Spiderboenz:

Yes. 

silverbutton1:

Care to briefly elaborate what you mean by this. just curious. 

ScotsAlan:

Ben Carson claimed the Egyptian pyramids were grain stores. He also says the world is 6000 years old.

Stiggs:

Really?! They sound like the perfect couple.

mattsm84:

It would please me greatly too. Democratic president elected in a landslide supported by a democratic senate.

ambivalentmace:

yes matt, that would please me too, the sooner we bankrupt the national debt and start over the better, why put off the inevitable.

mattsm84:

Lol. You can't bankrupt the national debt, stooge.

ambivalentmace:

france has bankrupted 6 times in 900 years and france is still around, of course you can bankrupt a country and start over. if we confiscate income tax at a 100 percent rate for all wages over 100 thousand dollars a year per citizen, we cant pay the current annual spending budget without borrowing, this debt will never be paid, trying to pay it and taking interest payments out of the economy will just make it worse. bankrupt and start over, the world cant take away the assets of america, we have the military, fuck the world before it fucks us.

whocaresreally:

damn, ambi, did not see that coming, but you did, how do you do that.

its brilliant really, put a stooge (trump) in power, bankrupt the national debt, both party elites rail against him so they take no blame and get an outsider to the dirty deed.http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-treasury-haircut-idea-insane-2016-5

i totally missed that and you nailed it.

ScotsAlan:

When he won in Nevada, he got the biggest numbers of Hispanic votes than any of the candidates. He made a big point of it. However, and going from memory here, only 16% of Hispanic voters in Nevada are registered republicans, and only about 30% of them turned out to vote, with 45% of them voting for Trump. Ever decreasing circles. So his big Hispanic win he touted is really just a yes vote from a fraction of the population.

ambivalentmace:

there is a factor in the hispanic vote that people overlook alot,

many hispanics that are truly catholic go to church every sunday have a problem with the democrat abortion ideas, but its never talked about in the media.

many hispanics that legally immigrated have family members waiting on the legal list for their turn to immigrate and think amnesty for illegals will slow down their relatives getting in instead of waiting at the back of the line behind their relatives, also they realize that the more people that come in the more their wages will fall from competition and an over supply of labor.

the amnesty is really a scam because we only process about 1 million a year and these people will be waiting forever for their turn but the parties will get their votes while their waiting, they can register to vote when they get a license and the department of motor vehicles is not allowed to ask them if they are a citizen eligible to vote.  its estimated that 3 million green card holders voted in the last election that were not citizens yet.

Lord_hanson:

Many Latino Americans who got into the USA legally hate illegals.

bat22:

he called illigal mexicans these things which are partislly true key word illigals that should not even be in the us if your goig to say something tell the truth

WooMow:

Trump is the least-worst candidate? wtf.

Trump won't win. He is having success in states where 1% turn out to vote for primaries. Most of the country won't vote during the primaries. When it comes to the actual election, and it's him or anyone else, anyone else will win. Because he is the THE WORT CANDIDATE IN HISTORY. Albeit surprisingly good at getting the crazies to come out and vote during primaries.

Yes, I don't care that a politician maintains her own personal e-mail server. Sounds like a safe thing for anyone to do honestly. Benghazi is peanuts compared to wholesale destruction of personal freedoms Trump plans to wrought.

expatlife26:

I'd be interested to see how a trump/sanders showdown would work out. I bet you're wrong that he would be easy to cut down. What trump has shown this election cycle is how easy it is to fuck with traditional "i'm so perfect (fake)" kinda politicians. 

Then these guys like rubio and jeb can't really dish it back because for the candidates selling authenticity gaffes don't mean anything. You call Obama or Hilary a socialist and people freak out and he has to explain in polite slippery political speak terms that he's not and we've all heard it a billion times form both sides. You call bernie sanders a socialist he'll just say "yeah sure I'm a socialist, so what?"

The appeals of these guys rests on how they don't seem to be hiding things. I'm sure they are...both of them, but still. Hilary gets shit on for the email thing because she does her political double speak justification for it and people are getting wise to it. I don't hate hilary either and I doubt the email thing is a big deal.

But the reason that scandal shit works is because the politicians clearly aren't being honest in the first place and then act like little weasels about things. 

Either way it would be really interesting.

jetfire9000:

For those that don't find the e-mail server issue negligent in any way for a high level official, it really is something very, very serious.  I'm not trying to say why because the reason is sort of obvious, lol. The point I'm making is that people find it to be irrelevant for whatever reason, but Trump will bring it up, snowball it, emotionalize it, and force a public response to come to the issue - which will probably make her appear hollow and disconnected from reality. Because you really can't defend something like that. 

jetfire9000:

WooMow - Don't forget that millenials who don't (or won't) vote are the largest potentially influential bloc this election cycle. I don't think that the people who aren't voting will influence the national race much. 

ambivalentmace:

sanders never had a job until he was 40 years old, trump will have a field day with the bum still living with mommy and daddy.

Zethe:

Trump inherited millions and still managed to file 4 bankruptcies.
I doubt he's any better than Sanders in the job field.

Janosik:

It hard to make it worse than Obama for US and for the world ... May be the same ...

It's better to have clearly defined aggressor than a 'wolf in the sheep fleece' ...

ScotsAlan:

Florida might be the only one Rubio can get. I reckon the establishment will fund Rubio to prevent Trump going into the convention as a clear winner.  That will be interesting. If a brokered convention does not nominate the front runner. Trump has the establishment by the balls.

ambivalentmace:

if rubio wants to have a future he needs to get out before he loses florida, florida has early voting and half the votes are already cast, some for bush before he left the race, this makes a comeback with establishment money a losers bet, only new voters could swing the balance right now. his goose is cooked already he just hasnt looked in the mirror to see the fire yet.

ScotsAlan:

But still a lot of money in the Bush superpac. I can't see superpac money going to trump. But Trump is flexible. Wonder if the Koch brothers will be having a chat with him. I suspect the Kochs would prefer Trump over Cruz. But I agree, Rubio is gone.

jetfire9000:

The establishment has already recognized Rubio is done for. The articles from last week about how he was "taking the fight to Trump" have now turned into how Rubio lost on Tuesday,  how Rubio is being called on to quit the race, etc. etc. Honestly, Trump aught to start talking about that - How the machine works - I could easily see him saying something along the lines of:

"You see, they were all gunning for Rubio to take me down. Now they've realized he doesn't have a chance. They're done with him. These are nasty people." 

ambivalentmace:

can i nominate the fbi director for the nobel prize.

ambivalentmace:

it was a great show looking back

ambivalentmace:

while your comment has some merit, the immigration and muslim attacks play into the fears of americans and trump never showed racism in his "apprentice " show and actually supported some women over men in the show that did quite well in business, so the actions of the man dont match the talk, and people know this that are voting for him, but if you attack illegal immigrants and muslims in the new political correct environment, you are now worse than a kkk member, but the middle class will risk the bigot label to save the middle class from total destruction of cheap labor and security risks.

jetfire9000:

It remains to be shown how Trump is a racist.  Care to make any examples? While some of his rhetoric has often pointed to Mexicans, it always includes the modifier "illegal" which orients the language along legal terminology, not entirely ethnic and even much less so racial ones. Keep in mind that "extremist" is not a race, nor is "illegal immigrant."  Racial debate aside, I don't think that Trump has even made unfair comments about Muslims in particular. While he has indicated security concerns about well documented instances in the media pertaining to the massive flow of refugees to Europe from Syria or neighboring countries (admittedly caused by the Obama administration), that is a much more pointed observation and not a generalization. It is a well known fact that the stability of any society that is open to immigrants hinges on the ability of that society to accommodate and synthesize them within the general fabric. It's hard to find Trump's observation to those challenges that Europe is facing to be problematic, unless of course you are applying the doctrine of political correctness and utopianism that requires the state to take in anybody who so wishes... which in that case its a moot point because anything is going to push your buttons.

bat22:

again another ignorant post he dosnt like illigals he dosnt want muslims from muslum countries coming to anerica without being vetted u listen to much to msnbc fact the worst candidate is the lying clinton she can not tell the truth from fiction look up clinton body count and read facts do your own research and dont believe everything u read find out the facts before u open your hole

ambivalentmace:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/23/black-unemployment-lowest-level-17-years/

so the racists president has the lowest unemployment rate for americans who happen to be black in 17years. Interesting irony.

ScotsAlan:

That's what Bernie Sanders is counting on. A high turnout. It seems the normally silent majority are nominally progressive.

mattsm84:

It is what Bernie is counting on, and its a bad strategy. He's losing the delegate race badly, and trails in the popular vote as well.

ambivalentmace:

bernie is going to win either way, he gets the job by indictment of hillary, not likely, or she had to go left of obama in the democratic platform because of bernie, and the far left swing brings her down in the general for him to come back 4 years later if he is still walking the earth.

mattsm84:

That indictment is your only hope. Best pray it materializes.

jetfire9000:

The main difference between Trump and Bernie rallies is that the right is not organizing rage charged protestors to go disrupt their rallies.  The mainstream media has always been very unaccomadating to the right, but its become a lot more obvious this cycle. There has been a very calculated plot to "undo" Trump ever since his ground performance started defying the sacred polls which predicted the dominance of Rand, Bush, and Rubio. In the ultimate comedy of errors, it didn't work and Rubio had to resort to suddenly changing his mind about not building a wall at the border.

Trump is not politically correct, but sure enough the media have stayed true to their colors by jumping on that and twisting it into him being a "racist."  There's a world difference between the two. Trump is a man of the practical world, he talks like most normal people do - his mostly focused on the practical problems we've become increasingly faced with in the recent decade - meaning there is no reason for him to put racial issues at the top of his campaign. It's about illegal immigration and the economy. The debates between Obama and Romney played out over the economy have become more "extreme" in the sense that Sanders and Trump suddenly popped out - Sanders more leftist than Obama and Trump a bit more emotionally appealing than the robotic Romney was. 

ambivalentmace:

trump never intended for the chicago rally to occur and new exactly what would happen and he got all the free press and outrage to motivate his voters for the tuesday election, he grew up around liberals and progressives in new york and george soros just did him a huge favor indirectly.

why would you have people drive suv 45 minutes into the city of chicago were everybody is a democratic mafia protestor unless you wanted to make a scene, he hasnt held any rallies before in democratic liberal strongholds, this was a setup and it worked well, the event had not even started yet and they made every voter wanting to see him more angry to vote. the best part is they dont know they were even played. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/14/donald-trump-rallies-violence-protests-blacklivesmatter-column/81728752/

