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.

 

Is Donald Trump a thug? Are we going to see more violence at political rallies?

page: 12
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: HillaryTrump
...riled up, gun in hand, expecting the world to be given to them on a platter.
When they're not given fuh all, they'll still have their guns. Guess who they'll be targeting?


You just perfectly described the Progressive movement.



The "progressive movement" ... as embodied by whom exactly.

Specifics now, since you seem to know so exactly what you're referring to, tell us what persons and what groups or organizations you're referring to. That's not too much to ask is it?




posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




And yes, you are clearly offended by words ... which makes your positions all the more hypocritical.


There you go again. You should really start a service where you tell people what they think and feel, because apparently that's all you're good at. Hey, you could make some money.

Ok we both know you don't have magical abilities, just a penchant for projection, which also has a significantly poor track record of truth.


No, not agitators and hooligans ... except from the perspective of your agenda. You act as if Trump supporters are the only Americans with free speech and the right to assemble. What rot.


I never stated such a thing, let alone acted like it. Anyone has a right to expression and assembly without fear of threat and coercion. One was suppressed and one wasn't. That's my point, which you blatantly ignore.

And don't get offended when people speak in pluralities or general terms. We wouldn't be able to communicate without them. What grade are we in?


You're speaking in support of a proven thuggish authoritarian and his churlish acolytes.


I'm sure with those special abilities you're a great judge of character. If a political speech is suppressed due to fear of violence, regardless of party, politician or ideology, then my friend you are an enemy of a liberty.

How Bernie supporters shut down a Trump rally
Defend Donald Trump's Right to Free Speech
edit on 16-3-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: HillaryTrump
...riled up, gun in hand, expecting the world to be given to them on a platter.
When they're not given fuh all, they'll still have their guns. Guess who they'll be targeting?


You just perfectly described the Progressive movement.



The "progressive movement" ... as embodied by whom exactly.

Specifics now, since you seem to know so exactly what you're referring to, tell us what persons and what groups or organizations you're referring to. That's not too much to ask is it?




MoveOn is "a community of more than 8 million Americans from all walks of life who use the connective power of the Internet to lead, participate in, and win campaigns for progressive change."

The same movement that organised and funded terrorist activity in Chicago.

Here is their statement - full of hate yet, as usual with progressives, hypocritical. Forgive me for calling BS on their claims of the 'courageous and non violent protest'. As usual they forgive themselves for all the violence and blame it on Trumps speech. They are cowards and liars. As you read through it the vile, acidic hatred spews out you and of course they sign off with 'Love and Democracy must prevail'.. LOL

“Like so much of what Donald Trump says, his attempt to scapegoat progressive activists and MoveOn.org for violence at his cancelled rally in Chicago is profoundly dishonest and untrue. “MoveOn proudly supported University of Illinois at Chicago students and local organizers in their courageous nonviolent protest outside the event. We helped student leaders by printing signs and recruiting MoveOn members to attend the student-led protest. “But let’s be clear about one thing, the protest Friday night was a direct result of the violence that has occurred at Trump rallies and that has been repeatedly encouraged by Trump himself from the stage. There is only one person to blame for the chaotic and often violent nature of Trump rallies: Donald J. Trump. This sort of violence does not happen at Sanders, Cruz, Clinton, Rubio, or Kasich events, despite the fact that there are often protests at their events. “Unlike Republican leaders, we will not back down or be cowed in the face of a fascist bully like Donald Trump. For as long as Donald Trump is a presidential candidate, MoveOn members will continue to call out and nonviolently protest his racist, bigoted, misogynistic, xenophobic, and violent behavior. While such vitriol may help him win a plurality of votes in a Republican primary, our country is better than the shameful, dangerous, and bigoted rhetoric that has been the hallmark of the Trump campaign. Trump and those who peddle hate and incite violence have no place in our politics and most certainly do not belong in the White House. “Love and democracy must prevail over violence and hate.”
edit on 16/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



terrorist activity in Chicago.


I didn't hear about any terrorist activity in Chicago.

Did I miss something?



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



terrorist activity in Chicago.


I didn't hear about any terrorist activity in Chicago.

Did I miss something?


Definition of terrorism:
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Hopefully that clears it up for you. A progressive movement funded and organised (by admission) terrorist activities.
edit on 16/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



terrorist activity in Chicago.


I didn't hear about any terrorist activity in Chicago.

Did I miss something?


Definition of terrorism:
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Hopefully that clears it up for you. A progressive movement funded and organised (by admission) terrorist activities.


Well, that's just absurd.

I regret asking.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



terrorist activity in Chicago.


I didn't hear about any terrorist activity in Chicago.

