Pepper Spray used Tonight at Trump Rally in Kansas City

Jackson_Fusion said:

I was waiting for an unequivocal condemnation of political violence. All I got was a big bag of "yeah buts". "Yeah but it's his fault for provoking them to hit cops" "Yeah but nobody riots at Sander's rally". "Yeah but they really don't like Trump's politics."

So there you have it.

So there you have it. I guess we can glean from your righteousness your support for Trump and the behavior of some of his supporters? Or should I not read too much into the lack of your unequivocal condemnation of their violence and behavior?

Jackson_Fusion said:

Who suggested that Bernie Sanders and his campaign is personally organizing any of this, except you, just now? 

Trump accused Sanders of this.

I have no idea what the rest of your post means.

"I would like to see a little more violence from the innocent Trump supporters set upon by violent leftist hoodlums." Ann Coulter

“I hate some of these people, I hate 'em," Trump said.  "I would never kill them. I would never do that.”  Then he waited a beat.  “Uh, let's see, uh?  No, I would never do that." 

@Jackson_Fusion: We're you watching Sanders in the CNN town hall just now? I believe Sanders clearly decried political, or any violence. Has Trump done it? No, in fact, he has offered to pay that guy's legal fees, you know, the one who punched the protester in the face, unprovoked.

I wonder if Trump could be charged with inciting violence.  we could have competing indictments with a Clinton/Trump race.

Why couldn't Trump be charged with inciting to.violence? It's exactly what he did, repeatedly. He also committed reckless endangerment by authorizing his fans to hit people, and saying he wished he could hit them.

dave23 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

I was waiting for an unequivocal condemnation of political violence. All I got was a big bag of "yeah buts". "Yeah but it's his fault for provoking them to hit cops" "Yeah but nobody riots at Sander's rally". "Yeah but they really don't like Trump's politics."

So there you have it.

So there you have it. I guess we can glean from your righteousness your support for Trump and the behavior of some of his supporters? Or should I not read too much into the lack of your unequivocal condemnation of their violence and behavior?

I wouldn't go too nuts trying to glean anything. You could probably focus on absorbing the actual written word rather than searching the tea leaves for hidden meanings. For example, you could go up a few posts and see if you're able to find the part that rhymes with "it's always wrong".

Herein lies the problem: there is "right and wrong" , and then there is "my tribe and their tribe". People don't like Trump, and so suddenly protections and decencies they'd demand for their own candidates no longer apply. 

Sanders is by any measure a wildly radical candidate. Maybe not relative to some Maplewoodians, but he's a radical in terms of American politics, at least historically. 

If the Koch Brothers sent packs of Tea Party activists to disrupt Bernie's usual commie bore fest and ended up getting violent against cops and sundry neck beards I'd be disgusted, and I'd be vocal about it. I wouldn't whine on and on about how dangerous I view his policies to be (they are) or how much misery they've caused other places (they have). 

I wouldn't go on and on about he incited attacks because his policies are fringe (they are) or divisive (they are!). The first order issue would be making sure that people are able to express their political views without being assaulted, harassed, or threatened. 

But here? "Yeah but. He should be arrested. Yeah but. He should drop out. Yeah but. Look what these other people said."

Hey it's ok! Wrong tribe! 

I note that CNN had an interview with the guy who tried to jump on Trump. CAN YOU IMAGINE CNN giving multiple paragraphs to someone who assaulted Hillary to share their political views?

"Trump is different". No, he's not. The ability, willingness and comfort to devolve from a set of principles to tribal loyalty is the issue. 

Should I assume that there isn't anything that a politician could espouse from the stage at his/her rallies that would in your mind justify disruptive protests?

ml1 said:

Should I assume that there isn't anything that a politician could espouse from the stage at his/her rallies that would in your mind justify disruptive protests?

Where do you draw the line?

After all, the courts held that Nazis wearing Nazi Uniforms and waving swastikas were permitted to march in Skokie, a community of thousands of Jews, 4,000 of whom were concentration camps.

In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived.

They won the case.

The Skokie case (a ruling on whether government could prevent a demonstration based on the content of the message) has nothing to do with Mr. Ml1's question.

So, referring to it is not responsive, imho.

