Breaking: RNC Leader Reince Preibus Announces He Won't Turn Over Party To Trump If He Wins

[Cecilie1200]

Prove it. Prove ANY of it. And no, "He said so!" is not proof.

We all know that Hillary will be a disaster, don't we?

I'm failing to see how that means we must choose a candidate who's arguably just as shitty to run against her. If you were going for, "Quick, PANIC and go along with us!" you're talking to the wrong person.

Sorry, but the claim that he's just as shitty as Hillary doesn't hold water. Is Hillary going to control illegal immigration? Nope, she's going to open the flood gates. If she's elected, the Democrats will be the permanent majority for the next 100 years.

That's what you're supporting: 100 years of Stalinist rule.

If the best argument you have in favor of Donald Trump is "He's not Hillary! Hillary sucks! HILLLLLLARRRRRYYYY!!!" then you've already lost. The nation is filled with 300 million-plus people who are not Hillary Clinton, and that doesn't make any of THEM a good choice for President, either.

Any time you'd like to stop deflecting off onto why Hillary is a shit candidate and answer the question of "How does that make Donald Trump NOT a shit candidate?" let me know.

Is Trump the libertarian dream candidate? No. If you're waiting for the libertarian dream, then why don't you just quit altogether because that is never going to happen?

If Trump was running against Adolph Hitler himself, apparently you would vote third party and help Hitler get elected because Trump isn't the ideal libertarian candidate. The claim that Trump is no better than Hillary doesn't pass the laugh test.

And yet you cannot tell me why Trump is a good candidate. The best you can give me is, "He's not perfect" . . . and, of course, the ever-popular, "But HIIIIILLLLLAAAARRRRYYYY!!!"

I've already indicated that you are not going to be able to panic and stampede me into giving you your way, so you're either going to have to convince me logically that Donald Trump is worthy of my vote, or live with the fact that you're on your own, and YOU get to own a Hillary presidency because you insisted on a shitty candidate and then refused to make a persuasive case for him.

You can stomp your feet and demand that I cling to your priorities and somehow "owe" you my vote until your little face turns blue, and it's not going to become the truth. If you want to continue the past disastrous policy of voting for "anyone but [fill in the blank]", which gave us such stellar choices as John McCain and Mitt Romney, then that's your lookout. I do not vote "against"; I vote for. So don't tell me what Donald Trump ISN'T. Tell me what he is. Or start making plans to stuff the ballot box. Your choice.

If your next post does not start making a case FOR Donald Trump, I'm going to assume that you know as well as I do that there IS no case for him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes...that threat of violence so much a part of the RW scene.

Violence occurs only when Soros funded leftwing stooges show up. Hmmmmm . . . . curious how that works.

Not at all curious. Violence occurs . . . when Trumpettes are presented with someone who disagrees with them.

It just happens that leftwingers are about the only ones with the time to spare to protest this loser.

Why should Trump or his supporters have to tolerate protesters in a private venue paid for by Trump? Apparently that's your position. When did you stop believing in property rights? Why do only leftwing protesters have rights?

Well, for one thing, because they aren't private venues,

When you rent them, they are. IF you rent government housing, do you think protesters are allowed to walk through your door without an invitation and help themselves to the content of your refrigerator?

and protesting has long been considered a valid exercise of the First Amendment. Apparently, YOUR position is the newly-popular leftwing one of "Why should I have to tolerate people disagreeing with me?! I need a SAFE SPACE where I only hear what I like!"

They can protest all they want outside at a safe distance from Trump and his supporters. The have no right to disrupt Trump's events, just as your brother-in-law has no right to walk into your house uninvited.

When did YOU stop believing in butching up and acting like a man and a freedom-loving American?

As to the whole "we rented it and didn't invite them, so that means we should beat the shit out of them" concept so popular with Trumpettes these days, let me advance the outrageous notion that we have law enforcement and a legal system, and taking those activities into private hands is not the hallmark of civilized individuals or a civilized society.

