Anti-Trump Rioters chant "Make California Mexico Again!”, beat up Trump supporters

originally posted by: SheopleNation
Here we have a perfect example of the mental disease called liberalism.

Now some are supporting violent racist anti-American terrorists. This is sick. ~$heopleNation

The only defense of violence seen here is on the part of Trump supporters.

I don't think that has much to do with liberalism.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Why YES there G.

Trump supporters go around waving around Mexican flags and go around beating up themselves!

They sure do!

a reply to: syrinx high priest

SOROS set the groundwork and PAYED for most of it ...the Nazi says VIVA LA-RAZA and pays to disrupt.
NOTHING to see here.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why YES there G.

Trump supporters go around waving around Mexican flags and go around beating up themselves!

They sure do!

I haven't seen that, although that wouldn't surprise me, given that Mr. Trump's campaign tries to find the most volatile locations for their rallies apparently hoping for such interchanges.

What I have seen is Trump supporters cold-cocking someone being led out of an arena by security like the cowards many are, or ganging up and kicking someone while they're down (cheered on from the podium by Donald J. Trump) or spraying a kid's face full of pepper spray because he defended himself when a Trump supporter waved a sign in his face, etc., etc.

All violence is wrong, Neo. Why can't the typical Trump supporter simply own that?

Let's not forget who is responsible for the US taking these parts from Mexico: Democrats.

But at least they gave the Mexican government a sizeable cash award to help pay for damages and assumed Mexico's debt to US citizens at the time.

The rough translation of this is that Democrats started the war then bought the property from Mexico and today, US citizens of Mexican decent support the Democrat party.

originally posted by: paradoxious
Let's not forget who is responsible for the US taking these parts from Mexico: Democrats.

But at least they gave the Mexican government a sizeable cash award to help pay for damages and assumed Mexico's debt to US citizens at the time.

The rough translation of this is that Democrats started the war then bought the property from Mexico and today, US citizens of Mexican decent support the Democrat party.

How do you figure?

The United States was at war with Mexico from 1846-48. That ended in a treaty in which Mexico ceded lands to the US.

How are "the Democrats" responsible for that again?

a reply to: paradoxious

Good point about Democrats.

President James K. Polk was a Democrat, thus all the Cabinet was.

Polk also had a big Democrat presence in Congress when the war with Mexico started.

Look you guys really want to go back in history and decide who owns what?

News flash nations have been conquering nations for millennia. Tribes of Natives were constantly at war with each other and the pioneers at the same time..

None of that is relevant to modern society, we are in a new age and California is a part of the US and that isn't changing for the foreseeable future.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: paradoxious

Good point about Democrats.

President James K. Polk was a Democrat, thus all the Cabinet was.

Polk also had a big Democrat presence in Congress when the war with Mexico started.

The United States was at war with Mexico; the United States took territory both by conquest and by cession.

Unlike today, and most of our history, we recognize actions of the United States as such -- unified rather than divisively considering everything through the filter of political party.

I know that's hard for some folks to get their heads around ...

Ah hell people.

Having had seven Amnesties in the last 30 years.

With millions of OTHER people waiting in line wanting to come to 'Merika.

Their hopes. Their dreams, Their futures don't really amount to snip now do they ?

Mexican flag wavers are the only people that 'deserve' to come here.

Just ignore they go around beating the crap out of people.

Just ignore they go waving around a foreign flag, and try to change the Ameircan electoral process to their preferred outcome.

Hell just ignore ALL of it.

I really do love the left wings version of 'fair play,fair share'.

Don't you?

Police chief is associated with La Raza.. INTERESTING....

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

a reply to: Gryphon66
Not that I particularly endorse it, but the wiki article is fairly accurate:

Americans and some Mexicans revolted against the Mexican government in the 1836 Texas Revolution, creating a republic not recognized by Mexico, which still claimed it as its national territory. The 1845 expansion of US territory with its annexation of Texas escalated the dispute between the United States and Mexico to open war.

In 1844 James K. Polk, the newly-elected president, made a proposition to the Mexican government to purchase the disputed lands. When that offer was rejected, troops from the United States were moved into the disputed territory of Coahuila. These troops were then attacked by Mexican troops, killing 12 American troops and taking 52 prisoners. These same Mexican troops later laid siege to a US fort along the Rio Grande. This would lead to the conflict that resulted in the loss of much of Mexico's northern territory.

a reply to: ker2010

From your article:

Some videos showed those attacks and suggested they were unprovoked, but others showed Trump supporters taunting protesters, ripping their Dump Trump signs and throwing the first punches. While it appeared to many onlookers that police allowed the violence to proceed unchecked, San Jose police Chief Eddie Garcia insisted that it was more important for police to hold their “skirmish line” formations than to stop individual attacks. Four arrests were made.

And yet, there are those STILL justifying this violence on the side of Trump supporters ... WHY?

originally posted by: paradoxious
a reply to: Gryphon66
Not that I particularly endorse it, but the wiki article is fairly accurate:

Americans and some Mexicans revolted against the Mexican government in the 1836 Texas Revolution, creating a republic not recognized by Mexico, which still claimed it as its national territory. The 1845 expansion of US territory with its annexation of Texas escalated the dispute between the United States and Mexico to open war.

In 1844 James K. Polk, the newly-elected president, made a proposition to the Mexican government to purchase the disputed lands. When that offer was rejected, troops from the United States were moved into the disputed territory of Coahuila. These troops were then attacked by Mexican troops, killing 12 American troops and taking 52 prisoners. These same Mexican troops later laid siege to a US fort along the Rio Grande. This would lead to the conflict that resulted in the loss of much of Mexico's northern territory.

Yes, the President of the UNITED STATES took action against Mexico. Not the Democratic Candidate.

What's your point? The United States acted, not the Democratic Party.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Yes, the President of the UNITED STATES took action against Mexico. Not the Democratic Candidate.

What's your point? The United States acted, not the Democratic Party.

The Democrat party leader, leading the US armed forces, invaded then claimed sovereign Mexican-claimed territories, and had the desire to do so:

American territorial expansion to the Pacific coast had been the goal of US President James K. Polk, the leader of the Democratic Party. The war was highly controversial in the United States, with the Whig Party, anti-imperialists and anti-slavery elements strongly opposed. Critics in the United States pointed to heavy casualties of the US forces and high monetary cost of the conflict. The war intensified the slavery issue in the United States, leading to bitter debates that culminated in the bloody American Civil War.

a reply to: paradoxious

The "Democrat party leader" ... you mean the President of the United States?

The Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces?

That guy? Yeah, that's his job.

Also, what article are you pulling your information from?

You need to provide a source unless it's your own material.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: paradoxious

The "Democrat party leader" ... you mean the President of the United States?

The Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces?

That guy? Yeah, that's his job.

... and he was a Democrat.

Also, what article are you pulling your information from?

You need to provide a source unless it's your own material.

Same Wikipedia article for both citations.
Here.

My apologies. I realized that I forgot to link in but ATS is giving my problems editing my posts.

a reply to: paradoxious

No worries on the link, really I just didn't want you to have any hassle over it. Thanks.

Yes, Polk was a Democrat.

Did he lead the Democratic party on the war on Mexico, or the United States and her Army?

You seem to be talking in circles.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Whats your stance on borders , do you believe the USA to be a sovereign nation? Just out of curiosity.......

a reply to: Gryphon66

Just pointing out the irony in that Latinos want parts of the US to return to Mexico, Latinos are largely supportive of the Democrat
Party, and it was a Democrat US President that took the land from them in the first place.