Trump Violence

dave said:

I dislike Trump, but the people interrupting Trump supporters' right to assemble are the main problem here.  

Thank you, Dave,for giving me an unintended B-day gift for me! We can agree on something finally!          

Chicago looked scary last night. Even obnoxious speech should be free.

Dave is correct, the cop shouldn't have been hit and I'm sure he understands, as we all do- that journalists, Black and brown rally attendees and activists shouldn't be stomped, body slammed, spat on or beaten either. We have to be as concerned about the agent who body slammed the press photographer and the rally attendee who punched the protestor who was being escorted out of a venue (and looked forward to 'killing him next time') as we are about the protestor who hit this cop. Trump is the Grand Marshal for a growing parade of ignorant, frustrated people who are easily goaded into violence. 

If you support violence you will eventually be a victim of violence. That's the way it goes. As Trump brings his carnival to more urban locales he'll be met by more of the same. The cities will not be as accepting as those in the flyover. Trump's standard set of lies and innuendo won't work as well in cities where his usual targets actually live. 

mtierney said:

dave said:

I dislike Trump, but the people interrupting Trump supporters' right to assemble are the main problem here.  

Thank you, Dave,for giving me an unintended B-day gift for me! We can agree on something finally! ">  ">  ">  ">  "> 

Chicago looked scary last night. Even obnoxious speech should be free.

At what point did police or other government official try to restrict Trump's speech? The police formed a line around the venue and kept as many of the protestors as they could identify on the other side of the street. 

Both groups are nuts. You can argue which side is more nuts but I'll just be over here rolling my eyes.

On the one hand you've got Trump supporters. Enough said.

On the other hand you've got Trump protestors. Fine right? But when most of the violence erupted it had already been announced that Trump wasn't coming. So were they protesting or looking for a fight? I think I know the answer.

mod said:

There are some that think it was Trumps plan to have the Chicago Rally erupt in violence and he was intending to cancel all along .  The venue was a city college campus (not typical), crowd was skewed younger, by all accounts no crowd screening was done as has been done elsewhere.  He said police advised cancelling yet Chicago PD said they did not .  

There are numerous venues in the Chicago area, including arenas in suburban Rosemont and Evanston, capable of holding thousands of people. I could think of many places more convenient to assemble a large group of Trump supporters.

What was the rationale behind bringing them to the Near West Side on a raucous Friday night, the eve of the city's St. Patrick's Day Parade? Neither the neighborhood nor UIC itself seem to be fertile ground for attracting voters to his cause.

As a state facility, I'm not sure how the law enforcement authority is apportioned at the UIC Pavilion. I did see state troopers and campus cops (red sleeve patches with a blue State of Illinois) in the video.  The Chicago PD said they did not recommend cancellation, perhaps state or school cops did. Only five arrests were reported, one of which was a CBS reporter, and the arrests occurred post-cancellation. Compare that to dozens who were arrested in St. Louis earlier in the day when the rally continued, with Trump goading the crowd.

Trump emerged in a variety of media outlets almost immediately afterward with a message about free speech and the remarkably quick political analysis that this would benefit him with Republican primary voters.

RobB said:

Both groups are nuts. You can argue which side is more nuts but I'll just be over here rolling my eyes.

On the one hand you've got Trump supporters. Enough said.

On the other hand you've got Trump protestors. Fine right? But when most of the violence erupted it had already been announced that Trump wasn't coming. So were they protesting or looking for a fight? I think I know the answer.

I would NOT call groups who have been targets of Trump's hate-speech "nuts".

So those who are saying that Trump should not have been at a university is agreeing and supporting that college campuses are closed locations where no speech not in accordance with dogma is allowed. 

Look at the numbers attending Trumps rally today. I have said, and agree with those who have said, these incidents will guarantee a Trump win. 

Trump should be allowed to speak at UIC. As of now, we haven't heard from any university or law enforcement authority which says that they asked or advised him to cancel. Perhaps it will come out later that Trump was asked to cancel because of safety concerns. If that's the case, then Trump made the right decision and he should have the option to return when sufficient safety measures are in place.

I was questioning the political benefit to having a rally at UIC on a Friday night when other venues could attract a crowd more likely to support him. If it's true that the campaign reversed its policy for screening against protesters and even people who just seem like protesters, I'd be interested to know the rationale behind that as well.

Trump's choice of a venue was clearly instigatory. 

If he was asked not to.rally there, he did not make the right decision! He rallied there! He had been asked not to come, apparently. He has an incendiary message, and a bombastic, aggressive manner. He should have known better if he really wants to keep the peace. I believe he is an anarchist.

Canada will be building a wall....

tjohn said:

RobB said:
Both groups are nuts. You can argue which side is more nuts but I'll just be over here rolling my eyes.

On the one hand you've got Trump supporters. Enough said.

On the other hand you've got Trump protestors. Fine right? But when most of the violence erupted it had already been announced that Trump wasn't coming. So were they protesting or looking for a fight? I think I know the answer.