BCC said:

ml1 said:

Should I assume that there isn't anything that a politician could espouse from the stage at his/her rallies that would in your mind justify disruptive protests?

Where do you draw the line?

After all, the courts held that Nazis wearing Nazi Uniforms and waving swastikas were permitted to march in Skokie, a community of thousands of Jews, 4,000 of whom were concentration camps.


In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived.

They won the case.

Jackson_Fusion said:

dave23 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

I was waiting for an unequivocal condemnation of political violence. All I got was a big bag of "yeah buts". "Yeah but it's his fault for provoking them to hit cops" "Yeah but nobody riots at Sander's rally". "Yeah but they really don't like Trump's politics."

So there you have it.

So there you have it. I guess we can glean from your righteousness your support for Trump and the behavior of some of his supporters? Or should I not read too much into the lack of your unequivocal condemnation of their violence and behavior?

I wouldn't go too nuts trying to glean anything. You could probably focus on absorbing the actual written word rather than searching the tea leaves for hidden meanings. For example, you could go up a few posts and see if you're able to find the part that rhymes with "it's always wrong".

Herein lies the problem: there is "right and wrong" , and then there is "my tribe and their tribe". People don't like Trump, and so suddenly protections and decencies they'd demand for their own candidates no longer apply. 

Sanders is by any measure a wildly radical candidate. Maybe not relative to some Maplewoodians, but he's a radical in terms of American politics, at least historically. 

If the Koch Brothers sent packs of Tea Party activists to disrupt Bernie's usual commie bore fest and ended up getting violent against cops and sundry neck beards I'd be disgusted, and I'd be vocal about it. I wouldn't whine on and on about how dangerous I view his policies to be (they are) or how much misery they've caused other places (they have). 

I wouldn't go on and on about he incited attacks because his policies are fringe (they are) or divisive (they are!). The first order issue would be making sure that people are able to express their political views without being assaulted, harassed, or threatened. 

But here? "Yeah but. He should be arrested. Yeah but. He should drop out. Yeah but. Look what these other people said."

Hey it's ok! Wrong tribe! 


I note that CNN had an interview with the guy who tried to jump on Trump. CAN YOU IMAGINE CNN giving multiple paragraphs to someone who assaulted Hillary to share their political views?

"Trump is different". No, he's not. The ability, willingness and comfort to devolve from a set of principles to tribal loyalty is the issue. 

Of course tribalism is at play here. You are not above that, either. Twisting yourself in knots to find theoretical corresponding behavior demonstrates just that. You are theoretically aghast at what hasn't happened. And you carefully distance yourself from what has happened at the Trump rallies and muse on imaginary activity at Sanders rallies.

I'd say that Trump's none-to-subtle suggestions that the protesters be attacked (they used to be taken out on stretchers, ya know) does, indeed, make him a bit different. Sanders' commie bore fest has none of that, you are correct. But he's not the Dem front-runner, either. I expect some Trump supporters will start showing up at Hillary events. Maybe this lovely ol' coot will make her love felt there.

A lot of people on MOL and some of my friends on FB are saying that the Sanders campaign was responsible for the protests at Trump rallies.  Many of the protesters are Sanders supporters, but the protests were not organized by Sanders's campaign, or endorsed by it.

The LA Times actually has a good summary of how the Chicago protest came about.  It was initiated by Latino, Muslim and Black students who are (understandably imho) feeling threatened by Trump's rhetoric and the reactions of his followers.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-protesters-20160312-story.html

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee that other citizens won't protest or try to disrupt speeches or gatherings.  I don't advocate violence, but people have every right to protest outside a campaign rally.  And if they attend a rally and get too disruptive, the campaign has every right to have those people removed by security.  
If Trump's followers want to protest at Sanders events, they have every right.   If they disrupt an event, they'll be removed.  And if any Sanders supporters beat up on protesters, those Sanders supporters should be prosecuted the same as Trump supporters who attack protesters.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I admire young people who aren't going to passively accept the belligerent tone of the Trump campaign.  Sometimes a strongly worded letter to the editor isn't a sufficient response to abhorrent speech.

Jackson_Fusion said:

So the PAC supporting one major candidate is sending people to disrupt a second candidate's rallies by smashing cops on the head, threatening and harassing people, and physically attacks a second candidate, the only reasonable thing, for the good of public discourse, is for the second candidate to immediately declare an end to their candidacy. 