"Freedom" includes the right to exclude others from property that you own or rent. That seems to be what you don't understand. The protesters aren't the only ones with rights. No one is advocating beatings for the protesters, but if the refuse to leave peacefully, then the use of force is both legal and justified.

Completely untrue, and disingenuous.

The Tucson Convention Center, for example, where a Trumpette felt the need to assault a protester already being escorted away by police.

The Convention Center is owned by the City of Tucson, and funded by taxes paid by the citizens of the city of Tucson. It is public property. One may rent sections of the Convention Center, and restrict entry to those sections (usually to those who have bought tickets, since rentals are usually by profit-making entities), but ONLY to those sections, not to the Convention Center itself. It is still completely legal to protest anywhere else on the property, including in hallways and entryways right outside the doors of the rented space. Furthermore, if attendance in the rented area is NOT restricted - which it is not for political rallies - then your only choice for restriction is causing a public disturbance, as defined by the laws of the city of Tucson, not as defined by the violent dimwits in attendance.

Furthermore, at no time is there EVER a "right" to "exclude others" by means of physical violence. I don't care if they're wearing Klan hoods, or carrying signs saying something you don't like, or invading your safe space, or whatever the hell your issue is. Exclusion from the space means one thing, and one thing only: having the proper authorities handle it. So at the point where Trumpettes decide that they've suddenly become Batman-with-a-stupid-red-golf-hat and want to mete out their own "justice", they are wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally, don-t-give-a-shit-what-your-rationalization-is WRONG.

Sack up, and learn to accept the existence of dissent, and the necessity of laws.

And do NOT tell me that no one is advocating for beatings; Donald Trump has done so, every time he has SAID, "Knock the crap out of them", "Used to be taken out on stretchers", "I'll pay your legal fees", etc. The Trumpettes who actually use physical violence against protesters are, by their actions. YOU are doing so, by trying to deflect blame and defend the violent Trumpettes.

 

[Iceweasel]

The thing is Trump does have some leverage. He can run as a third party candidate. Probably won't win but will destroy the GOP's chance, I suspect they've thought of that.

I'm sure they have. Problem is, the more his unfavorable ratings climb, the more they have to consider whether letting him flounce off with all his little followers to have a pity party is better or worse for the GOP than being stuck with such a stinker of a candidate.

Like it or not Trump has by far the most delegates. That's sorta hard to ignore. Kasich is barely moving the give a fuck needle, nobody but the establishment goons want him. If Cruz gets it the press will instantly go into Christian fundamentalist in the White House scare mode and will simply shift the negative press from Trump to him and will be just as successful.

Because if we can spend weeks discussing how a hypothetical about abortion law that will never happen wasn't answered politically correct enough by a guy not even from the religious right, they will have plenty of ammo. But A, they created it by putting party over people and people are sick of it, and B, the American public set the stage by putting obama in the white House twice.

 

[Iceweasel]

Violence occurs only when Soros funded leftwing stooges show up. Hmmmmm . . . . curious how that works.

Not at all curious. Violence occurs . . . when Trumpettes are presented with someone who disagrees with them.

It just happens that leftwingers are about the only ones with the time to spare to protest this loser.

Why should Trump or his supporters have to tolerate protesters in a private venue paid for by Trump? Apparently that's your position. When did you stop believing in property rights? Why do only leftwing protesters have rights?

Well, for one thing, because they aren't private venues,

When you rent them, they are. IF you rent government housing, do you think protesters are allowed to walk through your door without an invitation and help themselves to the content of your refrigerator?

and protesting has long been considered a valid exercise of the First Amendment. Apparently, YOUR position is the newly-popular leftwing one of "Why should I have to tolerate people disagreeing with me?! I need a SAFE SPACE where I only hear what I like!"

They can protest all they want outside at a safe distance from Trump and his supporters. The have no right to disrupt Trump's events, just as your brother-in-law has no right to walk into your house uninvited.

When did YOU stop believing in butching up and acting like a man and a freedom-loving American?

As to the whole "we rented it and didn't invite them, so that means we should beat the shit out of them" concept so popular with Trumpettes these days, let me advance the outrageous notion that we have law enforcement and a legal system, and taking those activities into private hands is not the hallmark of civilized individuals or a civilized society.

