It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MoveOn Takes Partial Credit for Trump Rally Cancelation

page: 4
33
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Roman Fasces is a an ancient symbol that a people is stronger when they come together as one.

That's what the "sheaf of bound sticks" has signified since Classical times.




Yep, mob rule.


That same premise of mob rule was demonstrated at the Trump rally in KC last night.




posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: xuenchen

Trump continues to make the right enemies. Every dollar Soros's spends ends up as more votes for Trump. I started out hating Trump, but am actually considering voting for him just to shove one up the Establishment's derriere.


And that's just how easily you all are manipulated, thus the clown show the GOP has become...

Nothing would make me vote for Hillary, not even Trump. She has done too many things that make my skin crawl for me to be able to vote for her. But you guys, facts free mind you, will vote for a turd just because it makes you feel like you're poking a liberal in the eye.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Roman Fasces is a an ancient symbol that a people is stronger when they come together as one.

That's what the "sheaf of bound sticks" has signified since Classical times.




Yep, mob rule.


No, not at all, more along the lines of "E Pluribus Unum."

But I do love it when the authoritarian rears up uncontrollably in a right-winger, LOL.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

No one has said that.



What? Why not quote what you're talking about?


originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

People can absolutely protest, but what happened was not a protest. It was a mob seeking to shut down the free speech of another with whom they disagree.



So, people can protest, but only as long as you agree? Otherwise it's an unruly mob? "Agitators"? Too bad you weren't there to turn the dogs and the water hoses on them, eh?


originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Can you at least agree that the 1st Amendment exists the protest speech, on both sides?



Why can't you just accept that the First Amendment means exactly what it says and does exactly what it has always done? Why do you need to try to twist it to fit the needs of your own agenda? Justice Scalia would disagree with you. Every right has limits, he might remind you, as 223 or so years of jurisprudence should tell you.


originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

When someone hosts an event, they are partially responsible for the security of the people who will attend.



In a very general way, perhaps. Hosting an event doesn't automatically establish some sort of "police power" though.


originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

At the point when that security for event attendees cannot be reasonably assured, it is advisable for a host of reasons to not have the event.



Sure, that's a general truism. In this case, however. Mr. Trump was simply afraid to face people who stridently disagree with him. I have said, clearly, that in my opinion the folks should have remained outside, but as it was, tickets to the venue were available to all. Many reports have the door attendents not even checking for the erstwhile tickets. It's almost like the Trump supporters wanted to help stage the need to "shut down" the event or something, eh?

Why create the need to apply online, or to reserve tickets, only to fail to take them at the door?


originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

I understand you would prefer to think of Trump a coward, but at the same time, had he had the event and a mass brawl broken out with shots fired or something else ... then who would you be blaming today? Likely also Trump.


Actually, I would "prefer" that Mr. Trump promote his ideas and ideals, such as they are, without also promoting violence and abuse of people time after time in his rallies. This has borne fruit. There is no need for any violence, no need to tear others down so that we may stand, etc.

And as far as "blaming" anyone, no. If the protesters had been asked to leave, and refused, they were at that moment in disobedience of the law. You see, that's the civilian "side" of the equation that you want to ignore ... Governments are prevented from abusing the rights of others by the Constitution, individuals are prevented from doing so by laws against trespass, assault, etc.

I do not and have not stated that I approve of what SOME (but not all) of the protesters at the Trump rally did. I understand it, and would even approve of the general idea if it had been expressed in a reasonable, logical and equitable manner.

Again, I have argued against two things here:

1. The protesters tried to "shut down First Amendment rights" ...

2. The protesters "had no right to be there." Registration was free and open, as was attendance.
edit on 13-3-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Formatting



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

One comment to that post:


Keep congratulating yourselves on matching fascism with fascism.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Kali74
And?


Summary: Progressives are fascists.


Progressives are "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of centralized government and social organization"?


Fixed.

Using European-based right/left wing structure in American politics is pointless. Either way the Europeans are pro-centralized government.

And the Progressives in America want to be more like Europe.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

What the disruptive elements did was NOT a protest. It was a coordinated effort to block a speech from happening.

