Originally Posted By Mr X Welcome to the inevitable. *sigh* <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzU3FLZgIhc">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...3FLZgIhc</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X Some select commentary from a right-wing forum... "Looks like the poor old dude almost broke his hand (or wrist). Too bad he wasn’t 28 instead of 78." "Trump should remember this man and pardon him once he becomes President." "$5 fine for punching a trespasser. Next!" "Sniveling punk. Republicans aren’t going to hand you the mike and let you hijack the conversation. Good job, old man. You done good." "78 years old GOD Bless him!!! This man has some guts!!!"
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Some select commentary from a right-wing forum...> Hell, you don't have to go to a right-wing forum. There's plenty of that crap right in the youtube comments, and youtube is seen by about the widest demographic imaginable. So there are plenty of push-back responses to the "good for the old man!" comments as well, but the very fact that so many are praising this guy for sucker punching a protester who was doing nothing violent is disturbing.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<... but the very fact that so many are praising this guy for sucker punching a protester who was doing nothing violent is disturbing.>> THIS! The attitudes in pre-Nazi Germany towards non-Aryans ran very similar. This is why Trump supporters scare the crap outta me.
Originally Posted By ecdc This whole election baffles me. I get ideological differences. I'm not saying conservatives should line up to vote for Hillary. I get anger and I get suspicion about government. All of it. But I don't get how that translates to support of Trump. I mean, I do intellectually get it, but I don't understand it as a reasonable response by these people. I feel like I'm going around constantly stunned and I want to grab Republicans and shake them and scream "What is wrong with you people!!!"
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/03/11/3759201/trump-protester-violence-appropriate/">http://thinkprogress.org/polit...opriate/</a> <> Donald Trump Says It’s ‘Very Appropriate’ For His Supporters To Beat Protesters At Rallies During a Friday news conference, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump characterized protesters getting punched at his events as “very, very appropriate” because “these are people that punch, there are people that are violent people.” His comments came two days after Rakeem Jones was sucker-punched at a Trump rally in North Carolina by a man who was later charged with assault. But there’s actually no evidence any of the protesters who have gotten roughed up at Trump events instigated anything. Video clips of altercations at Trump events don’t show that, and reporters who have been following Trump’s campaign say they haven’t seen it: I am at almost every Trump rally. I have yet to see a single protester start swinging as Trump just said. — Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb) March 11, 2016 On Friday, Trump went on to say “we have had a couple [protesters] that were really violent, and the particular one when I said I’d like to bang him, that was a very — he was a guy who was swinging, very loud and started swinging at the audience and the audience swung back and I thought it was very, very appropriate.” “He was swinging, he was hitting people and the audience hit back and that’s what we need,” he added. Trump didn’t make clear what specific incident he was referring to. But during a rally in Las Vegas last month, Trump had this to say about a protester who was escorted away: “The guards are being very gentle with him… I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you that.” He added that the protester had been “throwing punches.” Politico, however, spoke with security guards who worked the event, and none of them saw the protester try to punch anybody. Trump “was just over-exaggerating,” said one security guard, who asked Politico not to use his name. Publicly, at least, Trump has repeatedly made clear he doesn’t view violence at his rallies as a problem. The topic came up during Thursday night’s GOP presidential debate. Trump said he hopes his campaign hasn’t created a tone of violence, but then described his supporters as simply having “tremendous passion.” “When they see protesters, when they see what’s going in on the country, they have anger,” Trump said. “They don’t like seeing bad trade deals, higher taxes, loss of their jobs.” A day later, tensions were high outside a Trump event in St. Louis, as this pair of videos illustrates: Protestor steps on a flag at the STL Trump rally. A Trump supporter wasn't feeling it. pic.twitter.com/ipN0CurCjj — Junius Randolph (@JuniusRandolph) March 11, 2016 Battle lines drawn at Trump rally pic.twitter.com/Y9yRTnjOAm — Trymaine Lee (@trymainelee) March 11, 2016 <> If this kind of political garbage continues to be tolerated at ANY level, we are DONE as a democracy. Seriously.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***“He was swinging, he was hitting people and the audience hit back and that’s what we need,” he added.*** Geez, I wonder where he came up with that approach? Stop Resisting! Stop Resisting!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Are you watching what happened in Chicago tonight? The classic tactic of strongman on the rise is to foment violence, and then say that they are the strong man who can quell the violence. Just sayin' Of course, Trump is saying he never wanted anything like this to happen. But give me a break. When you keep saying to your supporters that only "political correctness quote is keeping us from hurting these protesters" and that in the old days that have been punched out, and then almost immediately saying "we have to stop being so politically correct ..." Just how hard is it to connect THOSE dots?
