You just know Trump supporters would be violent so anti-Trump folks need to preemptively respond! What a morally bankrupt position.
True dat. When Bernie offered to pay the legal expenses for people who were charged with violence, that was way, way out of line!
Tiny, tiny hands.
Nah, I don’t buy that one at all. I think that’s just making an excuse to defend mob behavior because someone believes that those on the receiving end of it somehow deserved to get roughed up. Well I don’t. I think Obama was spot on a few weeks ago in his commencement speech. People may think they’re right and they may feel good about themselves, but they’re not going to get any closer to getting other people to agree with them and work together. The fact that some Trump protesters are douchebags doesn’t justify preemptive douchebaggery.
I think you might want to rethink that assumption because right now there are probably a lot of people who are otherwise disinterested in supporting Trump who might decide after watching that sort of debacle that their country is under attack and that they need to do something about it, and that maybe this crackpot has a point after all. This is what happened in the 1990s when there was a debate about Proposition 187. People got all sorts of American flag burning irate over this proposed law that denied services to undocumented immigrants. What was the result? It PASSED! It was overturned in the courts, not the voting booth.
From the NYT: [INDENT][INDENT]The precise cause for the violence on Thursday night remains unclear. Some protesters claimed that supporters of Mr. Trump instigated it, while others who were there said the violence was escalated by the sudden presence of a few local gang members.
“I saw a couple kids that I knew from the neighborhoods that I know run with the local Norteños and Sureños, and they were just there to fight,” said James Anderson, who lives in San Jose and was attending a protest organized by a Dump Trump Facebook group. “They weren’t there to protest anything. They were just there to cause havoc and fight.” [/INDENT][/INDENT] Yes, proud members of the asshole-American community. I guess they came to the right place! Josh Marshall quoting himself from last March: [INDENT][INDENT]What we have seen over the last two weeks isn’t just an escalation of chaos and low level violence but a progressive normalization of unacceptable behavior - more racist verbal attacks, more violence. This is in turn clearly attracting more people who want trouble - on both sides. If you’re an angry racist who wants to act out on his anger, can you imagine any better place to go than a Trump rally? If you hate Trump, his supporters and all he stands for and want to get physical about it, where best to go? [/INDENT][/INDENT]
Yes. I would enjoy such charges.
Tiny minority of course. But I haven’t read any reports of flag burning, except by Trump himself. AFAIK the only thing burnt during the San Jose Trump rally were pro-Trump hats (see NYT article). Which strikes me as lame, but not offensive.
How many would have been there if Trump wasn’t trumpeting his disdain for Hispanic Americans. (I don’t say Mexican Americans, because who knows? I doubt Trump knows Guatemala from Guantanamo…but I digress…)
Shit disturbers will make trouble regardless, its what they do. But if they can do it and feel self-righteous about it at the same time, so much the better. And in this instance, provocation is, to some degree, responsibility. So how big a slice of the turd pie does Donald have to eat? Dunno. But some.
The thugs aren’t damaging Trump’s free speech rights or those of his supporters so much as they are damaging the free speech rights of people who came to loudly proclaim their anger at the Donald. The good people amongst them will be reluctant, embarrassed. And so it goes.
A bit mistrustful, perhaps, seems to me a number of folks want to pour a bucket of calumny on those who deserve it, but aren’t too particular if it gets slopped over one whole side of the argument. Maybe just messy, weren’t raised right.
No. Just no. Free speech is a right guaranteed by the constitution. Not liking said free speech is never, ever, ever, a justification for thuggery.
If anyone thinks Trump is “inciting to riot”, notify the authorities.
Bernie Sanders, yesterday: [INDENT][INDENT]“Violence is absolutely and totally unacceptable,” said Sanders, after a press conference on the jobs market with former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich. “If people are thinking about violence, please do not tell anybody you are a Bernie Sanders supporter, because those are not the supporters that I want.”
“I understand how reprehensible and disgraceful Donald Trump’s positions are; how ignorant they are,” said Sanders. “I can understand the anger, I surely can, because I feel it. The bigotry that is coming out of his mouth. The insults to the Mexican community, the Latino community, the Muslim community, and women, and African-Americans and veterans. I understand the anger. But we are not going to defeat Trump by throwing eggs or getting involved in violence of any kind. We defeat Trump when we stand together as one people and fight for a progressive agenda. Educate. Organize. Bring out large numbers of people.” [/INDENT][/INDENT]
Bernie Sanders stands shoulder to shoulder with John Mace. 
Marvel Team Up!
Good on, Bernie. I don’t think anyone seriously pinned the blame on him for behavior that was beyond the purely political, but it’s nice to see that he came out unequivocally against this type of thuggery.
Sent my CA ballot in last week with the Bernie box checked. He’s my bro!! 
Oh, lets not call it “incitement to riot”, lets call it something nicer. What did you have in mind, John?
You’re the one who apparently thinks it’s okay for anti-trump supporters to be violent in anticipation of Trump supporters being violent. Maybe you think it’s some kind of pre-crime. He was going to do it first hasn’t been okay since…ever.
If you would be so kind as to point out where I said that, it might be helpful.
Sure.
Here you imply that anti-trump violence is a result of pro-Trump violence.
BG interpreted it the same way, which you left unaddressed.
Here you attribute responsibility of violence to non-violent speech.
That’s why John said this:
I concur with John.
Will CA end up mattering? Shillary swept the Virgin Islands. She is expected to win Puerto Rico in a landslide, and the delegates she earns in NJ will push her over the brink of 2,383.
Free speech. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? 
If you do think it’s “incitement to riot”, then it falls out of the realm of free speech. Do you? If so, please make your case.
“Officer? I’d like to report a crime. Donald Trump is inciting people to riot. I read about it in today’s newspaper.”
Colloquially, Trump has definitely done this sort of thing. From memory, in speeches he has said he wants to punch protestors in the face. He says he will pay legal fees for those getting into fights. He expresses admiration for those who have cold-clocked peaceful protestors at his rallies. I can dig up cites on request.
Absolutist phrasing is always, always like waving a red flag in front of a bull on this message board. [sup]1[/sup]
I think political violence might be justified in certain circumstances, but such circumstances involve either authoritarian regimes or fake democracies, neither of which apply here. And in those cases it’s not a slam dunk. (Yes I know I am nitpicking: it’s my job!)
[sup]1[/sup]Jokes sometimes excepted.
Trump’s free speech is not merely aggravating or even infuriating for our Hispanic community, it is also frightening. In my book, speech to create fear is far worse than speech to provoke or focus anger. YMMV. But free speech is what it is, and must be defended. If Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing, he is dangerous fool, if he does, he is evil, but his speech must be permitted, what we take from him would be taken from us.
My question is not should Trump be arrested, my question has to do with his responsibility for his speech. He could say hateful and intimidating things about Norwegian ethnics, and that would be distasteful, but they are not likely to feel threatened. But Hispanic Americans are quite a different matter. Trump is commiting a crime that has no legal sanction, and I’m damned if I can think of a way to stop that without violating my rights along with his.
But is he innocent and blameless because we can’t hinder him? I do not see how that follows from even the most firm and unyielding commitment to free speech. No, I don’t want him thrown in jail, but I’m not going to pretend that somehow his actions are harmless and valid. A fair assessment of the situation would deplore violence and equally deplore Trumps contribution to the problem. He deliberately frightens and enrages our people. And if they are not our people, who’s people are they?