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

a reply to: UKTruth

Oh nice, you pick one instance of a general point that there are hundreds of images of that I used to dispel the 'peaceful and loving' myth of the thug protesters.

No, I think I have seen a pattern here. It seems that harsh language and the flipping of birds receives the same reactions as the violence and criminal acts.

Politics is a nasty game. Should be used to name calling and such by now. While the violence and criminal acts must be dealt with, it's funny to watch people piss and moan about harsh language and hand gestures.

i loved the man card line

It's not very often someone enjoys having their testicular fortitude questioned. Oh well.

was kind of like the reaction to the guy who stuck his fingers up and got punched in the face - oh wait no, he cried like a baby for weeks with all his left wing buddies crying too calling big bad Trump a Nazi. It's so easy drawing out the hypocrisy. So easy.

What does that have to do with me?

Anyway, I guess I should be glad that you are not calling them terrorists anymore.

What we're seeing is the disease otherwise known as liberalism reaching monumental heights.

The liberals and progressives have created an environment fueled on totalitarianism where they preach free speech, yet react strongly against those they don't agree with while taking a page out of the communist playbook. They trespass, provoke, insight, attempt to shut down private events, then turn around and cry victim when they get the response they were begging for.

It's a culture of zero accountability for one's actions while blaming everyone else for their personal situation. That they protest Trump while being funded by the likes of Soros makes it a dark comedy.

originally posted by: MysticPearl

It's a culture of zero accountability...

Indeed...

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.

In the good old days, they'd rip him out of that seat so fast, but today everybody's politically correct. Our country's going to hell with being politically correct.

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

We had four guys, they jumped on him, they were swinging and swinging... The next day we got killed in the press... that we were too rough. Give me a break. We don't want to be too politically correct anymore, right folks?

We had some people, some rough guys like we have right in here, and they started punching back. It was a beautiful thing.

In the good old days this doesn't happen because they used to treat them very, very rough. And when they protested once... they would not do it again so easily. But today they walk in, and they put the wrong finger up at everyone, and they get away with murder because we've become weak. We've become weak.

You know, part of the problem, and part of the reason it takes so long is, nobody wants to hurt each other anymore... And they're being politically correct the way they take them out. So it takes a little bit longer. And honestly, protesters realize it. They realize there are no consequences to protesting anymore. There used to be consequences. There are none anymore.

Our country has to toughen up, folks. We have to toughen up. These people are bringing us down. Remember that. They're bringing us down. ...These people are so bad for our country, you have no idea, folks, you have no idea. They contribute nothing. Nothing.

Hurting this country, folks. Hurting this country. Big mouth.

Get him out. Go home to mommy.

Go home and get a job. Go home. Get a job. Get a job!

These are not good people, folks.... These are not good people.... These are not good people. These are not the people that made our country great. But we're going to make it great again, but these are not the people. These are the people that are destroying our country.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Oh nice, you pick one instance of a general point that there are hundreds of images of that I used to dispel the 'peaceful and loving' myth of the thug protesters.

No, I think I have seen a pattern here. It seems that harsh language and the flipping of birds receives the same reactions as the violence and criminal acts.

Politics is a nasty game. Should be used to name calling and such by now. While the violence and criminal acts must be dealt with, it's funny to watch people piss and moan about harsh language and hand gestures.

i loved the man card line

It's not very often someone enjoys having their testicular fortitude questioned. Oh well.

was kind of like the reaction to the guy who stuck his fingers up and got punched in the face - oh wait no, he cried like a baby for weeks with all his left wing buddies crying too calling big bad Trump a Nazi. It's so easy drawing out the hypocrisy. So easy.

What does that have to do with me?

Anyway, I guess I should be glad that you are not calling them terrorists anymore.

I loved the man card line because it shows weakness of argument on your side. Also I don't really care about my 'testicular fortitude' being questioned. Think its pretty pathetic actually.