Did I miss something?



Definition of terrorism:
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Hopefully that clears it up for you. A progressive movement funded and organised (by admission) terrorist activities.


Well, that's just absurd.

I regret asking.



You mean you regret that there is an answer.

The definition of terrorism is easy to find
Moveon have admitted both funding, helping to organise and sending members
Violence ensued
A political aim was sought and achieved

Which part is not clear? Or are moveon exonerated from inciting people by using language like they have in their statement above? Like i said, hypocrisy at its finest.

I think the people of Chicago closed the debate on this at the ballot box.
edit on 16/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No, I don't regret the answer. I think it's shortsighted.

The definition of terrorism is one that has been involved in a long debate. While some would take a simplistic approach and define as you have, the term is very subjective.

I do not agree with what happened in Chicago, but it seems a bit Orwellian to label a political protest that got out of hand as terrorism, regardless of whom funded/organized it.

That places an unnecessary stigma upon the act of free political expression.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

No, I don't regret the answer. I think it's shortsighted.

The definition of terrorism is one that has been involved in a long debate. While some would take a simplistic approach and define as you have, the term is very subjective.

I do not agree with what happened in Chicago, but it seems a bit Orwellian to label a political protest that got out of hand as terrorism, regardless of whom funded/organized it.

That places an unnecessary stigma upon the act of free political expression.



It was not any kind of political expression that was legal. It was illegal, and organised for the purpose of a political outcome. Whether the term 'terrorism' is defined as you like it or not, I have used. pretty much, what is in the Oxford Dictionary.

To make it exactly as the Oxford Dictionary uses:



The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims

edit on 16/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

No, I don't regret the answer. I think it's shortsighted.

The definition of terrorism is one that has been involved in a long debate. While some would take a simplistic approach and define as you have, the term is very subjective.

I do not agree with what happened in Chicago, but it seems a bit Orwellian to label a political protest that got out of hand as terrorism, regardless of whom funded/organized it.

That places an unnecessary stigma upon the act of free political expression.



It was not any kind of political expression that was legal. It was illegal, and organised for the purpose of a political outcome. Whether the term 'terrorism' is defined as you like it or not, I have used the Oxford Dictionary.


What was illegal?



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

No, I don't regret the answer. I think it's shortsighted.

The definition of terrorism is one that has been involved in a long debate. While some would take a simplistic approach and define as you have, the term is very subjective.

I do not agree with what happened in Chicago, but it seems a bit Orwellian to label a political protest that got out of hand as terrorism, regardless of whom funded/organized it.

That places an unnecessary stigma upon the act of free political expression.



It was not any kind of political expression that was legal. It was illegal, and organised for the purpose of a political outcome. Whether the term 'terrorism' is defined as you like it or not, I have used the Oxford Dictionary.


What was illegal?


Really?

Punching, destroying others property, attacking police officers, firing guns into the air in a public space, blocking ambulances on the road... all ok with you is it in the name of 'peaceful loving protest' as moveon put it?

Stop trying to dial down what they did. It was disgusting and illegal.



Nothing illegal here?
edit on 16/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

There were many acts that occurred in and surrounding this event that were illegal, but you said "It was not any kind of political expression that was legal. It was illegal, and organised for the purpose of a political outcome.".

What you described were acts of individuals committing crimes. Outside of those acts of individuals, the protest was perfectly legal, no matter who organized it....even if for the purposes of a political outcome. You realize that you have deemed a large portion of the American political landscape as terrorism?

The only way you could even begin to suggest this was an act of terror is if the people organizing this protest could be found to have conspired with the participants to engage in violent activities. Otherwise, it was the choice of individuals to get out of hand.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

What a ridiculous title for a thread.

The Trump haters passive aggressive bull# knows no bounds.

Everyone's a bully, because you're all victims. We get it already.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

So ... MoveOn is the entire "Progressive Movement" that you keep alluding to... no one and nothing else included?

Is that correct?



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

There were many acts that occurred in and surrounding this event that were illegal, but you said "It was not any kind of political expression that was legal. It was illegal, and organised for the purpose of a political outcome.".

What you described were acts of individuals committing crimes. Outside of those acts of individuals, the protest was perfectly legal, no matter who organized it....even if for the purposes of a political outcome. You realize that you have deemed a large portion of the American political landscape as terrorism?

The only way you could even begin to suggest this was an act of terror is if the people organizing this protest could be found to have conspired with the participants to engage in violent activities. Otherwise, it was the choice of individuals to get out of hand.


Oh I see - so all the illegal activity is not the fault of the people who organised it then.... Got it. Now I understand you. So moveon said to these guys, just go and be peaceful and loving, right?

