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: 14
10
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



I believe


And that is where we part ways.

I don't like to believe. I like to know.



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.


You only wish to slander their names for the sake of partisan political purposes, regardless of what they have or have not been convicted of?




posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



I believe


And that is where we part ways.

I don't like to believe. I like to know.



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.


You only wish to slander their names for the sake of partisan political purposes, regardless of what they have or have not been convicted of?


That's what I thought - hiding behind something unlikely (that the organisers intended a peaceful protest) in order to deny something that is very likely (that they were sent with violence on the agenda). Its funny, because when condemning Trump, 100% proof seems unimportant.



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



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



I believe


And that is where we part ways.

I don't like to believe. I like to know.



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.


You only wish to slander their names for the sake of partisan political purposes, regardless of what they have or have not been convicted of?


That's what I thought - hiding behind something unlikely (that the organisers intended a peaceful protest) in order to deny something that is very likely (that they were sent with violence on the agenda). Its funny, because when condemning Trump, 100% proof seems unimportant.

This is another progressive tactic. Hypocrisy as a weapon. Are you sure you are not a progressive?!


Nice try.

You have already conceded that you are "hiding behind" your own beliefs.

Like I said, you can believe anything and everything you want. Still does not make them terrorists.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
The news media is salivating like dogs tonight. After Donald Trump said that there could be riots, if he has the majority of delegates but is denied the nomination, the media had a collective orgasm over that possibility.

Even FOX is focusing tonight on interviewing people who are predicting the only outcome as a contested/brokered convention in July. CNN (of course) sees no other way.

It's totally disgusting how childish the GOP leadership is on this issue. They're digging out obscure rules to justify not awarding Trump the nomination under any circumstances. I hope they have a lot of security around them day and night.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



I believe


And that is where we part ways.

I don't like to believe. I like to know.



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.


You only wish to slander their names for the sake of partisan political purposes, regardless of what they have or have not been convicted of?


That's what I thought - hiding behind something unlikely (that the organisers intended a peaceful protest) in order to deny something that is very likely (that they were sent with violence on the agenda). Its funny, because when condemning Trump, 100% proof seems unimportant.

This is another progressive tactic. Hypocrisy as a weapon. Are you sure you are not a progressive?!


Nice try.

You have already conceded that you are "hiding behind" your own beliefs.

Like I said, you can believe anything and everything you want. Still does not make them terrorists.


We already went over that - it does if they intended violence that meets the three criteria laid out. There is no proof either way, so in a court of law you would indeed win the debate on the definition. However, given what we can see hear and read, I am far more likely to be right.

Anyway - we've run the course. We can leave it there? Well fought.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I didn't "tell you what you think and feel" ... you know, you really only have a few pat arguments that you apply in every situation.

I told you what is clearly observable in your online reactions. You go on and on about how others (usually a minority, or liberals, or progressives) shouldn't let words bother them, and then you go on and on about how someone's words bothered you.

You can try to slide that fact around as you will ... anyone who's read anything written under your monicker knows it.

And then you deploy Tactic Three: "accuse the other person of projection." Even while you're whining about being analyzed and told what you think.

Utterly disingenuous still applies here.

You keep citing me for untruth, and yet, you never prove anything, just continue the assertation. Screeching "You lie!" wasn't even effective at the State of the Union, much less here. Prove something. Demonstrate that something, anything I've said is untrue with accepted facts and logic.

Of course you acted like Trump supporters have freedom of speech and the protesters didn't. You attempt to denigrate the protesters by all manner of epithets ... but your assertion is clear: their mere presence caused Trump to run ... THAT is why there was no speech, the only thing that squelched his "free speech" is his own ego and fear.

Yada yada yada ... you can't even make a point without gross misrepresentation. Spare me the repeated "special abilities" snark.

No one was threatened with violence at a Trump's rally ... except for protesters when they are ludicrously outnumbered by his thuggish cronies while he's calling for them to be beaten, kicked, or taken out on a stretcher. Do you deny that Trump regularly makes these threats from the podium?

That's the only "threatened violence" in evidence here.

Your shallow attempts to invert the facts are ridiculous. And boring.
edit on 16-3-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


No one was threatened with violence at a Trump's rally ... except for protesters when they are ludicrously outnumbered by his thuggish cronies while he's calling for them to be beaten, kicked, or taken on on a stretcher.

Your shallow attempts to invert the facts are ridiculous. And boring.


