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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

You are blind. The news has been full of Trumpisms since summer of last year of racially divisive speech and rhetoric. How do you think it must feel to be a Muslim-America these days? How about asking these guys?

What about THIS?

In a press conference Friday morning in Palm Beach, Florida, Trump defended attendees at his events who go after anyone who seems different. He claimed that the protesters are the ones who are violent, and they deserve to be taken out.

"It was a guy who was swinging -- was very loud -- and then started swinging at the audience. And you know what? It swung back," Trump said.

"And I thought it was very, very appropriate," he added. "He was swinging. He was hitting people. And the audience hit back. And that's what we need a little bit more of. Now, I'm not talking about just a protestor. This was a guy who should not have been allowed to do what he did. And frankly, if you want to know the truth, the police were very, very restrained."

Is that acceptable behavior? Or should a Presidential candidate be endorsing such behavior?

I can't see anything wrong with that quote - a violent protester should be physically restrained until they are incapacitated. What do you want? Should you allow someone to swing punches at you because they have the right to express themselves! So what he said was absolutely respectable behaviour. I would quickly lose respect for someone if they just let themselves of colleagues/friends get hit.

We could go on all day posting links. I have hundreds that paint Trump in a positive light with both majority and minority alike.
The link you posted is just a ridiculous example of the media. Someone gets beaten up in a racially motivated attack and it's Trump's fault because they support him? Are you going to give Trump credit for racial harmony too , because some of his supporters and a BLM member recently got together to talk and ended up hugging. So we can conclude then that Trump is a great race healer??? Stop reading left wing media to draw your conclusions. You dont even know if the whole story was made up. Wouldn't be the first time.

Also, I never said his speech was not divisive. It is politically divisive. Racial division is covered by the left.

a reply to: UKTruth

Trump is saying that it is ok to beat up a protester, not physically restrain them... Plus you completely ignored my first link.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Trump is saying that it is ok to beat up a protester, not physically restrain them... Plus you completely ignored my first link.

I just added a comment above on the first link.
I don't think there is anything wrong with a person getting hit if they go into a crowd and start throwing punches. Don't start a physical fight if you don't what to get beaten up. Simple enough. Easy rules to follow.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Trump is saying that it is ok to beat up a protester, not physically restrain them... Plus you completely ignored my first link.

I just added a comment above on the first link.
I don't think there is anything wrong with a person getting hit if they go into a crowd and start throwing punches. Don't start a physical fight if you don't what to get beaten up. Simple enough. Easy rules to follow.

That's what the police are for, but that particular incident that Trump is talking about is also noted by the fact that the police piled on top of the protester and continued to beat him (which is why Trump said that the police were acting appropriately at the end of the quote).

Restraining someone is one thing, but beating the hell out of someone, even if they started it, isn't going to solve anything.

The link you posted is just a ridiculous example of the media. Someone gets beaten up in a racially motivated attack and it's Trump's fault because they support him? Are you going to give Trump credit for racial harmony too , because some of his supporters and a BLM member recently got together to talk and ended up hugging. So we can conclude then that Trump is a great race healer??? Stop reading left wing media to draw your conclusions. You dont even know if the whole story was made up. Wouldn't be the first time.

So what do you think is more likely, that the left wing media made that story up or something like that ACTUALLY happened (in Kansas, I might add)? A shame on America: Hate attacks on U.S. Muslims are spiking — and where’s the outrage?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Trump is saying that it is ok to beat up a protester, not physically restrain them... Plus you completely ignored my first link.

I just added a comment above on the first link.
I don't think there is anything wrong with a person getting hit if they go into a crowd and start throwing punches. Don't start a physical fight if you don't what to get beaten up. Simple enough. Easy rules to follow.

That's what the police are for, but that particular incident that Trump is talking about is also noted by the fact that the police piled on top of the protester and continued to beat him (which is why Trump said that the police were acting appropriately at the end of the quote).

Restraining someone is one thing, but beating the hell out of someone, even if they started it, isn't going to solve anything.

You have to let the police do their job. If they were excessive then they can answer for it. I am going to find it hard to have any sympathy for a guy who starts the violence and then cries when it is finished for him. It might teach him a valuable lesson so he refrains from violence in the future.

As for the rise in racist attacks - are you saying that trend in America is Trumps fault? Racial division has been driven hard by the left for years. I rather suspect the fault lies somewhere there. Either way, it needs to be a bit more conclusive than that article.

We're just never going to reach any common ground here - so best to leave it as a simple case of disagreement.

a reply to: UKTruth

Well the event goers DIDN'T let the police do their job until they had beat on the protester a beat. Then the police piled on.

