Democrat thugs shut down Trump rally

[ChrisL]

Is there really that much difference between Trump and Hillary? Both are assholes. Neither are fit to be president. Really crappy choices the dems and reps have given the people.

Trump is 10,000 times better than Hillary.

Not to me! Two asses from opposite sides of the aisle.

 

[Pogo]

The news is reporting that Trump cancelled a rally in Chicago because a hoard of Democrat thugs showed up to threaten him and his fans.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Who are the brownshirts here?

I'm a liberal and, while I think Trump is an extremist dangerously close in a lot of his views to other extreme radicals, I also support free speech.

I think that it is in bad taste to create a hostile environment not open for discussion, now with that said I honestly think that Trump's supporters should have been allowed to peaceably assemble AS WELL AS Trumps protesters been allowed to peaceably protest. I'm not sure who organized the event nor exactly how hostile the crowds seemed to be but either the event was planned by an idiot without enough resources available, or the people attending needed to chill their jets.

Bingo. And by backing out à la Megyn Kelly, Rump is tacitly admitting that he's not willing to chill those jets. After all, that sort of angst is exactly what he thrives on, so he's in effect admitting that he's made of blusterfluff. Only this and nothing more.

Interestingly when he disassociated from that fledgling third party 16 years ago he denounced David Duke as the "anger vote". And now look where he is.

I am not necessarily blaming Trump. I haven't really seen any coverage over the crowds before the event...if the atmosphere is pretty charged, an appearance by the guy that the people disagree over would likely increase tensions, not relieve them.

I'll just repeat this again, either the even organizer was an idiot (not having enough security on hand, nor able to properly rope off / account for designated areas for the protesters outside of the venue of the rally), or the crowds (not saying one side or another, again, we have no information...at least any that I've seen, I'd be more than happy if somebody had a link to how the crowds appeared) needed to tone it down.

That (the logistics) may well be, as you say we don't know those details. What I'm saying is the guy in whose hands lies, because he's got their unwavering personality-cult devotion, the power to defuse the whole situation ------ chooses not to go that route. It indicates he sees more benefit in keeping the flames hot than in quenching them.

He could have used the moment as a springboard to a far more exalted atmosphere than what's hanging in the air after yesterday ---- but he chose not to do that and instead maintain the divisive one.

Which is after all predictable, since that --- the atmosphere of friction --- is what serves the self-interest of Numero Uno, while OTOH playing peacemaker offers nothing to that same ego-feed.

I don't honestly think that his showing up could have helped given the scenario that the crowds were hostile...I honestly think it would have escalated the situation. Now, again, I don't really know the climate of the crowds, nor the logistics of the situation, but I think it is safe to say that he did the right thing in postponing it.

Will he use the fact that he postponed the rally to likely fuel an "us vs. them" mentality? Likely...it has basically been his campaign MO. Also, given how successful it has been...could you blame him?

Now, I don't agree with his tactics, but I don't think it is reasonable to say that he could have or even should have tried to defuse the situation. He is a polarizing figure and, even if you allow a hypothetical where he does defuse his side of the crowd, you have to admit that there are increasingly extreme oppositions charging up against him and his campaign. I think that postponing it was likely the right choice at the end of the day but am disappointed in whomever is at fault (the event organizer, the crowds, or, likely, a combination of both) in not remaining a bit more competent or civil.

How do we even know what the hostility level was? How does anybody? What do we have to go on other than the suggestion of a known hustler?

 

[TemplarKormac]

How predictable for Ted Cruz... blaming Trump for the protesters outside. Yeah. Right. I'm done.

 

[Rozman]

I wonder how much the protesters were paid to show up for this?
Did they get minimum wage?

 

[Fang]

Well, Trump's rally tonight was a great advertisement against angry, violent Liberals. Trump didn't pay a dime for it. Brilliant. LOL

 

[Liminal]

I thought Trump followers liked all the tough talk and appeals to mob violence. I guess they were just too fucking stupid to figure out that others might respond in kind.

