Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Last edited:
Trump!!!
- Thread starter snek
- Start date
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Trump rally attendee charged with assault: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/donald-trump-protestor-punch-face/index.html
It's been reported that Trump rally attendees get coached on how to deal with protesters before Trump takes the stage. Surround them then shout them down while ushers rush to grab them.
It's been reported that Trump rally attendees get coached on how to deal with protesters before Trump takes the stage. Surround them then shout them down while ushers rush to grab them.
Crowd and individual violence towards peaceful protestors is wrong and destructive to the cause of the violent. Drowning out protesters with whom you vehemently disagree strikes me as fair (I remember participating once when a little guy with a hammer and sickle on his hat started using a portable sound system decrying the evils of capitalism right outside the Business Education Building at UT.) Those of us waiting on a shuttle bus were not in the mood for it and multiple cries of protest rendered his presentation inaudible.
The would-be Mao looked at me and said quietly, "Don't I have freedom of speech." I said, "Of course you do dumbass, and we have the freedom to shout you down."
The would-be Mao looked at me and said quietly, "Don't I have freedom of speech." I said, "Of course you do dumbass, and we have the freedom to shout you down."
Always love the freedom-of-speechers that really have no clue just how the First Amendment actually functions...they forget that individuals not acting on behalf of the State can restrict the speech. Whether those means are legal or not is another matter, but the stifling is NOT a 1A issue
I have not seen any reports that there is "coaching" being done at Trump rallies but if the coaching is to surround them and shout them down until security arrives that seems pretty wise.
There is this from the CNN link
"And despite an announcement at the start of his rallies urging protesters not to be violent toward protesters"
There is this from the CNN link
"And despite an announcement at the start of his rallies urging protesters not to be violent toward protesters"
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Nobody has commented on Friday's incident in Chicago?
My $.02: Shutting down Trump's right to speak and be heard is wrong. One can disagree and protest without trying to drown out the opponent. I think the protesters should accept sitting outside the protest and sharing their views. Why do they feel they have a right to "shut down" or even disrupt Donald Trump's speeches from the inside? Seriously, gather outside to peacefully protest.
Trump needs to acknowledge that his rhetoric is both exciting his base and the opposition. There hasn't been much HRC has said this election that I'd agree with but the term "political arsonist" was very appropriate for Trump. This is well beyond being a mouthpiece for angry voters. He's giving permission to the violence. You can't say "I don't support the violence" in an interview then tell your attendees to "knock the hell" out of protesters or that you'd "cover legal expenses" for attendees that rough up protesters.
My $.02: Shutting down Trump's right to speak and be heard is wrong. One can disagree and protest without trying to drown out the opponent. I think the protesters should accept sitting outside the protest and sharing their views. Why do they feel they have a right to "shut down" or even disrupt Donald Trump's speeches from the inside? Seriously, gather outside to peacefully protest.
Trump needs to acknowledge that his rhetoric is both exciting his base and the opposition. There hasn't been much HRC has said this election that I'd agree with but the term "political arsonist" was very appropriate for Trump. This is well beyond being a mouthpiece for angry voters. He's giving permission to the violence. You can't say "I don't support the violence" in an interview then tell your attendees to "knock the hell" out of protesters or that you'd "cover legal expenses" for attendees that rough up protesters.
BevoBeef
250+ Posts
I have the same sympathies as you do. However, I think one of Trump's main points in his response on Sunday was that the disruptions to his rallies were from an organized effort by Democrats (e.g., Soros) mainly. So it is right to fight those groups who are being paid to do this ---- and he will in whatever way that he can. He wants to fight fire with fire, so to speak. It is his way of doing preemptive strikes --- words first and then actions if Soros (etc.) do not stop this.
He is telling the Democrats that he means business in the future with dealing with covert political violence.
Last edited:
I hate to be in the position of defending Trump but I am a supporter of free speech for all. And I agree that he should not have said to "knock the hell" out of the protestors even though they were trying to pelt him with tomatoes.
That said, I have not seen much evidence that Trump supporters are the aggressors in these incidents. Even the case where that one protestor was punched in the face it was only after he was extremely disruptive and then flipped off the crowd. He was begging to get assaulted.
For **** sake, when will the media call these protestors exactly what they are - f'n terrorists. I don't agree with Bernie or Hillary on much of anything but I would be livid if I saw a bunch of terrorists trying to block them from speaking. When did we become such a pathetic bunch of pansies that are afraid to let our political opponents exercise their right to free speech.
That said, I have not seen much evidence that Trump supporters are the aggressors in these incidents. Even the case where that one protestor was punched in the face it was only after he was extremely disruptive and then flipped off the crowd. He was begging to get assaulted.
For **** sake, when will the media call these protestors exactly what they are - f'n terrorists. I don't agree with Bernie or Hillary on much of anything but I would be livid if I saw a bunch of terrorists trying to block them from speaking. When did we become such a pathetic bunch of pansies that are afraid to let our political opponents exercise their right to free speech.
chango
2,500+ Posts
One of the many problems with Trump is that he makes statements like these out of his ***. They may or may not have been organized, but Trump says it without any proof whatsoever, so you can't rely on anything he says. Like the guy who rushed the stage had ISIS ties, according to Trump, which of course was false.
This is a DIRECT quote from his Meet the Press interview:
"And supposedly, there was chatter about ISIS. Now, I don't know. What do I know about it? All I know is what's on the Internet."