"Freedom" includes the right to exclude others from property that you own or rent. That seems to be what you don't understand. The protesters aren't the only ones with rights. No one is advocating beatings for the protesters, but if the refuse to leave peacefully, then the use of force is both legal and justified.

Completely untrue, and disingenuous.

The Tucson Convention Center, for example, where a Trumpette felt the need to assault a protester already being escorted away by police.

The Convention Center is owned by the City of Tucson, and funded by taxes paid by the citizens of the city of Tucson. It is public property. One may rent sections of the Convention Center, and restrict entry to those sections (usually to those who have bought tickets, since rentals are usually by profit-making entities), but ONLY to those sections, not to the Convention Center itself. It is still completely legal to protest anywhere else on the property, including in hallways and entryways right outside the doors of the rented space. Furthermore, if attendance in the rented area is NOT restricted - which it is not for political rallies - then your only choice for restriction is causing a public disturbance, as defined by the laws of the city of Tucson, not as defined by the violent dimwits in attendance.

Furthermore, at no time is there EVER a "right" to "exclude others" by means of physical violence. I don't care if they're wearing Klan hoods, or carrying signs saying something you don't like, or invading your safe space, or whatever the hell your issue is. Exclusion from the space means one thing, and one thing only: having the proper authorities handle it. So at the point where Trumpettes decide that they've suddenly become Batman-with-a-stupid-red-golf-hat and want to mete out their own "justice", they are wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally, don-t-give-a-shit-what-your-rationalization-is WRONG.

Sack up, and learn to accept the existence of dissent, and the necessity of laws.

And do NOT tell me that no one is advocating for beatings; Donald Trump has done so, every time he has SAID, "Knock the crap out of them", "Used to be taken out on stretchers", "I'll pay your legal fees", etc. The Trumpettes who actually use physical violence against protesters are, by their actions. YOU are doing so, by trying to deflect blame and defend the violent Trumpettes.

You blowing your horn about Trumpeters is ironic. The asshats went looking for trouble so cry me a river. I never gave Trump much attention until I saw how unglued the left was getting. So that speaks to me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not at all curious. Violence occurs . . . when Trumpettes are presented with someone who disagrees with them.

It just happens that leftwingers are about the only ones with the time to spare to protest this loser.

Why should Trump or his supporters have to tolerate protesters in a private venue paid for by Trump? Apparently that's your position. When did you stop believing in property rights? Why do only leftwing protesters have rights?

Well, for one thing, because they aren't private venues,

When you rent them, they are. IF you rent government housing, do you think protesters are allowed to walk through your door without an invitation and help themselves to the content of your refrigerator?

and protesting has long been considered a valid exercise of the First Amendment. Apparently, YOUR position is the newly-popular leftwing one of "Why should I have to tolerate people disagreeing with me?! I need a SAFE SPACE where I only hear what I like!"

They can protest all they want outside at a safe distance from Trump and his supporters. The have no right to disrupt Trump's events, just as your brother-in-law has no right to walk into your house uninvited.

When did YOU stop believing in butching up and acting like a man and a freedom-loving American?

As to the whole "we rented it and didn't invite them, so that means we should beat the shit out of them" concept so popular with Trumpettes these days, let me advance the outrageous notion that we have law enforcement and a legal system, and taking those activities into private hands is not the hallmark of civilized individuals or a civilized society.

"Freedom" includes the right to exclude others from property that you own or rent. That seems to be what you don't understand. The protesters aren't the only ones with rights. No one is advocating beatings for the protesters, but if the refuse to leave peacefully, then the use of force is both legal and justified.

Completely untrue, and disingenuous.

The Tucson Convention Center, for example, where a Trumpette felt the need to assault a protester already being escorted away by police.