Originally Posted By SuperDry You nailed it, Dabob2. What happened in Chicago is the natural progression of what's been happening. The only thing that surprising is that some find it surprising.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Friday was a double bonus: violence at a St. Louis Trump rally with 32 people arrested. Hmmm... We keep hearing how the Mexicans are the problem. The blacks are the problem. The Muslims are the problem. Yet, it seems that it's repeatedly white people that are getting out of control and violent at these rallies.
Originally Posted By oc_dean <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://img.picturequotes.com/2/341/340473/beam-me-up-scotty-no-trace-of-intelligent-life-down-here-quote-1.jpg">http://img.picturequotes.com/2...te-1.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I feel like I'm going around constantly stunned and I want to grab Republicans and shake them and scream "What is wrong with you people!!!"<< The other side bears part of the responsibility in the creation of Trumpenstein. For instance: Clinton and Sanders are practically tripping over each other pandering to illegals, while no one in the GOP (except you know who) will take a stance on it. Who else are the GOP faithful going to support? Cruz? Rubio? They're fed up, and while Trump is a creep and a blowhard he is saying what they've been dying to hear. And the recent riots are only going to help Trump. They will reinforce the narrative that America has been sold out to special interests and that the PTB is becoming desperate in their attempts to stop Trump.
Originally Posted By hopemax The scary thing is that the Trump supporters really believe it's the protesters suppressing free speech, free assembly, and a CBS reporter was detained so I guess free press too (I guess that was already covered by who can and can't get press passes). This is not going to end well.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And the recent riots are only going to help Trump.> Yes and no. I'd say what they really do is harden the lines. It only makes his supporters like him more. But it only makes his detractors (and those wary about him) like him less. Probably good for the short term for Trump, though we'll see if he underperforms his polls on Tuesday. My guess is that he loses Ohio but wins Florida, and so continues on his path to the nom, but not essentially wrapping it up. But in the long run it's bad for him in the General. Especially if last night doesn't turn out to be the worst of it.
Originally Posted By Spree "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" B.H. Obama in 2008 “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I’m angry.” B.H. Obama in 2009 “We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us" B.H. Obama in 2010
Originally Posted By ecdc And the award for greatest false equivalency goes to...Spree! (Also love the use of his initials to remind everyone his middle name is Hussein.)
Originally Posted By Spree Yeah, yeah, but the "false equivalency" award is presented back stage well before primetime. The big awards like ~Most stubborn grip on a double standard~ and ~Best display of Faux Outrage in an election year~ may be going home with yourself (I'll keep my fingers crossed...this could be your year!) lol
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Here's some context. "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" was a reference to "The Untouchables," and "bringing a knife to a gun fight" is a metaphor for going into something unprepared. And the context was Obama speaking to donors, saying that the Democrats couldn't let Republicans out-fund-raise them that year. Had nothing to do with actual violence at Obama rallies (of which there was none, of course), but that's not stopping the right-wingers who have been parroting Obama's use of this phrase out of context for the last couple of days. In typical echo chamber fashion, one right-wing source posted it and now right-wingers are parroting it back mindlessly out of context. "We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us" wasn't even Obama saying "We" (i.e. he or his administration) were going to reward or punish anyone. Full quote is: "If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' -- if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election -- then I think it's going to be harder. And that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2nd." Pretty typical campaign stuff, ("remember who your friends are and get out and vote!" basically) and moreover, was walked back immediately after Boehner complained, with Obama saying he should have said "opponents" instead. Compare that to Trump refusing to take responsibility for any incendiary thing he's said. Full context for the "angry" comment: https://books.google.com/books?id=jhglA8XmeJMC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=Obama+%22I+don%E2%80%99t+want+to+quell+anger.+I+think+people+are+right+to+be+angry.+I%E2%80%99m+angry.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=6ghX111gIK&sig=hnpgSvOojOzZ5p4qXQsG-Ie7EU4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8l63FxcPLAhWDLSYKHXBzDE4Q6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=Obama%20%22I%20don%E2%80%99t%20want%20to%20quell%20anger.%20I%20think%20people%20are%20right%20to%20be%20angry.%20I%E2%80%99m%20angry.%E2%80%9D&f=false He was asked a question about people being angry that amid the financial meltdown, AIG execs still got big bonuses. And he said "I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I’m angry. What I want us to do, though, is channel our anger in a constructive way. And the most important thing we can do right now is stabilize the financial system..." and then goes on in fairly dry terms about that. Kind of a far cry from "I'd like to punch that guy in the face."