If it was just nasty aggressive behaviour by progressive terrorists you could almost just brush it off and pity the people doing it, but it turns to terrorism as defined by the FBI when violence is used (as it was) and also rights are infringed. The terrorists stopped Trump supporters from actually assembling peacefully by not letting them in to the venue. Haven't even started on the that yet. I can just keep on providing evidence of terrorism and thug behaviour all night because as I said at the start I have done my research.

a reply to: UKTruth

I loved the man card line because it shows weakness of argument on your side.

What argument is that? Other than saying that it seems like people are being little pansies, kind of like the little cry babies on the Left, i have not really posited any argument.

If it was just nasty aggressive behaviour by progressive terrorists you could almost just brush it off and pity the people doing it, but it turns to terrorism as defined by the FBI when violence is used (as it was) and also rights are infringed. The terrorists stopped Trump supporters from actually assembling peacefully by not letting them in to the venue. Haven't even started on the that yet. I can just keep on providing evidence of terrorism and thug behaviour all night because as I said at the start I have done my research.

I figured after your train wreck yesterday on the terrorist issue you would have moved on, but it appears that adding insult to injury on your own behalf seems logical to you. Oh well.

As far as research, you give yourself too much credit. Youtube videos and photos do not necessarily provide proper context or tell us what is exactly happening and why. But as we have seen over the "terrorist" issue, proper context is not your friend. In fact, you have already came to the conclusions you desire. At this point your posts are indicative of someone with their fingers in their ears while they hum the praises of their almighty candidate of choice.

No matter. You have fun with this issue. It has obviously become an obsession and I try to stay away from people like that because they are not in the right mind.

Former Bush speechwriter: Republicans are ‘looking into the abyss' with Trump

I don't want to start another thread on this guy, Trump, but I hope folks will read this critique of him.

I don’t know who this guy is but his remarks are some of the most biting and accurate critique of Trump I’ve seen.

It's emotional, yet has a clear-headed description of Trump's twisted ideas...

"For Republicans, accommodation with Trump is not just a choice; it is a verdict. None will come away unstained," Gerson wrote in the op-ed. "For evangelical Christians, it is the stain of hypocrisy — making their movement synonymous with exclusion and gullibility. For GOP job seekers, it is the stain of opportunism. (Consider the sad decline into sycophancy of Chris Christie.) For conservatives, it is the stain of betrayal — the equivalent of supporting George Wallace in 1968 as an authentic populist voice."

Gerson reflected on his piece Thursday morning, blasting Trump and his supporters' "Tear it all down" ideology as tantamount to destroying American traditions and institutions that go back to the nation's founding and going against everything he has "argued about politics and ideology for the last 30 years."

And he reserved his harshest criticism for Trump himself, slamming his "magical policy thinking, setting goals with no serious thought of how they might be achieved; his menacing encouragement of political violence; his disdain for ethnic and religious minorities, which has unleashed and emboldened racists and anti-Semites of every sort; his penchant for conspiracy theories, including a very dangerous vaccine denialism; his promises to conduct the war on terrorism by ordering war crimes, which would set up a constitutional crisis when the US military honorably refuses; his cynical manipulation of gullible religious leaders with tactics that border on blasphemy; his casual use of lies, which he defends even when exposed."

"Disruption in favor of what? Look at what you are doing! Look at what you have done! The Republican Party is now firmly harnessed to the wild, uncontrollable horses of fear and exclusion. It has already sustained damage with Latino voters that may take a generation to undo."

There is value and importance, Gerson wrote on Facebook, in standing up to Trump now, adding that "men and women who opposed Trump with all the influence available to them — a political column, a primary vote, a serious, civil talk with a neighbor — will look back on this terrible time with some satisfaction."

"They will be able to tell their children they did all they could, at a time when it really mattered," he wrote. "Whatever the outcome, there is value in standing up — now, when it might still shape events — and saying: I am not reconciled to Donald Trump, and will never be."

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.

Should not have said this.

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.

Fair enough - he was talking about a guy being violent

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

Should not have said this, but on some level I understand getting pissed off with a moron congratulating himself for annoying people.