The Convention Center is owned by the City of Tucson, and funded by taxes paid by the citizens of the city of Tucson. It is public property. One may rent sections of the Convention Center, and restrict entry to those sections (usually to those who have bought tickets, since rentals are usually by profit-making entities), but ONLY to those sections, not to the Convention Center itself. It is still completely legal to protest anywhere else on the property, including in hallways and entryways right outside the doors of the rented space. Furthermore, if attendance in the rented area is NOT restricted - which it is not for political rallies - then your only choice for restriction is causing a public disturbance, as defined by the laws of the city of Tucson, not as defined by the violent dimwits in attendance.

Furthermore, at no time is there EVER a "right" to "exclude others" by means of physical violence. I don't care if they're wearing Klan hoods, or carrying signs saying something you don't like, or invading your safe space, or whatever the hell your issue is. Exclusion from the space means one thing, and one thing only: having the proper authorities handle it. So at the point where Trumpettes decide that they've suddenly become Batman-with-a-stupid-red-golf-hat and want to mete out their own "justice", they are wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally, don-t-give-a-shit-what-your-rationalization-is WRONG.

Sack up, and learn to accept the existence of dissent, and the necessity of laws.

And do NOT tell me that no one is advocating for beatings; Donald Trump has done so, every time he has SAID, "Knock the crap out of them", "Used to be taken out on stretchers", "I'll pay your legal fees", etc. The Trumpettes who actually use physical violence against protesters are, by their actions. YOU are doing so, by trying to deflect blame and defend the violent Trumpettes.

You blowing your horn about Trumpeters is ironic. The asshats went looking for trouble so cry me a river. I never gave Trump much attention until I saw how unglued the left was getting. So that speaks to me.

Ahhh, yes. "They came there to protest, so they DESERVE to be beaten!" The rallying cry of all free societies . . . oh, wait a minute. It's not.

If that's what "speaks to you", best clean your ears out. What SHOULD be speaking to you is, "What's in the interests of continuing American freedom and exceptionalism?" Donald Trump isn't it, and never WILL be it, no matter HOW much it plays into your personal political rivalries.

And understand me: NO ONE opposes modern liberalism more than I do, and no one considers modern leftists more ignorant, misguided, and in service of the destruction of America, however unwittingly. But I oppose them because they are the antithesis of what I stand for; I do not stand for things simply because it opposes them. Priorities.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why should Trump or his supporters have to tolerate protesters in a private venue paid for by Trump? Apparently that's your position. When did you stop believing in property rights? Why do only leftwing protesters have rights?

Well, for one thing, because they aren't private venues,

When you rent them, they are. IF you rent government housing, do you think protesters are allowed to walk through your door without an invitation and help themselves to the content of your refrigerator?

and protesting has long been considered a valid exercise of the First Amendment. Apparently, YOUR position is the newly-popular leftwing one of "Why should I have to tolerate people disagreeing with me?! I need a SAFE SPACE where I only hear what I like!"

They can protest all they want outside at a safe distance from Trump and his supporters. The have no right to disrupt Trump's events, just as your brother-in-law has no right to walk into your house uninvited.

When did YOU stop believing in butching up and acting like a man and a freedom-loving American?

As to the whole "we rented it and didn't invite them, so that means we should beat the shit out of them" concept so popular with Trumpettes these days, let me advance the outrageous notion that we have law enforcement and a legal system, and taking those activities into private hands is not the hallmark of civilized individuals or a civilized society.

"Freedom" includes the right to exclude others from property that you own or rent. That seems to be what you don't understand. The protesters aren't the only ones with rights. No one is advocating beatings for the protesters, but if the refuse to leave peacefully, then the use of force is both legal and justified.

Completely untrue, and disingenuous.

The Tucson Convention Center, for example, where a Trumpette felt the need to assault a protester already being escorted away by police.

The Convention Center is owned by the City of Tucson, and funded by taxes paid by the citizens of the city of Tucson. It is public property. One may rent sections of the Convention Center, and restrict entry to those sections (usually to those who have bought tickets, since rentals are usually by profit-making entities), but ONLY to those sections, not to the Convention Center itself. It is still completely legal to protest anywhere else on the property, including in hallways and entryways right outside the doors of the rented space. Furthermore, if attendance in the rented area is NOT restricted - which it is not for political rallies - then your only choice for restriction is causing a public disturbance, as defined by the laws of the city of Tucson, not as defined by the violent dimwits in attendance.

