You claimed a relationship between the two numbers. If you have no data, then that’s fine – I don’t either (off-hand). But if you want anyone to accept your claim as anything more than a guess, then it’d probably be good to offer some data.
It stands if you have data, perhaps.
I’m curious about the legality of that, too (the promise to pay the legal bills of anyone who commits violence on Trump’s behalf).
Certainly there’s quite a little list, now, of videos of Trump speaking fondly of violent responses to those who oppose him. And his fans do seem to love it–it gets delighted laughter and cheers, as here:
I absolutely agree. Trump and his people have been waiting for this to happen; you can tell by the canned talking points his surrogates are using today. It certainly appears as though the talking points were all planned out well in advance. Trump ‘has a right to have his say’ and the big mean Leftist Thugs are out to keep him from exercising his 1st Amendment rights. What awful people Leftists are! Etc.
They must really have been desperate to have an excuse to turn all the Nazi imagery and references back against the Democrats–not very convincingly to any but die-hard Trump fans, of course, but…still.
But, yeah. It was a bad idea to give Trump this big giant present, all gift-wrapped. So bad an idea that I can’t help wondering to what extent this might have been a false-flag operation…
If hard evidence were found to indicate that Trump’s people orchestrated this, would any Trump fans begin to have doubts about him? Or would such a revelation only increase their devotion to him?
Don’t want to make too much of this, I know some of us here are a bit suspicious of that whole cause and effect thingy… Just sayin’, if the timeline offered above is correct, then it is more likely that the, ah, …“postponement”… provoked the violence more than the other way around.
I can see it, makes sense. All those people who came to see Trump pissed off because they aren’t going to, and some protester types gloating about it, yeah, some shit is likely. But if Il Douche doesn’t want a bumber crop of whirlwind, don’t plant the crop! That’s Scripture!
(Post not shortened at all, just using the dots to set off the word itself, kind of a stylistic gesture)
I’ve compared it in my mind to abortion clinic protestors. If you think you’re right enough, that overrides concern for “optics”. The two situations also have my skepticism about how much such “optics” will end up really mattering, especially when both are already so divisive.
Uh-huh. Know who else was vegetarian? Hint: he didn’t personally kill all those Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Communists, and others in the camps…
Here is a compilation of Trump inciting violence. Text and video:
Here is an article on Trump’s ideology of violence. On this topic Trump actually presents a coherent position: Donald Trump's ideology of violence - Vox
Personally, I think the idea that the US is too gentle with its dissidents is silly on the one hand, butthurt on the other, and frankly unAmerican as well. It’s not a surprise that Trump has kind words for Russia’s head strongman Putin, and no I don’t think this is a cheap shot.
What’s “this”? The cancellation? We already know who orchestrated that: That was Trump’s own decision. What other event was there that would have been orchestrated?
The Chicago PD specifically denied they had even been in contact with Trump or his campaign, and that they warned him to cancel the rally.
Hmm.
I disapprove.
Wait a minute. This talking point is repeated constantly, but then all the examples I see are like the one that you posted.
Your statement “Trump speaking fondly of violent responses to those who oppose him.” implies that the people in question were* merely* opposing him. To me, that brings to mind someone protesting outside his event, or someone writing an article, or making a video, or tweeting responses to him, and him speaking fondly of violence being used in response. Sounds pretty bad.
But then I go and watch your link and it turns out was talking about someone he claimed was punching the security guys while being removed. So you said Trump was “speaking fondly of violent responses to those who oppose him”, which is the kind of thing a bully, or a thug, or a fascist, or, apparently, a BernieBro* would do. When actually what Trump said was that when he sees the guys charged with protecting him getting hit it makes him want to punch the guy doing the hitting in the face, which is the kind of thing a six-pack-of-Tall-Boys-loudmouth, or a good friend, or a dude known for not taking any shit, would say.
There is a big difference.
I think it is very possible that they have anticipated something like this. The activist types who pull this type of crap are reliably predictable, if they are anything at all.
