Trump Violence

chalmers said:
Though not a Trump supporter, you do seem to be supporting his completely unique narrative about what happened in Chicago Friday evening, for instance:

1. He says police officials urged him to cancel the rally. No police authority did this.

2. You say that "mob stuff" was ginned up in Chicago. There was no notable hostility at the UIC Pavilion until after the event was canceled. At that point, the angriest people (with some justification) were the Trump supporters, some of whom had traveled hours to be there, only to have the rally canceled for no apparent reason. Still, there were only five arrests and no reported injuries, despite the two or three physical episodes that were repeated on video hundreds of times.

3. You say that the Chicago protesters tried to "shut down" the event. No one tried to shut down the event. They were going to protest in the same manner as most other boisterous, but peaceful, protesters. Here's a story about their preparation and actions: 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-chicago-protest-213728

The above doesn't play into the right wing playbook.

The right wing has no problem using whatever tactics will get them their needs - violence, abridging 1st amendment, wink nudge support from neo-Nazi and KKK groups, etc.

Yet when anyone really pushes back, then the right wing outrage. The how could those leftists abridge our first amendment rights (even when not), how could they be violent (even when not). Unlike us god fearing patriots, those commie, socialist protesters are not real Americans. They hate America and needed to be given a lesson. Arrest them and give them criminal records (per Trump).

tjohn, movements are notorious for lacking humor. I think because movements are stirred by anger, and tend to hyperfocus on what they are against.( I remembered being shocked in the heyday of the "women's lib" being told by a woman writer that what she didn't like about the movement was that the "libbers" could't laugh at themselves. ) Movements seem to be generated by pure passion, and thus many people can not separate their feelings from facts or big picture. This seems to pertain for both Right and Left. The opposite of this is someone like Obama, who takes that moment to think before he speaks. (Obviously other people do too. I just picked him for a clear example).

Respectfully, Paul Surovell, I do not assign much weight to that poll conducted by The New York Times. They want their candidates to win, and I respect that.  But it's why I do not respect their poll.

breal said:

Respectfully, Paul Surovell, I do not assign much weight to that poll conducted by The New York Times. They want their candidates to win, and I respect that.  But it's why I do not respect their poll.

Could you please identify Paul's post to which you are referring?

In his most recent comment, springgreen2, at 12:06.

breal said:

Respectfully, Paul Surovell, I do not assign much weight to that poll conducted by The New York Times. They want their candidates to win, and I respect that.  But it's why I do not respect their poll.

That's not, imo, a good reason to question a poll. All polls should be questioned, but those questions should be focused on their methodology, and with an eye to answering the question of how well the poll sample represents the population it's sampling from.  Choosing to believe or disbelieve things like polls (and news in general) based on perceived political position opens us up to the dangers of building and maintaining our own information bubbles.

As for whether I find this particular poll useful, I haven't asked these questions myself, so don't currently have an opinion it (and so am not citing the poll one way or the other).

Citing Trump, two Northwestern University students charged with hate crime, vandalsim

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-50k-bails-for-northwestern-university-students-accused-of-chapel-vandalism-20160312-story.html

A Cook County judge on Saturday lashed out at two Northwestern University freshmen accused of spray-painting racist and homophobic messages along with the name of Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump inside a nondenominational chapel on the university's campus.

“These allegations are disgusting to me,” Judge Peggy Chiampas said as she eyeballed Anthony Morales, 19, and Matthew Kafker, 18, her voice rising several times during a bond hearing at the Leighton Criminal Court Building.

gerryl said:

tjohn, movements are notorious for lacking humor.

Guess you are too young to remember Abbe Hoffman.

gerryl said:

( I remembered being shocked in the heyday of the "women's lib" being told by a woman writer that what she didn't like about the movement was that the "libbers" could't laugh at themselves. )

The ones I dated had no trouble laughing. Of course they could have been laughing at me.  

shoshannah said:


“These allegations are disgusting to me,” Judge Peggy Chiampas said as she eyeballed Anthony Morales, 19, and Matthew Kafker, 18, her voice rising several times during a bond hearing at the Leighton Criminal Court Building.

To be serious for a second, an allegation is just that, an allegation, and a Judge should not react that way. 

shoshannah said:

Citing Trump, two Northwestern University students charged with hate crime, vandalsim

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-50k-bails-for-northwestern-university-students-accused-of-chapel-vandalism-20160312-story.html


A Cook County judge on Saturday lashed out at two Northwestern University freshmen accused of spray-painting racist and homophobic messages along with the name of Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump inside a nondenominational chapel on the university's campus.


“These allegations are disgusting to me,” Judge Peggy Chiampas said as she eyeballed Anthony Morales, 19, and Matthew Kafker, 18, her voice rising several times during a bond hearing at the Leighton Criminal Court Building.

That's the arraignment judge. We'll see what really happens at trial. First offenders are usually given a pass.

dave said:

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

+10

LOST said:

chalmers,

Thanks for the link. Anyone interested in what happened should read the article.