I would NOT call groups who have been targets of Trump's hate-speech "nuts".

If you're standing around in the street waiting for a melee to break out, you're nuts.

springgreen2 said:
I believe he is an anarchist.

I believe he's been playing this part for years. Classic wrestling heel. Andy would be proud.

http://m.imgur.com/WnXzh5U

He really goes to a rally and either waits for fights to start so he can fan flames by telling people to attack, or repeats the same garbage at the podium that he has said over and over before. No platform, no policies. He has nothing new to say so he just waits for fights. His "rallies" will start looking like Nuremberg crossed with WWF wrestling.

tjohn said:

RobB said:

Both groups are nuts. You can argue which side is more nuts but I'll just be over here rolling my eyes.

On the one hand you've got Trump supporters. Enough said.

On the other hand you've got Trump protestors. Fine right? But when most of the violence erupted it had already been announced that Trump wasn't coming. So were they protesting or looking for a fight? I think I know the answer.

I would NOT call groups who have been targets of Trump's hate-speech "nuts".

I agree.

If a leading candidate was saying about Jews what Trump says about Muslims and Mexicans I would hope that scores of my younger brethren would be protesting at his rallies.

bramzzoinks said:

So those who are saying that Trump should not have been at a university is agreeing and supporting that college campuses are closed locations where no speech not in accordance with dogma is allowed. 

No one is saying that. What some are saying is that Trump picked the venue to be provocative. Similar to when the Nazis decided to stage a march in a suburb of Chicago which was home to many holocaust survivors.

As to college campuses allowing speech "not in accordance with dogma" do you think Seton Hall would allow a pro-abortion rally? Do you think they should allow it?  

Breaking in Vandalia, Ohio now with the Vandals and the Visigoths:  Trump revs the crowd up and makes them hot, promises them.stuff ("we're gonna keep our businesses here") then has them attack people. He lies, he is telling people that Kasich brought down Ohio when in fact he brought factories and jobs back, he's talking the same s@@@.he does all this so the TV cameras will come back to him, hanging on his every word. He talks and talks in circles. "I wanted to knock the crap out of the oil fields..." Yay! Yay!

BG9 said:

That Trump, so tough. Telling us "I'd like to punch him (the protester) in the face."

The reality is, he's cocooned by a security entourage that pushes and practically hits people out of Trump's way when he enters his building from  the street, as told to me by someone who saw it. If you or I, as a civilian, pushed one of his security people or a cop the way his people do when clearing the path for Trump, you or I would be detained and arrested for assault.

Yeah, such a toughie when surrounded by his armed protective squad.

Here we go again.

Trump the brave - "I was ready for him"   

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/12/security-forms-ring-around-donald-trump-after-disruption-at-ohio-rally/

It looked like he was readying to crap his pants. Maybe he did.

New video from one of Trump's rallys.

https://youtu.be/v_leY_LgOuQ

BG9 said:

It looked like he was readying to crap his pants. Maybe he did.

Which just shows to demonstrate that no matter what side of the aisle you are on, this state of affairs isn't good for anyone.  I saw an earlier report that Trump is actually blaming Bernie Sanders' supporters for igniting the situation at the Chicago rally.  Incredible.

If Trump is such a Fascist where are the Trump minions disrupting his opponents free speech rights.  It is all the left targeting his rallies. It is the left turning him into the  one seen as the wronged party. 

He also called Bernie Sanders a communist so he's really elevating the dialogue all around.

the commie talk is only the beginning. If Sanders gets the nomination it will turn into one big commie scare.

gerryl said:

the commie talk is only the beginning. If Sanders gets the nomination it will turn into one big commie scare.

If Trump gets the nomination, he will taunt the world into killing us all.

The NY Times stated today that the majority of Trump supporters are white and DO NOT HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL DEGREE!

gerryl said:

the commie talk is only the beginning. If Sanders gets the nomination it will turn into one big commie scare.

What do you mean by "one big commie scare" anyway? McCarthyism? So you want Trump to win?

I really don't understand your thought processes. You seem to to swing from one extreme remark to another. It strikes me as short sighted because I suspect no one ( or hardly anyone) here on this thread supports Trump.

Bramzzoinks defends him, now you seem to.be doing it also

 I don't understand your thinking. What do you mean by "one big commie scare?" I am asking you?

gerryl said:

I really don't understand your thought processes. You seem to to swing from one extreme remark to another. It strikes me as short sighted because I suspect no one ( or hardly anyone) here on this thread supports Trump.

Saying electing Bernie will result in "one big commie scare" is horribly extreme, cowardly and untrue.

I do not support Trump.  I support the right of everyone to speak without interference. 

bramzzoinks said:

I do not support Trump.  I support the right of everyone to speak without interference. 

Sure, but as David Gergen just said, when the bullfighter waves the red flag at the bull, and the bull charges, who do you blame, the bullfighter or the bull?