I think everyone one in this election but Trump, especially the other GOP candidates, are the desperate ones. And from what I can tell this event is garnering Trump a lot of sympathy and support. He seems to be in charge of the election, do far.
It was a bad idea, for sure. It might have not even been an idea at all, but more of an uncontrollable reflex caused by an overall idea vacuum.
I don’t entirely disagree* but…Trump will spin ANYTHING to his favor. Protests? That’s totally what he wants us to do, because now he’s the victim of violent people violating his First Amendment rights. No protests? That’s exactly what he wants us to do - nobody is speaking out against him, so look how much Chicago loves him! Which means he’s global thermonuclear war. The only winning move is not to play.
*I “protested” by first petitioning UIC to cancel the rally and then getting two free tickets and not going, and inviting everyone I know to do the same. At which point someone pointed out that the Trump campaign would simply fill the empty seats with Trump supporters standing around outside. And I laughed and laughed, because the idea that there’d be several thousand Trump supporters without tickets standing outside in Chicago was patently ridiculous. But I did not, and never intended to, go down there and vocally protest. Because I like my ass unkicked.
Forgot to add:
*Not fair at all I know, but I couldn’t help it.
Trump says “Protesters are bad people”.
Currently live on CNN.
Well, it does look like most of the media are pointing at the protesters as not behaving properly; however, as many have spoken about how this will be seen by the public, it is important then to note how it is being reported, most are also pointing that Trump has ““some accountability” for “creating this hostile atmosphere” that leads to violence, noting in particular the violent rhetoric he employs in his speeches.”
More of how Trump encourages violence over here:
And yet Cruz and Rubio don’t have the same problem. Obama, Romney and McCain had big rallies where nothing like this happened.
I think we can dispel the notion that Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing when he riles up his supporters. Trump knows exactly what he’s doing.
Trump from my earlier Vox citation:
[INDENT] “I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks. It’s true. … I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you.”[/INDENT]
Cite2: [INDENT]Four days before that, in Las Vegas, Trump was more direct about the kind of response he really wanted to see. After claiming, falsely, that a protester was ejected for “throwing punches,” Trump lamented: “We’re not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days — you know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.” Trump Concerned His Rallies Are Not Violent Enough - The Intercept [/INDENT]
Lots of action against entirely peaceful protestors:
Most (all?) politicians spin. Trump goes way beyond that. He makes things up. He makes false statements after being corrected, suggesting knowing intention. That goes beyond most political discourse.
Does anyone besides LHOD want to go on the record as disapproving of what Bernie said about this?
It’s deplorable. Add it to the list.
Here’s a better article about what went down, including the involvement of Sanders’ supporters:
Thing is, Chicago has two things going on right now: 1. Regular protests of Rahm Emmanuel over the death of Laquan McDonald and 2. Lots of contacts and organization in for Bernie in Chicago. Plus, as luck would have it, Trump happened to pick a venue where student organizations are already working on points 1. and 2.
So when the student organizers heard about Trump impending rally, it was easy and obvious for them to arrange a protest. And because they already had the organization in place, it got big.
People protest at all the candidates appearances. It was a perfect storm where this candidate’s appearance was scheduled in the middle of an ongoing protest structure.
Here’s a better article about Sanders’ response to this:
Bernie’s position is that, while some of his supporters were involved, this was not an organized campaign protest. He was not involved, his campaign was not behind this, and it would be a lie to say that they did this as his representatives.
All of that is factually true.
Sanders went on to blame the violence and inflamed tension on Donald Trump’s violent and inflammatory rhetoric.
That is also factually true that Trump, personally, and his campaign in general. has encouraged violence.
So, no, I’m not seeing any part of Bernie Sanders’ factual response as being something of which I need to disapprove.
On the surface I do disapprove, but most of the reports I have seen and the pictures point to real violence that was directed at the protesters.
It is under that background that then what Sanders said was:
Well, I have to say that Sanders should had also pointed at the protesters to remind them to not resort to violence, but seeing the reports it makes me wonder if Sanders was advised to not fall into what for them is a dubious equivalence.