Democrats & Liberals Archives

Trump Campaign Played With Fire, Now it Got Burnt.

I’m sure they’ll play the victim on this one, talk about thuggish protestors and all that. They may even play up the Chicago angle, and do even more race-baiting about Black Lives Matters. What I’m not sure about is whether Donald Trump has a clue about why, out of all the Candidates out there, he’s the one who ran into this. I’m pretty sure he’s not about to take responsibility. He should.

Being somewhat autistic means that over the course of your life, you get your share of rather embarrassing lessons in what is appropriate and not appropriate to say or do out in public. Even today, I have to admit, some aren't fully learned. But those lessons have taught me plenty about the benefits of knowing these distinctions. If you don't recognize them, you will embarrass yourself, you will needlessly offend people, and you might even lose jobs or get yourself into trouble.

Recently, I saw the movie Deadpool. I had a great time, and it's hilarious to see just how far someone can go in doing and saying some pretty inappropriate things. I won't relate much of what I saw there, but I'd say this: the movie made money for a reason. He said the sort of outrageous things that many of us wish we had the freedom to say, he confronted many of the hypocrites we wished we could confront, and he didn't shy away from many of the subjects we're sometimes afraid to confront.

But you know what? It's a fantasy. You can't behave like Deadpool in real life. For one thing, you don't have the healing factor. For another thing, most people who actually do act as homicidal, obnoxious, and out of control as Deadpool end up in jail or worse.

Enter Trump. Trump, too, is a fantasy character, who can say or do anything he wants, and who prospers because he does so. He sells people the fiction that somehow, if you're as bold and uncompromising as he is, if you say anything you want, "tell it like it is," and don't mind all that political correctness, you'll kick everybody's ass.

Full of himself, Trump has been littering the campaign trail behind him with one comment after another telling his supporters that they can, and maybe even should beat up on protesters who show up at his rallies. He's even offered to pay the legal bills of people who might get into trouble for doing so. And then, not so long ago, and old white guy in a rally punched a black protestor as he was walking out. To put icing on that particular incident, he's later recorded saying that if they come back, maybe they should kill them.

It's a poorly kept secret, if any at all, that Trump's got some major supporters among the White Supremacist movement. That's not to say his stated politics 100% align with theirs, but he sure hasn't gone out of his way to repudiate such endorsements in the time common sense tells you that a person in this country would be able to understand and reject them. "I'll get back to you on that," is not an appropriate response to "Do you repudiate David Duke's endorsement?", especially not when you're on record in the past blasting the man. He's not exactly an obscure person.

I have a feeling that as man who has been brought up in a wealthy household all his life, surrounded by people who never had the money or status to tell him no, whose subsequent life was built on creating a bold, outspoken persona, that he's just never learned when and how to shut up. I mean, even Mitt Romney, who can be a bit clueless about what the right thing to say is, especially when he's carrying those binders of women, knew enough about appropriate time and place for saying things that somebody had to record his 47% comment in secret for it to get out. Trump, on the other hand, says that kind of thing in public, unprompted, without any hesitation. Works wonders for a Reality TV star. Not so much for a Presidential candidate.

But wait a second! Shouldn't this guy have been filtered out of this election by now? Shouldn't all of his gaffes, bizarre statements, the scandalous past of his wife, and all that have counted him out? By all means, yes. If past elections were any guide. When Carlos Dang- I mean Anthony Wiener got caught sending pictures of the smaller Anthony to a woman who wasn't his wife, that put paid to his political return. Especially after what happened last time. Democrats, even in New York, really had no desired to get humiliated in front of the country.

What is it that allows Republicans to endure such humiliations without doing the same?

Well, they've literally been told that it's the end of the world if they don't beat the Democrats. Every day I encounter some Republican commenter saying that if Democrats are elected, all hell will break lose. Dogs living with cats, all the paint peeled off your house, and your family wearing permanent orange afros. Gay Marriage destroys marriage. Not discriminating against gays planning their nuptials destroys religious freedom, and so does, apparently, being forced to let people pay for an insurance rider that lets them get birth control without you being directly involved.

Or, as the case may be, letting Obama do his duty as President and nominate a successor to Antonin Scalia, allowing Obama his check on the shape of the court, as the Framers wanted to happen.

It's become ridiculously easy to substitute all the self-centered, partisan political goals for the good of the nation, because they've got media full of propaganda outlets whose only job is to conflate the two, no matter how strong the disconnect between them actually is.

Never underestimate the danger of always being told that you're absolutely right.

Our people constantly have to field criticism, have to field dissent from within their own party. They don't get spared the Republican Talking points, they don't get spared the Benghazis or the Whitewaters in the so-called liberal media. That makes you stronger, though, in the long run.

Here's the thing: somebody needed to tell Trump, don't go encouraging people to beat up protestors in the crowd. Somebody needed to tell him, don't go pandering to the White Supremacists. Somebody needed to tell him to stop offending the fastest growing part of the Presidential electorate. Somebody needed to tell him that you can't go crying to the rest of the country that your rallies have gotten disrupted when it seems like you're all too willing to disrupt them yourself by letting people whale on protestors.

This doesn't justify any violence the protestors themselves might have committed. The point isn't that. The point is, when Donald Trump had occasions to put this to rest, he instead stirred them up, probably power-tripping on getting his low-education voters to share in his lousy impulse control.

Now protestors know that if they show up alone to these rallies, they probably will get beaten up. So, do they not show up? Nope. They show up in greater numbers Can't beat them all up, can you?

Question is, will Trump go and find out? I sure hope he doesn't, that he takes this as a wake-up call. But my instinct is, he'll try to make himself into some kind of martyr. Oh, look at me, I'm being shouted down. Oh, I'm not going to be intimidated. History tells us the next steps of these kinds of debacles, whether he succeeds or not. Does he start encouraging his followers to carry at these rallies? Does he start turning up the racist rhetoric, with his followers following him deeper down that dark hole?

When and where does Trump find his limit? Or is it Trump really that we can rely upon to find that limit? I think Republicans are going to have to think long and hard about the price of cheap enthusiasm, enthusiasm based on fear and loathing, enthusiasm based on dogmatic, automatic opposition, enthusiasm based on following uninhibited ideas and impulses to their ultimate ends.

I think they should consider that it might have to be the voters that stop Donald Trump from taking us over the edge, not all the impotent political figures who played with political fire in order to resurrect a party whose fortunes had fallen on hard times, and now, with their leading candidate, are getting burned.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2016 12:15 AM
Comments
Comment #403374

Stephen,
You are wrong on this issue in so many ways.
Trump is not going to PLAY the victim in this case. He IS the victim.
You have said over and over that you support the constitution. I assume that includes the 1st amendment, securing us the right of free speech. Donald Trump’s right to free speech was taken away last night and you appear to support it. Our military has a saying if I might paraphrase here. I might not like what you are saying, but I’m willing to die to give you the right to say it. Last night, Move on, BLM, and others took those rights away from a presidential candidate. That is shameful and shouldn’t be tolerated.

I don’t like a lot of the things you and other liberals say here on watchblog. I have never tried to stop you from saying them because you have the right to do so, yet when conservatives say things that liberals don’t like, violence seems to follow, or the speaker or sponsor of the event is intimidated into stopping the event. We have seen this many times on college campuses. Liberals want to express themselves without criticism even to the point of demanding “safe spaces” to talk where critics can’t attend, Where is that available for conservative speech? Is it the fault of the people speaking their mind or the people who don’t want others to hear what they say?

You complain about Trump telling supporters to “beat up” on the protesters. At what point would you fight to protect your constitutional rights?

Posted by: tdobson at March 12, 2016 7:24 AM
Comment #403376

tdobson,

Is a Trump rally supposed to be a “safe space” whereby non-Trump supporters should be prohibited?

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 8:02 AM
Comment #403377
He said the sort of outrageous things that many of us wish we had the freedom to say, he confronted many of the hypocrites we wished we could confront, and he didn’t shy away from many of the subjects we’re sometimes afraid to confront.


You’re promoting a fear of speaking freely. You’re legitimizing the violence that follows someone’s speech. Why should someone fear speaking out and the violence that follows be expected and understood?

Stephen Daugherty, you of all people should be a champion of free speech, not a champion of the violence that follows. But I understand your politics. I realize, more than you do, your side can’t achieve their goals without violence and intimidation and slander and lies they use to make their opponents submit.

You should think long and hard about evoking the founding fathers and the constitution, Sir. No where did they point out what is “the right thing to say”. The right thing to say is an opinion of the listener. It may very well be the right thing to say. Your problem with it is you don’t think it’s the right thing to say. Your opinion of what was said justifies, in your mind, the violence, slander, and lies that follow.

That’s backward, Stephen Daugherty. It’s your side that are the violent instigators against free speech.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 8:19 AM
Comment #403378

No, Warren. There should be NO safe spaces to guard you against protest except your own private property. All public space should be a safe space for speech, as in safe from violence.

Posted by: tdobson at March 12, 2016 8:25 AM
Comment #403379

Warren Porter, are you in favor of bringing back David R. Remer’s safe space for Democratics here at WatchBlog?

Should WatchBlog return to banning people from commenting when they say something Democratics disagree with?

That’s exactly what those protesters did. They went to that rally with the sole purpose of disrupting it and silencing Donald Trump BEFORE he has a chance to speak.

Typical boorish behavior from leftist adolescents. You really should stop condoning it and support the first amendment for a change.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 8:29 AM
Comment #403380

As far as I know, protesters arrived bearing signs that expressed anti-Trump messages, but they intended to attend the rally and hear what Trump had to say. Apparently, free speech is a foreign concept for Trump’s supporters as these signs violated their safe space, leading to a violent reaction from Trump’s supporters.

As for Mr. Remer. Nobody was banned from this site without violating the Rules of Participation. While it may be fair to criticize Mr. Remer for failing to treat all violators equally, I find he did as good a job as any person could do. Never was anyone banned merely for criticizing Democrats.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 8:42 AM
Comment #403382

Pay attention Warren. Several protesters stated on camera that they were there to shut Trump down. One even admitted she couldn’t or wouldn’t say why she wanted to shut him down.

Posted by: tdobson at March 12, 2016 8:50 AM
Comment #403384

I’m sure people came with the hope that Trump would read the message on their signs and realize the error of his ways and shut down the hate.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 8:55 AM
Comment #403385

That’s bullcrap, Warren Porter.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/11/day-of-anti-trump-rage-began-in-st-louis/

During the event held at the Peabody Opera House, GOP front-runner Trump narrated the removal of protesters as the audience chanted “USA! USA!” He suggested protesters “Go home to Mommy” because “They contribute nothing.” At another point, Trump referred to protesters as “Young, spoiled kids.”

The truth hurts.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 8:56 AM
Comment #403386

tdobson-
I don’t support him being censored. I don’t even think making him postpone a rally like this is constructive.

Really, though, just step back and look at the whole thing. Like I talked about with my previous article about the blockade on Scalia’s replacement, the GOP has invested itself heavily in demonizing the opposition and opposing everything they do, no matter how much the consensus of the nation has been with it. FOXNews and other such outlets have created a kind of safe space for just going bonkers on this, selling the people a flood of lies that in essence portray people like me as Bond Villains looking to destroy America’s real character, and many of these BLM protestors as criminals, animals, who don’t accept that their martyrs had it coming.

Do expect people like me to remain calm and polite forever in the face of constant slander and disparagement? It’s already changed my tone, my outlook, to be bombarded with this kind of stuff for quite over a decade.

