Would the vote get delayed? Would his VP take his spot?
Would Rato Cruz sub in for him?
Is it an automatic win for shillary because "MUH GUN CONTROL"?
>>80680340
Ultimately depends on who killed him: hadji or dindu?
>>80680340
If he picks the right VP it won't happen. I am hoping he picks Flynn.
>>80680340
>What would happen if Trump was shot right before Election Day?
riots
this is an attempt at a peaceful revolution
>>80681873
Quite possibly true.
>>80680729
possibly a dindu
>>80680340
Still fishing to see the public reaction when you deploy your assassins, (((Soros?)))
>>80680340
He wears a bulletproof vest
>>80681724
This guy would get eaten alive in debates. Plus his deal is national security, he can't make tough decisions. Typical jarhead
>>80681873
Try civil war. We'd have nothing left to lose
>>80681873
I see. So if Clinton wins you'll riot?
>>80680340
People would be mad as hell
>>80682714
Yes, only way she'd actually win is through corruption
>>80682386
Possibly a pissed off Republican who thinks the only way Hillary won't win is if it's not Trump
>>80682714
Depends on how blatantly rigged the election was. Which has to be pretty rigged, since there are literally zero Shillary supporters in the wild. No bumper stickers, no yard signs, no promotion whatsoever. Yet somehow she's got tens of millions of supporters...
It's like she knows she doesn't need to actually campaign, because fifty million mexican voters have already had their ballots filled out and waiting...
>>80682955
Wouldn't that be giving exactly what they want? Do you expect everyone to take up arms if she wins, as they say, "democratically"? Seems like a clear chance to destroy a threatening minority.
Will you be the first taking action if no one else does? Or you will wait until other people do so?
>>80683108
And how exactly could you tell whether it was rigged or not? Isn't it easier to simply to shill afterwards that she won rather than doing it through the entire election?
>>80683562
I'm sure something will happen. We will not let her take our guns away, invite thousands of "syrians," and lead us to WW3 with Russia.
>And how exactly could you tell whether it was rigged or not?
For one, there seems to be a phenomena of dead people voting democrat. Plus Microsoft owns the voting machines and they contributed monetarily to Clintons campaign. Not really far fetched
>>80683839
>I'm sure something will happen
I take it you won't take up arms first, then? Also, I don't understand the gun law subject so well it seems. I thought the mass shooting shilling and all the liberal pressure on the gun's fault was intended to rip your rights away slowly and safely rather than in quick strike. From what I understand of American gun law, many of your gun rights have already been soiled and it's actually quite restricted today. Are you saying that all the effort was simply to result in Clinton taking enough measures to incite you to rioting?
Also seems to me you'd need proof rather than theory. I'm sure there were contributions and some secretive talk somewhere, but I doubt the existence of those is enough to lead into revolt. There has more than enough deceiving and obvious attempts at shillings that were obvious and stated by /pol/, yet nothing led to anything. If my first statement is correct, how do you expect people to take up arms upfront if even you won't? Aren't you simply waiting each other for some "it's enough" moment that never comes?
>>80680340
I would riot, endless pursuit of the party responsible, it would be a civil war.