Furthermore, at no time is there EVER a "right" to "exclude others" by means of physical violence. I don't care if they're wearing Klan hoods, or carrying signs saying something you don't like, or invading your safe space, or whatever the hell your issue is. Exclusion from the space means one thing, and one thing only: having the proper authorities handle it. So at the point where Trumpettes decide that they've suddenly become Batman-with-a-stupid-red-golf-hat and want to mete out their own "justice", they are wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally, don-t-give-a-shit-what-your-rationalization-is WRONG.

Sack up, and learn to accept the existence of dissent, and the necessity of laws.

And do NOT tell me that no one is advocating for beatings; Donald Trump has done so, every time he has SAID, "Knock the crap out of them", "Used to be taken out on stretchers", "I'll pay your legal fees", etc. The Trumpettes who actually use physical violence against protesters are, by their actions. YOU are doing so, by trying to deflect blame and defend the violent Trumpettes.

You blowing your horn about Trumpeters is ironic. The asshats went looking for trouble so cry me a river. I never gave Trump much attention until I saw how unglued the left was getting. So that speaks to me.

Ahhh, yes. "They came there to protest, so they DESERVE to be beaten!" The rallying cry of all free societies . . . oh, wait a minute. It's not.

If that's what "speaks to you", best clean your ears out. What SHOULD be speaking to you is, "What's in the interests of continuing American freedom and exceptionalism?" Donald Trump isn't it, and never WILL be it, no matter HOW much it plays into your personal political rivalries.

And understand me: NO ONE opposes modern liberalism more than I do, and no one considers modern leftists more ignorant, misguided, and in service of the destruction of America, however unwittingly. But I oppose them because they are the antithesis of what I stand for; I do not stand for things simply because it opposes them. Priorities.

Nobody is free to shut down your right to speak, you're sounding like a lib. The right to protest doesn't mean anything you want. You can't block traffic. You can't go to a events to disrupt it. The crowd didn't go there to witness some self important asshole make an example of himself. Lots of pissed off people and those few examples is it? Sorry, doesn't move my give a fuck meter.

Let's make America great again is his slogan and is a briefer way to say it than what you posted. I've studied the game long enough to know when libs are outraged more than normal something good has happened. Because of the principles I stand for and the principles they stand for (if we can call them that).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, for one thing, because they aren't private venues,

When you rent them, they are. IF you rent government housing, do you think protesters are allowed to walk through your door without an invitation and help themselves to the content of your refrigerator?

and protesting has long been considered a valid exercise of the First Amendment. Apparently, YOUR position is the newly-popular leftwing one of "Why should I have to tolerate people disagreeing with me?! I need a SAFE SPACE where I only hear what I like!"

They can protest all they want outside at a safe distance from Trump and his supporters. The have no right to disrupt Trump's events, just as your brother-in-law has no right to walk into your house uninvited.

When did YOU stop believing in butching up and acting like a man and a freedom-loving American?

As to the whole "we rented it and didn't invite them, so that means we should beat the shit out of them" concept so popular with Trumpettes these days, let me advance the outrageous notion that we have law enforcement and a legal system, and taking those activities into private hands is not the hallmark of civilized individuals or a civilized society.

"Freedom" includes the right to exclude others from property that you own or rent. That seems to be what you don't understand. The protesters aren't the only ones with rights. No one is advocating beatings for the protesters, but if the refuse to leave peacefully, then the use of force is both legal and justified.

Completely untrue, and disingenuous.

The Tucson Convention Center, for example, where a Trumpette felt the need to assault a protester already being escorted away by police.

The Convention Center is owned by the City of Tucson, and funded by taxes paid by the citizens of the city of Tucson. It is public property. One may rent sections of the Convention Center, and restrict entry to those sections (usually to those who have bought tickets, since rentals are usually by profit-making entities), but ONLY to those sections, not to the Convention Center itself. It is still completely legal to protest anywhere else on the property, including in hallways and entryways right outside the doors of the rented space. Furthermore, if attendance in the rented area is NOT restricted - which it is not for political rallies - then your only choice for restriction is causing a public disturbance, as defined by the laws of the city of Tucson, not as defined by the violent dimwits in attendance.

