I am sure many are. But it is not like you can do an exit poll on protesters.
I have come to look at everything Trump does has having near-term, reality-TV implications. With his skill set, he could point this issue any way he wanted to, and he is focused on Bernie. I am trying to think that through and see some of the angles.
This is incorrect. Not only is Trump explicitly saying that Sanders ordered his (Sanders’) supporters to disrupt Trump’s rally, he’s threatening to start sending his (Trump’s) own supporters to disrupt other people’s events.
All in all, this has worked out pretty well for Donald.
Some of them. And some of the protest are being organized by BLM. Neither of those groups are getting marching orders from the candidates.
Bernie Sanders is a professional politician. He has both won and lost dozens of elections. He has been a public servant for decades. He has never - never! - arranged for thugs to go and beat up his opponents or their supporters.
This shit didn’t start until Donald Trump began encouraging his supporters to rough up protesters. This only happens at Trump’s events, nowhere else. As loathsome as the rest of the Republicans are, none of them has encouraged, much less, permitted, this sort of behavior at their events.
I have no doubt that you will see some of the same faces at organized events. But there is only one candidate who is deliberately encouraging his supporters to spread violence and hatred. That candidate is Donald Trump.
Actually, CarnalK is right. Note that Trump says disruptors were told to go, not necessarily by Sanders himself. I think we’re so wound up, myself included, that we’re jumping to conclusions that Trump can then use to play the persecution card, which will of course reinforce his supporters’ own sense of persecution.
Also notice that Trump didn’t say that he will send his supporters to Sanders rallies, only that they will go. By accusing him of sending them himself, we’re giving him an opening to cry, “Persecution!”
Yep. And Trump didn’t say all Mexicans are rapists. He was referring to illegal immigrants. And he didn’t say *all *illegal immigrants from Mexico were rapists either. He said “they are rapists” ect ect which is open to interpretation.
So when he is criticized he should be criticized for exactly what he actually said or did:
Illegal immigrant labor from Mexico into the United States has become the status quo in many industries. Millions of people from Mexico have entered this country illegally, most of them did so in order to work. No matter your opinion on the issue, whether you think they are beneficial or harmful to American citizens and workers, and no matter if you think they should be deported or given amnesty, they are human beings migrating, like so many of all our ancestors have done in the past. They are here now. While they are here, basic human decency demands that they be treated with a minimum level of respect. Trump said “they are rapists”. Most of them are not, most of them are illegal immigrant workers. This demonizes illegal immigrant workers from Mexico. Illegal immigrant Mexican workers should not be assumed to be rapists because they have crossed the border illegally in order to work. Don’t put that on them. It is inflammatory language, demagoguery that could motivate bigots to commit violence. It doesn’t live up to the standards of basic human decency, and should not be considered acceptable by decent people.
See, one doesn’t have to go all Rachael Maddow and twist words and distort everything to criticize Trump. It is counter-productive.
For fuck’s sake. Bullshit weasel words are not the same thing as factual support for an assertion.
Trump’s actual words:
“Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren’t told to go to my events”
Trump is explicitly saying that
The “disruptors” belong to Sanders
Sanders’ “disruptors” were told to go disrupt Trump’s event
If you want to try and argue that perhaps Trump meant that Sanders’ personal “disruptors” were taking orders from someone other than Sanders (or his campaign) then the onus is on you to provide actual evidence that Trump meant someone other than Sanders.
Weaseling around and trying to insist that maybe Trump didn’t mean exactly what he’s been saying for the last two days, if you squint real hard and stand on your tippie-toes, because Trump didn’t use the precise phrase so maybe he just meant that they were told by a voice from beyond - is worth jack-all .
Donald Trump has been encouraging his supporters to commit violence for weeks now. Again, just because you can weasel out a meaning where Trump isn’t inciting violence doesn’t mean that the rest of can ignore everything he’s been saying for the last month or so.
It’s like when racists will tell you that hey, Hitler had some good ideas, and then when you call them on it, they’ll insist that they didn’t actually say Hitler’s Final Solution was a good idea, so how dare we call them racists. It’s kindergarten rhetoric and actual grown ups are not fooled by it for a minute. That’s what this sort of weaseling sounds like.
The first one isn’t wrong, but it doesn’t require him to be all that intelligent, so much as just having stumbled upon that strategy.
The other is a video by a guy who is explicitly trying to sell his stuff on how to be confident and pick up women. He’s not the most reliable source. If anyone can stand to listen to such a guy, could you listen and extract his valid points?