+1. They interviewed a couple of the protesters the following day and was pretty much articulated as the article charmers posted. This was bound to happen as Trump continues with his hate and vitriol speeches. And Chicago with its blend of ethnic backgrounds, is the last place folks in that city want to hear racist speeches. After all that happened Friday night the next day this asshat Trump supporter was filmed saying this to a supporter. This was also yelled during the chaos Friday night in Chicago towards some Trump protesters.

WATCH: Trump supporter yells ‘Go back to Africa’ to black woman

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/watch-trump-supporter-yells-go-back-to-africa-to-black-woman/article/2585671

LOST said:

gerryl said:

tjohn, movements are notorious for lacking humor.

Guess you are too young to remember Abbe Hoffman.

gerryl said:

( I remembered being shocked in the heyday of the "women's lib" being told by a woman writer that what she didn't like about the movement was that the "libbers" could't laugh at themselves. )

The ones I dated had no trouble laughing. Of course they could have been laughing at me. " src="/res/static/common/plugins/redactor/emoticons/1.0/images/21.gif" unselectable="on"> 

shoshannah said:


“These allegations are disgusting to me,” Judge Peggy Chiampas said as she eyeballed Anthony Morales, 19, and Matthew Kafker, 18, her voice rising several times during a bond hearing at the Leighton Criminal Court Building.

To be serious for a second, an allegation is just that, an allegation, and a Judge should not react that way. 

I knew and worked with Abbie.  The man was brilliant,  unafraid of anything and so funny that we his

friends rarely knew when to take him seriously

One time we were arrested and went before the Judge in small groups.  Abbie and I were together.

The Judge said that the "Vienese " had the right to be free.

Abbie was about to correct the Judge,  which would have gotten us all another 30 days

I kicked him and he was distracted enough to let the moment pass

The first 30 days was enough for me

bramzzoinks said:

Exactly.  Maybe at most 1/3 of the country would vote for Trump for President.  But the antics of the protestors is making him almost a sympathetic character. 

To you, maybe.

breal said:

Respectfully, Paul Surovell, I do not assign much weight to that poll conducted by The New York Times. They want their candidates to win, and I respect that.  But it's why I do not respect their poll.

Do you think the percentage is higher or lower than 20%?

dave23 said:

bramzzoinks said:

Exactly.  Maybe at most 1/3 of the country would vote for Trump for President.  But the antics of the protestors is making him almost a sympathetic character. 

To you, maybe.

Well, I think what is being called "antics of the protestors" (or, more properly, the Trumpean spin about it) is making Trump more appealing to GOP voters deciding between him and Cruz, his closest competitor.  That's probably why Cruz is dipping his toe into putting some responsibility on Trump. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-says-trumps-campaign-affirmatively-encourages-violence-2016-3

Of course, that kind of talk means that the hate will be directed towards Cruz, now (including from people claiming to be switching to Trump from Cruz).

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/12/gop-voters-slam-ted-cruz-marco-rubio-for-blaming-chicago-rally-shutdown-on-donald-trump/

author said:

LOST said:

gerryl said:

tjohn, movements are notorious for lacking humor.

Guess you are too young to remember Abbe Hoffman.

gerryl said:

( I remembered being shocked in the heyday of the "women's lib" being told by a woman writer that what she didn't like about the movement was that the "libbers" could't laugh at themselves. )

The ones I dated had no trouble laughing. Of course they could have been laughing at me. " src="/res/static/common/plugins/redactor/emoticons/1.0/images/21.gif" unselectable="on"> 

shoshannah said:


“These allegations are disgusting to me,” Judge Peggy Chiampas said as she eyeballed Anthony Morales, 19, and Matthew Kafker, 18, her voice rising several times during a bond hearing at the Leighton Criminal Court Building.

To be serious for a second, an allegation is just that, an allegation, and a Judge should not react that way. 

I knew and worked with Abbie.  The man was brilliant,  unafraid of anything and so funny that we his

friends rarely knew when to take him seriously

One time we were arrested and went before the Judge in small groups.  Abbie and I were together.

The Judge said that the "Vienese " had the right to be free.

Abbie was about to correct the Judge,  which would have gotten us all another 30 days

I kicked him and he was distracted enough to let the moment pass

The first 30 days was enough for me

That's a pretty cool story, actually.  Carry on.

I started to read the comments in the article you linked, NoHero. Those don't seem like Cruz supporters to me. One suggested that Cruz sent the protestors. I think they wre Trump supporters trolling Cruz.

I see Cruz supporters as true blue ideological conservatives who would be extremely unlikely to support someone who contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaigns, had her as a wedding guest, has said positive things about Planned Parenthood and would make deals with Democrats in Congress.

But they wouldn't be caught dead voting for HRC... methinks many might just hold their nose and vote Trump if he got the nod, in much the same way Bernie supporters will do so when Hillary does.

It's not the same. There really isn't much difference ideologically between Hillary and Bernie. I doubt that Cruz supporters consider Trump a conservative.

If Trump gets the nomination I could imagine a Third-Party Conservative candidate. Both Mitt Romney and Nebraska Sen. Sasse have said they would look for someone like that to vote for.

paulsurovell said:

breal said:

Respectfully, Paul Surovell, I do not assign much weight to that poll conducted by The New York Times. They want their candidates to win, and I respect that.  But it's why I do not respect their poll.

Do you think the percentage is higher or lower than 20%?

Yes.

ctrzaska said:

But they wouldn't be caught dead voting for HRC... methinks many might just hold their nose and vote Trump if he got the nod, in much the same way Bernie supporters will do so when Hillary does.

This is the reason I listen to conservative talk radio on my commute home.

Caller: Ted Cruz is a liar and a cheat. I hope he burns in a pit of damnation for all eternity.

Host: So if Trump doesn't wind up with the nomination will you just stay home on Election Day?

Caller: I love my country and stuff, so I'd probably have to vote for Ted Cruz.

paulsurovell said:

breal said:

Respectfully, Paul Surovell, I do not assign much weight to that poll conducted by The New York Times. They want their candidates to win, and I respect that.  But it's why I do not respect their poll.

Do you think the percentage is higher or lower than 20%?

Two clarifications: The poll was conducted by YouGov, not The New York Times. Also, the article that cited it was written by a UCLA professor of political science, not a member of the Times election committee.

LOST said:

It's not the same. There really isn't much difference ideologically between Hillary and Bernie. I doubt that Cruz supporters consider Trump a conservative.

If Trump gets the nomination I could imagine a Third-Party Conservative candidate. Both Mitt Romney and Nebraska Sen. Sasse have said they would look for someone like that to vote for.

They're idiots, but not that stupid (I think)... they know a third party candidate will merely hand it to HRC with a bow and fracture the party even further.

paulsurovell said:

dave said:

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

We don't know whether the protesters would have disrupted Trump's event last night, since he canceled it.  The police say they could have handled the crowd.

However, I agree that a line has to be drawn between protest and disruption.  Protest is OK, disruption is not.  Bernie needs to tell his supporters in no uncertain terms "I support peaceful protest but I oppose efforts to disrupt political events and I urge my supporters to respect this principle."

Agreed. After my first rush of excitement when I heard that Trump cancelled his rally because of protesters, I sobered up. This will not end well, folks. Disrupting political speech, even awful political speech,  is illiberal and destructive of the democratic process. It will jeopardize a Democratic victory. 

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

breal said:

Respectfully, Paul Surovell, I do not assign much weight to that poll conducted by The New York Times. They want their candidates to win, and I respect that.  But it's why I do not respect their poll.

Do you think the percentage is higher or lower than 20%?

Two clarifications: The poll was conducted by YouGov, not The New York Times. Also, the article that cited it was written by a UCLA professor of political science, not a member of the Times election committee.

I haven't been following this too close as I'm traveling, but a yougov poll is usually the result of people clicking on an ad they thought was a legitimate question on the site they were reading.

Spike_Jones said:

paulsurovell said:

dave said:

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

We don't know whether the protesters would have disrupted Trump's event last night, since he canceled it.  The police say they could have handled the crowd.

However, I agree that a line has to be drawn between protest and disruption.  Protest is OK, disruption is not.  Bernie needs to tell his supporters in no uncertain terms "I support peaceful protest but I oppose efforts to disrupt political events and I urge my supporters to respect this principle."

Agreed. After my first rush of excitement when I heard that Trump cancelled his rally because of protesters, I sobered up. This will not end well, folks. Disrupting political speech, even awful political speech,  is illiberal and destructive of the democratic process. It will jeopardize a Democratic victory. 

+2

This is what I call "scapegoat" angry. They refuse to believe that the reason they have no factory jobs is because people like Trump, Nike, Apple, etc., have sent those jobs to China, Mexico, Bangladesh and Turkey for cheap labor and no unions. Trump does it but yet it doesn't seem to bother them. All of his bloviating about making Apple and other corporations manufacture here is pure nonsense. He can't make anyone do anything. And he knows it. The problem is, they don't. 

I think if it winds up being Trump/Sanders, we'll see a 3rd candidate throw in, possibly Bloomberg.

Bloomberg has said he wouldn't run because he knows it will split the vote. We'll see if he changes his mind.

This is a really interesting article. I'm not sure that I agree completely but it's a fascinating perspective: 

https://medium.com/@emmalindsay/trump-supporters-aren-t-stupid-3d38f70f2a2f#.dbvsgn298

"To summarize, no one wants to occupy the “last” place in society. No one wants to be the most despised. As long as racism remains intact, poor white people are guaranteed not to be “the worst.” If racism is ever truly dismantled, then poor white people will occupy the lowest rung of society, and the shame of occupying this position is very painful. This shame is so painful, that the people at risk of feeling it will vote on it above all other issues."

conandrob240 said:

I think if it winds up being Trump/Sanders, we'll see a 3rd candidate throw in, possibly Bloomberg.

Short of a Clinton indictment, the math really works against Sanders right now. He's going to be hanging around for a while, but Clinton's path to delegate victory is strong right now.

agreed. I think Clinton will win but if not, I do think we'll see Bloomberg come back in. He's said no because if Clinton, I think. If she's out, we'll see him come back