Kentucky Governor suggests 'blood will be shed' if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency

[unknown]

Kentucky Governor suggests 'blood will be shed' if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency

Republican Matt Bevins, who was elected last year, said conservatives may have to fight 'physically' to protect their values from liberalism

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/kentucky-governor-suggests-blood-will-be-shed-if-hillary-clinton-wins-the-presidency-a7268141.html

Tim Walker US Correspondent |@timwalker |
Sept 13, 2016

Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin has said American conservatives may have to resort to physical violence to protect their values from liberalism, should Hillary Clinton emerge victorious from the November presidential election.

“I want us to be able to fight ideologically, mentally, spiritually, economically, so that we don’t have to do it physically,” Mr Bevin, a Republican, told an audience of social conservatives at the Values Voter Summit in Washington DC on Saturday. “But that may, in fact, be the case.”

{.. snip ..}

[geronl]

Will they resort to violence to protect the same rights from liberal Trump though

[Night Hides Not]

Not at all helpful IMO

[GrouchoTex]

Is it just me, or does it seem like more people are threatening violence this time around?

[INVAR]

Good Job Matt.

Hand the enemy the ammo they need to do exactly what you don't want them to do.

I guess this is the kind of rhetoric that infects a lot of people who end up supporting Trump: bloodlust and division.

If he had any brains at all, he would have simply asserted Kentucky's right to refuse any further Federal encroachments on our liberties and leave it at that.  He could have gone as far as to say that they would defend our citizens from federal courts and not comply with any Federal edicts and decrees that infringe upon our sacred rights.

All without even hinting at violence.

But this is what Trump has sown as their party's nominee: threats of violence.

Which hands the Marxist Left every excuse and justification to do what all tyrannical regimes do to those segments of the population they decree a threat to the state.

[XenaLee]

Kentucky Governor suggests 'blood will be shed' if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency

Republican Matt Bevins, who was elected last year, said conservatives may have to fight 'physically' to protect their values from liberalism

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/kentucky-governor-suggests-blood-will-be-shed-if-hillary-clinton-wins-the-presidency-a7268141.html

Tim Walker US Correspondent |@timwalker |
Sept 13, 2016

Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin has said American conservatives may have to resort to physical violence to protect their values from liberalism, should Hillary Clinton emerge victorious from the November presidential election.

“I want us to be able to fight ideologically, mentally, spiritually, economically, so that we don’t have to do it physically,” Mr Bevin, a Republican, told an audience of social conservatives at the Values Voter Summit in Washington DC on Saturday. “But that may, in fact, be the case.”

{.. snip ..}

That's what America needs.  More idiots either calling for or threatening violence.  Morons, all.

[XenaLee]

Good Job Matt.

Hand the enemy the ammo they need to do exactly what you don't want them to do.

I guess this is the kind of rhetoric that infects a lot of people who end up supporting Trump: bloodlust and division.

If he had any brains at all, he would have simply asserted Kentucky's right to refuse any further Federal encroachments on our liberties and leave it at that.  He could have gone as far as to say that they would defend our citizens from federal courts and not comply with any Federal edicts and decrees that infringe upon our sacred rights.

All without even hinting at violence.

But this is what Trump has sown as their party's nominee: threats of violence.

Which hands the Marxist Left every excuse and justification to do what all tyrannical regimes do to those segments of the population they decree a threat to the state.

Exactly.  You can show firm resolve and resistance without making threats.  This guy is an idiot.

[Wingnut]

Kentucky Governor suggests 'blood will be shed' if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency

{.. snip ..}

Would it be we will see "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her … wherever.”

Or maybe...

The drink will flow, and blood will spill
And if the boys wanna fight you
Better let 'em?

Trumps peeps are so confusing. 

[INVAR]

Exactly.  You can show firm resolve and resistance without making threats.  This guy is an idiot.

I think he simply got infected with the Trump virus.

The one that causes uncontrollable right arm stiffening at the sight of The Donald and uncontrollable spittle-flying threats to do violence to Conservatives who will not bow at his altar. 