We're just never going to reach any common ground here - so best to leave it as a simple case of disagreement.

Yea, god forbid we try to treat everyone with civility... I guess turning the other cheek is just a bunch of a bull#.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Well the event goers DIDN'T let the police do their job until they had beat on the protester a beat. Then the police piled on.

We're just never going to reach any common ground here - so best to leave it as a simple case of disagreement.

Yea, god forbid we try to treat everyone with civility... I guess turning the other cheek is just a bunch of a bull#.

I am afraid if you want to beat on people and expect them to turn the other cheek, you are not living in the real world. I find the idea noble, but its not the reality of life. Simply amazed you expect someone to get hit and just wait till their attacker can be restrained as gently as possible.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Newsflash! When you act like a bully to a large part of people who disagree with you, they push back. What did you expect when Trump started his campaign? That the people he was pissing off would just roll over and take it?

In the same way, when someone turns up to a Trump rally and tries to bully everyone there by hurling abuse and stopping people speaking, what do you think is going to happen? Do YOU think you can piss all those people off and they will all just roll over? See how that works? Consider your hypocrisy called out.

Fact is Chicago did not happen because a large group of people responded naturally to what Trump was saying. It was an organised and recruited effort to cause chaos, not a spontaneous reaction to anything Trump said. It was organised by his political enemies. This is about politics, not the language Trump uses to deal with disruptors.

So the protesters got together and just randomly decided to pick on Trump and not any of the other Republican candidates? It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rhetoric Trump has been using on the campaign trail?

There was nothing random about Chicago. It was organised by left leaning organisations. My view is that they did it because Trump is a serious threat politicly. As for the smattering of other protesters at each event, I suspect hat has more to do with an insane amount of attack ads demonising him as a racist than him saying he wants to punch someone.

Yea it wasn't random because Trump says inciteful things that piss people off, prompting THOSE people to turn around and do things like in Chicago. How are you not getting this detail?

It was recruited and organised. Nothing more than marketing to get a crowd. Responsibility has already been claimed for it. If I had enough money I could get a crowd of 1,000-2,000 people to turn up anywhere I wanted them to. I don't know why this fact will not get through to you.

Maybe because actions like this aren't and don't happen at other political candidate events. That is just a sticking point that you are trying to sweep under the rug.

Yes it is trumps fault soros hired people to intentionally cause trouble at a trump rally.

Just like it is Bernie's fault when trump dies the exact same thing to him right?

" but trump is saying terrible things and Bernie isn't "

I think almost if if Bernie's positions are terrible things, and he keeps saying them, so he is the devil.

And a racist, against whites.

aint nobody going to save us, the mess we are in took decades.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Well the event goers DIDN'T let the police do their job until they had beat on the protester a beat. Then the police piled on.

We're just never going to reach any common ground here - so best to leave it as a simple case of disagreement.

Yea, god forbid we try to treat everyone with civility... I guess turning the other cheek is just a bunch of a bull#.

I am afraid if you want to beat on people and expect them to turn the other cheek, you are not living in the real world. I find the idea noble, but its not the reality of life. Simply amazed you expect someone to get hit and just wait till their attacker can be restrained as gently as possible.

We should back up a bit. It's not clear what Trump is talking about with a protester being violent. He may have just been there protesting peacefully and got sucker punched.

But video surfaced Thursday of a Trump supporter sucker-punching an African-American man, Rakeem Jones, who was being escorted out of a rally by police. The cops then piled upon Jones.

That was from my link.

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Newsflash! When you act like a bully to a large part of people who disagree with you, they push back. What did you expect when Trump started his campaign? That the people he was pissing off would just roll over and take it?

In the same way, when someone turns up to a Trump rally and tries to bully everyone there by hurling abuse and stopping people speaking, what do you think is going to happen? Do YOU think you can piss all those people off and they will all just roll over? See how that works? Consider your hypocrisy called out.

Fact is Chicago did not happen because a large group of people responded naturally to what Trump was saying. It was an organised and recruited effort to cause chaos, not a spontaneous reaction to anything Trump said. It was organised by his political enemies. This is about politics, not the language Trump uses to deal with disruptors.

So the protesters got together and just randomly decided to pick on Trump and not any of the other Republican candidates? It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rhetoric Trump has been using on the campaign trail?

There was nothing random about Chicago. It was organised by left leaning organisations. My view is that they did it because Trump is a serious threat politicly. As for the smattering of other protesters at each event, I suspect hat has more to do with an insane amount of attack ads demonising him as a racist than him saying he wants to punch someone.