Hilarious. Do you sell any tickets to your reality? You seem to have constructed quite an elaborate place there.
Meanwhile, back in our reality if you ever want to visit, 1000's of of 'protesters' not only threatened but carried out violence against Trump supporters.
edit on 16/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


No one was threatened with violence at a Trump's rally ... except for protesters when they are ludicrously outnumbered by his thuggish cronies while he's calling for them to be beaten, kicked, or taken on on a stretcher.

Your shallow attempts to invert the facts are ridiculous. And boring.


Hilarious. Do you sell any tickets to your reality? You seem to have constructed quite an elaborate place there.


Proof. Do you have any?



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


No one was threatened with violence at a Trump's rally ... except for protesters when they are ludicrously outnumbered by his thuggish cronies while he's calling for them to be beaten, kicked, or taken on on a stretcher.

Your shallow attempts to invert the facts are ridiculous. And boring.


Hilarious. Do you sell any tickets to your reality? You seem to have constructed quite an elaborate place there.


Proof. Do you have any?


Seriously, you mean of Trump supporters being threatened and attacked? Plenty of proof of that all through this thread including video evidence. have you been asleep since last Friday!
edit on 16/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
There is going to be a lot more violence but it is going to be done by the black community, they have become increasingly violent against white people ever since Barack Obama became president,the black community seems to think that having a black president means that they can commit criminal behavior against white people and Donald Trump getting elected president means that they don't have their illusionary justification for violence against white people anymore. On top of it the word racism has no meaning or weight anymore. So when they start crying racism that a white man it's gonna be the next president it is nothing more than angst for what could have been the best thing that happened to the black community, but Barack stabbed them in the back, then they made it worse with things like the knockout game. So boo hoo for the violent racist black community.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DonVoigt
There is going to be a lot more violence but it is going to be done by the black community, they have become increasingly violent against white people ever since Barack Obama became president,the black community seems to think that having a black president means that they can commit criminal behavior against white people and Donald Trump getting elected president means that they don't have their illusionary justification for violence against white people anymore. On top of it the word racism has no meaning or weight anymore. So when they start crying racism that a white man it's gonna be the next president it is nothing more than angst for what could have been the best thing that happened to the black community, but Barack stabbed them in the back, then they made it worse with things like the knockout game. So boo hoo for the violent racist black community.


I highly doubt that is a general view in the black community!



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Try living in Chicago



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


No one was threatened with violence at a Trump's rally ... except for protesters when they are ludicrously outnumbered by his thuggish cronies while he's calling for them to be beaten, kicked, or taken on on a stretcher.

Your shallow attempts to invert the facts are ridiculous. And boring.


Hilarious. Do you sell any tickets to your reality? You seem to have constructed quite an elaborate place there.


Proof. Do you have any?


Seriously, you mean of Trump supporters being threatened and attacked? Plenty of proof of that all through this thread including video evidence. have you been asleep since last Friday!


I'm aware of the false narrative. What we see in videos however, is simply that both sides were upset by Trump's cowardly cancellation. Most of us see people throwing punches at each other, yelling at each other, etc. etc. but in the minds of the faithful, like you apparently, there is only one side being assaulted, only one side being victimized.

Like typical bullies, Trump supporters don't want to "send protesters out on stretchers" unless they have a 1000 to one numerical advantage.

Video evidence? Like what? You mean the poor cop walking through with a bloody head after he was hit by a bottle? So, you know who threw that bottle then? I'm certain Chicago PD would like to know.

Trump's hateful rhetoric has created the situation. I don't approve of folks who decided to go in and disrupt the speech, but I do understand it. They stood up to thugs and bullies ... and the bullies and thugs, as they all do, starting whining about being victimized.

There were only five arrests ... and one of those was of a CBS reporter who was simply doing his job.

Trump cancelled without even letting Chicago PD know. His team (probably intentionally) CREATED this situation, and they were all ready to go with trying desperately to reverse the "fascist" narrative.


edit on 16-3-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

No, I think the FBI definition is pretty solid.


No, for real, Trump and his supporters are domestic terrorists.

Direct from fbi.gov:

Domestic Terrorism

Domestic right-wing terrorist groups often adhere to the principles of racial supremacy and embrace antigovernment, antiregulatory beliefs. Generally, extremist right-wing groups engage in activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action.

On the national level, formal right-wing hate groups, such as the National Alliance, the World Church of the Creator (WCOTC) and the Aryan Nations, represent a continuing terrorist threat. Although efforts have been made by some extremist groups to reduce openly racist rhetoric in order to appeal to a broader segment of the population and to focus increased attention on antigovernment sentiment, racism-based hatred remains an integral component of these groups’ core orientations.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

The same can be said about the behavior of the "demonrat" community



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: DonVoigt
a reply to: spiritualzombie

The same can be said about the behavior of the "demonrat" community


Exactly. Which is why I originally said UKTruth's use of FBI definitions of terrorists was flawed. Reading up on the FBI's definitions could bring you to the conclusion that the US is nothing more than a melting pot of domestic terrorist groups and doe-eyed sheep.

