Trump Rally Cancelled in Chicago Amid Protesters!

[Jeremy Taylor]

I guess Karma is a B****. Downplaying the fact that's he has incited violence at his rallies on several occasions, by pointing out that this one time he encouraged peaceful treatment of protestors doesn't help much.

Sorry but I just can't muster any sympathy for him. That's what happens when you act like he does.

Okay. But why do you strike me as not caring about the sort of violence and disruption routinely countenanced by the hard left rent-a-mobs involved anything like you are concerned about Trump's? Seems hypocritical and partisan. At least Trump has given out mixed messages and at least his incitements were only against those who had infiltrated his events: he wasn't inciting anyone to go to the events of others and disrupt them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't sympathize for him either.
To me, it's more a matter of how political foes should conduct themselves.
But Trump might even be benefiting from the protests.
Their intent to interfere with the rallies, & their connection with G Soros & B Sanders....all fuel on the fire.

Oh I'm sure Trump will spin all of this to his own advantage, he's a master of that.

I really can't see Bernie Sanders compelling people to shut down rallies. He strikes me as more of kumbaya kind of guy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh I'm sure Trump will spin all of this to his own advantage, he's a master of that.
I really can't see Bernie Sanders compelling people to shut down rallies. He strikes me as more of kumbaya kind of guy.

I agree.
Boring, eh?
I think Sanders plays fair with other pols more so than most. I like this.
(Although when he campaigned in MI, he even angered some Dems with his scapegoating of the governor (a Pub) over Flint's water problems.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

Okay. But why do you strike me as not caring about the sort of violence and disruption routinely countenanced by the hard left rent-a-mobs involved anything like you are concerned about Trump's? Seems hypocritical and partisan. At least Trump has given out mixed messages and at least his incitements were only against those who had infiltrated his events: he wasn't inciting anyone to go to the events of others and disrupt them.

I don't know what a "rent-a-mob" is, or if that is what is going on here. People have certainly been compelled to protest on their own on many occasions without having to be hired by sinister forces.

I abhor violence, if that is what you are asking. Suggesting that people that protest either vocally or silently, be punched in the face or taken out on a stretcher or have the crap knocked out of them, sets up and encourages an atmosphere of violence and bad behavior that I would say Trump is responsible for. These protests are the kinds of things that result from that kind of behavior.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I don't know what a "rent-a-mob" is, or if that is what is going on here. People have certainly been compelled to protest on their own on many occasions without having to be hired by sinister forces.

I abhor violence, if that is what you are asking. Suggesting that people that protest either vocally or silently, be punched in the face or taken out on a stretcher or have the crap knocked out of them, sets up and encourages an atmosphere of violence and bad behavior that I would say Trump is responsible for. These protests are the kinds of things that result from that kind of behavior.

Rent-a-mob doesn't mean they are hired. It means they are the same sort of constant crowd of agitators that always turns up.

You are being hypocritical. These protestors didn't become disruptive and violent because of Trump, and certainly not because of a few off hand comments about punching protestors. They are the same sort of left-wing agitators that have been trying to throw their weight around to suppress free speech and dissent on campuses and many other venues. These are the same sort of muscle that were seen as the University of Missouri. But these thugs you don't care about. Though you are scandalised by a few off hand comments from Trump. Also, even if they reacted to Trump, he cannot be blamed for their behaviour. They are not his supporters and the disruption and violence originated with them. He is responsible, at best, for his own supporters. It is a basic part of free speech that you are not responsible for what those who take offense do or even for those you do not directly incite.

 

[metis]

Rent-a-mob doesn't mean they are hired. It means they are the same sort of constant crowd of agitators that always turns up.

You are being hypocritical. These protestors didn't become disruptive and violent because of Trump. They are the same sort of left-wing agitators that have been trying to throw their weight around and suppress free speech and dissent on campuses and many other venues. These are the same sort of muscle that was seen as the University of Missouri. But these thugs you don't care about. Also, even if they reacted to Trump, he cannot be blamed for their behaviour. They are not his supporters and the disruption and violence originated with them.

Sorry, but the above is really a lot of hogwash. Words have consequences, and if they didn't we wouldn't be using language at all. Advocating the use of violence, which Trump clearly has mouthed on numerous occasions, has consequences-- period.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree.
Boring, eh?
I think Sanders plays fair with other pols more so than most. I like this.
(Although when he campaigned in MI, he even angered some Dems with his scapegoating of the governor (a Pub) over Flint's water problems.)

I like that about Bernie too. It's not something you see very often in politics. But yeah, it is kind of boring.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Sorry, but the above is really a lot of hogwash. Words have consequences, and if they didn't we wouldn't be using language at all. Advocating the use of violence, which Trump clearly has mouthed on numerous occasions, has consequences-- period.