It used to be that you could get some cooperation out of Republicans when there was a Democratic President. Used to be that the filibuster wasn’t so heavily abused. Used to be that Conservatives actually conserved things, protecting the institutions that their country relied upon, instead of acting like Miley Cyrus wrecking balls that simply see most of modern government as a curse on the country to be destroyed.

These days, it’s like the only thing that will teach people to moderate themselves is the hard smack of reality hitting them personally in the face. And even then, the rationalization creeps back like a parasite to steal back any kind of insight that experience might gain them. Politics has taken over to the point that pragmatic, analytical appraisal of reality has taken a back seat to partisan sentiment.

Trump let his rallies become mobs. He encouraged them to be aggressive with the protestors. The Protestors in turn have thrown their weight around. Right or wrong, I don’t particularly have much sympathy for how Trump got into this position. You want things to be civilized, then you should be civilized. You want your followers and yourself to be safe from violence, then you don’t encourage violence against others.

The whole of the Constitution is built on reciprocity of behavior. If you pick fights with people in our system, you weaken yourself. If you build consensus, you gain strength. Obama didn’t win so many of the fights he’s won during his administration because he fought harder or exercised much more power than his predecessors. He won because he sought out precisely the position that would allow him the greatest consensus.

I mean, even Bernie Sanders, if you listen to his rhetoric, is appealing to things that most people in our society want. Greater social justice, a more solid infrastructure. A safety net that keeps job losses and other personal and public disasters from ravaging people’s lives. Justice against the corrupt bankers who endangered the system. He’s not choosing esoteric positions that only appeal to a few people.

The trouble with Trump is that what he wants isn’t all that symmetric outside the party with what’s inside the party. The Race-Baiting, Red-Baiting, red meat politics that is appealing to the Republican base is appalling to those outside of it. Trump might triumph within the party just to lose outside of it. That is why your establishment is trying to stuff him back in the bottle. He might be getting people enthusiastic, but so do many leaders who completely misjudge the situation.

Look at how Obama won support. Did he curse out hecklers? No. Very often, he played the audience against them, or better yet, answered their concerns. Did he build his support on hating whitey? Nope. He talked about white and black people coming together. His big break in 2004 was that marvelous One America speech, where he offered a vision of an America unified across all kinds of dividing lines.

Trump? Trump has depended on exploiting the things that the GOP used to divide support away from Obama, the race-baiting and red-baiting that strengthened the resolve of conservative voters, but which also has strengthened resentment of the GOP from outside. He’s the anti-Obama, the pied party of the Republican Party. These kinds of near riots tell you where that’s heading, because he will waste no time in getting his follower angrier and rougher so they will remain committed to him, dividing them further from everybody else.

What’s next, here, sending his followers into Bernie’s rallies, Hillary’s? What new outrage will he come across with? The whole problem is that, like much of the GOP, he’s made it impossible for himself to step back, calm down, and de-escalate the situation, and other people aren’t just going to sit around and take it.

You talk about your constitutional rights, but those must be observed in balanced with those of others. By your argument, Trump has been violating the rights of the protestors, especially in encouraging censoring violence against them. If he wanted to let things lie, he could have just let security do its job without inviting the audience to do it for them. Nobody would have blamed him for escorting such people peacefully out. He’s the one who chose to take the law into his own hands, and now others have chosen the same against him.

I would recommend that they step back. Their point is made. Protest peacefully around every rally now. Play it cool. I don’t need them to escalate. In fact, I wish they hadn’t pulled this stunt. But this is what happens when a politician starts picking fights with the audiences as their proxies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2016 9:07 AM
Comment #403387

I may not endorse the messages of the protesters, but I will defend to the death their right to say it without being threatened with violence by Trump’s supporters.

I watched those Breitbart clips and all I saw were Trump supporters upset that their safe space had been violated. I also see anti-Trump demonstrators defending themselves after being attacked by violent pro-Trump thugs.

Witness the truth. Was John McGraw threatened by the other man? Absolutely not. So why did McGraw throw a punch? Why did McGraw tell Inside Edition that “We might have to kill a protester”. Why did the police do nothing to protect the man who was assaulted by McGraw. Why wasn’t McGraw arrested or charged until well after the rally was over?

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 9:10 AM
Comment #403388

Stephen,
Point out to me one instance where Donald trump has violated anyone’s constitutional rights. Speaking your mind and giving your opinion is NOT a violation.

Protecting your rights is NOT a violation of the constitution.

Posted by: tdobson at March 12, 2016 9:17 AM
Comment #403389

Stephen,
You have the right to object and protest anything I say. You do NOT have the right to stop me from saying it.

Posted by: tdobson at March 12, 2016 9:21 AM
Comment #403390

tdobson,

I don’t think anyone is alleging that Trump is criminally liable for the violations of protesters’ free speech rights. However, there is the general sense that a public figure like him has a responsibility to be a good role model for the people that look up to him or her. The things Trump has said have inflamed passions rather than encourage civility. This is in stark contrast with all other Presidential candidates, regardless of party.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 9:26 AM
Comment #403391

Weary Willie-
I’ve been posting pretty rarely because I just can’t stand the contempt with which people like you address people like me, and I’ve got enough crap in my life without having to field that kind of hatred every day.

So let me address your accusation. I was describing a comic book character, in essence, whose entire schtick is that he’s a motormouth nut. The violation of social standards is what makes him funny. Trump, too. I imagine some people are just thrilled that there’s this aggressive, eccentric, uninhibited guy out there, “telling it like it is.”

That’s fun for his audience, not so much for the people who are afraid of what happens when this impulsive motormouth gets his finger on the nuclear trigger.

You want to talk about my side being violent instigators. Then tell me, what has he been encouraging his followers to do to his protestors? I never encouraged this for hecklers at Obama’s rallies. I never encourage political violence, period. I just don’t find it unexpected when after so many violent incidents between Trump’s people and protestors, the protestors escalate in return.

You’re looking at this with logic I would call naïve. I don’t expect people on my side to turn the other cheek forever. That’s not how people tend to work. When Trump calls for taking these people out on stretchers, and offers to pay their legal bills, he’s doing more than having a laugh with his people, he’s encouraging dangerous behavior. I mean, I look at him doing that, and I’m appalled. I’d be appalled and dismayed if one of my own people did that! But fortunately, I don’t have to worry about that! I don’t have to worry about Clinton encouraging people to beat up protestors, because she damn well knows that’s a quick way to get into legal trouble!

Your problem here is that you’re trying to justify the situation in Trump’s favor. You’re ignoring all the provocations that lead to this. I’m telling you, stop using that naïve line of logic. Realize that there are real world consequences for encouraging your supporters to be violent.

I mean, I sort of had a degree of Schadenfreude looking at this situation, thinking, well, you had it coming, but I also had concern that perhaps those protestors had risen to Trump’s bait, and now Trump will play this like he’s a Martyr.

You should sit down for a moment and consider that he hasn’t stopped playing with fire. What’s next? What does he say next? Can he back down from the violence, or will he ratchet it up? He backs down, he looks weak, he ratchet it up, things get worse.

You tell me: where does this line of irresponsible politics end? When do people like you realize that they can’t force everybody else to live with their control, that influence on the system is the best they’re allowed under the Constitution, and this dangerous game of trying to snatch up all power for themselves in the name of saving the country from their opponents has to end.

I don’t believe in safe spaces. I think people grow fat and stupid in safe spaces. I believe in a constructive, sort of competitive system, where we turn our competitive visions against one another, and then figure out what compromises we can live with so things actually get done. We’re not just doing college bull sessions here, we’re dealing in the real world, where things need to be taken care of, or they will break, wear out, and otherwise collapse. Trump has no appreciation for what he’s breaking down here, and I wish you did so you, with other Republican voters could stop him.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2016 9:38 AM
Comment #403392

Ok, Warren. If Trump didn’t violate anyone’s rights and as you say is not a good “role model” as you would expect him to be, what should his punishment be? Should his rights be violated? or perhaps people who are offended by him should protest peacefully and not vote for him.

Posted by: tdobson at March 12, 2016 9:52 AM
Comment #403393

It’s too bad you didn’t exhibit this faux outrage when union thugs were beating up tea party patriots in wheel chairs, Stephen Daugherty.

It’s funny how the blinders come off when it’s the other party.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 10:04 AM
Comment #403394

People like you and I have an obligation to punish Trump by withholding our political support from him. Under no circumstances should the government censor Trump’s rhetoric, no matter how hateful it may be.

perhaps people who are offended by him should protest peacefully and not vote for him.
This is precisely what anti-Trump people are doing. They are attending Trump rallies, but brining signs with anti-Trump messages. Perhaps they might yell “boo” when they hear a line they disagree with. The problem is that Trump supporters get offended that these people are violating their safe space and the result has been violence such as sucker punching an innocent demonstrator for the sole crime of opposing Trump. Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 10:19 AM
Comment #403395

tdobson-
First, the First Amendment and other civil liberties apply mainly to governments. So, wrong question.

The real question relates to civil and criminal liability. The First Amendment doesn’t protect speech that invites criminal acts. You might have a great rationalization for Trump’s behavior, but that doesn’t give him a right to encourage people to assault protestors. Assault is illegal, as is battery. Trump could be held liable for telling people to commit a crime.

Which brings me to another point: The President is supposed to be the person who is meant to carry out our laws. So, how does he start out his campaign? Encouraging his followers to commit acts that could rise to the level of being felonies.

This seems to be your side’s bad attitude: rules and restrictions are for other people. You folks, because you got such great causes, get to break the laws, violate other people’s rights. Trouble is, in the real world, nobody takes things like this sitting down. You cannot hold high a standard for others that you won’t hold yourself to.

I don’t condone or recommend violence by protesters, but I know that if your side keeps pushing the boundaries of civil behavior, not everybody on my side is going to be intellectual enough about matters to take the high road.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2016 10:22 AM
Comment #403397

Weary Willie-
I have no problem holding individuals responsible for their actions. I really doubt that I, my Party, or the unions really want to be associated with beating up anybody in a wheelchair.

I don’t want those protestors getting violent with anybody. It’s not to my advantage to see them do that.

It’s not difficult to write these things, as I regard them as common sense. The same common sense that should be telling you and Trump to back off on this whole protestor beating thing.

Why is it so difficult to get you to admit that Trump’s actions have been provocative, and to the detriment of his party? The fish is rotting from the head here, and you can’t hold off questions like this forever by trying to reflect them back on others. You reflect, others reflect right back on you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2016 10:33 AM
Comment #403398

Warren,
The protesters weren’t there to peacefully hold their signs and yell boo. You and I both know this. They admitted they were there to shut down his rally.

Stephen,
I will defend my rights by any means necessary, I expect you to do the same. I think Donald Trump has that same right.

Posted by: tdobson at March 12, 2016 10:36 AM
Comment #403400

tdobson-
AP reports:

Trump was not advised by either the U of C police or the Chicago police of security problems that would force him to cancel his rally.

You say, “I will defend my rights by any means necessary.”

Don’t you think the protestors are saying the same thing? Do you not see the spiral you are in?

Look, I don’t get to beat other people up in order to stop them from heckling me, if I’m up on a soapbox speaking my peace. There are limits in a society built on the rule of law as to how far we are allowed to go to see to our own interests. If I use a con game to get back money from a bank that swindled millions, I’m still liable for breaking the law.

