Not “somebody”-Trump.
I was trying to be nice about it.
He was some sort of executive at a bank for a while, and a telecommunications company. He left both jobs, he says, after he was told he couldn’t be promoted, because he was white, and male. He’s also a writer - most recently of the book, “How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big,” which he very much wants you to read. I suspect he has more money than everyone in this thread, combined. Not that money means anything. Except in America, and everywhere else.
He’s on record predicting Trump’s nomination, back in August, when the conventional wisdom was that he was a clown. I’ve always found that predicting the future is much harder than it looks. Which is why most people fail so badly at it, most of the time.
Now Trump’s Hitler, which is a pretty big transformation. Personally, I think whoever plays the Hitler card first automatically loses. But that’s just me.
Speaking of which, Jeb Bush says he’d kill baby Hitler. This guy says not only would he kill baby Hitler, but he will do it, if elected. Plus, he’s giving away free ponies. My wife and daughter support him. I’m not so sure.
He wears a funny hat.
Anyway, if you’d kill baby Hitler, you’d certainly kill 69 year old Hitler. Wouldn’t you?
No. It means to whatever extent people accept the idea that he’s Hitler, it greatly increases the chances he’ll get killed.
For the record: I don’t think he’s Hitler. From what I can tell, they seem like two different people.
Getting back to the idea of free speech, there’s this:
If “People for Bernie” - or whoever - wants to hold an event calling Trump Hitler, or whatever they want to say, they can obtain a venue, put out signs, get people to come, and have their event. I don’t agree that Trump is Hitler - but it’s certainly their right to say it.
At their venue. That they organized. That they got people to voluntarily came to. No one has the right to keep them from speaking their minds, to people who want to hear them.
Closing down someone else’s event, on the other hand… well, that’s not free speech. That’s censorship.
If I was Bernie, I’d disavow them. But I’m not Bernie. I’m not as smart as him.
This sentence is going so well!
Whoops, ruined it.
Sorry, you don’t have the right not to hear an opposing viewpoint. That’s part of freedom of speech.
And you know what else? You don’t have the right to even be heard. Sucks, but there it is. We are tiny specks in a big ol’ world, and my right to shout is the same as your right to shout louder.
No, it’s really not. It might be rude, it might be tacky, it might even be criminal. But it is not censorship.
Yeah, I’d also like it if Burnie came out and said “Come on folks. Knock that off. Play nice.”
Just confirming that you understand that Scott Adams’ principal occupation is as a cartoonist, right? Not saying he hasn’t done other things, or doesn’t also blog, but mostly what he is known for, and the source of his income is “Dilbert”.
There’s no denying that there are some, er, interesting similarities, but I don’t think anyone has gone “full Hitler” on Trump yet. Could be wrong. FH is over-used.
I really don’t know where you go from that. I think you made a joke about the pony guy and then segued back to “killing Trump” by referring to him as 69 y.o. Hitler, with an implication that it would be our moral duty to kill Trump. Is that what you were saying?
Sure I do. I can turn the channel. Not click a link. Watch one YouTube video, and not another.
I can choose not to listen to you, or to anyone. And you can’t stop me.
That’s my point: You don’t have the right to be heard. You can speak, but people can choose not to listen. You can hold a rally, but if nobody comes, you’re out of luck. I’m glad we’re in agreement.
It doesn’t suck. It’s great.
Imagine if politics was just a shouting match, where volume trumps substance.
If you want to succeed, you have to persuade. You have to get people to listen. Voluntarily.
Suppose people could force you to listen, to whatever stupid crap they had to say, when you had other things to do. I’m glad that’s not the world we live in.
True.
Non sequitur. You can shout all you want, so long as I can’t hear you. You come to my house and start shouting, I’ll call the police and they’ll take you away.
As you said earlier: “People have the right to speak. They don’t have the right to be heard.”
I would have thought stopping someone from giving a speech - in a venue he’d paid for, to people who’d come to listen - would be censorship. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s something else. What is it to you?
Imagine?
He won’t get shot. If Obama didn’t get shot, neither will Trump. Obama’s detractors are, as a whole, far more dangerous than Trump’s detractors.
You’re quite right, and my apologies for being unclear.
What you don’t have is a right to listen to any speech without interruption. If you choose to listen to a street preacher, you also get to listen to his hecklers. If you choose to listen to a protest, you also get to listen to the counter-protest.
There is nothing sacred about your speech, apart from your right to express it. No one has to hear it. And the same goes for Donald Trump. “Wanting to hear it” does not confer any special privileges.
Yes, you always have the right to walk away. But you don’t get a special right to only hear what you wish to hear because someone organized a rally to say what you want them to say
As Miller points out, that is what we have. Life is a shouting match, usually metaphorical.
Not a non sequitur at all. I can shout all I want even if you can hear me. If I’m standing on public property in front of your house, and not breaking any noise (or other) laws, the police won’t do a damn thing. I get to talk loudly next to you on the airplane and on the bus. I get to share my political opinion. Don’t like it, walk away.
No one stopped Trump from giving a speech. He was free to keep talking.
Trump isn’t Hitler. He just wants to be the head of a contemporary country.
Who can’t be voted out of office.
Someone on Breitbart referred to them as “Sanders brownshirts”.
Really? A Jewish candidate has brownshirts? 
Yesterday, I was talking to a woman who ushers at a local civic auditorium where Trump made an appearance a few weeks ago, and she said it was the scariest thing she had ever experienced. 
It’s easy if you try.
“It seems the [media] aren’t broadcasting footage of the debris being thrown across Harrison by Sanders/Hillary supporters at Trump fans,” the officer wrote shortly after the canceled Trump event.
The officer, who posed anonymously on the Second City Cop blog, also noted the media didn’t report that protesters were running through parking lots and breaking windows of cars with Trump stickers on them, or that the department called out emergency Incident Teams to cope with the anti-Trump riot at the University of Illinois in Chicago.
With the wide availability of cell phone cameras, links to this “footage”, please. And links to pics/vids of broken windows of Trump supporters.
Anonymous source and Breitbart?
Where are the reports/complaints from those Trump supporters with broken windows? They all kept quiet?
Not analogous situations. In Trump’s case, I’d be more concerned about people in his own party wanting him out of the way, not Democrats.
(post shortened)
Trump stopped Trump from appearing at a rally were the Democrat collective was threatening the peaceful gathering of Trump supporters. Trump made the right choice. The Democrats wanted a confrontation and Trump denied them their objective. Trump was still able to speak to the media who demanded interviews with Trump. The LSM chose to champion the anti-free speech protesters.
25,000+ Trump supporters showed up to hear free speech. Democrats showed up to deny free speech. The vast majority, 24,000+, of Trump supporters left the arena without allowing themselves to be taunted by Democrats. Several hundred chose to deal with the anti-free speech Democrat collective with protests of their own.