logical extension of the way the system works. Democracy you see is not about intellectual debate or informed decisions or what ever other nonsense they told you in school. It's a popularity contest where members of the rich social elite compete against one another for positions of power and influence. The people that take part in this contest could not care less about you, me or anyone else not from their class and they certainly don't believe anything they say. It's all just cynically calculated in order to manipulate people into voting for them. So really if hitler is what sells to a significant demographic praising him and rejecting him are for a politician not really morally different. One is a cynical attempt at gaining votes by pandering to his supporters whilst the other is an equally cynical and manipulative attempt at gaining the votes of his enemies. And under the facade of disagreement both sides are just saying "vote for me".

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, I've always found the whole "All politicians are the same" line to be irritatingly over simplistic cynicism, and I think it is usually peddled either as an excuse to be apathetic or as a way of discrediting all the other options so people will back your preferred choice (its the kind of talk I hear a lot from libertarians, in my experience).

But I admit I seldom see it taken to the level of saying that open endorsement of Nazi-esque policies is just the same as politics in general.

See, I actually believe that some people have standards, and lines they won't cross. That not every single elected official and candidate is a fucking sociopath. Some of them, sure, but not all of them. And in any case, its hard for me to reconcile "democracy" with "support for policies which serve to undermine the existence of democracy".

Besides, its terribly dangerous to start accepting that this is how politicians are, because when we do that, we stop demanding better. That's the implication of accepting that all politicians are corrupt- corruption becomes normalized and accepted. Fucking Nazism should not be treated as business as usual. If you can't see why, go read a book about the Holocaust.

So if actually demanding better from my politicians than fascism is self-delusion, I would argue its a socially useful self-delusion, at least.

[jwl]

Out of curiosity just what are his odds of wining?

According to william hill he's got a 27% chance of winning Republican nomination and a 17% chance of winning the election overall. Of course that would mean that he has a 62% chance of winning presuming he wins the nomination, which seems a bit off to me but oh well.

[Purple]

You know, I've always found the whole "All politicians are the same" line to be irritatingly over simplistic cynicism, and I think it is usually peddled either as an excuse to be apathetic or as a way of discrediting all the other options so people will back your preferred choice (its the kind of talk I hear a lot from libertarians, in my experience).

But I admit I seldom see it taken to the level of saying that open endorsement of Nazi-esque policies is just the same as politics in general.

See, I actually believe that some people have standards, and lines they won't cross. That not every single elected official and candidate is a fucking sociopath. Some of them, sure, but not all of them. And in any case, its hard for me to reconcile "democracy" with "support for policies which serve to undermine the existence of democracy".

The purpose of democracy is to exploit the underlying power struggles within the ruling oligarchy for the good of the people. The idea being that because they are all manipulative selfish sociopaths they will inevitably seek to undermine those in power and replace them at every opportunity. And that thus any action by those currently in power that give them an opening will be exploited. So if you provide a mechanism that allows them to do so reliably and easily but tie that mechanism to the consent of the people you effectively create a system where those in power can't abuse that power too much lest they anger the people and thus give their opponents the opening they desperately want.

In that respect it's effectively a symbiotic system between the people and the ruling oligarchy. The oligarchy gains a bloodless and clean way to fight their power struggles which in the past would have taken the form of assassinations, poisonings and civil wars, all of which are costly and ungentlemanly affairs full of uncertainty for everyone involved. And the people gain a measure of protection against the worst excesses of the ruling elite.

Besides, its terribly dangerous to start accepting that this is how politicians are, because when we do that, we stop demanding better. That's the implication of accepting that all politicians are corrupt- corruption becomes normalized and accepted. Fucking Nazism should not be treated as business as usual. If you can't see why, go read a book about the Holocaust.

Quite the contrary. What made the Nazis evil wasn't that they were corrupt but quite the opposite. They genuinely believed in what they were saying. And thus they had the motivation to do it as well. A manipulative sociopath peddling evil as a way to power is meanwhile harmless because of his moral bankruptcy. He has no desire to actually do as he says.