Shining_brow:

But that then begs the question - how many voters in America are also ignorant racists? If there's enough, he wins Simple...

ambivalentmace:

hitler came to power because of the reparations and destruction of the german economy wiped out the trade workers, middle class workers, both parties in america have been wiping out the middle class for 30 years. europe gave hitler his entrance and the establishment in america has done the same thing, the middle class does not go down without a fight, and if they have guns well all hell breaks loose.

ambivalentmace:

if trump is going to lose so easily to hillary, then why the george soros funded organized protest against trump so early in the election cycle, unless your internal polls are telling you another story.

something about this does not pass the smell test,

mattsm84:

Why the protests against Trump? it probably has way more to do with him being an insane racist who only appeals to the lowest common denominator than anything George Soros is doing.

Also, if Romney can't beat Obama in a down economy in places like Ohio, or Pennsylvania, or Virginia or Florida what hope could Trump have? 

BHGAL:

list of Trump endorsers: Hulk Hogan, Mike Tyson, Jerry Lewis (must think this is funny), Sarah Palin, Mike Ditka, John Daly (drunk golfer) DENNIS RODMAN,  Conrad Black (Canadian Felon), Jerry Falwell, Tila Tequila, Ted Nugent, Kid Rock, Kenny Rogers, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Gary Busey (brain damaged), Lou Ferrigno (HULK), Wayne Newton (he's relevant), Nigel Farage and the greatest endorsement of all,

NATIONAL ENQUIRER (tabloid)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016

mattsm84:

Wow. You know what's really strange about that list of endorsements. I think I read an article at TMZ not long ago about how that exact same group of celebrity D listers got kicked out of the adult entertainment awards for being belligerently drunk.  

mattsm84:

Although the good news is that VH1 has signed on to give them a reality show where they all live in the same house.

mattsm84:

Also, Nigel Farage isn't real. He's just a story made up by parents in the United States to scary their children into going to the dentist.

RiriRiri:

So the case against racism and bigotry and the lowest common denominator is so hard to make that violence would be a suitable solution? Is that what "democrats" (sic) are down to?

I wouldn't put words in your mouth but I didn't hear you even remotely suggesting that what happened was even a little wrong AND disturbing. You know, usually only dumb people with nothing left to say will resort to violence when they run out of words. Or people under Soros payroll of course but let's not even mention that.

So, was the use violence justifiable? Yes or no, no bullshit answer.

mattsm84:

Of course violence is wrong. It's just coming from the Trump camp. I live in Chicago. I know people who were at that rally, and teach at the UIC. Those people showed up to protest and Trumps supporters picked a fight with them because that's what Trump has been telling them to do. When you say "when protestors show up you should fight them, and if you do I will pay your legal fees" guess what, when fights happen you are responsible. I assure you George works wasn't paying them.

ambivalentmace:

the backlash from the liberal protest worked just like it did for nixon against johnson, repeat of history, trump takes illinois and now his national poll ranking broke 50 to 52 percent, god i love intolerant liberals that destroy private property and interfere with peoples rights to peaceful assembly, they make law abiding tax payers so happy.

RiriRiri:

Oh really, "coming from the Trump camp"? Braking news: the "Trump camp" was allegedly trying to attend to a Trump rally. Now what was the reason for all the other fucktards to be here? Please clear that up for me.

Just tell me exactly what do people who show up in mass at a political rally that's supposedly opposed to their political beliefs expect to achieve? And it's not like they've been quiet and respectful on other rallys either have they?

Since you apparently claim to know people with that mindset (teachers *sic*) please help me explore a bit how does that work.

mattsm84:

You guys aren't here right now, so maybe you can't see it from where you are at. But the public is blaming Trump for the violence at his rallies.

mattsm84:

Also. Nixon never ran against Johnson. You meant McGovern

RiriRiri:

1 - What difference does it make ?

2 - The presstitutes and idiots who still take them seriously are blaming Trump. Hardly anyone else.

3 - You didn't address any of my questions but rest assured I didn't expect you to.

mattsm84:

Those people who are there to protest have just as much of a right to be there as the people who support Trump. That's how freedom of speech works, everyone has it and the ability to exercise it. They don't have to be quiet or respectful, they just don't have to be violent. The Trump supporters were, and continue to be violent. And the reason they are violent is because Trump tells that if protesters show up, they should leave bloody, and if one of his supporters is charged he will pay their legal fees. That is why the public is--not will, but is--holding Trump responsible.

RiriRiri:

So freedom of speech is about the right to disrupt other's freedom of speech too?

One would assume a person showing up at Mr. X rally isn't here to confront a commando of retarded supporters of Mr. Y. Thus in a logical world one would assume Mr. Y should be to blame, or at least feel a little bit sorry, but I guess my vision of "freedom of speech" is a tad too courteous and democratic.

So okay then, they have the "right to be here" and they don't have to be especially respectful or quiet. Guess you'll see no problem with Trump supporters starting to do just that then? And I can totally picture the press blaming not Trump.

Play that with your sophisms, please.

mattsm84:

Ok. Show me the where Hillary Clinton encourage people to beat up the people that protest at her rallies and I'll agree with you. But free speech as is does not protect you from criticism from protestors.

