In addition to the constitutional right, free speech is also a principle. You can be for it or against it; but not “for it, unless it’s something I don’t like”.
No. I"m saying a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.
Hey, that’s catchy. I should set that to music.
If you were any more transparent, you’d be invisible.
Let the Ku Klux Klan speak. Every time they march through the middle of a town somewhere, people resolve to be less racist.
Let Dianne Feinstein ramble on about assault weapons bans. Every time she give a gun control speech, thousands of guns fly off the shelves.
Let Trump say wtf he wants. Ever time he says something crazy, millions of dollars flow into the campaign funds of the other candidates (Democrat and Republican)
Bad speech has a way of hurting itself in democracies outside of Germany
I think you might be surprised which end of the spectrum Trump ends up on if he gets elected.
On the one hand we have a single elderly sucker-puncher, and on the other we have massive mob violence shutting down a rally of tens of thousands of protesters. You are actually making the point that you are arguing against.
You gonna provide evidence of this “massive mob violence” any time soon?
All of those points I agree with. Except the last. Which may or may not be true…but that is beside the point.
As I understand the timeline, there was no violence–only peaceful protest–until Trump canceled. At that point, I’m not clear on the timeline. Are you suggesting that all, or the majority, of the actual physical violence was initiated by the protesters? If so, do you bring evidence?
So wait…the “non violent” protesters ONLY got violent when the target of their IRE decided not to show up?
Are you an Onion writer?
What violence?
Okay, lets say less non agitated to play it safe.
So we’re in agreement that the claims of “riots” and “mob violence” by Trump’s camp are false, then.
That’s not what I said. You’re close to the edge of disingenuous debating and should step back from it, for realz.
Here’s my understanding of how it went down:
- There was a rally in Chicago for which free tickets were issued.
- A huge number of people who do not support Trump organized to attend the rally and legitimately obtained tickets. They took signs with them that they could use to protest.
- Trump, on becoming aware of the tremendous number of protesters inside the arena, postponed the rally.
- Violence broke out after he announced the postponement.
Do you disagree with any of these points? If so, which one, and on what basis?
What’s less clear is who initiated the violence. Your post gets at an important point, but completely misses its significance, which is this: it’s incredibly unlikely that it was the protesters who initiated the violence after the postponement was announced. They had scored what they saw as a victory. They were happy.
Trump supporters looked around and saw their rally canceled because there were so many protesters.
You tell me: who was likelier to initiate violence under those circumstances?
Never mind.
Misread the whole thing and have to go for the afternoon.
My stepfather says he knows it’s going to happen, without a doubt, if Trump gets elected president. He says it’s “when, not if” and that it would be “inevitable”. “Only a matter of time” is another quote.
He’s really great at parties.
I don’t like the first accusation.
Please keep that in reserve thank you very much.
OTOH, IF I did misread what you said (and/or you said it poorly) then my apologies.
I appreciate the apology. Next time, don’t accuse me of being an Onion Writer, with all that implies, and we’re golden :).
I was getting that about Obama all through 2008 from various and sundry people around me.
And oh, yeah – who’s saying it would be disaffected *leftists *who’d do it to the Donald? Crony capitalists are likelier to play dirty pool for effect, IMO.
Heh, heh, he was only playing that fun urban knock out game. If the protester hand hit an elderly white man, the main stream media would have completely ignored it.