So if actually demanding better from my politicians than fascism is self-delusion, I would argue its a socially useful self-delusion, at least.

You obviously did not understand a word I wrote.

[jwl]

Okay, I've just found out from wikipedia that donald trump is from the the apprentice US. Why did no-one mention this before? Also Alan Sugar does it better.

[Raw Shark]

Yeah, he hosts a reality game show. It's so irrelevant to actual politics and well-known over here that nobody thought to mention it, probably. He's also had his own board game in the 90s, which was similar to but not as fun as the classic Monopoly and its own contemporary Hotels. It's all just a giant publicity stunt to him.

[Mr Bean]

Yeah, he hosts a reality game show. It's so irrelevant to actual politics and well-known over here that nobody thought to mention it, probably. He's also had his own board game in the 90s, which was similar to but not as fun as the classic Monopoly and its own contemporary Hotels. It's all just a giant publicity stunt to him.

And some believe, and this is a somewhat accepted theory that Donald Trump is a plant by the Clinton's (specifically Bill Clinton) to weaken the Republican field. Not in the sense of the global Illuminati or anything just in the sense that Bill and Donald got together over drinks last year and said "wouldn't be funny if you ran for President Donald? Just be more authoritarian, racisit and more of an asshole than anyone else. It will help your career as a promoter and you might have fun doing it"

Donald Trump is after all nothing if not a self promoter, if someone told him, run for President and have fun doing it? He might jump on the chance for that alone and his popularity is a surprise to everyone including himself. Why not keep the train running for as long as possible the media talks about him daily, he improves his profile daily and the racism things will be forgotten with time if he reverts back to being a businessman.

[Raw Shark]

I'd buy into it. I'd even watch a Bill Clinton / Donald Trump team-up action / espionage movie, probably. C'mon, it'd be funny. In your heart, you know it's right. Those two would play flawless counterpoint to each other, on screen.

[Eternal_Freedom]

As an outsider, I'd actually be happier if that were true, knowing it's all a set-up rather thn a legitimate bid for the Presidency would be oddly reassuring.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Well thats the thing...
Who is saying it ISN'T a 'legitimate' bid? Thats the thing about Trump, the man is a Psychotic Narcissist.
I could see a Drunk Bill and Donald chatting about running as a Joke.
But the thing is, I can also see Trump, once he started, going "Hey, I could totally pull this off!" and believe he COULD, no.. SHOULD be the President! Cause he's fucking Donald Trump!

...

Anyways... I had wanted to mention earlier about the conversation about a fracturing GOP... To summarize my feelings. I offer the following quote:
"When Liberals loose an election, they think it is because they have been TOO liberal.
When Conservatives loose an election, they think it is because the have not been conservative ENOUGH."

I mean look at both the McCain and Romney elections. For BOTH of those, there are still people who will tell you that "If ONLY they had been MORE conservative! If only they had not been so wishy washy, and stuck to their CORE conservative values, they could have won the election!!!" IE, doubling down on the crazy...

Of course in Trump, Carson and Cruz, they HAVE their "Dream Crazy Candidate" which means that when they come to loose THIS election, it will inevitably turn into the "Liberals Stole the election!"
Again, I can easily find you people who will say with total sincerity that Romney "Really did' win in 2012, and that Obama "stole" the election by rigging Ohio and other states! They will show bogus reports of "120% voting" roles and cry rigged!

For outsiders to the US, you have to remember,, that modern Conservatism is basically a fundamentalist Religion:
IE..
"We can do no wrong, If our message is not heard, it can NEVER be because the message is wrong...But only because we are not shouting loud enough!
If we do not win, it can NEVER be because we are wrong, but only because outside forces have conspired against us!
All Praise Conservatism!!!"

That is basically what is going on...