RiriRiri:

I also dare believe university teachers would have better things to do and better ways to express their disapproval.

RiriRiri:

And that's all you got? God that was easy.

Yeah okay well congratulations you look stupid enough so I can just end the discussion now.

Sophistry can only go that far in trying to dodge honest logos.

RiriRiri:

In a nutshell you're telling me these people, at BEST, knew they were going to create a mess (Trump said bla bla bla and beat the supporters and bla bla bla) and fully knew what they were doing by going to that place at that time. Thus demonstrating it was a genuine manipulation.

I take back what I said, keep talking, I'm sure I can corner you to some new heights of contradicting nonsense.

ambivalentmace:

http://buchanan.org/blog/brownshirts-republican-wimps-124952

history repeating itself it was nixon and humphrey in 68, not johnson, humphrey , johnson, democrats are all the same, lousy pieces of shit, a few exceptions, sam nunn, zell miller, harry truman, thats about it though.

RiriRiri:

I don't think he's going to answer. That's a butthurt worth of contradictions to address here and more to come.

mattsm84:

At work. It was the middle of the day here. Also, what contradictions. Trump could have given his rally. He'd have been booed out of the building but he could have done it. After all, he cancelled it on his own.

as to you questions.

what were they trying to do? Voice their opposition, as is there right.

dId think it might turn violent? Probably. Trump had been advocating violence as a means of dealing with protest for weeks leading up to the incident. But because trump had be advocating it, guess what. It makes him responsible when it finally happens. 

Have they been quiet before? No. Do they need to be? I don't think they do. Especially if the point is to make concrete what has otherwise been rhetoric. That Trump is a bully who thinks inciting an angry mob is an appropriate way to silence criticism. What proof would we need beyond his own words

RiriRiri:

Oh it's your absolute right to be on the side of fascist manipulators, defending provocation and verbal abuse devoid of any real argument as a means of protesting. Just don't delude yourself (and think you're still fooling anyone) into thinking you're defending any noble cause.

You know, I can think of tons of ways to debunk Trump (whom I don't think is perfect in any way, I just have a compulsory sympathy for anyone targeted by fascists with enough balls to stand ground) with words, yet apparently no one is just clever/informed/honest enough to use them. Which tells me more than enough about the intellectual state of democrats in the US.

By the way, the protests are actually illegal.

mattsm84:

I'm on the side of fascists? That's some next level "I know you are but what am I" bullshit. 

Only one one of us is supporting a strong man who encourages the use of to violence to stifle criticism and achieve political ends. Only one of us supports the guy who preys upon the fear of minorities, and the self perceived emasculation of the American middle class. If you don't think trump is a fascist then you don't know what fascism is.

RiriRiri:

Not even talking intentions: protests are illegal and notoriously unwelcome, protestors are therefore trespassers and I don't see a reason why they couldn't be removed forcefully.

But really if you think Trump is a fascist boy oh boy you really haven't seen anything yet.

Because if Trump supporters were allowed to fight back without a glove against protestants (let's repeat: uninvited, unwelcome, trespassing therefore inviting violence), I think there wouldn't be much left of the retarded teenagers, unionized zeta males, welfare parasites and androgenic feminists that compose Soros' ranks http://front.moveon.org/

Don't quote me on the last part, just having fun :)

mattsm84:

So people don't have a right to protest and we should support the guy who thinks people ought to kick the shit out of people who disagree with him? Yeah. There is no way you know what fascism is. As is, nobody to the left of Ted Cruz is going to want to touch the guy for fear of getting Trump's stink on them.

RiriRiri:

Look, I understand how hard and frustrating it must be to have no one being intellectually capable to produce any credible rebuttals (and as I shall repeat, there are TONS of them that can be used, unfortunately none that the democrats could look credible saying), but inciting violence by trespassing and violating the law, using verbal abuses of all sorts just can't look good. It can't, sorry. Because it's not methods that honest and courteous people would ever see themselves using. That's what the CCP does.
And we're not in the 90's anymore, people can see what's actually happening in minutes. And the presstitutes ability in pilpuling the shit out of reality is fading fast, sorry.

Or you gotta explain me exactly what is the intellectual input of a bunch of retards assembling and bellowing slogans hoping to get kicked so they can go on some more verbal abuse in the press. I don't know, maybe you're just too subtle for me. Please explain me how it's not fascism. What is the valid reason they couldn't do it a little bit farther away, where they could be legal? And finally please answer me, what would be your comment if Trump supporters were doing just that in BS/HC rallies?

I've been in these kind of protests and meetings back when I was in university. As an honest spectator. I have seen exactly how things happen, who organizes what and what kind of resources are put and where they come from. Don't take me for an idiot with your sophistic rhethorics, you've contraticted yourself more times than a Global Times editorial already.

Shining_brow:

WTF are you guys on about?

First you whinge and moan about your precious 'rights', and then when someone actually uses them, they get punched down for it! (ie, if you have the right to freedom of speech - then you have the right. And that right is a right everywhere - not just somewhere it happens to be convenient - or NOT being inconvenient... eg, a rally right outside where a meeting is taking place).

RR - you keep talking about 'trespassing'... from what I've just been reading, perhaps only 1 person was arrested for actual trespass, and it was AFTER the rally, when he didn't leave the auditorium in a timely manner... thus, the protest rally itself was NOT illegal or trespassing. If you have something to the contrary, please link!