ALL I KNOW IS WHATS ON THE INTERNET
BevoBeef
250+ Posts
I agree with your point of view. But this is not much different than what BO does sometimes when he gives support to half truths and (sometimes) definite lies ---- e.g., Benghazi. At least Trump alludes to the fact that he may be quoting non-truths. Trump will have to shed this garbage in the general election --- if he gets that far. His replies are mainly for Repub consumption.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
With all due respect UTChE96, incidents of violence against protesters at Trump rallies have been well documented dating back to the Fall. Your justification of that 78yr old man's sucker punch of that protester is appalling. "Begging to get assaulted?" Yikes.
Terrorists? Multiple posters on the right fought my characterization of the armed protesters in Oregon as "terrorists" yet now we want to call some people holding up signs and shouting "terrorists?
How far does Trump need to ramp up his rhetoric before he crosses the line of needing to take accountability?
This isn't a 'free speech' issue. The government is not restricting the protesters. Even when held in a rented public facility, the rallies by ALL of the candidates are still essentially a private event. As such, the campaign is within their right to request action be taken against those who deliberately seek to disrupt. The presence of the Secret Service does not necessarily change the characterization of the event since they are there to provide security for the candidate, not the event.
As to the violence, save for the one in the arena where the old guy stood up and punched the idiot being escorted out, the actual violence seems to be coming FROM protesters. I saw several clips being aired over the weekend that showed Trump people shouting but then a punch being thrown by a protester (often of color).
As to the violence, save for the one in the arena where the old guy stood up and punched the idiot being escorted out, the actual violence seems to be coming FROM protesters. I saw several clips being aired over the weekend that showed Trump people shouting but then a punch being thrown by a protester (often of color).
The guy was flipping off an audience at a political rally that he was actively disrupting. What did he expect would happen? I am not saying that the old man was justified in punching him, but yes that protestor was instigating trouble. Would you feel the same way if a Trump supporter went to a Black Lives Matter rally, flipped them off and then got assaulted? Obnoxious punks with no respect for other people tend to get their asses kicked. It may not be right, but it's true.
I may have missed those reports, but I have not heard of wide spread instances of violence at Trump rallies until recently. If you have a link to an objective news source like the WSJ then I would be interested in reading. Trump does tend to make a lot of caustic statements but I have not seen evidence that his supporters are necessarily violent. Based on my limited observations of the behavior of these protestors, I tend to believe that they are the instigators in most instances.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Welcome to the general election Mr. Trump.
This ad is being run nationally through Tuesday. It s being put out by the anti-Trump Super Pac Our Principles PAC.
This ad is being run nationally through Tuesday. It s being put out by the anti-Trump Super Pac Our Principles PAC.
That's actually put out by a Republican super PAC. The Democrats' ads will be much tougher.
It's remarkable. Hillary won't have to run negative ads. She wing have to lie about Trump. All she'll have to do is show Trump being himself.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Yep. On MTP on Sunday Chuck Todd had an interesting exchange with Hugh Hewitt as they show was closing. Chuck Todd said (paraphrasing) "that's the problem with Trump for conservatives...rather than this election being a referendum on HRC which is what the right anticipated, Clinton will make this a referendum on Trump." Hewitt added "which we won't win".
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Trump's done a masterful job to date to convince his base that whatever he said or did prior to his Presidential campaign doesn't matter. To be sure, they only care about what he says now and half of that is excused or disregarded if it doesn't fit what they want him to be.
When his supporters are questioned on the facts of his candidacy it's uncanny how differently they all define him. The only consistent characterization is he "says what needs to be said".
I can only shake my head at the Republican voters supporting Trump. They are angry about many of Obama's policies but are wanting to nominate a candidate that all but guarantees an Obama 3rd term. It's not a done deal so I keep hoping many of these voters wake up to common sense, but it does not look promising right now.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Trump's base is immovable. Assume he has 35-45% of a larger Republican base. The more he's attacked, the more his base believes Trump is being attacked because he's right. I don't see any way that base ever supports a different Republican candidate. I had hopes that R primary voters would see Trump for the fraud he is but even with the attacks from all sides (conservatives, moderates, independents and liberals) that doesn't remotely look plausible.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Read the article and notice that Trump gave $6k and Ivanka gave $2k. Do you think either of them know or care about Kalama Harris or is it more likely both their names are used to donate enough to candidates to buy influence? I imagine lobbyists sending names to the accounting department to cut checks.
I'm sure that this was about buying influence. However, donors do know what they're doing.
chango
2,500+ Posts
Please explain how he was begging to get assaulted, but the old man was not justified in punching him . . . you can't have it both ways.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
ruh roh
"We choose the nominee, not the voters: Senior GOP official"
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html
"We choose the nominee, not the voters: Senior GOP official"
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html
I'm as anti-Trump as it gets and fully recognize that he has screwed things up horrifically for the conservative cause, but I will draw the line here. If Trump doesn't get enough delegates, then by all means, fight things out at the convention. However, I don't want the rules rigged to deny him the nomination or to substitute a nominee who wouldn't otherwise be eligible. That's dirty, and it won't fix the problem because the GOP will lose in November and possibly worse than it would with Trump as the nominee.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Senate Leader vote
- Started by BrntOrngStmpeDe
- Replies: 22
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