Trump told people to assault protestors. Not only is that not a legal thing to advise people to do, it’s also guaranteed to provoke the protesters. He had every right to eject the protesters, as they had no first amendment right to heckle his private rally. But he can’t expect that if he encourages violence and intimidation against the protestors that they won’t turn around and see that as a violation of their rights, and reciprocate. Stop assuming that when you push the envelope on behavior like this, people don’t push back.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2016 10:56 AM
Comment #403401
The protesters weren’t there to peacefully hold their signs and yell boo. You and I both know this.

It seems you came to this conclusion without regard for any examination of the truth or facts. I shared a video of a man sucker protesting a nonviolent protester. I dare you to share a video of the reverse.

They admitted they were there to shut down his rally.

Yes, they wished that Trump supporters would receive the message borne on their signs and put an end to this madness.

Honestly, we shouldn’t be surprised that it has gotten to this. The Tea Party protests 6 years ago brought out the same violent elements just the same. It was despicable then and it is just as despicable today.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 11:05 AM
Comment #403402

And before anyone challenges what I wrote above. Yes, violence was endemic at tea party rallies 6 years ago. YouTube is filled with similar videos.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 11:16 AM
Comment #403403

So when are you going to hold the Democratic party responsible for union thugs beating up a guy in a wheelchair?

If the fish rots from the head down it’s all fish, not just republican fish.

Try to remember that the left is disrupting the Trump rally’s, Stephen Daugherty. Trump supporters don’t disrupt Trump rallies. Someone as smart as you should realize that.

Warren Porter, what’s up with the projection? Why are you attributing the right with creating safe spaces? That’s a spoiled, thin-skinned leftist creation. There you go again. Creating an issue and then blaming it on your political opponents. Typical liberal hypocrisy.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 11:17 AM
Comment #403404

Trump, the independent thinker. He called off the rally because he didn’t want to see people hurt. That sounds like sound judgement to me.

Let’s look at the ‘68 Democratic convention and see how well the police handled that one.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 11:22 AM
Comment #403405
So when are you going to hold the Democratic party responsible for union thugs beating up a guy in a wheelchair?

Sorry, I am not going to indulge your deluded fantasy.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 11:39 AM
Comment #403406

I knew you wouldn’t. That’s why I can’t give any credibility to your criticism of Trump.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 11:49 AM
Comment #403407

So you are going to falsely equate a fraudulently derived incident with actual violence?

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 11:56 AM
Comment #403408
and that when they confronted him about them, Gladney started the physical attack by slapping McCowan’s hands.

Why would he try to slap the guy’s hands, Warren Porter? Could he have been reaching for the buttons to destroy them? You know, like other leftist, faux outrage, antagonists do with property of people who disagree with them.

Use a little common sense on that one. He’s in a wheelchair. Imagine the outrage if it was a Democratic in a wheelchair selling Obama buttons.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 11:58 AM
Comment #403409

The wheelchair was a prop. Gladney was looking for trouble and got it when he attacked those men without provocation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 12:07 PM
Comment #403411
said charges against two were dropped after the defendants completed 32 hours of community service each.

Indentured servitude is only legal as punishment for a crime.

Was that wheelchair sitting across the street? Or, was the guy sitting in it when he was attacked?

Geesh, you guys will believe anything if it fits your narrative. Brush it all under the rug to protect your precious party.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 12:29 PM
Comment #403414

Lots of comments and interesting to read.

Frankly, I believe the protesters at the Trump rally only served to give Trump more media coverage that will work to his advantage. In the interest of safety he cancelled the rally. That’s a common sense decision. People will applaud that act. Some lay the blame for such behavior at Trump’s feet. It will not be viewed that way by millions of voters who see the demonstration and hear Trump being presidential.

Voters will not change candidates because they see a sign held by a protestor. Instead, many voters will see the demonstrations against Trump as one more reason to vote for him.

Should these type of protests continue at Trump rally’s it will only further serve to promote Trump. They protest and he gets hours of media attention to present his views.

He wins, they lose. Trump couldn’t have planned it any better.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 12, 2016 1:37 PM
Comment #403415

Watch the video. It begins with a member of the SEIU laying on the ground, with Kenneth Gladney standing over him. A minute later, another SEIU member knocks Gladney down before he has a chance of attacking anyone else. Throughout the entire encounter, Gladney demonstrates no physical handicap that would require a wheelchair. Evidently, his intention was to create an incident for the benefit of the Tea Party AstroTurfers by preying upon deluded right-wingers like you.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 1:42 PM
Comment #403417

That video came in long after the altercation started. It doesn’t show anything.

Go back to the story in your link to where it says. “.. when they confronted him about them”.

It’s your link, Warren Porter.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 2:25 PM
Comment #403421

Sure, they confronted Ken’s speech with speech of their own. At the end of the day, they were acquitted by a jury on the charge of assault.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 2:51 PM
Comment #403422

Weary Willie-
You know, that case isn’t as clear cut as you think.

First, a jury acquitted those accused of the assault.

Second? The man can’t seem to keep his story straight. For example, he showed up to the trial wearing a Neck brace. Why? Who knows, because he doesn’t.

McCowan and Molens were represented by high-profile defense attorney Paul D’ Agrosa, whose legal fees, McCowan said, were paid by the union. During his closing argument, D’ Agrosa questioned whether Gladney was wearing a neck brace to the trial for sympathy, saying it reminded him of a “Brady Bunch” episode.

Gladney had testified that he underwent recent neck surgery not related to the August 2009 fight. Later, outside the court, Gladney told a reporter he belived his neck problems were the result of “blunt trauma” he suffered in the fight.

So, inside, under oath, the reason he’s wearing the brace is unrelated to the 2009 fight. Outside, It’s a different story. Another factor?

D’Agrosa also asked the jury to consider that the only participant in the fight with “documented injuries” was McCowan, who had been treated for a dislocated shoulder and broken shoulder bone.

Funny how that works. No documented injuries, he’s walking away from the fight at the end, not rolling in a wheelchair, while his supposed attacker ends the fight on the ground with the only injuries we have evidence for. Is it any wonder they were acquitted so quickly?

I think they were held responsible for their own actions. Are you going to hold the Tea Partier responsible for being dishonest, for falsely playing on your heartstrings?

Royal Flush-
So, you think Trump planned it? I think that’s a possibility. I mean, after all, Despite what Trump said to MSNBC about the police advising him not to go through with it, the Chicago PD actually reassured him that they could handle the protesters, and that there was no immediate danger from them.

So, another Wounded Gazelle argument. It’s like the bully who suddenly starts sobbing when the adults come around, after they’ve been fighting with the other kids, starts pointing out all the bad bullies out there. Funny how that works. How many sympathy votes are you planning on wringing out of this latest debacle, hmm?

I think it’s time to quit this rationalization. You’ve set yourself a situation where you only win if you can rule absolutely. You have to break this system, break the Constitution itself to get what you want. A party that cannot accept a functional society in a democratic republic, is one that sows the seeds of its destruction.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2016 2:51 PM
Comment #403424

When Mr. Daugherty writes something interesting and new I will read it. He is just soooo boring.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 12, 2016 3:18 PM
Comment #403425

Where in that story did you read the cops said there was no immediate danger? It states they had enough manpower to cover the event, not that they could handle the protestors and there was no danger from them.

Trump is old enough to remember the ‘68 Democratic convention.
He made a prudent decision and the cops had to go along with it.


Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 3:27 PM
Comment #403429

Stephen,

Great comment. Just watch the conservatives squirm as they desperately try to change the topic, whether it be to your verbosity or to irrelevant events from decades before we were born.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 5:09 PM
Comment #403431

Those ignorant of their history are doomed to repeat it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 5:30 PM
Comment #403432

…irrelevant events from decades before we were born.
Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 5:09 PM

Hmmm…Our founding as a country, Civil War, WW1, WW2 come to mind. How irrelevant.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 12, 2016 5:46 PM
Comment #403434

Democratics have a propensity to only deem their own lifetime as relevant. If it happened before they were born it didn’t happen. Unless it benefits the Democratic party, of course. Take the civil rights issue for instance. It was republicans that pushed and voted for the civil rights act, but Democratics claim that as their own.

They refuse to admit their godfather Woodrow Wilson segregated the military. He was an overt racist, but Democratics place him on the right hand of God’s throne (i.e. the leader of the Progressive movement)

They’re even trying to say Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln were Democratics.

They live in their own world and they expect us to agree with them. It’s sad, really.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 6:10 PM
Comment #403437

You’re right Willie. It seems that today’s Dem/Soc are all heart and no brain.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 12, 2016 6:33 PM
Comment #403438

RF,

Some historical events may be relevant to this particular issue, but it would be fallacious to declare all historical events relevant. The 1968 convention is not. The violence in 1968 was related to anti-war sentiment and a direct function of the undemocratic manner that led to Humphrey’s nomination by the Democratic Party. None of those attributes are present in recent events.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 6:36 PM
Comment #403441

Thanks for the clarification Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 12, 2016 7:03 PM
Comment #403443

Warren Porter, I could say the sun rising yesterday was not relevant because it has nothing to do with the sun rising today.

You’ll have to examine what happened in the 60’s in general and relate it to what’s happening now in general.

People are angry they’re being ignored by an overbearing government that thinks only of itself, just like in the 60’s. They’re tired of being taken advantage of, just like in the 60’s.

My parents called them unpatriotic hippies and treated them with scorn. I’m looking at these insolent children as just that, insolent children who expect everything handed to them while they sit on their xbox.

Based on what those hippies who are in charge of our government have done to it I can see now what is going to happen in the next 30 years. That’s what makes the 60’s relevant to today.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 7:09 PM
Comment #403453
You’ll have to examine what happened in the 60’s in general and relate it to what’s happening now in general.

Why would I relate things that I think are unrelated?

People are angry they’re being ignored by an overbearing government that thinks only of itself, just like in the 60’s. They’re tired of being taken advantage of, just like in the 60’s.

My parents called them unpatriotic hippies and treated them with scorn. I’m looking at these insolent children as just that, insolent children who expect everything handed to them while they sit on their xbox.

Based on what those hippies who are in charge of our government have done to it I can see now what is going to happen in the next 30 years. That’s what makes the 60’s relevant to today.

In other words, you are still but-hurt over some things some hippies did 50 years ago and you let that cloud your cognitive faculties.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 8:14 PM
Comment #403454

Royal Flush-
When I read Royal Flush actually engage the subject of the discussion, rather than simply insult the commenter, I will be surprised.

Weary Willie-
Right. Let me be clear with you: Trump claimed that what he did, he did because the Police told him he should. The authorities denied they told him this. Logically speaking, and I’m going to nail you and Trump both on this, he created a greater sense of danger than the public safety officers on the scene were willing to state actually existed.

This is crucial, logically speaking, because of the wounded gazelle tactic he’s using. In essence, it’s a manipulation, just like his habit of mentioning Bernie Sanders now whenever there’s a disturbance. He’s got no proof Bernie’s doing anything, but that won’t stop him.

Trump’s not going to level with us, now, or when he’s President. As a private citizen, he can take his lying rear end and jump off a pier, for all I care. But as President? I went through eight years of this, during my twenties, of a President who couldn’t bother to level with the people about his failures, and instead chose to double down every time he was caught in a lie, an error, or a policy fiasco. Obama’s had his share, but you can get him to change policies, to change directions. He can act like most people do, and admit when things are going wrong.

Bush and Trump? These aren’t responsible men. They’re people who care more about relentless sales jobs and pushback against their critics, than they do about course correcting policy that has to be objectively functional in order to make Americans’ lives better. We pay for their irresponsibility, their inability to drop the pretenses and pretexts and fix things when they don’t turn out as expected. Oh, and you want to talk about those who are doomed to repeat history?