Violence at US elections... says a hell of a lot about US politics! BOTH sides need to STFU! (or, better yet, change the way your political system (doesn't) works).

Violence at rallies has been happening for decades (probably centuries).. it's nothing new. When 2 (or more) groups of people get together who have contradicting ideologies, what do you expect is going to happen? the sort of people who go to rallies (for either side) tend to be less interested in real political discussion (cos it's a lot easier to wait for the full write-ups to carefully analyse). They're usually only there to blindly agree with everything that is said - or blindly shout it down. Those people live off emotion... and emotion can easily lead to violence.

I think it's pretty damn obvious that Trump, or Sanders, or Clinton, or any other don't 'organise' the protests. However, they may be informed of them, and may even pass comments or suggestions that they should happen. I also presume that they will discuss violence at them. But, clearly, they aren't 'organising' them... that's for the minions to do. Trump, at least, has said he thinks his people should fight back. And yes, he will pay their legal fees (well, he's suggested it) That's just absurd! And yet, plays right into his hands.

(link - this has a video near the bottom - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3490126/Trump-admits-pay-legal-fees-78-year-old-supporter-sucker-punched-black-protester-Fayetteville-rally.html)

"'I don't accept responsibility,' Trump replied. 'I do not condone violence in any shape."

Actually, Trump does condonve violence. There are other quotes to prove this. And, paying legal fees (ok, "looking into" paying them) is a form of condoning violence (I'll give the benefit of the doubt that maybe he hadn't seen the above video before suggesting it))

Another interesting tidbit I just read... it was written before the UIC rally. "Later Friday, Trump will hold an evening rally at the University of Illinois at Chicago — a civil and immigrant rights organizing hub with large minority student populations. Trump's visit has already created waves on the campus. Dozens of UIC faculty and staff petitioned university administrators to cancel the rally, citing concerns it would create a "hostile and physically dangerous environment" for students. Chicago police plan a heavy presence."

@RR - "So, was the use violence justifiable? Yes or no, no bullshit answer."

Funny, I asked something similar to you (a number of times) and you baulked!

Just FTR - I'm reading a LOT of really bad attempts at arguments on here... And intentionally conflating one idea with another (eg, "Oh, you can't argue against racism, so you use violence" - no, that's not actually an intelligent argument).

RiriRiri:

I absolutely agree with most of what you say.

But nothing you say changes the fact that one side is actively provocating the other so it gets blamed and no one sees anything wrong with it.

I'll even go further and say I can totally see Trump letting it play out on purpose to see it backfire against those retards. No problem believing that.

About legality: http://sputniknews.com/news/20160303/1035694434/us-law-criminalizes-protesting-trump.html

But honestly do we even need to be talking about law? When you go to the theater, aren't you entitled to some basic respect and actually be allowed to see the movie you paid for instead of what some nong has to yell to his mistress over the phone?

Same logic applies (no I'm sure it doesn't in your world of twisted logic but I can't wait to hear about what fallacy you have in stock).

Please explain me how violence is justified against racism? I won't even ask you why are we even talking about racism since I have never seen race being an issue in all those rallies but whatever, just gonna forget a second I have a brain and attention span or you're just going to burn out and ignore half of what I say as usual. That's boring really.

By the way, I always condemn violence unless initiated against me in which case hell breaks loose no problem. Trespassing, disrupting IS a form of violence.

I wouldn't think much of myself if I was to attend protests with a clear intention of disrupting other people's right to assemble.

But you know, we sure don't all live by the same standards, I get that.

mattsm84:

Well, obviously he does think that violence to shutdown free speech is okay if that speech is critical of Trump. Full stop.

And you're right, whether or not they are legal--they are by the way, the rally was open to the public--is really just a dodge. What he, and really Trump, can't stand is the criticism, and feel it must be suppressed by any means at their disposal.

Also, I wasn't saying Trump is using violence because he can't handle the problems he has with race. Rather he intentionally inflames racial tension--and this can be as seemingly as benign as saying "lets give a hand to our police" before talking about "those people"--as a means gaining and maintaining support. If you take that along with a willingness to use violence suppress opinions that aren't his your ur-fascism score card starts to get pretty full.

Anyway, the dude is just slime. 

RiriRiri:

Well, obviously he does think that violence to shutdown free speech is okay if that speech is critical of Trump. Full stop.

How? Where? Quote?

And you're right, whether or not they are legal--they are by the way, the rally was open to the public--is really just a dodge. What he, and really Trump, can't stand is the criticism, and feel it must be suppressed by any means at their disposal.

How? Where? Quote?

Also, I wasn't saying Trump is using violence because he can't handle the problems he has with race. Rather he intentionally inflames racial tension--and this can be as seemingly as benign as saying "lets give a hand to our police" before talking about "those people"--as a means gaining and maintaining support.

I have -no- idea what you are talking about. Proposing help to the police is being racist? Who are "these people"? What's the connection with race - whaosoever? Anything? Anything that makes sense?

If you take that along with a willingness to use violence suppress opinions that aren't his your ur-fascism score card starts to get pretty full.

Again: how? Where? Quote?

Or you are still trying to imply that people intruding with a clear intent to disrupt rallies constitute "suppress opinions"?