Furthermore, at no time is there EVER a "right" to "exclude others" by means of physical violence. I don't care if they're wearing Klan hoods, or carrying signs saying something you don't like, or invading your safe space, or whatever the hell your issue is. Exclusion from the space means one thing, and one thing only: having the proper authorities handle it. So at the point where Trumpettes decide that they've suddenly become Batman-with-a-stupid-red-golf-hat and want to mete out their own "justice", they are wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally, don-t-give-a-shit-what-your-rationalization-is WRONG.

Sack up, and learn to accept the existence of dissent, and the necessity of laws.

And do NOT tell me that no one is advocating for beatings; Donald Trump has done so, every time he has SAID, "Knock the crap out of them", "Used to be taken out on stretchers", "I'll pay your legal fees", etc. The Trumpettes who actually use physical violence against protesters are, by their actions. YOU are doing so, by trying to deflect blame and defend the violent Trumpettes.

You blowing your horn about Trumpeters is ironic. The asshats went looking for trouble so cry me a river. I never gave Trump much attention until I saw how unglued the left was getting. So that speaks to me.

Ahhh, yes. "They came there to protest, so they DESERVE to be beaten!" The rallying cry of all free societies . . . oh, wait a minute. It's not.

If that's what "speaks to you", best clean your ears out. What SHOULD be speaking to you is, "What's in the interests of continuing American freedom and exceptionalism?" Donald Trump isn't it, and never WILL be it, no matter HOW much it plays into your personal political rivalries.

And understand me: NO ONE opposes modern liberalism more than I do, and no one considers modern leftists more ignorant, misguided, and in service of the destruction of America, however unwittingly. But I oppose them because they are the antithesis of what I stand for; I do not stand for things simply because it opposes them. Priorities.

Nobody is free to shut down your right to speak, you're sounding like a lib. The right to protest doesn't mean anything you want. You can't block traffic. You can't go to a events to disrupt it. The crowd didn't go there to witness some self important asshole make an example of himself. Lots of pissed off people and those few examples is it? Sorry, doesn't move my give a fuck meter.

Let's make America great again is his slogan and is a briefer way to say it than what you posted. I've studied the game long enough to know when libs are outraged more than normal something good has happened. Because of the principles I stand for and the principles they stand for (if we can call them that).

I keep hearing, "You can't do THIS, and you can't do THAT", and not a single word about how that somehow equates to "Therefore, people can beat you up for it."

The response to protesters violating the law is to be escorted away by police, or arrested if necessary. So blathering a bunch of pseudo-noble "You can protest, but not like THIS!" is nothing but a rank, cowardly deflection from the inappropriate actions of Trumpettes, which equals an endorsement of THEIR violations of the law.

And trying to pretend that I am somehow defending the inappropriate actions of protesters by simply pointing this fact out qualifies as ANOTHER rank, cowardly deflection.

Show me where ANYWHERE that I've ever said, "It's okay to block traffic" or any of the other statements you're trying to shove in my mouth. Cite them, or accept the fact that you have started arguing like a leftist.

 

[bripat9643]

When you rent them, they are. IF you rent government housing, do you think protesters are allowed to walk through your door without an invitation and help themselves to the content of your refrigerator?

They can protest all they want outside at a safe distance from Trump and his supporters. The have no right to disrupt Trump's events, just as your brother-in-law has no right to walk into your house uninvited.

"Freedom" includes the right to exclude others from property that you own or rent. That seems to be what you don't understand. The protesters aren't the only ones with rights. No one is advocating beatings for the protesters, but if the refuse to leave peacefully, then the use of force is both legal and justified.

Completely untrue, and disingenuous.

The Tucson Convention Center, for example, where a Trumpette felt the need to assault a protester already being escorted away by police.