Trump is repeating history on Bush. I remember people pushing the Bush Administration as a redemption of Washington, as making America Great again (or making it morning in America again.) I remember another man who made his fortune doing real estate speculation (after being a legacy of a rich father.) I remember another guy who promised he was going to seal up that border. It’s not a new claim. It’s not a new idea. Nor is beating down the reputation of a financially successful President with a good jobs record as having a mediocre record. I’ve been through all this bull**** before, why else do you think I take such a dim view of it all? I’m old enough to remember not just what happened after the Bush tax cuts, but the Reagan Tax cuts before.

I wasn’t born yesterday. I remember when it was actually a thing to have characters recalling Woodstock. Now there are middle aged adults who weren’t even born when Joe Cocker sang about getting a little help from his friends in rural New York State.

When I was a kid, there were plenty of Vietnam Veterans showing up in movies as young guys. Now such a veteran would be elderly, the Gulf War Veterans the middle aged ones, and the Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans the young guys. Hell, if you remember that story thing I started, my character Jake Riley was a veteran in both wars.

I know you think that the past is relevant, and it is, but there’s a whole lot of the recent past you can’t seem to remember right, a lot of lessons your people have refused to learn. In fact, this whole resurgence of the GOP, and Trump’s rise to the nomination are all built on a not so solid foundation of that denial.

Yes, I remember the Democrats. DEMOCRATS. (Use proper English) not being the party of Civil Rights back in the fifties. But they helped to pass that bill, and in fact it wouldn’t have passed without their support, because they were the freaking majority. I also remember that right after that, as Lee Atwater would recall, the Republican Party deliberated courted those who were disaffected by that change. This, I think, was one of the most fatally flawed decisions the party ever made, and it started this cycle of alternatively inflaming and getting burnt by the constituency they chose, the people who pine for the Antebellum, who think that the South was wronged in the Civil War. The truth is, we’re fast approaching a point, with nature culling people birth year by birth year, where those who even remember the days of Jim Crow are fading from this world.

History may linger, but at a certain point, we have the opportunity to leave behind the bad decision of the past along with those who were invested in them. Your people, though, seem invested in holding on to this past, even though much has changed about the world, and many of the assumptions made by these people have been disproved practically and empirically again and again.

As for what happened in the Sixties? Maybe that’s your departure point, what you care about, but I don’t have the memory of that era to look back on. The memory I have is of a childhood marked by multiple layoffs, marked by the burdens that healthcare costs put on my family. The memory I have are of a time where once the cheats and the con-men on Wall Street were held accountable. That, mixed with mulitiple examples in my memory of Wall Street taking its new freedoms, like the keys to their parents car and leaving the car in the ditch repeatedly. Whether it’s the 1987 crash, the Savings and Loan Debacle, the Dot.Com Bust, the Enron/WorldCom implosions, the Housing Market collapse, and of course, the Great Recession.

You tell me, why should I trust Wall Street. They seem addicted to building speculative castles in the air, and not the least bit interested in building the real economy on a solid foundation. They’re willing to expose the economy to incredibly chaotic forces, just to make themselves more money. Now, as a capitalist, a guy who thinks that capitalism works better than socialism, I would like things to work with a minimum of government intervention. But my feeling is, if the market shows you it can’t police itself on a given subject, you don’t ignore history. You do something about it. Wall Street needs rules, just like everybody else does.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2016 9:23 PM
Comment #403455

It must be easy to think things just happen out of the blue.

Haven’t you ever noticed that catastrophic things happen to this country every three generations.

2008 the Great Recession
1929 the Great Depression
1861 the Civil War
1776 the Revolutionary War

Coincidence? Perhaps.

Perhaps not? Who are we to say there is no grand design carried out by the oldest of families, the richest of men. How are we to be so arrogant as to think we know all about the people who’s families were bred throughout time to rule over the masses. What hubris to think we know what they are capable of. What more to think we can control them.

The left claims only 1% of the U.S. population control all the wealth of this country. This didn’t happen over night. It didn’t happen in just the last 20 years.

Every time it gets destroyed it gets built back up again. There’s always someone at the top who picks up the pieces by just being the last guy on the board. Just like the U.S. did when the rest of the world was destroyed by WWII. Every depression has a winner and a loser. Every war has a winner and a loser. The winners are becoming rarer and rarer. The losers, us, are becoming more numerous. Maybe it’s planned this way.

If no one paid attention to their history this type of manipulation could be done without the people being any the wiser. It may very well be happening again, a cycle, restarting, or ending, or at a pivotal point. How would we ever know if we couldn’t or wouldn’t see the parallels with our past.

In 1913 the government created a privately owned bank to manage our money. We were told it was needed to control the market. That was a lie. Three generations later Nixon goes off the gold standard creating a fiat currency based on oil. Could he have done that if the Federal reserve was still outlawed? Could he have done that if Roosevelt hadn’t confiscated all the gold? Are those three instances related, or are they just a coincidence?

Three generations before 1913 President Jackson said “NO” to a central bank. Did the left stop there? Was that considered law, deal with it? No, they waited until the population died off, the central bank forgotten, and they started over again. The ruling class needs control of the currency to rule.

Could a series of controlled stock market crashes be initiated by one person? Of course not. But it could be a tool used by a class of people utilized during the cycle of events that culminate in a concentration of wealth like we see now.

I have to pity the people who ignore their history. If they think our past history doesn’t relate to the present or can’t be used to predict the future, they’re being led around by the nose.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 9:32 PM
Comment #403457
I have to pity the people who ignore their history. If they think our past history doesn’t relate to the present or can’t be used to predict the future, they’re being led around by the nose.

Which is exactly why I pity you. 2016 isn’t the first time an authoritarian strongman rose to power, promising renewed patriotism to the masses and restoration of obsolete morals and traditions. Fortunately, nearly 2 out of 3 Americans have already wised up to the charade. One day, the other third, including you, will do the same.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 12, 2016 10:17 PM
Comment #403460

We’ll see. I hope you will be as surprised as I was when Obama got elected the second time. That was some event. I could hardly believe it.

I hope you get to experience that kind of feeling, Warren Porter. Just remember, elections have consequences.

An all Republican congress and a Republican president cramming laws down the left’s throat. It will be fun.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2016 10:33 PM
Comment #403461
What I’m not sure about is whether Donald Trump has a clue about why, out of all the Candidates out there, he’s the one who ran into this.

Because the left has a history of violent protest and shutting down free speech that doesn’t agree with their own?

Just a thought… Remember, the ‘instigations of violence’ that Trump is accused of is because liberal protesters kept disrupting his rallies in an attempt to shut him up.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 12, 2016 10:40 PM
Comment #403462
An all Republican congress and a Republican president cramming laws down the left’s throat. It will be fun.

yeah, fun is the word I wouldn’t use… I remember the last time the President AND Congress were all Republican… :/

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 13, 2016 1:12 AM
Comment #403463

4 partial years out of the last 50 or so, give or take a few decades? Those years?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 13, 2016 9:26 AM
Comment #403466

I wonder if Stephen is aware that pesky little law that makes protesting at rallies a Federal Crime?

In fact, the last time it was amended to further the language so that you didn’t even have to KNOWINGLY violated the law to be guilty of it, it was passed 100-0 in the Senate and 388-3 in the House (Ron Paul and Amash voted against). And signed by President Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-camp/anti-occupy-law-passes-nea_b_1343728.html

“it allows the government to bring charges against Americans involved in many kinds of political protest at any location the secret service, quote, “is or will be temporarily visiting.”“

You know, like campaign rallies where Secret Service is assigned (Secret Service has been assigned to Trump since November last year).

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 13, 2016 10:38 AM
Comment #403467

Oh, and in case it wasn’t clear… Bernie voted FOR that as well.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 13, 2016 10:40 AM
Comment #403468
4 partial years out of the last 50 or so, give or take a few decades? Those years?

Yep, and some really appalling laws, violations of our rights and idiotic spending came out of them… L

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 13, 2016 10:43 AM
Comment #403469

That do nothing congress must have passed a hugely number of laws in those brief months to turn this country into the mess it is now.

Or could it have been done over the course of the last century or so?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 13, 2016 11:05 AM
Comment #403470

WW,

quote textWe’ll see. I hope you will be as surprised as I was when Obama got elected the second time. That was some event. I could hardly believe it.

I hope you get to experience that kind of feeling, Warren Porter. Just remember, elections have consequences.

An all Republican congress and a Republican president cramming laws down the left’s throat. It will be fun.

Wow, the cognitive dissonance here is amazing. The 2012 election was hardly close. Obama’s approval ratings were well above 50% and a majority of Americans expressed favorable ratings in poll after poll. Only a lunatic would have looked at the Obama v. Romney polls and thought the latter had a chance.

RH,

Because the left has a history of violent protest and shutting down free speech that doesn’t agree with their own?

That is you opinion, but it isn’t a fact.

liberal protesters kept disrupting his rallies in an attempt to shut him up.

RH, hecklers are nothing new to American politics. All the other candidates have the capability to maturely respond to them. Consider the veteran who disrupted a Bill Clinton event with tirade regarding Benghazi. Somehow, Clinton supporters did not feel compelled to sucker punch the guy and Bill did not feel compelled to discuss physical violence. Amazing, isn’t it?

I wonder if Stephen is aware that pesky little law that makes protesting at rallies a Federal Crime?
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. It is yet another reason to be fed up with both parties. Posted by: Warren Porter at March 13, 2016 11:21 AM
Comment #403471

They escorted him from the building! He didn’t even get to finish his question before they started booing him.

At least Trump answers questions put to him. He let’s people finish their questions. His supporters let them ask the question instead of booing him into silence.

If you’re fed up with both parties, Warren Porter then

QUIT SUPPORTING BOTH PARTIES!!!

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 13, 2016 12:01 PM
Comment #403472
He didn’t even get to finish his question before they started booing him.

The Veteran spoke for almost a full minute until Bill lost his patience. That was more than enough time to ask a question. After the fact, I think it can be safely concluded that a question was not forthcoming, but rather only a monologue.

At least Trump answers questions put to him. He let’s people finish their questions. His supporters let them ask the question instead of booing him into silence

Huh? Can you point to at least one video from the past 2 weeks where Trump has given a heckler the same respect that Clinton afforded to the veteran?

If you’re fed up with both parties, Warren Porter then

QUIT SUPPORTING BOTH PARTIES!!!

In case you haven’t noticed, I have already decided to not support any candidate currently seeking the nominations of either party save John Kasich, and I am still on the fence about him.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 13, 2016 12:12 PM
Comment #403474

You may not be voting for any candidate, but I have yet to see you criticize the Democratic party or any of it’s supporters.

On the other hand, you are very quick and thorough in your criticism and denunciation of any and all Republicans and their party in general.

When you can say Hillbilly is a compulsive liar and Obama is in way over his head I will consider your claim you do not support either party.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 13, 2016 12:31 PM
Comment #403476

I will settle for your admitting the Democratic Party is just as harmful to this country as the Republican party.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 13, 2016 12:48 PM
Comment #403478

I think I have made it clear that I believe HRC lacks the judgement to be CIC. Between the Iraq war and her stupid private server, it is clear that she has placed her own convenience over her duties to the American people.

That said, Hillary Clinton is remarkably honest for a politician. I will only castigate her for the sins of which she is guilty and will defend her against false charges.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 13, 2016 1:19 PM
Comment #403480

I think you made it clear you’re going to support the Democratic Party wholeheartedly and with blinders on.