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

Fair enough comment. You get a guy blowing a whistle when you try to speak to 1,000s who want to hear you. This is a classic case of impinging on others rights.

In the good old days, they'd rip him out of that seat so fast, but today everybody's politically correct. Our country's going to hell with being politically correct.

Spot on. Reagan knew how to deal with these types of people.

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

Shoudl not have said this.

We had four guys, they jumped on him, they were swinging and swinging... The next day we got killed in the press... that we were too rough. Give me a break. We don't want to be too politically correct anymore, right folks?

The guy being attacked started the swinging and got a beating. Good.

We had some people, some rough guys like we have right in here, and they started punching back. It was a beautiful thing.

Good. Someone punches you, you hit them back.

In the good old days this doesn't happen because they used to treat them very, very rough. And when they protested once... they would not do it again so easily. But today they walk in, and they put the wrong finger up at everyone, and they get away with murder because we've become weak. We've become weak.

Said this many times, if you want to flip the bird, then do it, but eventually you will get your nose broken and you shouldn't cry about it.

You know, part of the problem, and part of the reason it takes so long is, nobody wants to hurt each other anymore... And they're being politically correct the way they take them out. So it takes a little bit longer. And honestly, protesters realize it. They realize there are no consequences to protesting anymore. There used to be consequences. There are none anymore.

He is right here in a sense and also wrong. If protest turns violent, all means necessary to end it should be used. Otherwise just eject the person no matter how long it takes.

Our country has to toughen up, folks. We have to toughen up. These people are bringing us down. Remember that. They're bringing us down. ...These people are so bad for our country, you have no idea, folks, you have no idea. They contribute nothing. Nothing.

He is correct here and there is nothing that is encouraging violence here.

Hurting this country, folks. Hurting this country. Big mouth.

I agree with him here - he was talking about a guy screaming nothing coherent just to annoy people.

Get him out. Go home to mommy.

Not sure why this is in the list?

Go home and get a job. Go home. Get a job. Get a job!

Nothing wrong here - actually statistically speaking the unemployment rate is much higher in these left wing agitator groups.

These are not good people, folks.... These are not good people.... These are not good people. These are not the people that made our country great. But we're going to make it great again, but these are not the people. These are the people that are destroying our country.

Spot on.



Is that it? This justifies acts of terrorism?
It would be good to cite all the times Trump has also said not to be rough. For example, at the Trump rally in Chicago, attendees were told not to react, not to get involved as an official announcement. Still that is not news worthy I guess.

Half those statements above are mild. Some are ok also, if a little harsh (sometimes the truth hurts)

There are two or three ill advised and wrong comments from Trump above

a reply to: UKTruth


Those are examples of a candidate appealing to hate and violence. If you don't see it, that's on you. You're in the minority.

originally posted by: Willtell
Former Bush speechwriter: Republicans are ‘looking into the abyss' with Trump

I don't want to start another thread on this guy, Trump, but I hope folks will read this critique of him.

I don’t know who this guy is but his remarks are some of the most biting and accurate critique of Trump I’ve seen.

It's emotional, yet has a clear-headed description of Trump's twisted ideas...

"For Republicans, accommodation with Trump is not just a choice; it is a verdict. None will come away unstained," Gerson wrote in the op-ed. "For evangelical Christians, it is the stain of hypocrisy — making their movement synonymous with exclusion and gullibility. For GOP job seekers, it is the stain of opportunism. (Consider the sad decline into sycophancy of Chris Christie.) For conservatives, it is the stain of betrayal — the equivalent of supporting George Wallace in 1968 as an authentic populist voice."

Gerson reflected on his piece Thursday morning, blasting Trump and his supporters' "Tear it all down" ideology as tantamount to destroying American traditions and institutions that go back to the nation's founding and going against everything he has "argued about politics and ideology for the last 30 years."