Yea it wasn't random because Trump says inciteful things that piss people off, prompting THOSE people to turn around and do things like in Chicago. How are you not getting this detail?

It was recruited and organised. Nothing more than marketing to get a crowd. Responsibility has already been claimed for it. If I had enough money I could get a crowd of 1,000-2,000 people to turn up anywhere I wanted them to. I don't know why this fact will not get through to you.

Maybe because actions like this aren't and don't happen at other political candidate events. That is just a sticking point that you are trying to sweep under the rug.

Yes it is trumps fault soros hired people to intentionally cause trouble at a trump rally.

You have proof of this?

Just like it is Bernie's fault when trump dies the exact same thing to him right?

" but trump is saying terrible things and Bernie isn't "

I don't know what you are talking about here. Neither Bernie nor Trump are dead.

I think almost if if Bernie's positions are terrible things, and he keeps saying them, so he is the devil.

And a racist, against whites.

I'm confused. I don't recall this thread being about Bernie Sanders, or are you unable to have a conversation about Donald Trump without dragging some other politician into the mix?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Well the event goers DIDN'T let the police do their job until they had beat on the protester a beat. Then the police piled on.

We're just never going to reach any common ground here - so best to leave it as a simple case of disagreement.

Yea, god forbid we try to treat everyone with civility... I guess turning the other cheek is just a bunch of a bull#.

I am afraid if you want to beat on people and expect them to turn the other cheek, you are not living in the real world. I find the idea noble, but its not the reality of life. Simply amazed you expect someone to get hit and just wait till their attacker can be restrained as gently as possible.

We should back up a bit. It's not clear what Trump is talking about with a protester being violent. He may have just been there protesting peacefully and got sucker punched.

But video surfaced Thursday of a Trump supporter sucker-punching an African-American man, Rakeem Jones, who was being escorted out of a rally by police. The cops then piled upon Jones.

That was from my link.

I don't agree with that sucker punch, nor the rhetoric from the attacker after it. I think the guy who got punched is a moron though. There is another thread on it, but my reaction is that the fact it was at a Trump rally is not really relevant. As i said on the other thread, walk down a street and give the bird to 100 people you pass. See how long it takes to get your nose broken.

By the way , I have to say that the link on rising race attacks is a really poor article. I read through it more detail and Salon (not unlike them) have used a source that completely and utterly lied about Trump statements. For example this quote:

"And you might not care if Donald Trump says he’s going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants, because you’re not one."

I would like anyone to find me anywhere a place where Trump said he was going to round up all the hispanic immigrants. Just more race baiting in that article.

The stats for that article were also taken after the San Bernadino shooting. Does it really surprise you that after that some morons will go out and attack mosques more than usual? Don't see an association to Trump at all.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Moveon. Org, funded heavily by soros, already took responsibility lol

a reply to: UKTruth

Who's to Blame for the Rise of Hate Groups? Donald Trump, for One

Is the SPLC a better source?

What distinguishes these murders from the year's multitude of mass killings is that they're symptoms of an uptick in extremism, according to a new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC's analysis found that the number of hate groups and anti-government "patriot" groups in the United States both grew by 14 percent between 2014 and 2015: Hate groups increased from 784 groups to 892 last year, while patriot groups grew from 874 to 998.

The SPLC sees a very clear cause for this jump in ideological extremism: in large part, the rhetoric of the 2016 presidential candidates. "After seeing the bloodshed that defined 2015, our politicians should have worked to defuse this anger and bring us together as a nation," Mark Potok, editor of the report, wrote. "Unfortunately, the carnage did little to dissuade some political figures from spouting incendiary rhetoric about minorities. In fact, they frequently exploited the anger and polarization across the country for political gain."

This is very clearly targeted at Donald Trump, who has made xenophobic, nativist language the center of his White House bid. And that language has had very real, very troubling effects. In August, two Boston men who severely beat a Hispanic man said they were inspired by Trump's earlier condemnation of South American immigrants as murderers and rapists. (It was the Washington Post's Janell Ross who observed the connection between the man who threatened to blow up a mosque in Virginia and Trump's subsequent doubling down on his platform to ban all Muslim immigrants from entering into the U.S.)

CBC agrees.

originally posted by: Sargeras
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Moveon. Org, funded heavily by soros, already took responsibility lol

Well? Do you have the evidence of that funding? Or are we just making vague assumptions and just laughing them away in the hopes people don't notice your poor sourcing?

PS: By the way, the only people saying that moveon took credit for it are far right sources. Though what moveon actually did was just congratulate the protesters. They didn't actually take credit for sending them.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Who's to Blame for the Rise of Hate Groups? Donald Trump, for One

Is the SPLC a better source?