Wow, political violence really DOES work!

and...

Jackson_Fusion said:

springgreen2 said:

@Jackson_Fusion: no it's not good. MoveOn.org is not a pac relating exclusively to Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump literally has called for violence. Protesters have not. There's a difference but you obviously don't get it.

Who are they supporting in the 2016 Presidential election?

As it stands today who are the 2 candidates their chosen candidate needs to defeat?

Who is organizing and financing the "protesters".

Anyway- yet another "yeah but". No condemnation of actual political violence.  

Jackson_Fusion said:
Who suggested that Bernie Sanders and his campaign is personally organizing any of this, except you, just now? 

Don't be coy.

Protest, even in places into you which not invited, has a long and important history. People feel compelled to counter Trump's racist and xenophobic message. Democracy can handle that. It's handled much worse. Democracy will withstand Donald Trump, too. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be called out for what he is.

Initiating violence is not okay.

ml1

Your words

ml1 said:

'Should I assume that there isn't anything that a politician could espouse from the stage at his/her rallies that would in your mind justify disruptive protests?'

'The First Amendment doesn't guarantee that other citizens won't protest
or try to disrupt speeches or gatherings.  I don't advocate violence,
but people have every right to protest outside a campaign rally.  And if
they attend a rally and get too disruptive, the campaign has every
right to have those people removed by security.  
If Trump's
followers want to protest at Sanders events, they have every right.   If
they disrupt an event, they'll be removed.  And if any Sanders
supporters beat up on protesters, those Sanders supporters should be
prosecuted the same as Trump supporters who attack protesters.'

(My emphasis.

Trump and Hillary did just that, had them thrown out when they disrupted and we agree, they had the right to do so.

So again the question, considering the garbage spewed by Trump, where do you draw the line?

The line is drawn with the candidate advocating and encouraging violence by his supporters.  This is what Trump has done and the rest of the candidates have not.

BCC said:


Trump and Hillary did just that, had them thrown out when they disrupted and we agree, they had the right to do so.

So again the question, considering the garbage spewed by Trump, where do you draw the line?

How another person handles a heckler.

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

That's called "people skills." We may not see it again in a President in our lifetime, at least that masterful. I think Obama learned it from his social work days in Chicago, but wherever he learned it, it serves him well.

dave23 said:

How another person handles a heckler.

Love it! 

tom said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

So the PAC supporting one major candidate is sending people to disrupt a second candidate's rallies by smashing cops on the head, threatening and harassing people, and physically attacks a second candidate, the only reasonable thing, for the good of public discourse, is for the second candidate to immediately declare an end to their candidacy. 

Wow, political violence really DOES work!

and...

Jackson_Fusion said:

springgreen2 said:

@Jackson_Fusion: no it's not good. MoveOn.org is not a pac relating exclusively to Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump literally has called for violence. Protesters have not. There's a difference but you obviously don't get it.

Who are they supporting in the 2016 Presidential election?

As it stands today who are the 2 candidates their chosen candidate needs to defeat?

Who is organizing and financing the "protesters".

Anyway- yet another "yeah but". No condemnation of actual political violence.  

Jackson_Fusion said:
Who suggested that Bernie Sanders and his campaign is personally organizing any of this, except you, just now? 

Don't be coy.

Tom, you're confused.

Forgive me if I get it wrong but your cut and paste commentary isn't explicitly clear on from where the befuddlement stems, but! - to re-reiterate for you, "the PAC supporting one candidate" and "Bernie Sanders and his campaign" are not synonymous, which should be pretty clear since it's spelled out in various posts by myself and others. 

See? Not coy! Couldn't have been clearer in what I said if I wrote it on a post-it and applied with a sledgehammer.

Regarding the earlier post from someone- where the line should be drawn- I remember various and sundry belching out that quote misattributed to Voltaire. Funny, none of the faux Voltaire junkies seem to be saying much for Trump. 

I think when repellant views are expressed they need be countered- but not with disrupted rallies and threats of (and actual) violence. A heckler's veto is extremely undemocratic. Shout someone down? Shut them down? Who determines what discourse is acceptable? One idiot rushing a stage?