And he reserved his harshest criticism for Trump himself, slamming his "magical policy thinking, setting goals with no serious thought of how they might be achieved; his menacing encouragement of political violence; his disdain for ethnic and religious minorities, which has unleashed and emboldened racists and anti-Semites of every sort; his penchant for conspiracy theories, including a very dangerous vaccine denialism; his promises to conduct the war on terrorism by ordering war crimes, which would set up a constitutional crisis when the US military honorably refuses; his cynical manipulation of gullible religious leaders with tactics that border on blasphemy; his casual use of lies, which he defends even when exposed."

"Disruption in favor of what? Look at what you are doing! Look at what you have done! The Republican Party is now firmly harnessed to the wild, uncontrollable horses of fear and exclusion. It has already sustained damage with Latino voters that may take a generation to undo."

There is value and importance, Gerson wrote on Facebook, in standing up to Trump now, adding that "men and women who opposed Trump with all the influence available to them — a political column, a primary vote, a serious, civil talk with a neighbor — will look back on this terrible time with some satisfaction."

"They will be able to tell their children they did all they could, at a time when it really mattered," he wrote. "Whatever the outcome, there is value in standing up — now, when it might still shape events — and saying: I am not reconciled to Donald Trump, and will never be."

I tried to read through this - and there are some very valid points, especially regarding promises without substance. I think Trump is guilty of that to an extent. he does not go deep enough on the 'how'.

That said, I lost interest when the article spiralled into a minorities discussion. A large cross section of minorities are supporting Trump. The article started off ok, but my scepticism on the views of a Bush speech writer was confirmed unfortunately.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth


Those are examples of a candidate appealing to hate and violence. If you don't see it, that's on you. You're in the minority.

I don't see it at all - they are pretty mild and things you hear often when people speak to each other - especially as the vast majority of Trump supporters are not hateful or violent. There is a disconnect there.

Nearly 8m have already voted for him

Clinton 8.66m
Trump 7.54m
Sander 5.91m
Cruz 5.48m
Rubio 3.39m

Thats about 25% of everyone has voted so far across both parties. Do you really think hate and violence is the driver?
Why are those 7.5m people not out agitating and rioting at rivals events? If they were being incited and encouraged into violence and to feel hate, why are they not acting that way?

So far we have had one supporter punch a guy winding him up and a few clashes with almost no arrests of Trump supporters. The rest has been police dragging out people from rallies trying to cause trouble. Compare that with the organised violence and constant hate speech against not just Trump but his supporters too.

If you REALLY think its Trump causing division, then why have there been so many riots even before he turned up on the political scene? Much worse than Chicago.

America has been divided for many years and it got much worse from 2014.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

I loved the man card line because it shows weakness of argument on your side.

What argument is that? Other than saying that it seems like people are being little pansies, kind of like the little cry babies on the Left, i have not really posited any argument.

If it was just nasty aggressive behaviour by progressive terrorists you could almost just brush it off and pity the people doing it, but it turns to terrorism as defined by the FBI when violence is used (as it was) and also rights are infringed. The terrorists stopped Trump supporters from actually assembling peacefully by not letting them in to the venue. Haven't even started on the that yet. I can just keep on providing evidence of terrorism and thug behaviour all night because as I said at the start I have done my research.

I figured after your train wreck yesterday on the terrorist issue you would have moved on, but it appears that adding insult to injury on your own behalf seems logical to you. Oh well.

As far as research, you give yourself too much credit. Youtube videos and photos do not necessarily provide proper context or tell us what is exactly happening and why. But as we have seen over the "terrorist" issue, proper context is not your friend. In fact, you have already came to the conclusions you desire. At this point your posts are indicative of someone with their fingers in their ears while they hum the praises of their almighty candidate of choice.

No matter. You have fun with this issue. It has obviously become an obsession and I try to stay away from people like that because they are not in the right mind.

I don't disagree that the little cry babies on the left are being silly. I am just underlining the fact that after all the crying about Trumps words, it's a little rich to tell say Trump supporters should 'man up' and not worry about people snarling in their faces and giving them the bird. Back to that leftist hypocrisy.

Do you mean the train wreck that showed clearly under FBI definition, the acts in Chicago by the progressive left were indeed terrorism? I guess the facts of that still hurt.