[Mr Bean]

David Vitter known fan of hookers loses the Louisana race for Governor

And he still managed to get 43% of the vote, but the Democrat in the race managed to pick up a solid 20% backing of Registered Republicans which means 80% had no idea David Vitter had been seeing prostitutes for over twenty years while pushing for tougher sentences on prostitutes caught preforming there trade.

[Gaidin]

Interestingly enough that state is gonna have a D paired with an R for Governor and Lt. Governor now. Wonder how that'll make things. Or if at the state level they're really that different...

[The Romulan Republic]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-t ... d=35335721

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump would not rule out making a run for president as an Independent despite signing a pledge in September saying he would support the eventual GOP nominee instead of running a third-party bid.

“I’m going to have to see what happens. I will see what happens. I have to be treated fairly,” Trump said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” when asked about a new guerrilla effort by operatives within the Republican Party to derail Trump’s candidacy. “When I did this, I said I have to be treated fairly. If I’m treated fairly, I’m fine. All I want to do is [have] a level playing field."

Trump pointed out that he’s currently content with his position in the polls.

Presidential Candidates Condemn Donald Trump's 'Database' Comment
Donald Trump Would 'Certainly Implement' a Registry of Muslims
Terrorism Worries Are Back; Sanders Up, GOP Steady
“I’m leading every poll by a lot,” Trump said. “It’s not even a little bit anymore -- it’s a lot.”

Well, that'd be pretty much a certain victory for the Democrats.

Which means the GOP basically has to nominate Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

Thugs alledgedly assaulted a Black Lives Matter protestor at a Trump rally, with Trump's encouragement. Figures that it was in Birmingham Alabama. Oh Alabama, asshole of America.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/ ... index.html

Birmingham, Alabama (CNN)The Black Lives Matter activist who protested at Donald Trump's campaign rally on Saturday said the half-dozen white attendees who shoved, tackled, punched and kicked him also flung racial epithets his way.

Mercutio Southall, a 31-year-old activist who co-founded a Black Lives Matter chapter in Birmingham, said he felt "swarmed" by attendees at the Trump event after he and two other protesters began chanting "Dump the Trump" and "Black Lives Matter" during the Republican front-runner's speech to several thousand supporters.

Southall, who said his grandparents crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in the historic march from Selma to Montgomery, compared the experience to facing a "lynch mob." He said the people who attacked him also called him and two fellow protestors "monkeys" and the N-word.

The slurs cannot be heard on the video CNN recorded of the incident, and the network was unable to independently confirm them.

"I got punched in the face, I got punched in the neck. I got kicked in the chest. Kicked in the stomach. Somebody stepped on my hand," Southall said, describing his injuries in a phone call with CNN late Saturday.

Southall said the man in a blue-checkered shirt who appears to take a fighting stance in CNN's video of the altercation also choked him while he was on the ground. Southall said the choking only stopped when he punched the man in the groin.

A woman in the video can be heard shouting, "Don't choke him, don't choke him, don't choke him."

Southall and two other activists, including Carlos Havers of the National Action Network, entered the Birmingham Jefferson Convention Complex with tickets to Trump's rally after police outside the event moved their planned protest with a dozen other activists away from the entrance to the campaign event.

The plan, Southall and Havers said, was to protest the rhetoric Trump engages in on the campaign trail -- rhetoric that the two believe incited the violence they faced on Saturday.

"When you have a candidate going around spewing hatred and racism, that's to be expected," Havers said of the physical altercation. "He was really inciting the entire thing."

Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks told CNN on Saturday that "the campaign does not condone this behavior."

She declined to elaborate on Trump's reaction to the confrontation.

Trump had warned in August that if Black Lives Matter activists protested one of his events, they would have a fight on their hands.

"That will never happen with me," Trump said after Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders let Black Lives Matter activists take over one of his events.

"I don't know if I'll do the fighting myself, or if other people will," Trump said then.

As Southall took blows on Saturday, Trump tried to press on with his stump speech, but paused to remark at the apparent disruption and said, "Get 'em the hell out of here."

