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

a reply to: UKTruth

The same old tired arguments and tactics I hear from progressives all the time.

If you are so experienced, why can't you refute my assertions?

Ignore what is right in front of your face, hide behind court room language

Terrorism is a very serious matter and one that carries specific legal consequences when such acts are engaged in. To use the term so carelessly is irresponsible and illogical on your part.

and then play the victim when someone has had enough of the BS.

I have not played the victim in this conversation. I think I've asserted and defended myself quite well so far.

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

Transparency is no good when one cannot see past the end of their own nose.

When progressives stop acting like terrorists, I will cease calling them terrorists.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

The same old tired arguments and tactics I hear from progressives all the time.

If you are so experienced, why can't you refute my assertions?

Ignore what is right in front of your face, hide behind court room language

Terrorism is a very serious matter and one that carries specific legal consequences when such acts are engaged in. To use the term so carelessly is irresponsible and illogical on your part.

and then play the victim when someone has had enough of the BS.

I have not played the victim in this conversation. I think I've asserted and defended myself quite well so far.

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

Transparency is no good when one cannot see past the end of their own nose.

When progressives stop acting like terrorists, I will cease calling them terrorists.

I have come to realise you can never refute the assertions of a progressive. Not because they are right, but because they can't ever even entertain that they could be wrong. Their moral superiority complex simple wont allow it.

Indeed, terrorism is a very serious matter and the progressive terrorists responsible for the violence and intimidation used in Chicago to further political gain in a deliberately organised fashion (i.e. terrorism) should be charged as such.

Agreed on the problems of transparency - indeed that is the very same problem one always faces when conversing with progressives.

a reply to: UKTruth

I have come to realise you can never refute the assertions of a progressive.

I'm not a progressive. Refute my assertions, if you so desire.

Not because they are right, but because they can't ever even entertain that they could be wrong. Their moral superiority complex simple wont allow it.

I could be wrong. Been wrong many times in my life. Can you actually address the topic, or has this turned in to a rant-fest about progressives?

Terrorism is a very serious matter and the progressive terrorists responsible for the violence and intimidation used in Chicago to further political gain in a deliberately organised fashion (i.e. terrorism) should be charged as such.

Why would your opinion be worthy of consideration when you have already expressed a dislike for "court room language"? Have to use that fancy language to charge someone with a crime.

Agreed on the problems of transparency - indeed that is the very same problem one always faces when conversing with progressives.

Ok, talk to a progressive about that. I couldn't care less.

Fact remains that you have yet to make any case whatsoever for this being a terrorist act. You also claim that they need to be charged while damning the language that is necessary to facilitate such actions.

This was an utter fail. One that you cannot blame on the progressives.

originally posted by: UKTruth

I have come to realise you can never refute the assertions of a progressive. Not because they are right, but because they can't ever even entertain that they could be wrong. Their moral superiority complex simple wont allow it.

Come on, give it up. You're desperately trying to label protesters as terrorists... It's not working. I know in your heart of hearts you desperately want to see that label gain traction, but it's just not correct. Your own superiority complex is getting in the way of reality. If you've already bought the domain progressiveterrorist.com and a bunch of embroidered hats, my condolences.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

I have come to realise you can never refute the assertions of a progressive.

I'm not a progressive. Refute my assertions, if you so desire.

Not because they are right, but because they can't ever even entertain that they could be wrong. Their moral superiority complex simple wont allow it.

I could be wrong. Been wrong many times in my life. Can you actually address the topic, or has this turned in to a rant-fest about progressives?

Terrorism is a very serious matter and the progressive terrorists responsible for the violence and intimidation used in Chicago to further political gain in a deliberately organised fashion (i.e. terrorism) should be charged as such.

Why would your opinion be worthy of consideration when you have already expressed a dislike for "court room language"? Have to use that fancy language to charge someone with a crime.

Agreed on the problems of transparency - indeed that is the very same problem one always faces when conversing with progressives.

Ok, talk to a progressive about that. I could care less.

Fact remains that you have yet to make any case whatsoever for this being a terrorist act. You also claim that they need to be charged while damning the language that is necessary to facilitate such actions.