I am quite happy to go on with details - we're only scratching the surface. As i said, I spend hrs a day on this stuff and if you like we can keep going on it. Just the basics are enough to make it pretty clear the 'peaceful and loving, mere expression of rights' story by the progressive terrorists is a ridiculous lie.

I don't ever expect the left leaning among us to own up to it though. Never happens. As i said, they'd argue black was white and white was black just to support their vile narrative.

a reply to: UKTruth

We shall see... All throughout history there have been people fighting in favor of the hateful and violent. Time will tell, but based on the history of the conservative movement and the divisive, violent rhetoric coming from Trump, I suspect you're on the wrong side of history, my friend.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth

We shall see... All throughout history there have been people fighting in favor of the hateful and violent. Time will tell, but based on the history of the conservative movement and the divisive, violent rhetoric coming from Trump, I suspect you're on the wrong side of history, my friend.

I hope not. One can never be sure of course about an individual and their future intent. We can be sure on what has already come to pass though and surely even the most ardent democrat would not deny that the violence and division over the last decade in America has worsened (significantly) That is not really Trumps fault . I do think both conservatives and liberals have played their part though. I despise extremists on either side.

a reply to: MysticPearl

Ad hom???? Because you're acting like you're some sort of referee here and I called you on it? Not even close.

Ad hominem is not "emotion" as you seem to think, but would rather be a challenge to some reasonable argument you made based on attacking you or discrediting you PERSONALLY. "Emotion" has nothing to do with it. And you didn't make an argument, you merely waded into one and started trying to discredit one side not by logic or counter evidence, but merely by "declaration."

He "posted evidence"? Sure. He posted information. In the most general sense, that can be called "evidence." But what does the "evidence" show? People who are angry at each other? Okay, I'll buy that. Perhaps you could show here where I claimed otherwise? No, actually you can't, because I haven't.

The claim is also not the heinous "strawman" being foisted on us that someone has claimed that the protesters were "loving and peaceful." What happy BS! They are political ACTIVISTS. They are there to make a poltical STATEMENT, that being, that they were not going to allow another Trump rally where protesters were kicked, punched in the face, and beaten simply for their dissent. No one here, and certainly not me, has claimed that the protesters were "nice guys" ... how ridiculous!


The University of Chicago is not "private property" and this was not a "private event." There was after all open registration online and they weren't even checking tickets at the door. But beyond that, you think calls for beating protesters and sending them out on stretchers are "funny"? even if they were technically "trespassing" (ever heard of civil disobedience?)

Well, that says all that needs to be said, doesn't it? You find thuggery amusing. You should definitely vote Trump.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MysticPearl

Ad hom???? Because you're acting like you're some sort of referee here and I called you on it? Not even close.

Ad hominem is not "emotion" as you seem to think, but would rather be a challenge to some reasonable argument you made based on attacking you or discrediting you PERSONALLY. "Emotion" has nothing to do with it. And you didn't make an argument, you merely waded into one and started trying to discredit one side not by logic or counter evidence, but merely by "declaration."

He "posted evidence"? Sure. He posted information. In the most general sense, that can be called "evidence." But what does the "evidence" show? People who are angry at each other? Okay, I'll buy that. Perhaps you could show here where I claimed otherwise? No, actually you can't, because I haven't.

The claim is also not the heinous "strawman" being foisted on us that someone has claimed that the protesters were "loving and peaceful." What happy BS! They are political ACTIVISTS. They are there to make a poltical STATEMENT, that being, that they were not going to allow another Trump rally where protesters were kicked, punched in the face, and beaten simply for their dissent. No one here, and certainly not me, has claimed that the protesters were "nice guys" ... how ridiculous!


The University of Chicago is not "private property" and this was not a "private event." There was after all open registration online and they weren't even checking tickets at the door. But beyond that, you think calls for beating protesters and sending them out on stretchers are "funny"? even if they were technically "trespassing" (ever heard of civil disobedience?)