You condemn Trump for his violent rhetoric, but condone behavior like this. It shows how poorly you believe in free speech, when only one side can exercise it but not the other.

Feel free to point to part where I condoned violence. Why do you dummies have to lie about everything all the time?

But I most certainly don't see you condemning the violence instigated by the protesters. Would you like to take that opportunity now?

Would you like me to release a statement to the press? Or would you prefer I hold a news conference and answer journalists questions pubically?

Would you like to answer my question, Duck Dodger?

I'll have to consult with my chief of staff and press secretary first. They may want to conduct some focus groups and see what the analysis tells us. If it seems prudent to do so then I will release a statement to that effect.

 

[bripat9643]

Is there really that much difference between Trump and Hillary? Both are assholes. Neither are fit to be president. Really crappy choices the dems and reps have given the people.

Trump is 10,000 times better than Hillary.

Not to me! Two asses from opposite sides of the aisle.

Hillary is a criminal who sold her office to the highest bidder for personal gain. She's a POS. You can't get any lower than her.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I just saw this on another thread, and I wanted to link it here since I had brought into question the temperament of the crowd beforehand:

Donald Trump cancels UIC rally amid security concerns

It does appear that many Trump protesters were planning on bringing hostilities to his rally. As a liberal, and somebody who does not support Trump, I just wanted to say that I do not agree with these actions. I think that freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we are allowed in America, and that we should afford that freedom to everybody...not just those that we agree with.

These liberal Americans have failed today.

The protesters have freedom of assembly.

btw, Trump decided to call off the rally. We only have his unreliable word that there was too much of a threat of violence.

 

[eagle1462010]

I wonder how much the protesters were paid to show up for this?
Did they get minimum wage?

They promised to tell them where their food stamps were hidden at.......

psst.........under their work boots.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I thought Trump followers liked all the tough talk and appeals to mob violence. I guess they were just too fucking stupid to figure out that others might respond in kind.

You condemn Trump for his violent rhetoric, but condone behavior like this. It shows how poorly you believe in free speech, when only one side can exercise it but not the other.

That's the left wing conception of free speech: speech for me but not for thee.

The Declaration of Independence champions rebellion doesn't it?

What does that have to do with free speech?

Freedom of assembly is protected in the same amendment. These people are free to assemble and collectively protest.

It actually says peacefully assemble. That doesn't include the right to form a mob to riot.

 

[Pogo]

If you actually read my quote I never say "extremely dangerous"...just because the guy added quotes doesn't mean that he accurately quoted the material.

Maybe you should read the quote before getting angry over what wasn't said.

Seriously, you guys seem to have the literacy level of a 4th grader.

Who the hell is angry? I stated a FACT. Anything a liberal doesn't agree with is "extremely dangerous". Tell me where I'm wrong. Please.

Well, I'm a liberal, I don't agree with Trump, and I don't consider Trump as extremely dangerous. I'm literally a living counter-example.

So, yeah, you are pretty wrong.

Apparently, your reading comprehension is not as good as you think sonny.

You said, "Anything a liberal doesn't agree with is "extremely dangerous". Tell me where I'm wrong."

I said, "Well, I'm a liberal, I don't agree with Trump, and I don't consider Trump as extremely dangerous."

If my reading comprehension is off, then please help me. How, exactly, are you right when me, a liberal, disagrees with Trump, and explicitly tells you that I don't find him extremely dangerous.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but here you have somebody directly counter your statement and you refuse to acknowledge their opinion, still yelling (with fingers in ears I imagine) that the person you don't agree with is wrong...

Also, I felt like I've seen somewhere that you said you were a vet...as an ACTUAL vet let me just say that, if you are a vet...get your shit together and stop acting like a 5 year old...you are seriously misrepresenting our brotherhood...if you are just a faker (and believe me, there are tons out there), please stop using that word to describe yourself...its becoming more and more stigmatized in recent years and I'd hate for some fake nutjob to keep running around further degrading the image of a lot of good men and women.