What distinguishes these murders from the year's multitude of mass killings is that they're symptoms of an uptick in extremism, according to a new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC's analysis found that the number of hate groups and anti-government "patriot" groups in the United States both grew by 14 percent between 2014 and 2015: Hate groups increased from 784 groups to 892 last year, while patriot groups grew from 874 to 998.

The SPLC sees a very clear cause for this jump in ideological extremism: in large part, the rhetoric of the 2016 presidential candidates. "After seeing the bloodshed that defined 2015, our politicians should have worked to defuse this anger and bring us together as a nation," Mark Potok, editor of the report, wrote. "Unfortunately, the carnage did little to dissuade some political figures from spouting incendiary rhetoric about minorities. In fact, they frequently exploited the anger and polarization across the country for political gain."

This is very clearly targeted at Donald Trump, who has made xenophobic, nativist language the center of his White House bid. And that language has had very real, very troubling effects. In August, two Boston men who severely beat a Hispanic man said they were inspired by Trump's earlier condemnation of South American immigrants as murderers and rapists. (It was the Washington Post's Janell Ross who observed the connection between the man who threatened to blow up a mosque in Virginia and Trump's subsequent doubling down on his platform to ban all Muslim immigrants from entering into the U.S.)

CBC agrees.

That article gives a political opinion on the link to Trump with no data to substantiate the link. Paris and San Bernadino happened in 2015. Black Lives Matter became more prominent. Much happened in 2015 that could be a driver for increased racial tension.

I am not interested in interpretations with politically driven agendas to make broad brush associations - especially when they use that unqualified opinion in the title. It is a dead give away for bias. This type of media BS is part of the problem.

a reply to: UKTruth

That was from the SPLC... See? SPLC

You are denying the obvious here. We both know that the rise can be directly attributed to rhetoric from Donald Trump. Maybe not solely attributable, but a good percentage of it definitely contributed to it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

That was from the SPLC... See? SPLC

You are denying the obvious here. We both know that the rise can be directly attributed to rhetoric from Donald Trump. Maybe not solely attributable, but a good percentage of it definitely contributed to it.

I know where the article is from. There is nothing in the data that links things to Trump.
You have absolutely no basis in fact to say a good majority of it was attributed to Trump. As I said, Paris, San Bernadino, the continued rise of BLM, race riots in Ferguson. You are just reaching to blame that on trump too. It's nonsense. I would point out that the same source says that hate groups were a higher number in 2013 than they are now. In fact the trend has been up since 2001, with 2014 being the only year lower than 2015 since that period.

The amount given to charity has also risen in 2015. Should we credit Trump?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Sargeras
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Moveon. Org, funded heavily by soros, already took responsibility lol

Well? Do you have the evidence of that funding? Or are we just making vague assumptions and just laughing them away in the hopes people don't notice your poor sourcing?

PS: By the way, the only people saying that moveon took credit for it are far right sources. Though what moveon actually did was just congratulate the protesters. They didn't actually take credit for sending them.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Now I misrepresented something. Care to tell me which argument I misrepresented? Because you've failed to do that.

I already have. You are trying to go in circles because you realize the hole you have dug.

People are equating Trump to Hitler, Mussolini, and his followers to Nazis. Are Hitler and the Nazis good or evil?

Irrelevant. Let's take a look at what you said...again:

"Trump said some things I don't like, therefor he is evil". This non-sequitur, invented by people whom have never met Trump and have little clue regarding who he is, is the leading factor to the hateful and divisive rhetoric towards Trump and his supporters. It's false; it's nonsensical; it's childish; and it is the first step towards authoritarianism.

Now why would my opinion on the "evilness" of Hitler or Nazis matter? You provided a quoted statement. Who are these people that say "Trump said some things I don't like, therefor he is evil"? Whom said it?

You said it. You created the non-sequitur so that you could subsequently tear it down.

All while you try desperately to misrepresent my argument and refute it.

I've misrepresented nothing. Your words, in proper context, is all I have used in this discourse.

The fact remains that you tried to start this conversation by saying words did not have consequence, which is absurd. Then you tried to make it some philosophical nuttery only to finally concede on that point.

That is when you decided to create the straw man fallacy by making claims of people believing him to be evil since he says things they don't like. How do you know they think he is evil? Because of the signs they have in their hands...none of which say anything about evil?

To come to the conclusion you have, you must make a lot of assumptions and, well, fabricate bull#.

You have no idea whether or not his detractors believe him to be evil and you cannot attribute that quoted statement you provided. You made it up.

Not very intellectually honest of you.