But of course Trump IS accountable because he says things the progressive terrorists don't like. I see where you are coming from. I just call bull# on it. You are not going to succeed with passing off progressive aggression followed by blaming someone else for it. At least not with me.

I will continue to call them what they are - progressive terrorists. You can call it whatever makes you comfortable. You can even call it peaceful and loving like moveon if you like.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

So ... MoveOn is the entire "Progressive Movement" that you keep alluding to... no one and nothing else included?

Is that correct?


Its certainly not just moveon - i'd be delighted to contribute to a progressive movement thread. There were actually many organisations that contributed to organising the terrorism in Chicago (as confirmed by People for Bernie)



Note how they were so proud even after all the violence.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

So ... MoveOn is the entire "Progressive Movement" that you keep alluding to... no one and nothing else included?

Is that correct?


Its certainly not just moveon - i'd be delighted to contribute to a progressive movement thread. There were actually many organisations that contributed to organising the terrorism in Chicago (as confirmed by People for Bernie)



Note how they were so proud even after all the violence.


Right so ... MoveOn, People 4 Bernie ... but surely you have specific groups in mind when you make these sweeping comments, right?

You're not relying on one Twitter comment for your proof are you?

So, who else? What groups? You've made very specific charges about what this "Progressive Movement" is, intends, does, etc.

I just want to see some factual backup from you.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Oh I see - so all the illegal activity is not the fault of the people who organised it then.... Got it.


Of course not. Unless you could prove that they conspired with the people to engage in those activities.



Now I understand you. So moveon said to these guys, just go and be peaceful and loving, right?


I don't know what Moveon said to these people. Do you? If not, how can you come to the conclusion this was terrorism?



But of course Trump IS accountable because he says things the progressive terrorists don't like.


We are all accountable for the things we say.



I just call bull# on it. You are not going to succeed with passing off progressive aggression followed by blaming someone else for it. At least not with me. I will continue to call them what they are - progressive terrorists. You can call it whatever makes you comfortable. You can even call it peaceful and loving like moveon if you like.


This is why I regret asking. I feared that even after you were shown how Orwellian and shortsighted your use of the term terrorism is, not to mention it's contradiction with the legal definitions, you would simply have a little meltdown and reinforce the ignorance.

You are free to call it whatever you wish, but that does not mean it is correct or even remotely reasonable.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

So ... MoveOn is the entire "Progressive Movement" that you keep alluding to... no one and nothing else included?

Is that correct?


Its certainly not just moveon - i'd be delighted to contribute to a progressive movement thread. There were actually many organisations that contributed to organising the terrorism in Chicago (as confirmed by People for Bernie)



Note how they were so proud even after all the violence.


Right so ... MoveOn, People 4 Bernie ... but surely you have specific groups in mind when you make these sweeping comments, right?

You're not relying on one Twitter comment for your proof are you?

So, who else? What groups? You've made very specific charges about what this "Progressive Movement" is, intends, does, etc.

I just want to see some factual backup from you.


LOL - you have already been given one major group and People for Bernie on their own twitter feed(do you even know who they are?). They list Occupy Wall street amongst their allies (as well as several others - have a look for yourself).

You are like the Black Knight off Monty Python's Holy Grail.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



Oh I see - so all the illegal activity is not the fault of the people who organised it then.... Got it.


Of course not. Unless you could prove that they conspired with the people to engage in those activities.



Now I understand you. So moveon said to these guys, just go and be peaceful and loving, right?


I don't know what Moveon said to these people. Do you? If not, how can you come to the conclusion this was terrorism?



But of course Trump IS accountable because he says things the progressive terrorists don't like.


We are all accountable for the things we say.



I just call bull# on it. You are not going to succeed with passing off progressive aggression followed by blaming someone else for it. At least not with me. I will continue to call them what they are - progressive terrorists. You can call it whatever makes you comfortable. You can even call it peaceful and loving like moveon if you like.


This is why I regret asking. I feared that even after you were shown how Orwellian and shortsighted your use of the term terrorism is, not to mention it's contradiction with the legal definitions, you would simply have a little meltdown and reinforce the ignorance.

You are free to call it whatever you wish, but that does not mean it is correct or even remotely reasonable.


The same old tired arguments and tactics I hear from progressives all the time.
Ignore what is right in front of your face, hide behind court room language and then play the victim when someone has had enough of the BS.

Its like coming home from a day out after leaving the dog at home alone, getting home to find a big crap on the floor and arguing with your wife that she should not be angry because she can't prove the dog did it.

It's now a very tired tactic like I said, and very transparent these days.

When progressives stop acting like terrorists, I will cease calling them terrorists.
edit on 16/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join