In a marketplace of ideas, if an idea is so repellant that no one backs the one who vomits it forth, like a fart in the wind it will quickly fade. And should it not, those who stand against it should be compelled to meet it with ideas- not screaming, not disruption, not threats. 

Jackson_Fusion said:

In a marketplace of ideas, if an idea is so repellant that no one backs the one who vomits it forth, like a fart in the wind it will quickly fade. And should it not, those who stand against it should be compelled to meet it with ideas- not screaming, not disruption, not threats. 

A decent dismissal of Trump's canididacy.

jeffhandy said:

The line is drawn with the candidate advocating and encouraging violence by his supporters.  This is what Trump has done and the rest of the candidates have not.

BCC said:


Trump and Hillary did just that, had them thrown out when they disrupted and we agree, they had the right to do so.

So again the question, considering the garbage spewed by Trump, where do you draw the line?

We are talking about drawing the line on free speech and has nothing to do with what the other candidates have done.

The question is not should he make these comments, we agree he should not. That's the easy part.

The hard part is where do you draw the line on limiting his right to free speech. Not that simple, as the Skokie incident showed

jackson-fusion, thanks for calling me. Faux Voltaire an and a fart in the wind. Back atcha, big guy!

springgreen2 said:

jackson-fusion, thanks for calling me. Faux Voltaire an and a fart in the wind. Back atcha, big guy!

What. On. Earth. Are. You. Talking. About?

BCC said:

We are talking about drawing the line on free speech and has nothing to do with what the other candidates have done.


The question is not should he make these comments, we agree he should not. That's the easy part.

The hard part is where do you draw the line on limiting his right to free speech. Not that simple, as the Skokie incident showed

I'll probably regret responding because you probably have some crazy rule that this is only about free speech while hopping on one foot in the shower, but what I said is a talk about drawing the line on free speech.  Inciting or encouraging violence is not protected free speech just as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is not free speech.  I mentioned the other candidates because they have not crossed the line.  Ted Cruz says vile things, but he does not incite violence. 

Terms and Agreement - Response to this post and other associated posts is acknowledgement and agreement to thread drift.  Responding participants also agree to not criticize fellow posters for not sticking to a subject narrowly constructed by oneself.

ml1 said:
If Trump's followers want to protest at Sanders events, they have every right.   If they disrupt an event, they'll be removed. 

It somehow doesn't end up with people getting punched, pushed, spit on when it happens the other way around. 

Here's how a pro handles a protester, without encouraging people to punch him in the face or offering to pay the legal bills if somebody does:

https://youtu.be/QmhW9-Nk1iY

yes, Clinton obviously has lots of experience. Did it well!

jeffhandy said:

BCC said:

We are talking about drawing the line on free speech and has nothing to do with what the other candidates have done.


The question is not should he make these comments, we agree he should not. That's the easy part.

The hard part is where do you draw the line on limiting his right to free speech. Not that simple, as the Skokie incident showed

I'll probably regret responding because you probably have some crazy rule that this is only about free speech while hopping on one foot in the shower, but what I said is a talk about drawing the line on free speech.  Inciting or encouraging violence is not protected free speech just as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is not free speech.  I mentioned the other candidates because they have not crossed the line.  Ted Cruz says vile things, but he does not incite violence. 

Terms and Agreement - Response to this post and other associated posts is acknowledgement and agreement to thread drift.  Responding participants also agree to not criticize fellow posters for not sticking to a subject narrowly constructed by oneself.

Spare me your sarcastic crap. In the past I have been several times accused of starting thread drift because people took something I said and decided to dispute it. Now I have a smarta$$ like you accusing me of the serious crime of trying to stay on message.

If you want a serious discussion, fine. If you want an insult contest I can do that too.

As to 'inciting violence' go back and check the Skokie incident. So far the  Sheriff couldn't build a case and no court has put a stop to Trump. What the other candidates do is commendable but it has nothing to do with whether or not Trump crossed the line and until an appropriate agency finds him guilty of something your opinion is worthless.

From up in the dais, Trump told people to hit each other. What kind of cowardly crap is that. It's right out of Schindlers List. He's a sociopath. He wants attention for his rallies and he used his gullible, needy audience to make news for himself.