It is unlikely Trump could see the confrontation unfold from his vantage point on the stage, but was reacting to the apparent presence of protesters.

Still, Southall and Havers said they hold Trump responsible for how they were treated at the campaign event.

"He does condone it because he was the one saying, 'Yeah, get them out of here.' He was the one telling the supporters to do what they needed to to get them out of here," Havers said. "We want an apology from Donald Trump himself. We want him to sit down with us and explain why he did what he did and why's he's going around the country spewing hatred and racism."

Southall said he intends to press charges against those who assaulted him at the event, and said the police officers who escorted him out of the event at no point asked him if he wished to do so. He also said they did not offer medical attention.

"They were too busy trying to get me the f--- out of there. They weren't trying to be nothing but just getting me the f--- out of there. That was their whole concern," Southall said of the police officers who escorted him out of the event several minutes into the altercation between Southall and the half-dozen attendees.

Birmingham Police Lt. Sean Edwards, the department's public information officer, told CNN on Saturday that Southall did not require medical attention and did not ask to press charges.

Edwards said the department tried to contact him later Saturday at several numbers but could not reach him.

Edwards said his officers "didn't see" the violent confrontation take place, but said Southall is welcome to file a police report and press charges.

"I would be a little cautious with Mercutio Southall," Edwards added. "He has been an agitator from day one. Mercutio is always the agitator."

Speaking on the campaign trail, Trump has repeatedly touted his strong relationship with minorities, from Hispanics to African-Americans -- noting that he is assured victory in the general election if he can win the African-American vote.

But Trump's controversial comments about racial and religious minorities -- from Hispanics to, more recently, Muslims -- have strained his relationship with people of color.

Trump kicked off his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally "criminals" and "rapists" and lately has said he would either shut down or launch surveillance operations targeting mosques, and has appeared open to establishing a database for all Muslims in the U.S.

Southall, a father to three sons, said he was disheartened by the experience and said he hoped publicity around the incident could help serve as a wake-up call in a country that he said has ignored racial divides for far too long.

"This is the ugly truth of America. It was there like literally and figuratively in black and white. We saw it. We see it daily," Southall said. "It shows what kind of America we live in now and what kind of America it will be with Trump at the helm."

Fucking Brownshirts, following the will of their Fuhrer.

And here's Trump's two cents on it, along with a record of other violent incidents involving Trump supporters:

https://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015 ... r-beating/

After his supporters beat up a Black Lives Matter protester on video, Donald Trump suggested that they may have done the right thing.
The protester, a black man, reportedly started chanting Black Lives Matter at a rally in Birmingham, Alabama on Saturday. In a video captured by CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond, rally attendees swarm around the man, kicking and punching him as he curls up on the ground.

Trump was asked to weigh in on his supporters’ actions on Fox & Friends Sunday morning. “Maybe he should have been roughed up,” he said. “It was disgusting what he was doing.”
The Republican frontrunner compared what happened at his rally to a Black Lives Matter protest at a Bernie Sanders event, which prompted the Democratic candidate to release a detailed racial justice plan. “This is not the way Bernie Sanders handled his problem, I will tell you, but I have a lot of fans and they were not happy about it. And this was a very obnoxious guy, a troublemaker, looking to make trouble,” Trump said.
He gave a similarly winking response when his supporters have turned violent in the past. Two men in Boston said they ambushed and brutally beat a homeless Latino man because they were “inspired” by Trump, who later explained his supporters “are very passionate” and “love this country.”
Reports of Trump supporters launching violent and racist attacks have become fairly commonplace. Another recent rally took a dark turn when attendees shoved and spat on on immigration advocates. The following week, Trump supporters were filmed dragging and kicking an immigration activist while others yelled “U-S-A! U-S-A!”
After a slew of these highly publicized incidents, Trump’s campaign began corralling media this week and refused to allow reporters into the crowd at rallies.

Edited to fix typo.

[The Romulan Republic]

I honestly wonder if this time around, the Republican Party will accept an electoral defeat without major violence.