I think we might call it the Sean Hannity Syndrome.

[Night Hides Not]

I think he simply got infected with the Trump virus.

The one that causes uncontrollable right arm stiffening at the sight of The Donald and uncontrollable spittle-flying threats to do violence to Conservatives who will not bow at his altar. 

I think we might call it the Sean Hannity Syndrome.

The "Trump Virus" is more powerful than a kilogram of Viagra.

I think it's more deadly than the most dangerous weapon in the US Army: a 2nd Lieutenant with a map.

[Jazzhead]

Is it just me, or does it seem like more people are threatening violence this time around?

With both parties nominating candidates that that majority of folks despise,  it's pretty clear that the "system" is broken.  Both candidates have no interest in bring folks together, only in waving the bloody shirt.

I expect there to be violence whoever wins.   

[Norm Lenhart]

With both parties nominating candidates that that majority of folks despise,  it's pretty clear that the "system" is broken.  Both candidates have no interest in bring folks together, only in waving the bloody shirt.

I expect there to be violence whoever wins.

The system is 100% fine as the founders designed it. the problem is yellowbacked Americans that are 'broken' You couldn't find enough principled people in this country to fill Yankee Stadium anymore on a bet. Just a bunch of gutless 'lesser evils' that will sacrifice anything to get their own acceptable level of evil elected.

Those are the problem. They refuse to adhere to the system of constitutional government.

[INVAR]

The system is 100% fine as the founders designed it. the problem is yellowbacked Americans that are 'broken' You couldn't find enough principled people in this country to fill Yankee Stadium anymore on a bet. Just a bunch of gutless 'lesser evils' that will sacrifice anything to get their own acceptable level of evil elected.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". - John Adams - October 11, 1798

[unknown]

BEST ELECTION YEAR - EVER!!

I need to find a meme for that.

[Norm Lenhart]

BEST ELECTION YEAR - EVER!!

I need to find a meme for that.

Odd that you seem to view a presidential election as a form of entertainment. You do keep posting that afterall. So I'm curious. Please, tell us what you find enjoyable and exciting about two documented leftists, one representing the GOP and one the DNC vying for rulership over the lesser evil-destroyed carcass of America. I'm sure we;d all like to know.

[Norm Lenhart]

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". - John Adams - October 11, 1798

True in 1798, true in 2016.

[Smokin Joe]

Is it just me, or does it seem like more people are threatening violence this time around?

An awful lot of very angry people have been united and focused by the rabble rousing of Mr. Trump. He has played that anger and fine tuned it, given it enemies to turn it on (naturally to blame for everything from heartburn to cows giving sour milk), and I reckon they will. For those of us who compared him to another autocratic person in the last century, he seems to have supporters who could almost go for that jackbooted approach.

[DiogenesLamp]

Good Job Matt.

Hand the enemy the ammo they need to do exactly what you don't want them to do.

I guess this is the kind of rhetoric that infects a lot of people who end up supporting Trump: bloodlust and division.

If he had any brains at all, he would have simply asserted Kentucky's right to refuse any further Federal encroachments on our liberties and leave it at that.  He could have gone as far as to say that they would defend our citizens from federal courts and not comply with any Federal edicts and decrees that infringe upon our sacred rights.

All without even hinting at violence.

But this is what Trump has sown as their party's nominee: threats of violence.

You have it backwards.   People are angry and almost ready to fight.   Trump is a vehicle for this anger because all the "nice guys"  (McCain, Romney) didn't get anywhere. 


People are fed up at Republicans being "nice"  to Democrats,  and they want a pugilist who will give harder than he gets.    Trump fits their angry mood,  and that's why they  supported him. 


He fights. 

Which hands the Marxist Left every excuse and justification to do what all tyrannical regimes do to those segments of the population they decree a threat to the state.

Nonsense.   Being "nice"  is how we got where we were.   Let me tell you,  I absolutely *DETESTED*  how George Herbert Walker Bush was pushing his "Kinder, Gentler conservatism."      The man was utterly tone deaf about politics.   It was because he was trying to compromise with Democrats that  he broke his promise and thereby threw the election to Clinton.   


