How has Obama contributed? By making Trump look like a fool in his birtherism and sufficiently damaging his ego that he felt driven to do this?
A desire for REAL change has taken over both parties. If we’d already had change, Trump and especially Sanders would have no traction.
By not going to funerals.
That’s a slogan, not analysis. The anger from Republican voters, in the primary, at least, seems mostly directed at mainstream Republicans. There’s not nearly so much anger on the Democratic side – even Bernie and his supporters generally have very good things to say about Obama.
And Trump is winning big right now, while Sanders is losing big right now. And only one of them is calling for violence.
Oh, we had change, but Trump supporters just don’t like where it went. That’s why when Trump speechifies about “taking our country back” and “making our country great again”, his partisans see liberal change as taking their country away from them and making it less great. If there had been no liberal change, they would not feel that way. The far left feels there hasn’t been enough liberal change, which accounts for Bernie’s traction.
We’ve already got a thread for that argument. For this one, suffice to say that there is no way you can blame the president for violence at Trump rallies.
Obama has a website with Trump in crosshairs? This I gotta’ see. :dubious:
IMHO - I blame Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. It’s rumored that Emanuel is in trouble with many of the Democrats in Chicago. Taxes, the city is broke, police abuses, city workers hiring inbred (that’s probably the wrong word) family members to work for the city, Rahm’s distain for the voters, etc… I’ve heard that Rahm recently fired the police chief when voters began demanding that Rahm resign over police shootings. Now it’s Rahm’s police.
Rahm’s police had several days notice that the usual protesters were organizing an assault on the Trump rally. Rahm didn’t call off the rally, which he could have citing public safety. Or boosted the Rahm PD presence inside the rally. Trump was made aware that there would/could be trouble if the rally went ahead as planned. Trump called off the rally to prevent violence.
But who were these protesters? There were chants of BERNIE, BERNIE, BERNIE. Where were the Hillary supporters? Is it POSSIBLE that the group leaders supporting Hillary were told not to let their comrades attend? This is Chicago, remember. Bernie’s protesters get to face off against Trump supporters. Hill-arity and violence ensues. It should have been a win/win for Hillary.
Except Rahm supports Hillary and it seems many of the yellow dog Democrats reject Rahm and anyone Rahm supports. Without a Chicago/Hillary voting block, this could mean a state primary win for Bernie over Hillary, regardless of what happened at the Trump rally.
Bernie recently made it clear that he does not want, and would reject, an endorsement by Rahm. That doesn’t sound like politics, that sounds like it’s personal. I wonder what Rahm could have done recently that would earn Rahm such a personal rebuke from Bernie?
And just to make sure this post is thread related, I assume Rahm is still getting his marching orders from Obama, who supports Hillary. Therefore, everything is Obama’s fault. 
I’ve never been to a Santorum rally; it sounds really gross. :eek:
In his own words: “I don’t want the endorsement of a mayor shutting down schools and firing teachers.”
How could Rahm have called off a rally for someone else? Wouldn’t that violate the 1st Amendment?
Blaming Obama is silly.
But blaming the Left makes perfect sense, because conservatives aren’t out in force trying to disrupt Sanders or Clinton rallies. It’s the usual liberal suspects who can’t just relax, shut up and let their enemies speak.
Leftists go to Trump rallies looking for trouble, and not surprisingly, they find it.
Bernie Sanders was welcomed politely by students at Liberty University. Think Ted Cruz could get a similarly respectful hearing at Cal Berkeley? Not a chance.
This is silly. The opposing side attends rallies they disagree with all the time. There is only one candidate whose rallies have been plagued by violence, and it’s also the only candidate who incites violence at his rallies, welcomes the support of bigots, and vows to commit war crimes on national television. That’s not a coincidence.
Overriding public safety concerns.
The anti-free speech blighters are targeting Trump rallies in order to provoke violence. Anything to prevent Hillary from facing Trump mano a mano.
How? By what legal mechanism can a mayor shut down an event held by a private organization?
Candidates don’t normally go out of their way to publicly embarrass the mayor of a large city of voters. Or the head of the cities only political party. Bernie could have chosen to ignore Rahm but this rebuke sounds to be more personal than political.
It’s quite political. In addition to what he actually said, criticizing Emanuel’s policies, Bernie recognizes that the mayor is extremely unpopular right now, and aligned with Hillary, right before the Illinois primary. What makes you think this is anything but political?
Bernie did pretty well in IL last night compared to the polls, so I think this tactic probably worked. Distance yourself from the guy everybody hates, and call attention to how close your opponent is to them. They basically tied the state, instead of Clinton winning by 10-12 points as predicted.
Generally-speaking, close the doors, order everyone to clear the building, pull any permits that had been issued, block the streets, turn the usual Chicago building inspectors loose in the building (there are always building code violations to be found).
Political, yes. But this seems to be more than just political.