If you're willing to flat out lie and make up stuff, could you at least try being good at it?

mattsm84:

Point one. Your argument here is that violence against the protesters is okay because they weren't supposed to be there in the first place and are there to instigate. You haven't got any proof of either. The police aren't arresting the leadership of the student groups responsible for organizing the protest, or arrest any protesters that weren't committing other crimes. But bottom line, you are pretty ok with it. As much is implicit in your argument.

Point two: Your contention here is that the protest weren't really free speech because they were somehow illegal. They weren't, btw. A grand total of two people were arrested. This whole thing is a dodge.

Point three: Are you really this tone deaf? When he says "Lets support the police" he's implying that he's ok with police brutality in the black community and thinks the state should turn a blind eye to it. These are called dog whistles. What are you, new? 

Point four: Use this as a check list.

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf

See how many Trump hits. The race baiting and calls to use violence as a means to silence dissent are on there.

RiriRiri:

So no quotes I take it?

About any part?

Thought so.

This is getting really sad.

mattsm84:

You can try to run away from it but they are accurate summaries 

RiriRiri:

Well then I'm sure you can come up with some honest quotes.

Come on, the 1 or 2 people that are going to read this before it disappears will know I've stripped you naked. Now it's time you cover your intimates and get out of the picture. Don"t make yourself look even more dishonest.

mattsm84:

anyone reading this is going to see how you came off as a fascist here. It's sad that you don't see it

Shining_brow:

"But honestly do we even need to be talking about law?"

Umm - but it was you who brought it up in the first place...

Interesting link! Sad to see it - but sort of begs the question about the use of SS, and whether Trump's rally's are 'official' or 'government business". Somewhat heavy handed, if you ask me (of course, not the first time I've thought such things). In my country, we are allowed to protest, and a LOT closer. But then, we tend to be less violent.

I do actually think that political rallies and entertainment facilities are different kettles of fish. I think protesting outside the rally is ok, protesting inside is silly (mostly because you'll get shouted down) - but other than practicality, not an issue. Certainly, I don't think it can be considered 'illegal' if it's a free rally for anyone to attend. Ie, you can only come in if you support the speaker. (paid events are a different matter - which is why there's a distinction between a political rally and a movie).

As for 'racism'... yeah, apparently it is an issue! As for 'violence against racism'... why not? Is a person allowed to have racist thoughts? Sure, why not? Should a person be allowed to espouse racist ideas? Different kettle of fish. Should a person be allowed to freely be a racist, do racist things? Not within a broad general context (eg, the UK petition to stop Trump ever being allowed to enter the country, anti-semitic authors being allowed to enter countries, etc). Again, we come from different countries - mine has "anti-hate speech" legislation.

You're really jumping with the 'trespassing'...

Re: your last sentence... which is the more important right - the right to assemble, or the right to free speech? The Westboro Baptists is a good example of this argument.

Anyway -

In the last month at rallies where protestors got verbal but not violent Trump responded:

                  “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

                  “In the good ol’ days they’d have ripped him out of that seat so fast.”

                  “Knock the crap out of him would ya?”

                  “Seriously, OK, just knock the hell. I promise you I will pay for the legal fees, I promise, I promise.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-violence_us_56e1f16fe4b0b25c91815913

(follow the link-trail)

As for the racism... banning all Muslims from entering the country is 100% blatantly racist (obviously, there is the argument regarding religion vs race - same principle, different target).

RiriRiri:

I don't know, I don't think anyone would ever be happy to be a target and be on a security detail by the SS for fun. It's a bad spot to be in and probably a lot of stress.

But anyway, really if we're not talking about legality, I will repeat once again: those rallies are not the place to be protesting. These idiotic protests are so blatantly aiming at creating trouble and hopefully stirring violence that I'm not sure what stretch of the mind could lead anyone to defend them. I would find it equivalently stupid if this was happening the other way around.

These rallies are not intended to be debates. In 2016 there are just so fucking plenty of ways to debunk anything the I think democrats and their cronies would spend better time and money looking for actual likeable characters who could provide them with some new arguments, ideas, rebuttals, and methods of communication instead of sending thug commandos of retarded teenagers hoping to smear anything they can.

Make no mistake it's just so painfully obvious it objectively is counter-productive. But it's something I never heard that clown mattsmat-something or you answer: what exactly would you think of Trump supporters disrupting a democratic rally? I'd love to hear about that.

Okay, now you took 4 quotes where Trump is understandably pissed off by undesirables. Just put it in the context of 100's of rallies where these people have been constantly showing up to disrupt. Put it in the context where nothing bad actually happened to these protesterrs even though Trump could press charges, I don't know, I just think it's a paper thin support to the "Trump calls for violence" narrative. I mean I've seen dozens of times where he just makes fun of them and turn their sad performance against them. Then it got old and here goes your meager couple of quotes. Yeah, paper thin.

I'm against violence of any sort and I would be by every mean disgusted if someone was to be beaten while trying to oppose Trump or anyone with sensible arguments in the suitable place and time. But to me these idiots are fair game, and I don't think I'm contradicting myself in any way by thinking that.

Your last sentence: Not because you anticipated how inane what you said just sounds does it make it less inane. Muslim is not a race. Don't get me wrong I think this proposal is really far fetched, I think it would be inapplicable and wouldn't solve anything just like "the wall". I think there are so many ways to answer to that intelligently. But apparently the best defense for you and the democrats and the presstitutes is just trying to make verbal abuses, call people racist in a time where people are giving less and less of a shit about it. Just tells enough about the decrepit intellectual state of your side of the fence. That's just sad really. Just like that "all lives matter' in response to "black lives matter" (courtesy of Soros as usual) is just another sucker punch in your face and you don't even get it. It's just so fucking sad to witness.

I'm not sure how you hoped to get away with it, it's just so old now. Not because you decide unliterary your false equivalency is going to be valid for your own argument's sake does it make it real.

Shining_brow:

It really pisses me when someone offers up a challenge, and then disregards it! You asked for quotes - you got them. At least acknowledge it!

If Trump is serious about being the leader of a country, he's got to NOT be put off by such antics! It's as simple as that... (yes, that means being above the rest of the crowd).

The sucker-punch incident - if he really does decide to pay legal fees for that guy, then he is 100% supporting violence at his rallies! The guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. "Oh, you gave me the finger... I get to assault you"... just like China and 'you hurt our feelings'!

Your last paragraph... any chance you can not try to come across as a disrespectful moron, and presume that we (I, at least) am intelligent and educated?? I acknowledged that 'Muslim' isn't a race - but falls into the same category when discriminating a whole bunch of people based on one (mis-)labeling. 'Mis-', because it is implying things - attaching ideas - to that label, and then to the people. You acknowledge that it's a crazy idea, but you don't seem to suggest there is anything inherently 'wrong' with it ideologically (aka 'morally'/ethically). If there is something wrong with it, then it falls into an '-ism' of the same type as racism. So, it stands!

The right to protest... I find this rather amusing, from a non-US person's perspective. You guys bitch, whine and moan so much about your precious 'rights' that have been 'enshrined' in the constitution - until something becomes perfectly clear that there's an issue with them. And, instead of addressing the issue effectively, you hold your guns (sometimes literally) to hang onto that right.... In this case, the 'right' to freedom of speech.

Sure, a rally is probably not the best to go demonstrating and protesting. Especially not inside one. But if they want to do it, while following the law, then so be it. (same was said of Westboro). Option B - do what the civilised countries do - introduce laws that curtail your precious right to 'free' speech... (oh, I actually mean - more than it already has been, and you've willingly bent over and accepted).

At a protest, violence is likely. From both sides. BOTH sides are responsible. The leaders have a certain amount of responsibility to curb that violence. Trump's willingness to pay legal fees is NOT dissuading violence. It is a tacit form of condoning it! (go back to paragraph 2).

As you said - the people who go to rallies aren't there for the intellectual stimulation (aka 'debate'). They are coming from the 'lizard brain'.And that lends itself to the violence.

Personally., I don't want Trump to be elected as president. He has simplistic answers that resonate well with simplistic people.

I don't want Clinton in either. From what I've seen of her, she'd be even more conservative than Bush - but more subtle. Ie, she'd willingly screw the whole world and nuke it if it would advance her career in any way.

There's a lot of money in the US economy - and most of it is being wasted.

The US has some huge problems - and possibly the most important to fix now is your political system.

Shining_brow:

"You know, usually only dumb people with nothing left to say will resort to violence when they run out of words."

NO! Clearly not true!

People resort to violence when words don't have any effect. It takes a really smart (wise?) person to realise when words become useless, and violence becomes an option.

It does, however, take a certain personality to allow others to believe what they want, without resorting to violence. But then, it also depends on the topic! When you're playing with people's lives, violence always becomes an option.

(I'll also add - Trump is NOT appealing to the intellectuals in America, so amusingly, this whole line about 'dumb people' and violence is exactly the sort of people Trump is appealing to!)

Shining_brow:

Simple question for you Riri - should the wannabe president of the United States of America be above the mob mentality, and not give into his 'passions'?

Following on - shouldn't the wannabe president make a clear and categorical, unambiguous stance on such an issue?

"So okay then, they have the "right to be here" and they don't have to be especially respectful or quiet. Guess you'll see no problem with Trump supporters starting to do just that then? And I can totally picture the press blaming not Trump."

Yep! We can argue about the rights of protestors at rallies (which in itself is a funny argument - freedom of speech, vs freedom of unhindered congregation). If protestors and ralliers get into a bit of biffo - that's on their heads!

But, for Trump to then say he'll pay the legal costs of his supporters, it comes across as condoning the violence... especially, as I've pointed out, that clear case of assault by the 64 year old that's on video.

"I don't  condone violence... unless I get sick and tired of protestors"...

I do agree with you - there are lots of other ways to discredit Trump (and the others...). But I'd suggest his handling of this (or lack of) is telling! He is not coming across as being calm and reasonable... which bodes ill for the US and the rest of the world.

"I do not condone violence"

"Just punch him in the face"

"I will pay legal fees"

One of those 3 doesn't fit...

Of course, you can debate the meaning of the word 'condone', but I'd suggest the legal fees line alone is 'condoning', as do many others.

(speaking of quotes - I asked you back in the Syrian Refugee thread to just admit that they can die so you can have your comforts... the "yes or no" I alluded to above. The one you refused to respond to).