A protest is when people stand around and hold signs or march and demonstrate. Had they remained outside with their angry sign mob or even I suspect remained quietly inside in silent protest, they likely could have protested all they wanted.

The minute they translated "protest" in to "violent, aggressive action against the person giving the speech" in the form of planning to physically rush the stage, their protest ceases to be a protest and becomes something else.



You are looking at a scenario like this one (a reporter was trampled and received a compound fracture in this btw) only both sides loathe each other here at a Trump rally. And then you have a controversial political figure in the middle of that.



Here is footage from RFK's assassination. Look at the crush of people in both videos. This is how RFK got shot. There were too many people, too close. The Secret Service could not control the press, and if the disruptive elements in the crowd had done what they planned, you are looking at a similar scenario.

Now, I know you wouldn't feel at all bad if Trump were to be shot, many here wouldn't, but is that really what you need? You feel he can't be discredited by other means, so you want to create scenarios where potential attackers can get close enough to kill him? Are you really that afraid of him? Who's the coward?

Heck, in a sense these people are WORSE than Westboro Baptist, as reprehensible and annoying as they are, WBC doesn't rush, they don't attack, they just stand around outside of venues and, you know, protest like they have every right to do.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
The more I am researching what exactly happened in Chicago, and the more I read what the original organizers told the protesters, the more I am starting to see that the vast majority of protesters were peaceful. There was a small group of rogue protesters that executed a less peaceful disruption.

The original plan from what I can see was to communicate the fact that university students were protesting Trump's rally in their university. From there the number of protesters grew and grew. The organizers specifically emphasized that the protest should remain peaceful. That violence wasn't necessary - they would depend on sheer numbers to make a bold statement.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I am with Jake and Elwood on the topic of Illinois Nazi's




posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
yep, thats why I am voting Trump



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

LOL

You actually believe that?

The main goal of the "protest" was to shut down a Trump rally.




posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: kaylaluv

LOL

You actually believe that?

The main goal of the "protest" was to shut down a Trump rally.



Protests usually have a goal of some sort. I believe the original goal with this particular protest was to not have the rally in that university. Martin Luther King's protests had the goal of stopping racial discrimination. My point was, it was planned to be peaceful, and the majority of protesters were.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
A little more about who and how Chicago operatives are and do.

Here Are The Radical Leftist Anti-Trump Groups Behind The Chicago Protest

Chicago --- the success story of the 20th Century !!! (not so successful in the 21st)






posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I'm wondering when Trump will fund some groups to go into Bernie and Hillary speeches and get them shut down. Seems like fair play. Maybe we can all start showing up at the oppositions speeches and shutting them down. No more speeches for either side for the rest of the campaign season. Sounds good to me.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

He already 'threatened' to send his supporters to Bernie events. I say good, let them see the light.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Is "Move On" the same group that set up tents and "occupied" D.C. and some other cities a few years back?



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Kali74
And?


Summary: Progressives are fascists.


Progressives are "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization"?


I know that sometimes truth is hard to take.


What truth is that? I know that there has been a trend lately in the Right Wing echo chamber trying to equate the Left with socialism, which equals fascism, which means the Left are Nazis, but that trend is not rooted in any factual reality.

I do not hear yells of "USA, USA" coming from ultra-nationalist Leftists. "Super-patriotism" is an integral part of fascism and I don't see that coming from the Left.

The problem is that many people are trying to project the fascist label on to those they disagree with politically, but are doing do without a basic understanding of what fascism is.


Only because the left hates America as it's been. They too will yell "USA USA USA" when the country reflects what they desire.

And honestly? What factual reality can you provide that it's not? Hitler was awfully socialist, and did exactly what the left wants to do on some issues.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

That's a great history lesson! It would take at least a 1,000 word post to sum up what you did in a single drawing. Congrats, Konduit...and thank-you.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

We can debate the hypocrisy of the Progressives all day and they will just cover their ears and start screaming racist. I find art to be the best way to point out the blatantly obvious.
edit on 13-3-2016 by Konduit because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
33
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join