It's probably some rationalizing fiction by Rand to make it look like the protesters escalated to violence first.
It's probably some rationalizing fiction by Rand to make it look like the protesters escalated to violence first.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Jesus Christ Carson what the fuck.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
So you support violence if someone else is violent and/or encourages violence? IE you're OK if violent protesters get put down hard by the police?Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
From the news I've seen they did. Please provide a news article for violence by Trump and or his supporters?
I disagree with virtually everything Trump has had to say and stands for this campaign. I also believe in democracy and the right to free speech, even those you vigorously disagree with. Especially those, free speech is meaningless without the right to disagree.
Sanders supporters did turn to violence first and should be roundly criticised by all who believe in democracy and free speech.
Explain your comment please. Has Ezra Klein been disrupting Trump rallies in a violent fashion? Has Bernie Sanders or any other candidate encouraged or shown approval of violence? Is this the first day of the election campaigns?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Sanders supporters* turned up to a Trump rally in Chicago and turned violent attacking both Trump supporters who were peacefully exercising their right to free assembly as has happened up and down the country across the political spectrum AND the Police who were just doing their job independent of their own personal politics.
No it's not the first day of the campaign, but it was the first act of violence in the campaign I've witnessed and it is inexcusable. There is no place for violence in politics. Nor is there a place for a "blame the victim" mentality to crimes. The fact its not the first day of the campaign does not make this easier to justify, Sanders and their supporters have been and continue to be free to make their own rallies wherever he wants without violence or intimidation, the same should apply to anyone else anywhere on the political spectrum.
Somebody saying something you don't like != violence.
*I never said Sanders personally, nor did I say Sanders personally was responsible though he should disown such unacceptable violence without qualification or justification, it is unjustifiable in a free society.
What does this have to do with the article or your response to it?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You must have been asleep the previous months then. What about those two guys, for example, who assaulted a homeless guy and Trump actually lauded them for it implicitly? What about his public promises to pay the court costs for the guy who assaulted a protester? Just two of several examples which happened way before this.
Really, Rand, you're the picture-perfect example for the word "ignorant" right now.
Again, you don't get to preach violence and then turn all sissy when you actually get the violence you demand. Shall I link to some videos just to show you what a Mussolini this guy is?
Then you have been blind.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Assault is completely inexcusable too, if that's happened I missed it and it should not have happened either.
Two wrongs don't make a right though.
No but it makes your posts, well, not right
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Well it makes them not have all the context, but the principle was and remains right. The fact that the Saunders supporters mass assaults in Chicago were completely unjustifiable hasn't changed.
It remains largely irrelevant to the focus of the article to which you replied and shows your comment to be not only misguided but also misinformed. The article was not written by someone who endorses violence. The other candidates do not themselves encourage violence, explicitly or implicitly. The majority of "Trump opponents" do not encourage violence. Not even all of his opponents support Sanders. People were assaulted in various ways at Trump's rallies long before things went out of hand in Chicago. Are any other candidates considering paying the legal fees of idiots who assault people at their rallies?
What you said was this:
In light of the above, that's kind of a dumb thing to say. The vast majority of Trump's opponents have every right to complain about a presidential candidate actively fostering a culture of violence that taints the democratic process. Perhaps you'd endorse the devil to spite the angry left, and that'd be your prerogative, but please spare us the misguided false-equivalence nonsense.Bit rich for Trump opponents to be complaining about violence after what happened in Chicago
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Hope is the denial of reality
To be fair people are perfectly in their rights to to hit someone if they are about to throw something illegally at someone. Also depending on the locale of a rally - if people are there (inside the building or on the premise) just to protest that is the equivalent of trespassing.
Protest is all well and good as long as it is not disrupting. Anything you think protesters should be able to do to Trump they should be able to do at a children's soccer game, a funeral and in front of an abortion clinic. People aren't allowed to have it both ways.
Like when someone is already in handcuffs and being led away by the police. Clearly a threat.
Are you serious? You want to ban disruptive protests? This to freedom of assembly is what banning confrontational speech is to free speech.Protest is all well and good as long as it is not disrupting.
Hope is the denial of reality
That's clearly after the fact though the article is talking about Trump's statement about 'if you see someone about to throw a tomato knock him down.' The punching of someone being led away in handcuffs is clearly assault and should be dealt with as such.
And yes I'm serious. You can protest McDonalds but you can't block the entrance. You also cannot protest on private property. You also cannot violate noise ordinance laws either. I suppose we should clarify what 'disruptive protests' really is if you want to get into a serious discussion on it. But frankly if an individual did something (block your path, interrupt your private gathering on private property, turned their music to excruciatingly loud levels) what is the appropriate response? Whatever that response is the same should be to protesters. Simply because you are in a large group of people doesn't mean you can violate other people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkSRJSUY0vs
Stay classy Trump.
Why haven't Trump's comments like that resonated with his supporters? Why are they so willing to ignore what he's said.....while believing what he promises? Why are they so willing to believe his promises, when they're practically impossible?
Does anyone really believe that a Wall will be built on the US/Mexican border....and Mexico will pay for it? Does anyone actually believe that millions of workers will be deported...when congress hasn't funded the agencies in charge of deportations?
Romney lost his bid for the election because he said things like "self-deportation", and that 47% of the electorate wouldn't vote for him because they couldn't get free stuff. Donald Drumpf turned all that on its head, and got more votes.
The RNC "elite" is saying they'll support Trump, even though he doesn't act according to Republican "principles". Meanwhile, several super PACs are running Anti-Trump campaigns. What gives?
They are saying they will support Trump if he is the nominee. He isn't the nominee right now, the process is ongoing.
Aren't they saying the Party has their allegiance, even if the Party has taken a wrong turn?
Romney lost because the country wasn't prepared to accept a Republican again after Dubya and Obama had star power.
Had Romney been the nominee this year (without having previously been it) he'd probably win the general against Hillary this time around.
The function of the RNC "elites" is to support the party. So yes I'd expect them to (at least in public) to support the nominee. Individual voters are under no such obligation of course.
Their job is to support the party, not the nominee, especially when that nominee is doing his best to destroy the party. The only reason the party itself won't come out openly against Trump is because they don't want to piss off all the Republicans who voted for him.
Hope is the denial of reality
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump...165842356.html
"“They’re really stopping our First Amendment rights,” Trump said."
Ow. My brain. Private citizens cannot violate your first amendment rights. (Not that I generally support the morons protesting... they are making it easier for Trump not harder.)
You can hardly claim self defense for that one.The brash billionaire also refused to condemn one of his supporters who punched a protester as he was being removed by security.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
What the hell happened in the Arizona primaries anyway??
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Trump won with a plurality, Cruz second place
Okay seriously some of the things I've been reading about the problems would-be voters are being faced with... just wtf. How can a modern democracy be so shit at democracy?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Like...?
Primaries are run by the political parties (which are private organizations), not the US government.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote