How did you make the mental leap to reach the conclusion that people who protest Trump are part of a new strategy from the Democratic party? Surely, could it be the case that some among the group of people who have been insulted by Trump (as rapists and criminals) might just decide to express their objections to Trump’s inaccurate accusations, without any involvement from the Democratic party? Nah, too unrealistic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s mainly due to ICE basically ignoring Presidential requests to let up.
But anyway, violent protests are ridiculous and should be ridiculed, and if anyone caught by the police is here illegally, they should be deported with all due speed.
Let’s walk through this.
-
Trump’s a racist because he says racist (and sexist and bigoted) things on the regular.
-
That doesn’t make him unique among the Republican contenders.
-
Therefore, if “Mexican Nationalists” are going nuts outside Trump’s - and only Trump’s - events, it’s not because Donald Trump is a racist.
-
Aside from that, “Mexican Nationalists” do not exist to fight racism or to promote the interests of illegal immigrants.
-
The cause espoused by “Mexican Nationalists” is - wait for it - Mexican Nationalism.
-
“Mexican Nationalists” - such as they are - want to reunite the American Southwest with Mexico. They don’t have common cause with people who are trying to leave Mexico.
-
People who just see the word Mexican and assume that all Mexicans want the same thing and are down with violent protests because MEXICANS are scary rapists - are, in fact racist.
-
Regardless of who is or is not a racist - Mexican Nationalists have every bit as much reason to protest at all the candidates’ events, because their goal, that is, the return of American lands to Mexico, is something they will need to broach with whomever wins, (which, in any case, ain’t going to be Donald Trump.)
-
If Mexican Nationalists have an actual issue they wish to advance, they should be talking about it all the events.
-
Which is why it’s notable that only Donald has Scary Mexicans performing outside his venue.
-
Of course, Mexican Nationalists have about as much chance of achieving their goals as the mummified corpse of Montezuma has of kicking those damn Spaniards off his island. Which is why normal people bust out laughing when they hear Trump and his fans talking about the scary violent Mexicans.
-
Conclusion: It’s not a protest. It’s performance art.
I’m not defending violence. I’m saying that Donald Trump benefits from the violence. So isn’t it lucky for Donald that violent things keep happening at his events.
I was talking about illegal immigration being excused and defended, not violence. Thankfully we only have a few here who are the type to advocate violence.
Are the same protesters showing up at all Trump rallies? Because I don’t recall (putative?) Mexican Nationalists showing up at Trump rallies in other states. And it would be difficult to astroturf a bunch of violent counter demonstrations with scores / hundreds of willing new people at every location, not to mention the exponentially higher difficulty of keeping the astroturfiness a secret.
He wouldn’t have to astroturf the protest groups. He just needs violent people on his own team to start shit with the protestors. We already know he’s got that. And we’ve heard him offer to pay their legal fees for starting shit. Anyone can wave flags or wear t-shirts. And then Donald shows up and raves about how he’s so oppressed and his enemies out to get him, and gee aren’t his fans such great Americans?
No, I don’t think it would be all that difficult for a billionaire with malignant narcissism.
So…let me see if I’ve got this straight. Those dangerous “Take Back America for the Mexicans” people are a threat to the political system?
There is no response to that except to laugh my ass off.
Reality is this way.
People are free to say what they wish. My problem are the assaults, blocking public streets, and intimidation. You know. Actual crimes.
Yes and I think we all agree the ones that do that should be arrested, or at the least removed. But you seem to be against the actual protests themselves though. You started talking about the protesters in general, and now you are only focusing on the small percent that committed actual crimes. Nobody is arguing that people should be able to commit crimes, so we maybe we should stick to the actual points of contention or else it isn’t much of a debate.
The first sentence quoted above is unsupported by any facts I could discern. Got a cite we could look at?
Here’s the key paragraph:
Great, thanks. I’m having a little trouble seeing the part where Obama is asking ICE to “let up”, however. Guess I need to clean my spectacles.
How do you sit with no ass? 
Meanwhile, some people seem to agree with, and advocate for, the violence of Mexican nationalist who are TRYING to influence/threaten the U.S. election process. “Trying” doesn’t mean that they will be successful. I’ll suggest that the anti-free speech violence of the Mexican nationalist will have the opposite effect. Voters will reject the candidates who chose to kowtow to the pro-violence Mexican nationalists.
The administration is deporting more people than ever before (as mentioned, as a function of more immigrants in general) and the priorities are just common sense. Having sat in on many an immigration hearing, it’s a lengthy process that just grinds along. People come in, are missing some bit of paperwork or their lawyer doesn’t show up and the case gets pushed to the next opening… 26 months down the road. Prosecutorial discretion is very valuable here in moving the moving the less important cases aside and focusing on the people involved in crime or who are a danger.