Someone not pro-Trump, I meant.
That is a very fair point. I want Sanders to express disapproval out of a sense of scrupulous fairness. But what these protesters did–setting aside the assholes blocking the ambulance, what the rest of the protesters did–is NOTHING compared to the violence perpetrated by Trump and his minions. When someone like Hank deplores Sanders, but forgives Trump, he evinces a transparent double standard.
I can’t tell which is more disgusting, the ridiculous double standard and even the denial of the violent disruption of the rallies by the Bernie Brownshirts, or how perfectly and predictably it plays into Trump’s hand.
Having actual principles doesn’t make someone pro-Trump. I am voting for Hillary.
The OP needs a history lesson. Trumps supporters are the brownshirts, Sanders supporters are equivalent to the communists which the Nazi party savagely destroyed when they got into power. One party is trying to blame all problems on an ethnic group, is xenophobic and is appealing to emotion to “make america great again”. “We’re going to make Germany great again, that I can tell you,” is a direct quote from Hitler.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Trump had consciously studied films of Hitlers speeches to copy his style, Ivana has claimed that he kept a book of Hitlers speechs by his bed.
BTW, I’m not saying Sanders supporters are communists, I’m just pointing out the correct analogy.
Why on Earth should Sanders apologize for something Trump’s supporters did? The only acts of violence seen in those videos appear to have been perpetrated by Trump supporters.
Or if you mean the peaceful protests, why on Earth should Sanders have to apologize for them, either? There have been protesters doing things like chanting slogans at every single political rally in this nation’s history. That’s normal and accepted by all real politicians.
This violence isn’t happening in the other candidate’s rallies its happening in Trump’s rallies becuase he’s been fueling the flames and encouraging it. This shows clips of what Trump has said to his fallowers, egging them on to “rough-up protesters” over and over again in all of his rallies, leading to the night the rally was canceled in Chicago. Don't believe Donald Trump has incited violence at rallies? Watch this video. - Vox
Exactly, even offering to pay their legal bills if they are charged with assault. Trump could and should be charged with “incitement to violence”. Brandenburg vs Ohio ruled that the 1st Amendment can be overruled when speech is “likely to incite, imminent lawless action”.
Trump fails the Brandenburg test. Charge him.
I don’t see a double standard, there is more reporting (and I agree with it) that a lot of improper behavior was seen by the protesters, but not as violent as the Trump supporters have handed out. As I have seen Trump now is talking about “Payback time”. Talk about not having a clue about how to let what it seems to be a misstep of the opponents be the only item, Trump can not help making things worse.
Ugh. It’s pretty disappointing to see the excuses given to Sanders’ supporters in this instance. Some have even floated the “false flag” theory while others are pulling the “blame the victim” excuse. It’s unfortunate and somewhat ironic because of all the major candidates Sanders seems to be the most decent.
Sanders appears to attract a young and passionate following. It’s not totally surprising that a small group of them got carried away, especially against Trump. Condemn it and let’s try to move on.
But which parts should be condemned? Violence, yes. What other parts?
Disrupting a public event.
Buying into and parroting a dull and anachronistic counter-narrative to Trumpism.
Perfectly playing the part Trump needs them to in the story he is telling.
Bernie has been preaching his message long before Trump decided to start spouting his hateful nonsense, trying to claim its a counter narrative is bullshit. Counter - protests are a legal and valid form of free speech, Bernie supporters have a right to try and disrupt the rally, but I condemn violence no matter who is perpetuating it.
And I can’t call you what I want to outside of the pit, but my contempt for you is palpable.
You should notice that many have done so; oh, and Trump is not a victim, because if we are moving on it has to be noted that Trump wants “pay back” now for what it has been seen to be dubious acts.
Trump’s record shows a couple of months of inciting violence against peaceful protestors. I’m not going to comment upon a same-day blurb by Sanders. An interview with context would be a different matter.
Generally speaking, I generally wait a couple of days before passing judgment. Sanders has yielded his microphone to protestors, peaceful behavior which Trump has explicitly attacked.
What I’m seeing is a number of chanters getting attacked by Trumpists. And I don’t traffic in false equivalences.
Not brownshiring. Not in the same ballpark as violent acts.
Not sure what this means.
This needs to be elaborated on as well. While these last 3 points have some merit taken together, they aren’t remotely in the same category as Trump’s incendiary tactics. In fact, overall I’d say Trump protestors have been remarkably restrained. Some of the rads I encountered in Britain many years ago would have pulled out steel toed boots by now.
Folks, there does seem to be a collision in the works. And Trump is clearly a talented demagogue. So there’s a real risk of the less stable members of the left playing into his hands: Who Will the Public Blame For Violence at Trump Rallies? – Mother Jones
Josh Marshall at TPM: Someone Will Die: [INDENT]Bamberger’s overarching explanation rings very true to me. Indeed, it is backed up by decades of social science: People act very differently in crowd or mob situations than they do on their own. There are various theories as to just why this is the case - again, there’s a whole social science and group psychology literature about. But crowd/mob situations are profoundly disinhibiting events. People sometimes do things they themselves not only regret but can’t believe they did.
…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 normally 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] Also: [INDENT]Again, this is not meant to equate the two sides. As I mentioned yesterday, Trump has repeatedly claimed that instances of crowd violence at his rallies occurred when protestors - “bad dudes” - attacked his supporters and his supporters fought back. Until the events last night in Chicago, there is no evidence that anything like this ever happened. Not once. It is all lies. It’s still not clear exactly what happened last night in Chicago. I have seen numerous reports from the event that show that the great majority of protestors were peaceful, in many cases there as families, from various political and community organizations. But clearly there were scuffles and disorderly behavior inside that both sides participated in. It was a qualitative advance, or descent, from instances that had come before it. [/INDENT]
Cite?
Sure, no problem. Start here:
So that’s the background. Trump falsely claims that the opposition is violent, when in fact they are not. Under such circumstances he calls for violence multiple times:
The above link gives 8 examples. The first talks references imaginary and hypothetical thrown tomatoes. The second I went into greater detail, confirming that Trump was referring to a peaceful protestor when he said he wanted to punch someone in the face.
More generally, other candidates on both sides didn’t have the crowd violence problems that Trump has encouraged. Only willful blindness can support the contention that Trump is an innocent bystander in all of this.
None of that has any context. In the clip I saw of him saying he wanted to punch the guy in the face he was not talking about a peaceful protester, but a guy supposedly swinging at his secret service protection. Do you have a clip where he is saying he wants to punch a peaceful protester?
Exactly, it’s way outdated, like a chess engine from the 1980’s. Not up to the task at hand.
No, trying to use his mid Cold War era message or these actions as a counter narrative is hopeless and lazy, because it doesn’t fit the time nor place, nor much else. It wasn’t every much to speak of even in its day.
So it’s legal for you to run out on the field during a sporting event and stop the game, or go to a theater, get up on your chair, and start screaming and interrupt the performance?
Because I thought people were allowed to hold events. But I guess if you have a big enough mob riled up then your free speech guarantees you the right to shut down the stuff you don’t like, or something.