This was an utter fail. One that you cannot blame on the progressives.

I have given you the Oxford dictionary definition of terrorism.

Every single part of the definition is met with what happened in Chicago - unless you want to hide behind the notion that the organisation sent these people out with love in their hearts to have a peaceful protest.

That debate is over - its only your understanding that requires the time to catch up.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth

I have come to realise you can never refute the assertions of a progressive. Not because they are right, but because they can't ever even entertain that they could be wrong. Their moral superiority complex simple wont allow it.

Come on, give it up. You're desperately trying to label protesters as terrorists... It's not working. I know in your heart of hearts you desperately want to see that label gain traction, but it's just not correct. Your own superiority complex is getting in the way of reality. If you've already bought the domain progressiveterrorist.com and a bunch of embroidered hats, my condolences.

I liked your post because it made me smile at least.

There is no need for anything to gain traction. Enough people have researched the subject to give it a definition.
Chicago meets the definition perfectly.

Having said that - it does seem to be gaining some traction here as it seems to be drawing a progressive crowd in denial

a reply to: UKTruth

I have given you the Oxford dictionary definition of terrorism.

Every single part of the definition is met with what happened in Chicago - unless you want to hide behind the notion that the organisation sent these people out with love in their hearts to have a peaceful protest.

That debate is over - its only your understanding that requires the time to catch up.

Don't like how the game is played so you grab your ball and go home?

Ok.

I'll tell you what, When the Oxford dictionary becomes the end-all-be-all of the American Justice system, let me know. Till then, pardon me if I refer to more applicable sources in which to educate myself.

a reply to: UKTruth

Glad that could make you smile.


But terrorist is just such a huge huge accusation. I would say right now the progressive denial matches reality.

BUT, give it a little time. Trump hasn't even gotten the nomination yet. Lots of opportunities between now and November for your label to become reality. But currently, it's just not there.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

I have given you the Oxford dictionary definition of terrorism.

Every single part of the definition is met with what happened in Chicago - unless you want to hide behind the notion that the organisation sent these people out with love in their hearts to have a peaceful protest.

That debate is over - its only your understanding that requires the time to catch up.

Don't like how the game is played so you grab your ball and go home?

Ok.

I'll tell you what, When the Oxford dictionary becomes the end-all-be-all of the American Justice system, let me know. Till then, pardon me if I refer to more applicable sources in which to educate myself.

The FBI's definition - might work better for you (even though the definition I have already given you is contained in it)

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

1) Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

2) Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

3) Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

Maybe I should have used Progressive Domestic terrorism instead - seems too long, I'll just stick to progressive terrorists.
Now , I think I really can take my ball home

a reply to: UKTruth

Very nice.

Now you have the responsibility of proving that the violence or breaking of laws was coordinated by those that "organized" the event and not the acts of individuals.

a reply to: UKTruth

How about Progressive Extremist... or Radical Progressive... that way it still sounds violent-y, but doesn't require the actual terrorist-y stuff.

Like I would say Republicans currently cater to right wing extremists
who want to blame brown people and brown people sympathizers for most of the countries problems.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Very nice.

Now you have the responsibility of proving that the violence or breaking of laws was coordinated by those that "organized" the event and not the acts of individuals.

In a court of law you are correct, it would need to be proven in order to convict the organisations of such crime. And here lies the essence of the debate.

We're not in a court of law. I do not believe for one second that these organisations sent these people out with peace and love in their hearts as their statement reads (just after the vitriolic rhetoric they used in the sentence above that claim). I will hazard a guess that you do not really believe that either, but it is something to cling to in order not to concede - I will give you that.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth

How about Progressive Extremist... or Radical Progressive... that way it still sounds violent-y, but doesn't require the actual terrorist-y stuff.

Like I would say Republicans currently cater to right wing extremists
who want to blame brown people and brown people sympathizers for most of the countries problems.

I like to call right wing extremists terrorists too - if they intimidate and coerce through violence that endangers life. Blaming 'brown people' or 'brown people sympathisers' for all the countries problems would not in itself constitute terrorism though.