Perhaps. But Trump is, at worst, partially responsible for some of the violence of his own supporters, if and when that occurs. He isn't responsible for disruption and violence initiated by his opponents, especially when those opponents are associated with groups and movements with long histories of trying to disrupt and intimidate those he disagrees with.

Even when it comes to any violence his own supporters commit, it will hard to show just what Trump was responsible for. At worst we can simply say he contributed to the background of most events. For example, the old man who punched the protestor being led out probably didn't need much encouragement, given the protestors gesture and his own apparent temperament.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry, but the above is really a lot of hogwash. Words have consequences, and if they didn't we wouldn't be using language at all. Advocating the use of violence, which Trump clearly has mouthed on numerous occasions, has consequences-- period.

This ^^^^

 

[Revoltingest]

I like that about Bernie too. It's not something you see very often in politics. But yeah, it is kind of boring.

He is boring, but I was referring to my response (agreement without much to add is boring).

 

[averageJOE]

Perhaps. But Trump is, at worst, partially responsible for some of the violence of his own supporters, if and when that occurs. He isn't responsible for disruption and violence initiated by his opponents, especially when those opponents are associated with groups and movements with long histories of trying to disrupt and intimidate those he disagrees with.

Even when it comes to any violence his own supporters commit, it will hard to show just what Trump was responsible for. At worst we can simply say he contributed to the background of most events. For example, the old man who punched the protestor being led out probably didn't need much encouragement, given the protestors gesture and his own apparent temperament.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He is boring, but I was referring to my response (agreement without much to add is boring).

Ohhhhhh ... Got it. Yes, agreement is boring.
You fascist jerk!

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

This ^^^^

What appears to be the claim is that Trump encouraged some violence, therefore he is entirely responsible for all violence associated with his events, including disruption and violence that originated, unprovoked (in any direct sense), from his opponents, whose groups and movements have long commitments to disrupting and intimidating those with differing views.

Presumably, if someone assassinated him, it would be his own fault?

A little critical thought should tell you that this is nonsense, not to mention just hypocritical.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ohhhhhh ... Got it. Yes, agreement is boring.

It is not!

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Would you or your hypocritical chums care to put your views about speech and responsibility to violence in concise terms, perhaps in standard form. At the moment it seems to make no sense: it seems to me you are claiming that because Trump encouraged some violence in a few off-hand comments, he is responsible for all violence and disruption at his events. But this is obviously too stupid for words, so it can't be correct.

 

[Revoltingest]

What appears to be the claim is that Trump encouraged some violence, therefore he is entirely responsible for all violence associated with his events, including disruption and violence that originated, unprovoked (in any direct sense), from his opponents, whose groups and movements have long commitments to the belief to disrupting and intimidating those who differing views.
Presumably, if someone assassinated him, it would be his own fault?
A little critical thought should tell you that this is nonsense, not to mention just hypocritical

While Trump's behavior has been deplorable, his advocacy for violence is pretty weak.
It seems more that partisans are seizing upon it to make more of it than it legally is.
What's more significant is that it shows a personality trait which portends rash behavior as prez.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

While Trump's behavior has been deplorable, his advocacy for violence is pretty weak.
It seems more that partisans are seizing upon it to make more of it than it legally is.
What's more significant is that it shows a personality trait which portends rash behavior as prez.

Exactly. He is a buffoon. But the comments being talked about hardly seem to warrant the hysteria being pushed here and elsewhere, especially as those hysterical seem to not give a damn about the sort of disruption and intimidation that the groups opposing him are intent on and have long been intent on (long before his campaign).

 

[SkepticThinker]

While Trump's behavior has been deplorable, his advocacy for violence is pretty weak.
It seems more that partisans are seizing upon it to make more of it than it legally is.
What's more significant is that it shows a personality trait which portends rash behavior as prez.

I don't think his advocacy for violence has been weak. I've been watching his rallies for weeks now, sitting in astonishment and disbelief as he incites people to rough up other people who disagree with him, talks about how journalists are the biggest scumbags on the planet and threatening to enact some kind of law that would silence them from saying anything negative about him, should he become president. I can't seem to remember anything quite like it, and it creates an atmosphere of hatred, distrust, anger and violence that isn't helpful to anybody. It's like a bizarre reality show.

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly. He is a buffoon. But the comments being talked about hardly seem to warrant the hysteria being pushed here and elsewhere, especially as those hysterical seem to not give a damn about the sort of disruption and intimidation that the groups opposing him are intent on and have long been intent on (long before his campaign).

He's far from a buffoon.
Instead, he's impressed me as smarter than I thought he was.
The appearance of being crazy doesn't mean he isn't calculating & formidable.
Time will tell us more.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The circus continues. I'm waiting for the juggling clowns.