I’ll give you another chance. Say the Democratic Party is as harmfull to this country as the Republican party is.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 13, 2016 1:38 PM
Comment #403481

Sorry bud, false equivalency is not my game. On the specific issue of the law cited by Rhinehold, both parties demonstrated equal propensity to violate the Constitution. However, I will not generalize to other issues.

That said, Clinton has demonstrated that she is unfit to be President. The same is true for many Republicans as well as Sanders. I am almost certainly going to be voting 3rd party in November.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 13, 2016 2:23 PM
Comment #403482

Why can’t you say it? Why do you have to defer to Rhinehold?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 13, 2016 2:29 PM
Comment #403485

Why in the world would I make a faulty generalization? Just because there is one instance where a fact is true does not necessarily demonstrate that it is true in general.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 13, 2016 4:18 PM
Comment #403487

Would you go as far as to say the current U.S. political system is harmful to this country?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 13, 2016 5:05 PM
Comment #403488

The current electoral structure is certainly harmful. First past the post voting creates perverse incentives for voters. Preferential voting would be much better.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 13, 2016 5:17 PM
Comment #403490
That said, Hillary Clinton is remarkably honest for a politician.

I nearly spit my coke out of my nose when I read this, thanks for that.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 13, 2016 5:25 PM
Comment #403493

Just breaking a few windows for the benefit of your local cleaners.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 13, 2016 5:38 PM
Comment #403505

These so-called ‘protestors’ are nothing more than the militant wing of the democratic party. Their only job is to intimidate, threaten and silence any and all views which oppose the far-left ideology that threatens America.

If you don’t support excessive government spending and control or illegal immigration, the democratic party labels you a racist. If you don’t support gay marriage, the democratic party labels you a hateful bigot. If you don’t support paying for a woman’s birth control or abortion, the democratic party labels you a sexist. If you support the 2nd Amendment, the democratic party labels you a radical extremist.
Then, when their militants act out by intimidating voters, beating people on trains and eating at restaurants, threatening people and destroying private property because of signs and bumper stickers, rioting etc…, the democratic party claims they are innocent and that those are just isolated incidents.

The fascist behavior of these left-wing militants is deplorable and they deserve whatever happens as a result of it.

“protesters arrived bearing signs that expressed anti-Trump messages, but they intended to attend the rally and hear what Trump had to say”

Hogwash.
These militants are standing up and screaming things like “F&*K Trump” when he starts speaking, at those supporters around them, and then whole time they are being escorted out. They are daring police for physical confrontations and to tase them. They are rushing the stage. They are intimidating supporters entering and leaving the events.
The KCPD deserves nothing but praise for pepper spraying their sorry butts.

The only actual hate is coming from these left wing militants, and if they aren’t careful it might just blow up right in their faces this time.

Posted by: kctim at March 14, 2016 11:00 AM
Comment #403507

kctim,

Do you have any evidence to support the notion that these people are militants rather than mere hecklers?

Does an F-bomb justify a violent response?

Remember, Bernie Sanders and Marin O’Malley had events targeted by BLM protesters last year and somehow nobody got hurt. What makes Trump rallies so different?

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 14, 2016 11:18 AM
Comment #403508

Warren,
These are organized, aggressive and confrontational methods with the sole purpose of disrupting, silencing and attaining publicity for their political cause. They purposely engage those around them and the authorities, in the hopes of being seen as victims.

Does an F-bomb justify a violent response? Of course not. But when you make it a personal attack and shout it in someones face, it’s probably going to result in one.

What makes Trump rallies so different? The protesters weren’t looking for a fight and didn’t target Sanders supporters.

Posted by: kctim at March 14, 2016 11:41 AM
Comment #403509

Most people don’t remember what one of the purposes of the brown-shirts was…

“Their primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, …”

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 14, 2016 11:57 AM
Comment #403514

You mean like how the Tea Party groups disrupted and shut down town hall meetings hosted by Democratic Congressmen 6 years ago? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rally-interrupts-dem-reps-health-care-town-hall/

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 14, 2016 1:41 PM
Comment #403516

The public town hall meetings held by congressmen, with the specific purpose of discussing government health care with their constituents?

Sigh. Yes Warren, disagreeing with your congressman and booing his support of more government, is the exact same thing as being deceitful and entering a private event and aggressively confronting those who hold different opinions, instigating violence from their supporters, and trying to silence them.

FFS

Posted by: kctim at March 14, 2016 2:06 PM
Comment #403517

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/violent-trump-protesters-are-just-following-obamas-orders-heres-proof/#ixzz42u1jcNUf

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 14, 2016 2:19 PM
Comment #403519

Here is outside of the Trump rally:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCQqJZG-lzU

“We have at least 100 people inside Trump’s rally ready to shut it down.”

Interview with the preacher who took to the stage and then later got into a fight with the crowd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmp1vSDY_fY

“My focus was to shut it down.”

Posted by: George in SC at March 14, 2016 2:31 PM
Comment #403520
Sigh. Yes Warren, disagreeing with your congressman and booing his support of more government, is the exact same thing as being deceitful and entering a private event and aggressively confronting those who hold different opinions, instigating violence from their supporters, and trying to silence them.

OK, I got it. Democratic Congressperson’s campaign events are open targets for hecklers, but Trump’s campaign events are private “safe spaces” whose sanctity cannot be violated lest one rouses a dangerous Trump supporter with anger management issues.

One would think that by now we might have a video of one of these “aggressive militants” throwing a punch or something. So far, all we’ve got is people with anti-Trump signs booing policies they disagree with. Regrettably, having a different opinion from a Trump supporter is enough to “instigate violence”. What a pity.

RF,
Get back to me when Obama supporters start bringing guns to knife fights.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 14, 2016 2:32 PM
Comment #403521

Weak response to Obama condoning violence Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 14, 2016 2:42 PM
Comment #403522
Get back to me when Obama supporters start bringing guns to knife fights.

LOL, you mean like this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW_wNGite3c

I’m sorry, but to be honest I think the whole world has gone completely and totally insane.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 14, 2016 3:05 PM
Comment #403524

Campaign events?

“Democrats in Congress are under pressure from their leadership and the White House to spend the August recess selling health care reform to their constituents, through town halls and other events.”

Open town halls where constituents are invited to discuss a specific issue.
Private events where supporters pay to hear a person discuss their positions on the issues.

“So far, all we’ve got is people with anti-Trump signs booing policies they disagree with.”

BS. There is plenty of video of people yelling and cursing at Trump and his supporters, and of them being confrontational with those supporters as they are being escorted out of the building.

“Regrettably, having a different opinion from a Trump supporter is enough to “instigate violence”.”

That sure explains all the Trump supporter violence at the Clinton and sanders events, doesn’t it. LOL!
Your flailing all over the place, Warren.

Posted by: kctim at March 14, 2016 3:10 PM
Comment #403525
One would think that by now we might have a video of one of these “aggressive militants” throwing a punch or something. So far, all we’ve got is people with anti-Trump signs booing policies they disagree with. Regrettably, having a different opinion from a Trump supporter is enough to “instigate violence”. What a pity.

Ummm…

Did you not see the videos of the punches being thrown this weekend? Or the 4 people arrested for assaulting police including the picture of the policeman with blood streaming down his face? Or the protesters blocking ambulances trying to get people help?

Come on Warren, I know you want to think right bad, left good, but there’s enough blame to go around here on this one…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 14, 2016 3:16 PM
Comment #403526

And more on how this was an organized plan to shut down the rally.


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/how-bernie-sanders-supporters-shut-down-donald-trump-s-rally-n537191

Posted by: George in SC at March 14, 2016 3:20 PM
Comment #403527

There’s video that the Bernie supporters like to show that represents how their candidate handles heckers… In that video, the lone Trump supporter is asked to leave, he gets up and walks out calmly without inciting the crowd, flipping them off or shouting racial hatred at anyone…

That’s why it isn’t happening anywhere else, Warren, because no one else is purposefully going out of their way to instigate or incite violence. I’ve been called all kinds of names, just for pointing out that they may be acting like little spoiled children and I’m not even a Trump supporter. I was thinking about supporting Bernie but after being treated like walking excrement by his supporters, I have no desire to do that anymore…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 14, 2016 3:20 PM
Comment #403528
New Poll: Left-Wing Protesters Drive People into Arms of Donald Trump - Trump canceling Chicago event made Republicans more likely to vote for him.

Thanks guys… thanks a freaking lot. Remember that you have YOURSELVES to blame if Trump actually gets elected.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 14, 2016 3:38 PM
Comment #403530

“His speech is hate speech. It’s inciting violence and under the First Amendment, that’s not protected,” said Khosravani, a Trump protester in Ohio today.

Actually, yes that is exactly the type of speech that is protected. If we only protected the speech we like, then there would be no need for the right to be protected…

I’m not a fan of Trump, but to suggest that the speech you disagree with isn’t protected seems a little fascist if you ask me.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 14, 2016 5:15 PM
Comment #403531

George in SC,

I’m sure many organizers of the protests hoped that the messages on the signs and the chants would convince Trump and his supporters to shut down the rally. Links of people yelling “Shut it down” are not proof of violent intent.

Rhinehold,
I cannot verify that twitter video outside of right-wing propaganda outlets. As far as I can tell, the hashtags referring to last week’s protest might be a total fabrication.

In any case, I assure you that if the video was genuine, that no Democratic politician would dismiss that man as a “passionate American”. They would condemn him unambiguously. There would be no offers to pay his legal fees. There would be no excuses about someone flipping him off.

Lastly, there is zero indication that this man was anywhere near the Trump rally in Chicago.

Everyone,
Watch the raw, uncut video. Just two minutes after the announced postponement, we witness the very first eruption of violence as a woman in a Trump T-Shirt grabs and rips up a sign bearing the words “Trump Sucks” (written on the back of an official Trump campaign sign) held by another woman. Around the 4th minute of the video, we see a group of anti-Trump protesters with their elbows interlocked for protection as an incoming horde of pro-Trump thugs advance upon them. Look at their faces, clearly expressing fear of the beast that threatens them. A few minutes later, and the devolution to chaos is complete. Without a doubt, many Trump supporters have zero tolerance for disagreement of their ideas.

In that video, the lone Trump supporter is asked to leave, he gets up and walks out calmly without inciting the crowd, flipping them off or shouting racial hatred at anyone…
Are you telling me flipping someone off or shouting racial hatred justifies violent retaliation?
quote text
Posted by: Warren Porter at March 14, 2016 5:22 PM
Comment #403532

Whoops, some of what I wrote got cut off:

RH,
I will gladly state my disagreement with what Khosravani said. However, I will assert that the first Amendment protects his right to say that without threats of violence from pro-Trump people.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 14, 2016 5:31 PM
Comment #403533

Donald Trump is a self aggrandizing individual who appeals to like minded self aggrandizing individuals. It is not surprising that these individuals would resort to violence in pursuit of their narcissistic requirement to prove themselves better than everyone and especially those that disagree with them. I am uncertain what could help other than perhaps NPD therapy?

Posted by: Speak4all at March 14, 2016 5:37 PM
Comment #403534

kctim,

I missed your comment, sorry:

Open town halls where constituents are invited to discuss a specific issue. Private events where supporters pay to hear a person discuss their positions on the issues.

You can’t seriously be this obtuse. Trump’s rallies are open to the public, or at least to anyone who gets a ticket. No one is alleging that anti-Trump demonstrators entered the event by violating any rules or without a ticket. The rally is a chance to hear Trump talk about his positions of the issues and engage him in a dialogue about those issues. Coming to his rally with the intent to voice disagreement with Trump’s positions was no different than Tea Partiers coming to those other events to voice their disagreement with the health care bill.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 14, 2016 5:55 PM
Comment #403538

Never said violent Warren. I think squelching political speech is bad enough.

Posted by: George in SC at March 14, 2016 10:18 PM
Comment #403543

God. I’m so tired of it. Do any of you on the right think that I’m actually amazed by your insight into my motives and my intentions?

I’m pretty much a conservative in certain ways. I like careful policy. I’m not opposed to change, but I want it to be well tested, well-thought out change, not wishful thinking. I’m not against tax cuts, or wars, or anything in particular. What I want to know is if something is likely to do the job it was meant to do.

Today’s GOP is run by wishful thinking. The Scientists are telling us that the droughts and heatwaves and torrential flooding can now be conclusively tied into global warming. They tell us it’s real. But like with many things over the past few years, that’s disregarded for some fantasy some oil company-funded think-tank came up with.

Nature’s not political. Things either work with it, or they fail. There’s no bargaining with thermodynamics. You either do what needs to be done, or you don’t.

As for Trump’s rallies? He’s the only candidate who looks at those protestors and says, “Let’s hurt them.” Who stirs up that temptation to beat the opponents in more than just the electoral sense. He’s letting people get their blood up, get feeling invincible, unstoppable.

But let me tell you the reality: Somebody will get hurt badly, and people will have to make a choice: be a party to that, or leave Trump behind. Let me tell you the reality: Even if Trump wins, he has to deal with the precedents McConnell set against Obama. You know, the never-ending filibusters, the molasses speed confirmation process.

You guys have littered your own path with political landmines, and expect to convince everybody else, with so few hurt Trump supporters, and so many Trump protestors and even reporters hurt that you are the victims. Well, maybe you are: of yourselves.

You’ve built a nuclear reactor of rage without any cooling system, and now the heat is going to start melting the reactor around it. The darkests of your impulses are escaping, and there will be reactions to that.

My whole point is that you’ve already gotten a considerable reaction to your behavior. The Protestors haven’t fixated on Trump randomly. He keeps leaving protestors beaten, and that keeps inspiring more to come back.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 15, 2016 12:16 AM
Comment #403544
Never said violent Warren. I think squelching political speech is bad enough.

How can nonviolent demonstrations “squelch” speech? All these people did was hold signs saying things like “Trump Sucks” and yelled “boo” when Trump said something they disagreed with. None of these things should justify the violent reaction we witness in Trump’s supporters.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 15, 2016 12:32 AM
Comment #403546

Stephen, the myopia in your comment is astounding really…

Today’s GOP is run by wishful thinking.

And Today’s Democratic party ISN’T? Dear God man, wake up yourself. Free this, Free that, anyone who disagrees with Obama is a Racist, safe spaces, micro-aggression, trigger words, hatred of success, vilification of anyone who disagrees with you, etc… The left in this country actually thinks that a failed political ideology would somehow work here in the US because… well, I have no idea why they think it will work.

The Scientists are telling us that the droughts and heatwaves and torrential flooding can now be conclusively tied into global warming.

Some Scientists are, Some aren’t. Some are saying global warming is a natural event that occurs constantly throughout the history of the planet, some say it is man-made. How you and the left portray science isn’t how science works. And for every report you tie to ‘oil companies’ others can tie a report to ‘cashing in on government funding’. Let people make up their own minds, telling them they are stupid for pointing out the flaws in the science behind the AGW papers is not how science works, good science should either withstand scrutiny or change to weed the flaws out… Especially the attack of the funding. I don’t care if the Easter Bunny funded research if that research holds up then it is valid, on either side. Logical fallacies don’t bolster your argument.

You’ve built a nuclear reactor of rage without any cooling system, and now the heat is going to start melting the reactor around it.

Right, the right is the only one to blame for the current toxic atmosphere in this country? The left is seen by most people in this country as a bunch of whiny privileged children throwing a temper tantrum and it has been this way for decades. SWJ is a term that didn’t come out of thin air… Vilifying anyone the left disagrees with, heaping hate and vile and disgust at such a fast pace that it can’t be kept up.

There mere mention of Trump even running cause the left to go apoplectic, to start calling for his assassination. He could have gotten on stage and spoke like Ghandi for all the good that it would have done to silence the protests against him. He got the hate because he was the front runner, but don’t think the other Republican (or repugs as the SWJ league calls them) don’t get the hate too… I see it oozing out of every orifice that the left has to offer… They want a stage for their bile and Trump was getting the press so they went to the cameras like a flock of geese seeing someone throw bread on the ground.

The left likes to blame the right for creating this atmosphere, the right likes to blame the left.

The FACT is that you are both petty petulant whiny children who know nothing about respecting your fellow man and trying to listen to each other’s views… It is a cognitive dissonance that both parties share, an unfortunate result of for too long thinking there is my way or the highway, you are with me or against me, you are scum if you don’t think exactly the way I do, etc. Of a two party system where you only have to make people hate the other candidate more than you to get elected. The desire to grasp control of the power that we have for some reason ceded to government to control us. You are all locked in your own little echo chambers, spinning up the hate machines with rapid speed that you no longer see who is spinning the wheels.

A comedian I know and am friends with on Facebook is going apoplectic and telling everyone who is voting for Trump to de-friend her now, she doesn’t want any part of it. Another de-friended me because I pointed out a flaw in something she said. The hate and bile I’ve come across from the left is just as bad as anything I’ve seen come from the right. I’ve seen video of young white women screaming hate and curse words at a guy in a wheelchair who had a Trump button pinned to him.

And the left goes merrily along blaming it all on Trump. Or Republicans. Or ‘someone else’. Anyone but themselves, dear god never let them look inward and see what their own actions and words have caused, how many people they have hurt with their rhetoric, what they have ‘added’ to the growing political bile that is taking a hold in this country. Heaven forbid they might not be 100% right on everything…

The sad fact though, Stephen, that it is that cognitive dissonance that caused Trump to GAIN SUPPORT from undecided voters after the Chicago rally… IT is the LEFT that created the Trump phenomenon to begin with, he just tapped in to the resentment of being called racist, privileged, subhuman, etc by the left for so long. That denial is why the left keeps making Trump someone that others are looking to because in their eyes he is standing up to that hate machine that the left has been for the past several decades and they are tired for being made to feel bad about, well, behind anything other than a socialist warrior…

I personally could never support or vote for Trump, but dear lord the best you guys have to offer is Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders? Are you SHITTING me? This country is so fucked because it’s always someone else’s fault… This is the stuff I have been warning you about for years, the ‘left good, right bad’ commentary you have been spewing. It’s not just you, it’s a lot of people doing it, and it is the real reason we are in the mess we are in today. Congratulations.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 15, 2016 1:43 AM
Comment #403547
All these people did was hold signs saying things like “Trump Sucks” and yelled “boo” when Trump said something they disagreed with.

The really sad thing is that you actually believe this… Despite the myriad of videos of them getting in Trump supporter’s faces, spitting RACIST at them, telling them they were going to hell, ripping up trump signs, taking American flags from people and stomping on them, etc…

For once go out and look beyond the walls of Moveon and DailyKOS and see what the other side is seeing… It might be a little educational.

I’m no fan of Alex Jones or Infowars or prisonplanet, but they are out there trying to capture the bile from the left, and how the left are trying to instigate violence, pushing people’s buttons, calling them privileged, old, racist, etc… Instigating. Here are some videos of ST Louis (with a BLM self-described leader) begging people to fight him…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL2Yy9DKdzo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU3vcvGpALQ

and a picture of him being led away by police in St Louis after finally getting what he was asking for apparently.

http://freakoutnation.com/2016/03/bloody-friday-black-protester-seen-covered-in-blood-at-trump-rally-in-st-louis-video/

Peaceful protesters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_ErzHdFeQM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8eYJU3Zu1M

They are not just ‘sitting by shouting boo’ and holding up anti-trump signs… That notion is just sad. There is enough hate and bile on both sides to point out. You aren’t willing to point it out on your side but expect the right to point it out on theirs?

The press is just as much at fault to be honest, why not report on things like this that are going on that no one wants to talk about? Is it because there is a DESIRE to focus on the bad, the hate, the negative?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLUjYfAS—Q

Are we afraid of the boring, of the mundane, of the notion of people getting along and finding common ground? Is there something the press is trying to SELL us? Are we at fault as a community for not rejecting the narrative that the press is selling? The fact that with tensions that high that there were just a few minor scuffles is IMO amazing restraint shown by both sides… I’ve unfortunately seen this coming for such a long time, you can only be told that you are racist for not supporting a President’s political views for so long without getting fed up eventually.

Let me be clear though, the majority of people on both sides, while angry and feeling the need to lash out, are not willing to resort to violence. The MAJORITY are just angry and fed up and want their voices heard. It’s when the small minority of instigators, from both sides, get things going that we see the violence erupting.

I belong to the only political party that REQUIRES members to take a non-violence pledge to join the party. I only wish that the Dem and Rep parties would do the same thing and stop with the nonsense…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 15, 2016 3:03 AM
Comment #403548

“Coming to his rally with the intent to voice disagreement with Trump’s positions was no different than Tea Partiers coming to those other events to voice their disagreement with the health care bill.”

Warren, the congressmen were trying to sell the health care reform plan and invited their constituents to come and voice their differing opinions. The left-wing anti Republican militants were not invited and their sole purpose was to disrupt and silence.

And you really need to give up on the ‘just holding signs and booing’ BS. The facts show otherwise.
I watched the local coverage of the Trump rally here in KC this past weekend, and have spoken with people who attended AND protested. The protesters were intentionally intimidating and confrontational. Their sole goal was to ‘shut it down.’

It is not me who is being insensitive to the facts and intentionally slow to understand strictly for partisan reasons.

Posted by: kctim at March 15, 2016 9:14 AM
Comment #403549

“He keeps leaving protestors beaten, and that keeps inspiring more to come back.”

Lying crap like this and all the ‘racist’ ‘sexist’ ‘hatred’ talk, does more damage to more people than anything Trump has actually said or done.

Posted by: kctim at March 15, 2016 9:43 AM
Comment #403550

Trump was a cheerleader for Birtherism in 2012. That was how he made his national reputation in 2012- he promoted the idea Obama was not actually an American. Today, over 60% of Trump supporters believe Obama is a foreigner and that he is a Muslim. To this day, Trump refuses to repudiate Birtherism, and when Obama visited a mosque, Trump sniffed that he probably “felt more comfortable” there.

Birtherism is fundamentally racist. It is harmful to the country. It is wrong.

kctim, do you need a litany of racist quotes from Trump? Sexist ones? Do you need examples of Trump inciting hatred? Because there are a lot of examples. In polls his supporters are angry. They believe a lot of things that are simply false, like Obama being a Muslim, and Obama being a foreigner.

Trump is a leader. He does not personally do everything singlehandedly, much as he would like you to believe it. That’s just the authoritarian appeal. He leads.

Posted by: phx8 at March 15, 2016 10:38 AM
Comment #403551

Wacko leftist agitators show up at a Trump rally to create chaos,incite violence, and intimidate in order try and silence him, and get their asses kicked and removed, and it’s Trump’s fault ? Only in the mind of an alinskyite. Lol

Posted by: dbs at March 15, 2016 10:44 AM
Comment #403553

Phx8
Then I won’t expect you to challenge Cruz’ eligibility to be President if he wins the nomination. After all that would be racisr racist.

Posted by: dbs at March 15, 2016 10:48 AM
Comment #403554

dbs,
I have repeatedly stated that Cruz is eligible.

Posted by: phx8 at March 15, 2016 10:50 AM
Comment #403556

Phx8, you have already given us a list of Trump quotes and your opinions to make them racist, sexist or hatred. The tactic has become old and stale.

I would much rather discuss what you are trying to dismiss with such tactics of deflection. Like actual issues, actual positions, and what the candidates actually say.
Call me crazy, but I prefer reality over partisan opinion and fantasy.

Posted by: kctim at March 15, 2016 12:33 PM
Comment #403561

First, to be clear, my assertion that protesters are simply carrying anti-Trump signs and yelling “boo” applies only to the people who actually went inside the rally. Obviously, people outside the rally have taken the opportunity to exercise their 1st Amendment rights by yelling anti-Trump slogans and engaging in passionate arguments with Trump supporters. The problem is that sometimes those supporters have resorted to violent aggression in the middle of those arguments.

I’m no fan of Alex Jones or Infowars or prisonplanet, but they are out there trying to capture the bile from the left, and how the left are trying to instigate violence, pushing people’s buttons, calling them privileged, old, racist, etc… Instigating. Here are some videos of ST Louis (with a BLM self-described leader) begging people to fight him…

Before I address these videos, I want to remind you that the people releasing them certainly have a narrative they are trying to portray. Cutting raw footage into a package for public consumption can remove context or even add a false context to events. Knowing this, I treat things such as this with extreme skepticism. I do not trust Alex Jones or his cohort to give me an unbiased report. This isn’t to say the reporting cannot be informative, but merely that skepticism is warranted.

I watched the two videos. The first video depicts some scuffles, but without any context. Both an older man in a Cardinal’s cap and a middle aged African-American in all-white attire are seen. Both of these men reappear in the other video, but I have no way of determining which was filmed first. After a cut whereby we see blood on the street and a man arrested, but no context is given for the incident rendering the video unhelpful.

The second video shows a very passionate argument between a 26-year-old bearded Trump supporter and several anti-Trump protesters including an African-American dressed in all-white attire. Both sides are able to remain nonviolent until an older man in a Cardinals’ cap joins the fray. While a younger long haired man certainly made offensive remarks regarding the older man’s age, the man responds in a totally inappropriate manner by rushing towards the man with his hands raised. It was only the quick intervention of several people nearby that kept the long-haired man from being hurt. At this point, we have the man in all-white attire tell the older man that he shouldn’t pick on the younger long-haired man because he might appear physically weaker. He tells the older man “If you fuck with him, you fuck with me”. Now, the police come in and try to diffuse the situation, but the older man is riled up and even the police need to remind him, “Get your hands off me”. In contrast, the interaction between police and the anti-Trump protesters remains civil. Here, the video ends. Given that it was being filmed by Alex Jones’ allies, I am not surprised that it has been cut in order to support his narrative of events.

Finally, there is a photo of the man dressed in white attire being treated for wounds he suffered after being beaten by an unknown assailant. Apparently his name is Anthony Cage and he is a local activist. At the end of the previous video, the older man in the Cardinals’ hat commends Cage for his work, having organized nearby protesters into a cohesive message. Cage takes the credit proclaiming, “I’m a leader”. My suspicion is that having realized Cage’s importance to that particular block of protesters drove the man in the Cardinals’ cap to assault Cage once the police left the area, but I have nothing to back it up. What is certain is that it was definitely a Trump supporter who beat Cage and there is no evidence of Cage or any other nearby anti-Trump protesters ever physically threatening any Trump supporters.

That was a lot, but I hope the detail helps Rhinehold and kctim understand my thought process. Now, I proceed to the next set of videos:

The first video from DNAinfoChicago depicts a middle-aged African-American man with a beard who gets his head smashed by a glass bottle. However, the actual assault is off frame so it is impossible to determine who did it. While it is possible that the African-American man is a Trump supporter who got his head bashed by a protester, my prejudice tells me that it is far more likely that the victim was a protester and the attacker a supporter of Trump. Without any video of the man from before the incident it is impossible to tell if the glass bottle attack was an act of self-defense.

The second video contains no violence. Just people throwing F-bombs at each other.

The final video is from Alex Jones and depicts a few commendable Trump supporters spurred by their religion to reach out and share Jesus’ love to a young man with a BLM pin. It definitely shows how little effort it would take on the part of Trump’s supporters to prevent violent retaliation to protesters’ speech.

you can only be told that you are racist for not supporting a President’s political views for so long without getting fed up eventually.

Being called a racist is no justification for violent retaliation. Period.

Let me be clear though, the majority of people on both sides, while angry and feeling the need to lash out, are not willing to resort to violence. The MAJORITY are just angry and fed up and want their voices heard. It’s when the small minority of instigators, from both sides, get things going that we see the violence erupting.
I think it is undoubtedly true that the violence is only emanating from a minority of Trump’s supporters. The place we disagree is that I see an overwhelming imbalance in who is instigating violence. While most Trump supporters are not violent, the people who do resort to violence are invariably Trump supporters. This is why nearly all the people with injuries at these events have been anti-Trump protesters. This is why we have instances of Trump supporters throwing the first punch on tape, but none of anti-Trump protesters.

kctim,

the congressmen were trying to sell the health care reform plan and invited their constituents to come and voice their differing opinions. The left-wing anti Republican militants were not invited and their sole purpose was to disrupt and silence.
I never saw the invitation to FreedomWorks asking for AstroTurf activists to appear, did you?

The purpose of the event was to teach constituents about the bill. Instead of coming to learn how to support it, protesters came to shut the meetings down. Why else did they disrupt the meetings with chants of “Kill the Bill!”. Clearly, they were not interested in constructive conversation anymore than a dining room table would.

I will note that they were fully in their rights to do all this. Events such as this ultimately are to serve the interests of whoever attends. My point is that the anti-Trump protesters have the exact same right to bring their message to Trump’s rallies.

And you really need to give up on the ‘just holding signs and booing’ BS. The facts show otherwise. I watched the local coverage of the Trump rally here in KC this past weekend, and have spoken with people who attended AND protested.
The facts show no one inside the Trump rallies themselves doing anything other than yell boo, heckle and display signs with anti-Trump messages. Sure, people outside on the street might be saying offensive things, but that is protected by the 1st Amendment.
The protesters were intentionally intimidating and confrontational. Their sole goal was to ‘shut it down.’

I don’t doubt that being confronted with speech that jostles one’s cognitive dissonance is an intimidating experience. However, under no circumstance does this justify a violent response.

Their sole goal was to ‘shut it down.’
You guys are sounding like a broken record. Why should I care that these people wanted to “shut it down”. There are a lot of things that I’d love to see shut down, and I’m sure the same could be said of you. That doesn’t make us responsible for any violence.
It is not me who is being insensitive to the facts and intentionally slow to understand strictly for partisan reasons.

Excuse me? I think we have a case of truthiness here. Absent any tangible evidence of violence emanating from anti-Trump protesters, your brain instead resorts to a Pavlovian response to the images served to you by the conservative press. To be clear, we have no videos of anti-Trump protesters sucker punching Trump supporters. We have no reports of Trump supporters emerging from rallies bloodied and bruised. All we have are videos of anti-Trump demonstrators entering the rally in a civil manner or waiting outside and shouting hurtful words at Trump supporters.

dbs,

Wacko leftist agitators show up at a Trump rally to create chaos,incite violence, and intimidate in order try and silence him, and get their asses kicked and removed, and it’s Trump’s fault ? Only in the mind of an alinskyite. Lol

Last time I checked, the 1st amendment protects our right to say mean things to each other but it doesn’t protect anyone’s right to kick another person’s ass.

Regarding Cruz, it would only be racist to question his eligibility if he fails to document his status as a natural born citizen as Obama did in 2008.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 15, 2016 1:51 PM
Comment #403562

Trump knows what buttons to push to win with the Rpblcns. He is possible because of what came before him. He will probably win the nomination specifically because he is the worst of the bunch. They need him to be worse than the previous Rpblcn POTUS, who was worse than the one before him, who was worse than the one before that. The Rpblcn party is in a spiral of negativity, fueled by their own media. The party is bipolar, but since it’s not a person, it can’t have an ego collapse, but this could be seen as a suicide attempt. I doubt that Trump believes much of what he says, except “I love the poorly educated”.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2016 1:56 PM
Comment #403564

Obama spoke at a dinner in Canada about opportunity in America:

“After all, where else could a boy born in Calgary grow up to run for president of the United States?”

Yes We Canada!

kctim,
With Trump, it is virtually impossible to discuss issues because Trump does not have policies. He has a couple lines he delivers in his stump speech. Posing as an authoritarian strong man does not equal having positions for discussion.

How is a person supposed to discuss deporting 11 million Americans? Or slapping a 45% tariff on imported Chinese goods? Or banning all Muslims from entering the country? Or instructing the military to torture and target the families of terrorists, which is a war crime (he later backed off that one). Or claiming Global Warming is a hoax? Or that the economy has an unemployment rate of 35% or more? What is anyone supposed to do with such statements? He does not offer reasonable ideas. Half the time I can’t tell what he wants to do, and he has been on both sides of so many issues, where does one even begin?

Posted by: phx8 at March 15, 2016 2:41 PM
Comment #403565

Warren, why should you care if they wanted to shut it down? The President answered that one today:

“We’ve seen misguided attempts to shut down that speech. However offensive it may be, we live in a country where free speech is one of the most important rights that we hold.”

Posted by: George in SC at March 15, 2016 3:11 PM
Comment #403566

Warren,
The purpose of the event was to “sell health care reform to their constituents.”

“protesters came to shut the meetings down.”

Not according to your link:

- The Austin American Statesman’s Patrick George reports that the protestors began after someone asked whether the congressman would support the bill even if he found his constituents were against it, and Doggett said he would.

Q&A session open to the public VS. paid private event to listen to somebody speak. Invited VS. NOT invited. Voicing your opinion to your representative in a public setting VS. trying to score political points against those who dare disagree with you and silencing them.

The fact that you would use such a silly comparison and then insist on trying to justify it, should tell you something, Warren.

“The facts show no one inside the Trump rallies themselves doing anything other than yell boo, heckle and display signs with anti-Trump messages”

Talk about ‘truthiness.’ Facts show protesters inside Trump rallies being aggressive and confrontational with Trump supporters as they are being escorted out. That may not ‘justify’ a violent response, there is no doubt that it encourages one. I seriously doubt that your need for blood as proof of violence is the normal position you take.

“Why should I care that these people wanted to “shut it down”.”

Because their intent has led to the drastic measures they are taking, which are resulting in the violence being displayed.

Posted by: kctim at March 15, 2016 3:14 PM
Comment #403568

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “But let me tell you the reality:”

OH, please, stop the nonsense that you know reality better then the rest of us do. From where does your superior knowledge originate? Please share the sources, not your supposed accurate reporting.

Question: Since my lib/soc friends hang on every word of Hillary and Bernie, perhaps they can inform us of what additional laws they are proposing to prevent Job and Wage discrimination against women.

What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, “gender”, or national origin;

the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from “gender”-based wage discrimination;

With laws in place to punish those who engage in job discrimination, where are all the law suits against the offenders that Hillary and Bernie allude to?

Obama has been in office for over seven years. The 110-111 congress was controlled by a majority of Dems. Did he propose legislation to right the alleged wrong?

Mr. Daugherty declares his position on MMGW is reality. Unfortunately, facts don’t agree with him.


Posted by: Royal Flush at March 15, 2016 3:28 PM
Comment #403570

The campaign for president boils down to the battle of the “ism’s”

The Reps represent capitalism.

The Dems represent Socialism

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 15, 2016 4:19 PM
Comment #403573

kctim,

That may not ‘justify’ a violent response, there is no doubt that it encourages one. I seriously doubt that your need for blood as proof of violence is the normal position you take.

Thank you, kctim for agreeing with me. Violence on the part of Trump’s supporters cannot be justified as self-defense under the circumstances.

With the blame for the violence squarely on Trump’s side, we can also discuss the chaos, for which both sides were equally culpable.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 15, 2016 8:11 PM
Comment #403574

Warren Porter comes in favor of free speech for Milo the Brit, pro-life folks, internet bullies and trolls.

Last time I checked, the 1st amendment protects our right to say mean things to each other but it doesn’t protect anyone’s right to kick another person’s ass.
Posted by: Weary Willie at March 15, 2016 8:18 PM
Comment #403575

WW,

Yup! The first amendment protects *ALL* speech, not just speech I may agree with. I actually disagree with some of the things that those anti-Trump protesters are saying, but I still defend their right to say it.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 15, 2016 9:09 PM
Comment #403602

Rhinehold-
Same damn complaints. “Anybody who disagrees with Obama is called a racist!”

No. This is just the standard issue whining that people use to avoid the subject of why this President gets more crap than any other in my lifetime, why his nationality, the bonafides of his education, his ostensible efforts at bridging the gaps between the races are all questioned. Why he takes fewer vacations, and is called lazier, and more inattentive to the job for it.

As for Wishful thinking? My party these days is better able to set modest goals which are constitutionally reachable. Making America a Christian nation isn’t one of them. Completely wiping out the political opposition isn’t one of them. Blockading every appointee and nominee a Democrat puts through isn’t one of them. Like I said in my previous post, they set goals they can’t succeed at without breaking the system.

As for Global Warming? Don’t confuse a rhetorical controversy with a scientific one. There are people who dispute nearly every scientific principle out there. Especially when there are parties with vested interests out there funding them.

Yes, there are people who can suppose there’s some Marxist or Green Energy company conspiracy out there. But ask them to produce numbers and participants, and the story starts falling apart.

The whole point of science is that we go past personal belief and found consensus on the testing of ideas by way of the evidence. That’s what they’ve been doing. Their dissenters in popular culture… you tell them that the sun isn’t responsible for the warming (something you can back up with tracking of solar irradiation) and they’ll be right back at it saying it again later. They’re not accountable for their ideas! Scientists are. There’s been the scrutiny, been the examination, been the exploration of other possibilities. But sooner or later, as each idea is held accountable, we get a clearer picture, and that picture tells us something. Some might chooses not to listen for political or social, or personal reasons, but that doesn’t constitute an equally credible debate position.

And no, Social justice warrior wasn’t a term that came out of nowhere. It came off the internet, which is full of people who have taken the message of political incorrectness to heart, and who therefore say the most obnoxious things and bash people for being offended.

You know, it’s not a bad thing to be somewhat inhibited. To watch what you say, to a certain degree. To balance impulse with judgment. These days, I don’t see the Republicans acting like actual Conservatives. These days, I see a guy getting up on stage and essentially inviting his people to break the law.

And I see people here assuming that even if he does that, he can’t be held responsible for the lawlessness that follows.

You can complain about our choices, but we chose adults, rather than a man child. We chose people who aren’t looking to bring out the worst in people to bring out the best in their own fortunes.

As for the rest?

Do yourself a favor, and sit down, and go through all the positions. Trace them back to their origins. Judge things like the vacation knock by the number of days the President’s actually taken off. I guarantee you that if you look hard enough, you’ll find the reasons why people think the opposition to Obama has an unusually racial character to it.

The principle reason I’m so strongly Democratic in my leanings is this: I can’t expect Republicans to respect science these days. I can’t expect them to respect the success of programs that don’t fit their ideology, or the failure of ones that they themselves pushed. I can’t expect Republicans to learn from their failures with the recent wars, or from disasters like Katrina. They keep on pushing supply side tax policy despite the fact that it’s lead to a deficit every time, a deficit they’re always ready to blame on Democrats. Deficits Democrats always reduce, because they’re willing to actually pay for the government, rather than get free stuff.

If you want to bash me as partisan, fine. I have a point of view, I don’t pretend to God-like objectiveness. But I think I can justify that point of view with the facts and logic I have. I don’t need to internalize all views, no matter how inconsistent. I can take a consistent point of view, if I like, and if I’m lacking in some area? Well, other people can balance my ignorance with their knowledge, my naivete with their experience. I’m just very selective about what arguments I’m willing to give credence to, and I’m not talking just some kind of bias. I don’t like to be deceived or taken in. So, if people throw arguments I know to be false at me, like those global warming arguments, I won’t be kind.

Don’t take that as me not being kind to real people. Ideas can be torn apart without causing real pain to people. Better to hurt bad ideas than good people. With government, the rubber of the idea is always meeting the road of real world conditions, and if the idea is too soft, the rubber will be torn off by the force of the contact.

Finally?

Look, I don’t believe in political violence. I think most Democrats share my view. We find Trump’s campaign troublesome because it doesn’t look like it’s content to remain within the boundaries of the law when it comes to politics. It reminds us of points in recent European history, and elsewhere, where individuals decided their political causes were worth so much that they could hurt, even kill people over them.

Take a look at Republican rhetoric from mainstream candidates over the last few years. People sitting in the chambers of Congress now. You’ll find far too much of what they’ve said leads, if you take it seriously enough, if you take the absoluteness of their ideas to heart, to breaches of the peace.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2016 8:57 AM
Comment #403603

“Violence on the part of Trump’s supporters cannot be justified as self-defense under the circumstances.”

Warren, we were discussing the militant behavior of the protesters, which you are trying to justify and defend by placing all blame “squarely on Trumps side.”

First you tried a false comparison with an open meeting where the public was invited to voice their opinion to their elected representative.
Then you demanded physical assault and blood as the only proof of violence.

And now: “With the blame for the violence squarely on Trump’s side,”

Please. The protesters have no right to disrupt these events for personal and political gain.

“we can also discuss the chaos”

The chaos brought about by these organized militants seeking confrontation that results in violent reactions? That’s what I have been trying to do the whole time.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2016 9:28 AM
Comment #403604

kctim,

If you agree that there was no justification for violence on the part of Trump’s supporters, why do you continue to defend the line that the violence was merely an act of self-defense?

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 16, 2016 10:11 AM
Comment #403607

Look at that egg on Orrin Hatch’s face.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 16, 2016 12:06 PM
Comment #403608

Orrin Hatch will have a hard time on this one.

Posted by: Speak4all at March 16, 2016 12:11 PM
Comment #403609

Whoops! Wrong thread. Please disregard.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 16, 2016 12:13 PM
Comment #403616

I’m going to point this out, for people who care to consider objective truth: EVERY candidate currently out there, even Bernie Sanders, has endured a disruption from the BLM protestors. It’s not been confined to one political party, or one candidate.

What they’ve done is disruptive. But in a civilized society, we have a choice as to whether to add to that disruption or whether to calm things down.

Trump chooses to add ot it. You might say, “the protestors are violating his rights.” They might. But if you start threatening people, you’re no better than them.

The audience members are neither qualified nor legally protected when it comes to dealing with hecklers. Inviting them into it exposes them to both criminal and civil action, not to mention putting them in physical altercation with a person whose capacity for violence cannot be predicted. It endangers them, and what, so Trump can reap political capital for how bold and politically incorrect he is? Is Trump’s image worth somebody’s life?

Also, though, Trump has so far failed to stop the protestors from protesting him. Funny enough, beating people who object to being manhandled by the police makes you their new favorite target. On a purely objective level, that kind of audience participation, the encouragement of it, only makes Trump a more tempting target for the Protestors. All the other candidates endured a moment’s heckling, let the professionals take care of it, and haven’t been bothered near as much since. If you see the protesters as bullies, take it from a kid who was bullied: they don’t stop when you let them get a rise out of you. Believe me, I’ve never been one to back down in the face of one.

Or, on the other side, if you got those sorts of people who don’t like to be bullied, don’t like to be beaten down, you’ll find that bullying them only leads to them getting more stubbornly committed to complicating your life. Either way, as bully or bullied, the fight might seem like fun, but once you start encouraging it, you start encouraging the very disruption you want to avoid.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2016 12:59 PM
Comment #403618

SD,

Thank you for your comment. It helps remind us that Trump is claiming to be a superior leader. Part of being a leader is being held to higher standards. While the heckling by protesters may be instigating, Trump has an obligation to be above the fray and LEAD his followers into a civil interaction. In Chicago, Trump shirked his obligation to LEAD, instead leaving people to fend for themselves.

Do we really want someone who is apt to abandon us when things get tough as President?

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 16, 2016 1:24 PM
Comment #403627
this President gets more crap than any other in my lifetime

This is such utter bullshit, knowing what was thrown (and still thrown) at Bush… Deserved or not, trying to suggest that Obama had it worse than Bush is astounding.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 16, 2016 2:23 PM
Comment #403629

I posted a quote by Obama advising his followers to bring a gun if the opposition brings a knife. Is that presidential?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 16, 2016 2:39 PM
Comment #403667

RF,

Look at the results. Have Obama rally attendees engaged in violence against anti-Obama protesters?

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 16, 2016 11:10 PM
Comment #403708
Look at the results. Have Obama rally attendees engaged in violence against anti-Obama protesters?

Anti-Obama protesters aren’t flocking in organized hate filled throngs of the thousands to shut Obama down…

You want to make this an tit for tat discussion, which is fairly stupid because your own points are what we have been telling you this whole time.

A private rally is not the same thing as a public community meeting, something you keep wanting to equivocate. And if memory serves, weren’t the left OUTRAGED at the behavior of those protesters shutting down those health care town hall debates? Now they are cool with it as long as they are attacking someone you don’t like?

Posted by: Dennis Beatty at March 17, 2016 3:46 PM
Comment #403713
Anti-Obama protesters aren’t flocking in organized hate filled throngs of the thousands to shut Obama down

Isn’t that what the Tea Party was about? Shutting down Obama?

A private rally is not the same thing as a public community meeting

So Trump rallies are supposed to be “Safe Spaces” free from dissent?

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 17, 2016 4:16 PM
Comment #403729

Dennis Beatty-
First, if you want to talk about hate-filled throngs, you can address all the White Supremacists that show up in your ranks, including the tattooed young woman with a coded “Heil Hitler” on her hand. You can talk about all the people who show up because Trump is going to build a wall. You can talk about Trump himself, who defends an executive in his campaign who called a female employee a c***, and also manhandled a Breitbart reporter.

Trump himself, who implies and outright states to his followers that it’s alright to beat on people.

That is what you are equivocating on. I didn’t hear Democrats saying, “beat the **** out of those people who are disrupting the town halls.” Why?

Because whatever your justification, it’s an escalation. Even if your protestors are truly hateful, they have the right to protest, even if you have the right to kick them out for it. What you don’t have a right to do is arbitrarily lay a hand on them.

You folks can dig up past incidents and allege hypocrisy, but doesn’t that make you hypocrites, too? Aren’t you doing to others what you hate being done to yourselves?

That’s your problem. You’re so used to outing Democrats and liberals as hypocrites that you haven’t bothered to check your own behavior for consistency and principle.

My principles are consistent: politics isn’t worth hurting or killing people over.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2016 5:47 PM
Post a comment