Many of us are utterly sick of people trying to be "nice"  to Democrats.   Now we want someone that will shove them into a meat grinder.       

[mountaineer]

Blood will be shed no matter who wins. We're just that divided.

[DiogenesLamp]

An awful lot of very angry people have been united and focused by the rabble rousing of Mr. Trump. He has played that anger and fine tuned it, given it enemies to turn it on (naturally to blame for everything from heartburn to cows giving sour milk), and I reckon they will. For those of us who compared him to another autocratic person in the last century, he seems to have supporters who could almost go for that jackbooted approach.

And you don't think any of this anger is the consequence of our p*ssified Congress doing absolutely nothing to stop Obama during the years we've had a majority?   

They won't even pass a d@mn budget!  We are still  operating under this "continuing resolution"!   


 People are waking up to the fact that the Republicans are the Washington "Generals"  to the Democrats "Harlem Globe Trotters."       It's all kabuki theater to make sure the money keeps flowing to the industries that suck on the government teat.   


Many conservatives are awakening to the fact that we have long been fooled,  and now we are angry and want some repercussions. 

[INVAR]

You have it backwards.   People are angry and almost ready to fight.   Trump is a vehicle for this anger because all the "nice guys"  (McCain, Romney) didn't get anywhere. 
People are fed up at Republicans being "nice"  to Democrats,  and they want a pugilist who will give harder than he gets.    Trump fits their angry mood,  and that's why they  supported him. 

While I understand and appreciate the anger at the GOP for their full surrender during Obama's entire presidency - berating us for refusing to support a NYC liberal Democrat demagogue is entirely the wrong thing to do. 

What you're doing is justifying a French Revolution style bloodbath, whereby everyone and anyone at any given moment can be declared an enemy of the state and guillotined.   Trump's militants are out there promising retribution and even threatening to kill us for treason if we do not vote for your prince.

He fights.

Fights?  Is that what you call it? 

About the only 'fight' I watched him wage successfully was against every single Conservative in the primary.  I recall he was "bored" with having to fight Hillary.

Let me tell you,  I absolutely *DETESTED*  how George Herbert Walker Bush was pushing his "Kinder, Gentler conservatism."      The man was utterly tone deaf about politics.   It was because he was trying to compromise with Democrats that  he broke his promise and thereby threw the election to Clinton. 

We know that.  It was because the Bushes never were Conservatives.  They were and are, proponents of "better-managed" big government statism.

Your boy Trump is worse.  He's an actual lifelong Liberal Democrat, even further to the Left than Bush.   If you dislike compromising with the likes of Pelosi and Schumer - if your prince "wins" in November - get used to the very thing you hated about Bush, only on a much grander and more overt scale.

Many of us are utterly sick of people trying to be "nice"  to Democrats.   Now we want someone that will shove them into a meat grinder.       

The only people Trump will shove in meat grinders are Conservatives who will not kiss his ring or anyone who publicly disses him.

Hillary he already said he was 'bored' with attacking.

That said, people who cheer demagogues are easily incited into bloodletting rampages by those they salute.

And that is what we are ripe for.

[INVAR]

Many conservatives are awakening to the fact that we have long been fooled,  and now we are angry and want some repercussions.

And you fell for the grandest deception of all by supporting the velvet coup's Trojan Stalking Horse.

The only repercussions suffered so far has been the eradication of Conservatism in national politics by Trump - and the coming bloodbath he and his militants are already stoking.

[geronl]

Odd that you seem to view a presidential election as a form of entertainment. You do keep posting that afterall. So I'm curious. Please, tell us what you find enjoyable and exciting about two documented leftists, one representing the GOP and one the DNC vying for rulership over the lesser evil-destroyed carcass of America. I'm sure we;d all like to know.

because liberalism wins either way, liberals should be overjoyed

[DiogenesLamp]

While I understand and appreciate the anger at the GOP for their full surrender during Obama's entire presidency - berating us for refusing to support a NYC liberal Democrat demagogue is entirely the wrong thing to do. 