Well, that says all that needs to be said, doesn't it? You find thuggery amusing. You should definitely vote Trump.

moveon.org characterised the Chicago 'protest' (I say terrorism) as loving, courageous and peaceful - AFTER the event.
Labelling it activism does not change the fact that a group of people came together, organised by left wing groups, and used violence and intimidation to impinge on the rights of others to further political aims.

a reply to: UKTruth

I don't disagree that the little cry babies on the left are being silly. I am just underlining the fact that after all the crying about Trumps words, it's a little rich to tell say Trump supporters should 'man up' and not worry about people snarling in their faces and giving them the bird. Back to that leftist hypocrisy.

Irony is not necessarily hypocrisy. You should know the difference.

Do you mean the train wreck that showed clearly under FBI definition, the acts in Chicago by the progressive left were indeed terrorism? I guess the facts of that still hurt.

Why would it hurt? You have already conceded that under any real legal review, your myopic view on the matter is incorrect. If your opinion was correct, why haven't terrorism charges been filed? Surely there is enough Youtube evidence, right? Or considering that you earlier stated that this all boils-down to your personal "belief", perhaps the authorities do not share your religious absurdity.

I am quite happy to go on with details - we're only scratching the surface. As i said, I spend hrs a day on this stuff and if you like we can keep going on it. Just the basics are enough to make it pretty clear the 'peaceful and loving, mere expression of rights' story by the progressive terrorists is a ridiculous lie.

Obsess much? Well, I do suppose since this issue has become your article of blind faith, it is not unreasonable to expect you may become an "extremist".

I don't ever expect the left leaning among us to own up to it though. Never happens. As i said, they'd argue black was white and white was black just to support their vile narrative.

Similar to what you have done in this thread? You have flip-flopped and bounced around so much to fit your narrative that I think this is the example of hypocrisy, not irony, you have been looking for.

But please, by all means, continue to entertain us with your vast legal knowledge and presentation of Youtube videos. Because as we all know, if it's on Youtube, it must be true.

This "love and peace" strawman referring to the totality of the Chicago Trump protest has been fallaciously trumped up repeatedly here, but indeed, that comment or one like it is made on their front page found here: MoveOn.org.

That does seem rather ironic, but then again, they're addressing the overall character of the crowd of 10,000 or so protesters and activists.

I don't write for MoveOn in Chicago, nor am I a member, nor have I stated any support for their actions. In point of fact, I have stated, as have others here, that I am opposed to the en masse interruption of an event like the rally.

What the facts show, even in photos, videos, etc. that have been posted here, over and over again is that there were, indeed, altercations between the two "sides" at the rally, supporters and dissenters.

Some folks were very upset and passionate, on both sides.

Some folks took violent impromptu actions, on both sides.

Can anyone show us where moveon.org openly advocated for violent action before or since?

You know, like Donald J. Trump has done multiple times in his rallies against protesters?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
This "love and peace" strawman referring to the totality of the Chicago Trump protest has been fallaciously trumped up repeatedly here, but indeed, that comment or one like it is made on their front page found here: MoveOn.org.

That does seem rather ironic, but then again, they're addressing the overall character of the crowd of 10,000 or so protesters and activists.

I don't write for MoveOn in Chicago, nor am I a member, nor have I stated any support for their actions. In point of fact, I have stated, as have others here, that I am opposed to the en masse interruption of an event like the rally.

What the facts show, even in photos, videos, etc. that have been posted here, over and over again is that there were, indeed, altercations between the two "sides" at the rally, supporters and dissenters.

Some folks were very upset and passionate, on both sides.

Some folks took violent impromptu actions, on both sides.

Can anyone show us where moveon.org openly advocated for violent action before or since?

You know, like Donald J. Trump has done multiple times in his rallies against protesters?

This rather hotly disputed debate started with a challenge to name the progressive movement I was talking about.

I named moveon.org, with their 8m members . A group (movement) that has claimed responsibility for helping to organise the event. I have already posted their specific event statement made after the event in which they claim responsibility and characterised the actions of the people who 'protested' as courageous, peaceful and loving. I have shown them to be liars.