Sonny, I don't have to answer to any jerk off like you. 11B and 97B. Viet Nam 1965-66. Ashau Valley and Quang Tri. Retired in 1987. Thank you. I'll trade war stories with your sorry ass any day of the week. You're not fooling anyone. I've got more DD214's than you have hair on your balls.

^^ says "I don't have to answer" --- and then in the next sentence, answers.

This place is a hoot.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

This just makes me want to get rid of welfare all together that way we can simply starve these maggots out.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm a liberal and, while I think Trump is an extremist dangerously close in a lot of his views to other extreme radicals, I also support free speech.

I think that it is in bad taste to create a hostile environment not open for discussion, now with that said I honestly think that Trump's supporters should have been allowed to peaceably assemble AS WELL AS Trumps protesters been allowed to peaceably protest. I'm not sure who organized the event nor exactly how hostile the crowds seemed to be but either the event was planned by an idiot without enough resources available, or the people attending needed to chill their jets.

Bingo. And by backing out à la Megyn Kelly, Rump is tacitly admitting that he's not willing to chill those jets. After all, that sort of angst is exactly what he thrives on, so he's in effect admitting that he's made of blusterfluff. Only this and nothing more.

Interestingly when he disassociated from that fledgling third party 16 years ago he denounced David Duke as the "anger vote". And now look where he is.

I am not necessarily blaming Trump. I haven't really seen any coverage over the crowds before the event...if the atmosphere is pretty charged, an appearance by the guy that the people disagree over would likely increase tensions, not relieve them.

I'll just repeat this again, either the even organizer was an idiot (not having enough security on hand, nor able to properly rope off / account for designated areas for the protesters outside of the venue of the rally), or the crowds (not saying one side or another, again, we have no information...at least any that I've seen, I'd be more than happy if somebody had a link to how the crowds appeared) needed to tone it down.

That (the logistics) may well be, as you say we don't know those details. What I'm saying is the guy in whose hands lies, because he's got their unwavering personality-cult devotion, the power to defuse the whole situation ------ chooses not to go that route. It indicates he sees more benefit in keeping the flames hot than in quenching them.

He could have used the moment as a springboard to a far more exalted atmosphere than what's hanging in the air after yesterday ---- but he chose not to do that and instead maintain the divisive one.

Which is after all predictable, since that --- the atmosphere of friction --- is what serves the self-interest of Numero Uno, while OTOH playing peacemaker offers nothing to that same ego-feed.

I don't honestly think that his showing up could have helped given the scenario that the crowds were hostile...I honestly think it would have escalated the situation. Now, again, I don't really know the climate of the crowds, nor the logistics of the situation, but I think it is safe to say that he did the right thing in postponing it.

Will he use the fact that he postponed the rally to likely fuel an "us vs. them" mentality? Likely...it has basically been his campaign MO. Also, given how successful it has been...could you blame him?

Now, I don't agree with his tactics, but I don't think it is reasonable to say that he could have or even should have tried to defuse the situation. He is a polarizing figure and, even if you allow a hypothetical where he does defuse his side of the crowd, you have to admit that there are increasingly extreme oppositions charging up against him and his campaign. I think that postponing it was likely the right choice at the end of the day but am disappointed in whomever is at fault (the event organizer, the crowds, or, likely, a combination of both) in not remaining a bit more competent or civil.

How do we even know what the hostility level was? How does anybody? What do we have to go on other than the suggestion of a known hustler?

How about the number of people arrested and hauled off to jail?

 

[Londoner]

The Trump movement has vowed to take America back by force. This is just the beginning.

Trump is the worst kind of populist. He is tapping into the violent rantings of men like Michael Savage, and encouraging supporters to punch people in the face. Trump has meticulously cultivated an atmosphere of violence. His Hitlarian hatred of Mexicans and Muslims has enabled violent thugs to rise up.

Once president Trump assumes office, we will see Mexican businesses set on fire. We will see blacks and Muslims tortured by roving gangs of white supremacists. We will see Trump's jackbooted thugs going door to door.

Welcome to Germany circa 1933.

God help us.