Did I sound like I was berating you?   I thought I was just explaining why Trump is popular among the people who like him,  and I don't recall saying anything in regards to people who don't like him.   

What you're doing is justifying a French Revolution style bloodbath, whereby everyone and anyone at any given moment can be declared an enemy of the state and guillotined.   Trump's militants are out there promising retribution and even threatening to kill us for treason if we do not vote for your prince.

You exaggerate.   If the "revolution" is going to guillotine anyone,  it's going to be the Liberal enablers of our runaway government.   

Fights?  Is that what you call it? 

About the only 'fight' I watched him wage successfully was against every single Conservative in the primary.  I recall he was "bored" with having to fight Hillary.

We know that.  It was because the Bushes never were Conservatives.  They were and are, proponents of "better-managed" big government statism.

Yup,  and what is making people furious is discovering that more than half of our Republican "representatives"  are in the same social club.   THEY HAVE BEEN LYING TO US ABOUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE.

Your boy Trump is worse. 

Stop saying "Your boy Trump."   I was/am a Cruz supporter,  and I am quite annoyed that conservatives bought the Trump carny act hook line and sinker.   

He's an actual lifelong Liberal Democrat, even further to the Left than Bush. 

Now I know he has been a lifelong Liberal Democrat,   but saying he's to the left of Bush is  just mean. 

If you dislike compromising with the likes of Pelosi and Schumer - if your prince "wins" in November - get used to the very thing you hated about Bush, only on a much grander and more overt scale.

You know,  you would be a lot more convincing in this line of argument if it weren't for the fact that you keep ignoring how horrible Hillary would be.   No matter what Trump may do,  it cannot reach the depths of depravity from which Hillary's position is a given.   

The only people Trump will shove in meat grinders are Conservatives who will not kiss his ring or anyone who publicly disses him.

Again,  we know Hillary hates us with a passion  and  that she has already abused government power in an effort to attack and destroy us.   She will come at us with a fanatic zeal and a passionate hatred.   Trump has no reason to even bother us,  especially if he wins the election on the basis of conservative votes.   Why would he attack his base of support?   


Hillary,  on the other hand,  is a psychotic hate-witch who loathes everything we believe in and  relishes the thought of unleashing the federal power against us.   (AND SHE HAS ALREADY DONE THIS BEFORE!)


What is wrong with your ability to recognize the massive difference in threat level between these two people? 

[Smokin Joe]

And you don't think any of this anger is the consequence of our p*ssified Congress doing absolutely nothing to stop Obama during the years we've had a majority?   

They won't even pass a d@mn budget!  We are still  operating under this "continuing resolution"!   


 People are waking up to the fact that the Republicans are the Washington "Generals"  to the Democrats "Harlem Globe Trotters."       It's all kabuki theater to make sure the money keeps flowing to the industries that suck on the government teat.   


Many conservatives are awakening to the fact that we have long been fooled,  and now we are angry and want some repercussions.

One man, most conspicuously has stood up to them, and a few more, to be precise.

Your candidate (I'm Constitution Party, now) lied about that man, treated him like sh*t, treated his family like sh*t, and still is ticked off because he won't kiss his ring.

Yes, we're all angry that many of those we sent to Congress as TEA party candidates came down with the fastest onset of 'Beltway Fever' yet. But the guy you see as the solution is one of the ones who attacked the guy who is probably the standard bearer of fighting in Congress, despite the resistance he has had. Why don't you focus on replacing those SOBs in Congress who have been as useful to conservatives as boar's breasts are to a piglet? You may yet find it a blessing Trump can't do anything without their approval, as fast as he is shifting left.

There is a hell of a lot to be angry about, but just having a Trumpertantrum isn't going to fix what is broke and breaking more won't fix what gets broke, either.

He is going harder left faster than that crop of freshmen in Congress, because he isn't even waiting for the votes to be counted before he trashes virtually every principle on the conservative list. Now you might be pissed off because of that (you are if you have any sense), but my voting FOR him isn't going to right that wrong.