I have already said that some of the language used by Trump and the actions of some of his supporters are unacceptable. That does not exonerate moveon.org though and the fact they lied about the events and used hateful and spiteful rhetoric says a lot about their real character.

There is a protest scheduled shortly which is organised to convene and march to Trump Tower to show that Trumps language and policies have opposition. As long as there is no violence, this is a good thing and is exactly how a protest should be run. It is night and day compared to a what moveon.org and others did - purposely trying to stop someone else's rights through intimidation and violence.

This is why I will continue to categorise what was done in Chicago as terrorism and not protest. My view is that all people should totally reject violent protest and understand that it is not allowed under the first amendment. Some of the excuses that have used the first amendment as a broad brush exoneration of what happened are really sad. Dangerous too in that so many people seem not to understand the constitution and think they can run riot and excuse themselves under a false pretence.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't disagree that the little cry babies on the left are being silly. I am just underlining the fact that after all the crying about Trumps words, it's a little rich to tell say Trump supporters should 'man up' and not worry about people snarling in their faces and giving them the bird. Back to that leftist hypocrisy.

Irony is not necessarily hypocrisy. You should know the difference.

Do you mean the train wreck that showed clearly under FBI definition, the acts in Chicago by the progressive left were indeed terrorism? I guess the facts of that still hurt.

Why would it hurt? You have already conceded that under any real legal review, your myopic view on the matter is incorrect. If your opinion was correct, why haven't terrorism charges been filed? Surely there is enough Youtube evidence, right? Or considering that you earlier stated that this all boils-down to your personal "belief", perhaps the authorities do not share your religious absurdity.

I am quite happy to go on with details - we're only scratching the surface. As i said, I spend hrs a day on this stuff and if you like we can keep going on it. Just the basics are enough to make it pretty clear the 'peaceful and loving, mere expression of rights' story by the progressive terrorists is a ridiculous lie.

Obsess much? Well, I do suppose since this issue has become your article of blind faith, it is not unreasonable to expect you may become an "extremist".

I don't ever expect the left leaning among us to own up to it though. Never happens. As i said, they'd argue black was white and white was black just to support their vile narrative.

Similar to what you have done in this thread? You have flip-flopped and bounced around so much to fit your narrative that I think this is the example of hypocrisy, not irony, you have been looking for.

But please, by all means, continue to entertain us with your vast legal knowledge and presentation of Youtube videos. Because as we all know, if it's on Youtube, it must be true.

I see your hateful rhetoric and personal insults continue. Exactly what I would expect.
It won't work with me. I am not afraid to speak the truth, and yes I do obsess about it.

Why have terror charges not been brought? If moveon.org had openly made a statement that they were going to break the law then I am sure they would have been charged. You seem to be hiding behind the fact they have not publicly given us details of the conversations and tactics they planned. Do you actually think they would prejudice themselves in this way? Is that your argument? This is the only reason they would not be charged in a court of law, but the actual events showed us what happened. If you really want to live in a world where you believe moveon.org is not responsible and told their supporters to be loving, peaceful and courageous, that is up to you.

I wonder if a group of thousands of Trump supporters rioted at a Bernie rally and he admitted organising the event and hurling insults at Bernie in his statement about the event after the fact would you be saying the same things? I don't expect an honest answer.

I would be calling him a terrorist too if that happened.

a reply to: pirhanna

I dont agree with everything Trump says. But this violence is almost entirely being instigated by far left thugs.

I know, smashing their faces against those defenseless fists. Peaceful protests at Trump rallies get met by violence. Trump promised that he would pay the legal bills of anyone physically attacking a protester. That was a lie, of course, he still hasn't footed the bill for John Franklin McGraw:

Donald Trump says he's "instructed my people" to explore the possibility of helping pay the legal bills for a 78-year-old man charged with assault at a Trump rally.

www.chicagotribune.com...

Yeah, they're "looking into it." Trump is a cowardly, lying, bully.

Contemplate this: