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.

  • @foggy
    link
    1518 months ago

    January 6th was a failed coup attempt.

    How is saying you’ll retry your failed coup attempt if you don’t get your way something were allowing a presidential candidate to do?

    • @MrVilliam
      link
      English
      53
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Because he “tells it like it is” or something. Idk. The kind of people still falling for his grift are too shameless to ever admit that they ever fell for his grift, so they’re doubling down, succumbing to the sunk cost fallacy. They just stay in their echo chambers and saturate their awareness with weird culture war shit and then never hear about what’s actually happening. Half of them probably don’t even know that their guy is a defendant in criminal court this week. Willfully ignorant.

      • @foggy
        link
        468 months ago

        No I’m fine with uneducated masses eating it up.

        I’m not okay with judges pulling out their dentures to slobber on trumps balls over matters that threaten the whole country instead of figuratively castrating him the moment he says shit like this.

        • @MrVilliam
          link
          English
          248 months ago

          Agreed. But conservatives have learned over the past 10-20 years that they can more or less just do whatever they want without consequence because 1/3 of the people will fight to the death for whatever they do or say, 1/3 is completely unaware and uninterested in politics and current events, and the final 1/3 is people like us who want consequences but we’re too busy to do anything ourselves because survival is hard enough these days. There are a hundred things worthy of outrage and organized demonstration too, so which cause do we dedicate our summer to trying to fix? The right has an easier time because they just say “things used to be better” and then have one event where people complain about change. Pretty much everybody can identify with being pissed off that something used to be better until they changed it, and for some reason that’s strong enough to get some pretty average people to sit at the table with Nazis. There’s much more nuance and thoughtfulness on the left, so it’s much harder to get unity.

          Because conservatives can grow and maintain a reliable base to keep them in power, they feel no need to even pretend to be decent most of the time. They can just fervently choose their own selfish goals over what the Constitution or other rules and laws demand. I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that we’re rapidly approaching the era of post-democracy America. Some would say we’ve been there for decades already, but I think we’re in for some dictatorial, executions-in-the-streets type of shit if Biden loses. So conservatives in power who like trump or even suspect that he may win or get into power otherwise have to weigh doing the right thing which could hurt their party and draw targets on their backs vs low/no consequence siding with trump.

          "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”—David Frum

    • Billiam
      link
      158 months ago

      Because “not trying to overthrow the government due to losing an election” isn’t listed in the Constitution as a requirement to be elected. One would think that’s a pretty major oversight.

      • @whotookkarl
        link
        78 months ago

        It is but the Senate failed to do their job as usual and enforce it, thanks Mitch

      • @Cryophilia
        link
        5
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Except it literally is explicitly written into the constitution. 14th Amendment, Section 3.

        No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

        The major oversight is our massively and blatantly corrupt Supreme Court.

    • FuglyDuck
      link
      English
      68 months ago

      wouldn’t want this to appear politically motivated, now would we?