My suggestion... Drop the terrorist label.

Although........ Your use of the word "demonrat" suggests deep hatred... possibly an affiliation with right-wing domestic terrorist group. Hmmm.... Kidding - I give you a star for "demonrat" and playing into my post.




edit on 16-3-2016 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Are we going to see more violence at political rallies? YES.

Will it hurt trump. NO

Will it show the american people how far out the left wing democrats will go to try to win.

With obama we had Acorn.
barackobamafile.com...

Soros is likely to use MoveOn.org to help back the democrats.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED

Will it show the american people how far out the left wing democrats will go to try to win.


Because somehow the fact that Donald Trump has repeatedly encouraged his followers to be violent to dissenters at his rallies is caused by what "Democrats will do to try to win?"

Now, that's a pretzelled bit of "logic" for you.
edit on 17-3-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


No one was threatened with violence at a Trump's rally ... except for protesters when they are ludicrously outnumbered by his thuggish cronies while he's calling for them to be beaten, kicked, or taken on on a stretcher.

Your shallow attempts to invert the facts are ridiculous. And boring.


Hilarious. Do you sell any tickets to your reality? You seem to have constructed quite an elaborate place there.


Proof. Do you have any?


Seriously, you mean of Trump supporters being threatened and attacked? Plenty of proof of that all through this thread including video evidence. have you been asleep since last Friday!


I'm aware of the false narrative. What we see in videos however, is simply that both sides were upset by Trump's cowardly cancellation. Most of us see people throwing punches at each other, yelling at each other, etc. etc. but in the minds of the faithful, like you apparently, there is only one side being assaulted, only one side being victimized.

Like typical bullies, Trump supporters don't want to "send protesters out on stretchers" unless they have a 1000 to one numerical advantage.

Video evidence? Like what? You mean the poor cop walking through with a bloody head after he was hit by a bottle? So, you know who threw that bottle then? I'm certain Chicago PD would like to know.

Trump's hateful rhetoric has created the situation. I don't approve of folks who decided to go in and disrupt the speech, but I do understand it. They stood up to thugs and bullies ... and the bullies and thugs, as they all do, starting whining about being victimized.

There were only five arrests ... and one of those was of a CBS reporter who was simply doing his job.

Trump cancelled without even letting Chicago PD know. His team (probably intentionally) CREATED this situation, and they were all ready to go with trying desperately to reverse the "fascist" narrative.



Hmm, biased rubbish in my view.
We're not going to see eye to eye on this one.



posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


No one was threatened with violence at a Trump's rally ... except for protesters when they are ludicrously outnumbered by his thuggish cronies while he's calling for them to be beaten, kicked, or taken on on a stretcher.

Your shallow attempts to invert the facts are ridiculous. And boring.


Hilarious. Do you sell any tickets to your reality? You seem to have constructed quite an elaborate place there.


Proof. Do you have any?


Seriously, you mean of Trump supporters being threatened and attacked? Plenty of proof of that all through this thread including video evidence. have you been asleep since last Friday!


I'm aware of the false narrative. What we see in videos however, is simply that both sides were upset by Trump's cowardly cancellation. Most of us see people throwing punches at each other, yelling at each other, etc. etc. but in the minds of the faithful, like you apparently, there is only one side being assaulted, only one side being victimized.

Like typical bullies, Trump supporters don't want to "send protesters out on stretchers" unless they have a 1000 to one numerical advantage.

Video evidence? Like what? You mean the poor cop walking through with a bloody head after he was hit by a bottle? So, you know who threw that bottle then? I'm certain Chicago PD would like to know.

Trump's hateful rhetoric has created the situation. I don't approve of folks who decided to go in and disrupt the speech, but I do understand it. They stood up to thugs and bullies ... and the bullies and thugs, as they all do, starting whining about being victimized.

There were only five arrests ... and one of those was of a CBS reporter who was simply doing his job.

Trump cancelled without even letting Chicago PD know. His team (probably intentionally) CREATED this situation, and they were all ready to go with trying desperately to reverse the "fascist" narrative.



Hmm, biased rubbish in my view.
We're not going to see eye to eye on this one.


Well, isn't that convenient, LOL.

No, we're not going to see eye-to-eye. I'm focusing on the facts of the matter.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join