People are far to emotional in regards to Trump. You all are being manipulated on a massive level by the left and your emotions. You base your opinions on bias sound bytes and quotes that pass a massive government filter.
Liberals scream freedom of assembly yet crash a Trump rally.
Scream anti violence while inciting it in the same breath.
I ask you who is the "thug"?

These desperate tactics are really getting old...

originally posted by: UKTruth

I do not believe for one second that these organisations sent these people out with peace and love in their hearts...

Probably not, but in all fairness, I'm not so sure Trump's supporters were ready to receive peaceful protesters with peace and love in their hearts, considering these kinds of statements by Trump were always met with huge applause.

"If you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. Seriously. Just knock the hell... I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

"I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher."

"He's walking out like big high fives, smiling, laughing-- I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell ya."

"Am I allowed to rip that whistle out of the mouth? I'd love to rip that whistle."

"Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it."

a reply to: UKTruth

I do not believe they had peace and love in their heart. They had a political motivation in mind. That is a right of every citizen.

But that does not make them a terrorist.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

I do not believe they had peace and love in their heart. They had a political motivation in mind. That is a right of every citizen.

But that does not make them a terrorist.

If they had violent intentions organised from the start and then carried out that violence it does indeed make them terrorists.

You see the argument is therefore about prior and organised intent - I believe they intended to violently stop the rally , you seem not to. But I will reserve my right to call them terrorists based on my own judgement of what I saw, heard and read. I have no intention of trying to get them convicted in a court.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth

I do not believe for one second that these organisations sent these people out with peace and love in their hearts...

Probably not, but in all fairness, I'm not so sure Trump's supporters were ready to receive peaceful protesters with peace and love in their hearts, considering these kinds of statements by Trump were always met with huge applause.

"If you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. Seriously. Just knock the hell... I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

"I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher."

"He's walking out like big high fives, smiling, laughing-- I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell ya."

"Am I allowed to rip that whistle out of the mouth? I'd love to rip that whistle."

"Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it."

I think the Trump supporters on the whole acted with great restraint actually. They were a credit to the campaign and the country.
I can tell you now that if that happened to Nigel Farage at one of his rallies it would have been a blood bath.
Some Trump supporters did engage in violence to be fair - and they should be thrown in jail with the terrorists.

a reply to: UKTruth

Holy Sh*t, TRUMP is a terrorist leader!!!


1) Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
--So much violence and threat of violence by Trump toward protesters. He himself wants to commit the act of violence, but instead he gives authority to his terrorist organization to commit the acts for him.

2) Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
-- Trump wants to silence the media, open up the libel laws so he can sue anyone who says anything negative and collect a lot of money. Sounds like he's trying to intimidate the media. He also said Bernie should be careful or he'll send his supporters after him. More intimidation... threats of violence.

3) Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
-- Most unfortunately, this also applies.

Moral of the story: Be careful using FBI definitions. They are designed to be broad to justify mass surveillance and indefinite detention of just about anyone.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth

Holy Sh*t, TRUMP is a terrorist leader!!!


1) Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
--So much violence and threat of violence by Trump toward protesters. He himself wants to commit the act of violence, but instead he gives authority to his terrorist organization to commit the acts for him.

2) Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
-- Trump wants to silence the media, open up the libel laws so he can sue anyone who says anything negative and collect a lot of money. Sounds like he's trying to intimidate the media. He also said Bernie should be careful or he'll send his supporters after him. More intimidation... threats of violence.

3) Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
-- Most unfortunately, this also applies.

Moral of the story: Be careful using FBI definitions. They are designed to be broad to justify mass surveillance and indefinite detention of just about anyone.

Hmm, except your examples fail the definitions.

It has to meet all 3 as stated in the FBI documentation.

Even if I agreed with you that Trump wants to silence the media to stop negative stories (without going into another 100 posts - he is talking about lies, hence libel laws), using libel laws does not meet criteria 1.
Threats to send his supporters do not endanger lives or violate any state of federal law.

About the closest you could get if you wanted to reach would be the guy who sucker punched the agitator at a rally, though even then its pretty loose to call that coercion or intimidation.

No, I think the FBI definition is pretty solid.