The Convention Center is owned by the City of Tucson, and funded by taxes paid by the citizens of the city of Tucson. It is public property. One may rent sections of the Convention Center, and restrict entry to those sections (usually to those who have bought tickets, since rentals are usually by profit-making entities), but ONLY to those sections, not to the Convention Center itself. It is still completely legal to protest anywhere else on the property, including in hallways and entryways right outside the doors of the rented space. Furthermore, if attendance in the rented area is NOT restricted - which it is not for political rallies - then your only choice for restriction is causing a public disturbance, as defined by the laws of the city of Tucson, not as defined by the violent dimwits in attendance.

Furthermore, at no time is there EVER a "right" to "exclude others" by means of physical violence. I don't care if they're wearing Klan hoods, or carrying signs saying something you don't like, or invading your safe space, or whatever the hell your issue is. Exclusion from the space means one thing, and one thing only: having the proper authorities handle it. So at the point where Trumpettes decide that they've suddenly become Batman-with-a-stupid-red-golf-hat and want to mete out their own "justice", they are wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally, don-t-give-a-shit-what-your-rationalization-is WRONG.

Sack up, and learn to accept the existence of dissent, and the necessity of laws.

And do NOT tell me that no one is advocating for beatings; Donald Trump has done so, every time he has SAID, "Knock the crap out of them", "Used to be taken out on stretchers", "I'll pay your legal fees", etc. The Trumpettes who actually use physical violence against protesters are, by their actions. YOU are doing so, by trying to deflect blame and defend the violent Trumpettes.

You blowing your horn about Trumpeters is ironic. The asshats went looking for trouble so cry me a river. I never gave Trump much attention until I saw how unglued the left was getting. So that speaks to me.

Ahhh, yes. "They came there to protest, so they DESERVE to be beaten!" The rallying cry of all free societies . . . oh, wait a minute. It's not.

If that's what "speaks to you", best clean your ears out. What SHOULD be speaking to you is, "What's in the interests of continuing American freedom and exceptionalism?" Donald Trump isn't it, and never WILL be it, no matter HOW much it plays into your personal political rivalries.

And understand me: NO ONE opposes modern liberalism more than I do, and no one considers modern leftists more ignorant, misguided, and in service of the destruction of America, however unwittingly. But I oppose them because they are the antithesis of what I stand for; I do not stand for things simply because it opposes them. Priorities.

Nobody is free to shut down your right to speak, you're sounding like a lib. The right to protest doesn't mean anything you want. You can't block traffic. You can't go to a events to disrupt it. The crowd didn't go there to witness some self important asshole make an example of himself. Lots of pissed off people and those few examples is it? Sorry, doesn't move my give a fuck meter.

Let's make America great again is his slogan and is a briefer way to say it than what you posted. I've studied the game long enough to know when libs are outraged more than normal something good has happened. Because of the principles I stand for and the principles they stand for (if we can call them that).

I keep hearing, "You can't do THIS, and you can't do THAT", and not a single word about how that somehow equates to "Therefore, people can beat you up for it."

How are you hearing that when no one has said that?

The response to protesters violating the law is to be escorted away by police, or arrested if necessary. So blathering a bunch of pseudo-noble "You can protest, but not like THIS!" is nothing but a rank, cowardly deflection from the inappropriate actions of Trumpettes, which equals an endorsement of THEIR violations of the law.

No, it's perfectly proper to have private security escort them to the door. Just as it's perfectly property to escort unwanted guests from your house yourself, it's perfectly proper for Trump's security or even members of the audience to escort unwanted guests from the venue.

And trying to pretend that I am somehow defending the inappropriate actions of protesters by simply pointing this fact out qualifies as ANOTHER rank, cowardly deflection.

You continue to imply that Trump has them all beaten, and that they have a right to be there.

Show me where ANYWHERE that I've ever said, "It's okay to block traffic" or any of the other statements you're trying to shove in my mouth. Cite them, or accept the fact that you have started arguing like a leftist.

Show us where anyone has said it's OK to beat protesters who are leaving voluntarily when asked.