RiriRiri:

If you want to keep talking all day about anecdotal stuff that happened once or twice after months of rallies, knock yourself out. Just proves further how paper thin your thinking is and quite frankly it's getting boring.

I told you my stance on violence already, but here it goes one last time: don't initiate, and initiators are fair game I couldn't care less. If you don't get that then there's no point in me wasting my time further.

Shining_brow:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/video-trump-supporter-sucker-punches-protester.html#

Video evidence - though you need a VPN to view it - of at least part of the story of:

A Donald Trump supporter sucker-punched a protester at a rally in North Carolina on Wednesday. Police then pulled the protester to the ground and handcuffed him, allowing his assailant to continue enjoying the GOP front-runner’s speech.

The trouble began when 26-year-old inventory associate Rakeem Jones decided to attend the Trump rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, with a “diverse” group of friends, including a Muslim man, a white woman, and a gay man. Jones told the Washington Post that they had decided to attend the event as a “social experiment.” He said his female companion started shouting when Trump began speaking, but that “everyone was shouting" and "no one in our group attempted to get physical.”

Note my emphasis..the guy who assaulted the kid right in front of the security guards was allowed to remain, but the kid gets arrested!

So - a) this is not 'anecdotal'.

b) you have ignored the question - don't you think wannabe presidents should be above falling prey to such mentality? Yes or No? (rings a bell....)

c) are all people allowed to go to rallies - or only supporters? If a non-supporter goes to a rally, as the above news article indicates, are they considered to be 'initiating'? (the way it's written above, the kid only started flipping off once he was asked to leave by security... (of course, 3 sides to a story).

d) if Trump pays his medical bills, it's a clear sign of 'condoning violence' - regardless of your stance. Your stance is actually irrelevant to this discussion - it's all about Trump's stance.(yes, this contradicts my 'b' above)

e) has violence occurred at the rallies of other politicians? Yes. Have they uttered words publicly (and loudly) that could be construed as condoning said violence? (well, it hasn't be reported... perhaps 'no').

f) yes - there are other arguments against Trump. Somehow, this particular pile of posts and comments ended up only considering the violence. Feel free to have one about other policies (oh, there are....!)

ambivalentmace:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/23/black-unemployment-lowest-level-17-years/

ScotsAlan:

Are you thinking of Reagan in one of the Back to the Future films?

philbravery:

no . it wasn't that one this would have been in the past 10 years

philbravery:

Simpsons writer who wrote episode about Donald Trump presidency said he could never have predicted 'ugliness of campaign'  By  9NEWS A 16-year-old episode of the The Simpsons has been heralded for ‘predicting’ an unlikely future that is now a very real possibility  –Donald Trump as US president. The 2000 episode ‘Bart to the Future’ featured Bart Simpson taking a glimpse into a future in which his sister Lisa is the president of the United States. As the country’s first female leader, Lisa is tasked with the job of cleaning up after her predecessor Donald Trump. Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/entertainment/2016/03/19/15/48/simpsons-writer-said-he-could-never-have-predicted-ugliness-of-trump-campaign#Q15Ko1CQUQ8Bcuau.99

ScotsAlan:

But he is technically an independent. I reckon he will stay in the race to drive Hilary more to the left. He has done a good job so far. Making her think rather than just put out the same stump speeches. I think its terrible how the media have ignored Bernie. He has a good message but its just not getting out there. I reckon Bernie will be the best President America never had. President Sanders and VP Elizabeth Warren. What a team that would be to sort out wealth inequality across the globe.

RiriRiri:

Oh I acknowledge you provided quotes of course. Next time I'll remember to specify "relevant to the point", not just "please deliver some bulky quotes and I'll pay by the kilo" is all.

As for the rest it's nothing but stuff I already answered to. If you want answers just scroll up. Not going to bother one more time.

Not going into splitting hair debates about the US constitution.

Shining_brow:

Are you seriously trying to move comments to this onto here? Why?? I seriously doubt that the above is going to change - unless you think indivdiual posters are going to edit their posts - in which case, fair enough, good idea!

But... Personally, I'd rather keep the above post and comments going, than start another one (especially since the last couple are missing on this one). Otherwise, there'll be some confusion.

So... I'll reply to your comment here, on the one above...

Let the confusion begin!

RiriRiri:

If you want to keep talking all day about anecdotal stuff that happened once or twice after months of rallies, knock yourself out. Just proves further how paper thin your thinking is and quite frankly it's getting boring.

I told you my stance on violence already, but here it goes one last time: don't initiate, and initiators are fair game I couldn't care less. If you don't get that then there's no point in me wasting my time further.

RiriRiri:

I answered to my own post not on purpose, wrong click, this topic is getting pretty huge.

RiriRiri:

Shit I clicked wrong again. Will copypaste.

Shining_brow:

Especially on an internet forum in a different country....

ambivalentmace:

WELL HELL, IT'S TIME TO GLOAT A LITTLE, MACCALLEN'S AND CUTTY SARK SAID HELLO ALSO.

Shining_brow:

Yep!

retiredinchina:

no criticism of obama whatsoever for 8years has put the press in a bad position. only 15 percent polled believe they tell the truth anymore.

most of them are still cleaning excrement off their face and tongue from the 8 year rim job they did on obama.

ScotsAlan:

I do not trust Clinton at all. The USA is in a bad place if it becomes a Clinton Trump race. Of that there is no doubt.