 

[eagle1462010]

I just saw this on another thread, and I wanted to link it here since I had brought into question the temperament of the crowd beforehand:

Donald Trump cancels UIC rally amid security concerns

It does appear that many Trump protesters were planning on bringing hostilities to his rally. As a liberal, and somebody who does not support Trump, I just wanted to say that I do not agree with these actions. I think that freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we are allowed in America, and that we should afford that freedom to everybody...not just those that we agree with.

These liberal Americans have failed today.

The protesters have freedom of assembly.

btw, Trump decided to call off the rally. We only have his unreliable word that there was too much of a threat of violence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You condemn Trump for his violent rhetoric, but condone behavior like this. It shows how poorly you believe in free speech, when only one side can exercise it but not the other.

That's the left wing conception of free speech: speech for me but not for thee.

The Declaration of Independence champions rebellion doesn't it?

What does that have to do with free speech?

Freedom of assembly is protected in the same amendment. These people are free to assemble and collectively protest.

It actually says peacefully assemble. That doesn't include the right to form a mob to riot.

There has been no riot. There has been a Trump supporter punching out an innocent protester from yesterday.

This is all orchestrated by Trump, even the cancellation. He cancels to create the false impression that violence was threatened,

a pure fabrication.

 

[Never3ndr]

I just saw this on another thread, and I wanted to link it here since I had brought into question the temperament of the crowd beforehand:

Donald Trump cancels UIC rally amid security concerns

It does appear that many Trump protesters were planning on bringing hostilities to his rally. As a liberal, and somebody who does not support Trump, I just wanted to say that I do not agree with these actions. I think that freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we are allowed in America, and that we should afford that freedom to everybody...not just those that we agree with.

These liberal Americans have failed today.

The protesters have freedom of assembly.

btw, Trump decided to call off the rally. We only have his unreliable word that there was too much of a threat of violence.

They do, but, according to this news report at least, it appears that a sizable amount of protesters had infiltrated his rally and were planning on openly protesting inside the rally space / heckling from within it. I am not saying that the protesters don't have the right to be there...they certainly do. However, their tactics were tactless. Trying to shut down the voice of others is not the American way of getting your voice heard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I just saw this on another thread, and I wanted to link it here since I had brought into question the temperament of the crowd beforehand:

Donald Trump cancels UIC rally amid security concerns

It does appear that many Trump protesters were planning on bringing hostilities to his rally. As a liberal, and somebody who does not support Trump, I just wanted to say that I do not agree with these actions. I think that freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we are allowed in America, and that we should afford that freedom to everybody...not just those that we agree with.

These liberal Americans have failed today.

The protesters have freedom of assembly.

btw, Trump decided to call off the rally. We only have his unreliable word that there was too much of a threat of violence.

Where is the violence?

 

[Theowl32]

The Trump movement has vowed to take America back by force. This is just the beginning.

Trump is the worst kind of populist. He is tapping into the violent rantings of men like Michael Savage, and encouraging supporters to punch people in the face. Trump has meticulously cultivated an atmosphere of violence. His Hitlarian hatred of Mexicans and Muslims has enabled violent thugs to rise up.

Once president Trump assumes office, we will see Mexican businesses set on fire. We will see blacks and Muslims tortured by roving gangs of white supremacists. We will see Trump's jackbooted thugs going door to door.

Welcome to Germany circa 1933.

God help us.

Holy shit

 

[TemplarKormac]

You condemn Trump for his violent rhetoric, but condone behavior like this. It shows how poorly you believe in free speech, when only one side can exercise it but not the other.

Feel free to point to part where I condoned violence. Why do you dummies have to lie about everything all the time?

But I most certainly don't see you condemning the violence instigated by the protesters. Would you like to take that opportunity now?

Would you like me to release a statement to the press? Or would you prefer I hold a news conference and answer journalists questions pubically?

Would you like to answer my question, Duck Dodger?

I'll have to consult with my chief of staff and press secretary first. They may want to conduct some focus groups and see what the analysis tells us. If it seems prudent to do so then I will release a statement to that effect.

Yep. So you condone the violence then.