Yeah, in some neutral color that goes with different pants. Brown, perhaps. And maybe a red armband with a logo on it.
So diminish his crowds with the threat of violence? How noble. But if it did come down to a clash remind me what side is better armed?
I definitely wouldn’t be surprised if someone dies before November.
Is anyone surprised that, when a candidate tells his supporters to “knock the crap out of” protesters, and promises to pay their legal fees, that there might be some violence at his rallies?
Trump complains about having his freedom of speech curtailed by protesters yet has no problem with protesters removed when they stand up.
Says the violence is not his fault yet doesn’t regret his words of encouragement and claims the protesters are the instigators.
(CNN on air interview with Don Lemon.)
The rally site is a few miles from my house. When it was announced as a location many of us locally wondered what they were doing with that choice of venue. My wife specifically stated that coming home tonight she was planning on skirting the long away around the area. Middle of the West side of Chicago, urban college campus. Not friendly turf. Not merely heart of the minority base of Democratic strength but on an activist college campus. There are lots of other nearby venues even in the city that would have been closer to GOP strengths … the All State Arena in bordering Rosemont jumps to mind right away and it is open today as the Chicago Wolves are off. They were intentionally not chosen.
This location was chosen in order to provoke a reaction.
It will interesting to see what he has in mind for exploiting it.
You don’t have freedom of speech at a private event.
Right – I think it’s reasonable to have security remove (with minimum force required) disruptive protesters, but it’s not reasonable at all to tell supporters to “knock the crap” out of protesters, and to tell them that he’ll pay their legal fees if they do, as Trump has done. Trump deserves extremely strong criticism for this kind of rhetoric, which harkens back to George Wallace.
I agree with you with regards to the problems with advocating violence.
Eh, Trump is garbage, but I don’t see any upside to trying to shut-down his rallies. Its just going to make the opposition look as unhinged as he is. “He started it” type wining isn’t going to help.
First blush I agree but …
The bulk of the protesters were outside of the building. They certainly have freedom of speech there.
The arena is the property of the University, not Trump’s private property. Not sure who has the legal right to limit speech in that venue.
As I stated in another thread that this … whatever we call it … is being discussed - this location is an activist populated university in the heart of a poorer urban minority dense neighborhood of democratic stronghold.
You think that maybe Trump was wanting to provoke something? You think maybe he has some plan of how to attempt to exploit this to motivate his base to vote over the next few days? Y’know, just maybe?
You gonna organize a protest? Have a circus going on outside. Clowns, jugglers, so on. Do not demonstrate fear, mock. It would be more effective than dancing to the tune he hums.
It is not true that “the rest of us” – being the people who aren’t pro-Trump – hate the Trumpers. Speak for yourself.
As far as showing the Trumpers that millions of people hate them, Donald makes sure his followers catch that. That why he says “'I think Islam hates us.”
A problem for Trump is how to move to the center for November without losing his anti-PC edge. Provoking the occasional street battle, as in Chicago today, could, unfortunately, work.
While descending to Trump’s level should be legal, it’s a bad idea.
I’m not a fan of most demonstrations. I distrust those who are too certain they are correct. Living up to your convictions can be admirable. I admire the sanctuary movement. Someone going to a Trump rally and popping up a Bernie sign, I don’t admire.
Like many of us, I’m uncertain as to who is worse, Trump or Cruz. So should I hate Cruz supporters as well? I’m afraid of the answer!
The police.
Fair enough. My point is that in your typical Trump rally you’ve got thousands of people who get their news from Hate Radio, Faux News, and Facebook memes. They show up and they hear Trump tell them what they already believe. They’re reinforced by each other cheering on every hateful syllable. How do you get through to them? It seems to me that they are willfully ignorant that there are other points of view. But maybe having opposing people show up and demonstrate just how vile their bigotry is will snap some of them out of their trance. Maybe these unrests will make Trump so toxic to the Republican establishment that they endorse Hillary. I think having a few events disrupted is a small price to pay for stopping this fascist from gaining any more traction than he already has.
The right to free speech does not include the right to fully disrupt events like this. That’s why we can have things like college basketball games, recitals, lectures, and yes, political rallies.
This seems plausible.
I agree.
Trump maybe didn’t light the match, but he sure as hell stacked the pallets and doused them in gasoline.
Is that really what you think of when you think of Brownshirts and fascists? People who respond to the disruption of their own rallies by manhandling the disruptors out the door?
The side trying to curtail the free expression and assembly of those who’s political opinions they object to would be more reasonably compared to fascists, not the people who’s rally was shut down.
So Trump, then? It seems like only the anti-Trump protesters are the ones being arrested in situ. Though that White supporter did get arrested after the fact for punching the protester yesterday.
Until today, the vast majority of the “violence” has come from the Trump side. Until Trump becomes President, there is still such a thing as free speech. Forcing people out of an arena for standing silently is the disruptive part.
You think the police are pro rabble? How many populate American prisons again?