Is Donald Trump a thug? Are we going to see more violence at political rallies?

Trumps rhetoric brought this on. He insults everyone. He encouraged violence at his rallies.

Were the protesters wrong to get violent? Absolutely. These rallies amount to Trump's first test of diplomacy and he's failed miserably. He creates enemies out of anyone who's not on his side. He antagonizes. He insults. His ego comes before reason.

How do you think he'll do when he's not dealing with protesters, but countries with nukes, or terrorists with hostages? He's NOT GOOD at calming waters. He has shown zero ability to put his ego second. Put him in a place of power and I believe his ego and rhetoric could get people killed.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I 've done worse when touched in anger,hospital stuff. EVEN after I war them I 'm a vet.
I don't go to any crowds due to my PTSD but I ALSO believe BLM and the type are doing this as a "poor me" false flag protest.
Their mistake as well as YOURS are:WE don't CARE. We are NOT GOING to care ANYMORE.
OTHERWISE they wouldn't GO THERE now would they?
Their mistake as well as YOURS are:WE don't CARE. We are NOT GOING to care ANYMORE. We are TIRED of the Christian bashing and P.C. Culture. I OF course acknowledge the neccessity of recognizing LGBT and minorities(WHO ARE LEGAL) Immigration needs to be fixed REALLY bad,everything does
WE don't go to Clintons covens even though the Earth could WELL do without her.
I would guess that will change...shortly.
SOME people need to learn self control the HARD way and the LEFT has the loudest demographic,hostile and contrary sometimes for IT 'S OWN SAKE it looks like to me.
So Expect NO sympathy for your woes from me, I liked Carson

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Trumps rhetoric brought this on. He insults everyone. He encouraged violence at his rallies.

Were the protesters wrong to get violent? Absolutely. These rallies amount to Trump's first test of diplomacy and he's failed miserably. He creates enemies out of anyone who's not on his side. He antagonizes. He insults. His ego comes before reason.

How do you think he'll do when he's not dealing with protesters, but countries with nukes, or terrorists with hostages? He's NOT GOOD at calming waters. He has shown zero ability to put his ego second. Put him in a place of power and I believe his ego and rhetoric could get people killed.

What gets people killed are violent terrorist riots.
Reagan had to implement control which killed one person and injured 180 others when he had to stamp down violent protesters. The death nor the injuries were any fault of Reagan's.

Bottom line is if you get violent you might die. That is how it should be. The sooner domestic terrorists realise they may well die on the night they engage in their vile tactics, the sooner we can get back to a world where people understand their are physical consequences to physical actions.

As for Trump putting his ego first - I think what he has said is that he is going to put America's might first and use it in negotiating positions. In something like a hostage situation, if the people holding the hostages know they have more to lose than gain by harming them then they will think twice.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Cav, I'll admit it ... I have a kinda difficult time following what you say sometimes.

I am sorry for your PSTD, but I don't think that is an explanation for what we see at Trump rallies. I think that's good ol' fashioned mob-bullying.

You think BLM is doing this as a "false flag" protest? I'm unsure of what that means. Here's what I see, based on the facts.

The Trump campaign scheduled a campaign rally in the middle of one of the most firmly Democratic areas in the nation, knew that certain groups were planning to protest (mostly outside the venue but also inside) and sure enough, they failed to do any sort of vetting at the door (apparently not even checking the "tickets" from the online registration from teh event.)

Some more activist folks who are generally speaking on "the left" (but this is not the homogeneous group you guys so often refer to) ... Democrats, college students, and yes some folks from BLM as well as Bernie supporters, decided to make a statement against the violence that has been ramping up at Trump rallies by showing up in sufficient numbers to keep that from happening. They played right into the hands of the Trump campaign, who of course, cancelled the event and spent the next 48 hour news cycle crying about their First Amendment rights being squelched. (Which is patently absurd).

I'm still not sure what group of people you're referring to as "WE." Republicans? Trump supporters? Veterans? the "silent majority" of Americans as you see it?

I've never asked you for any "sympathy" ... again ... and this is a perfect example: I have no idea what you're even talking about more than 70% of the time.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
Trump is a coward that has been schooled by social engineers to take advantage of the ignorance of far too many Americans.

A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary!

Enjoy the reality of that statement, all of those Trump supporters who have fallen for the psychological manipulation of partisan politics.

Please do yourself a favor and spend more time critically thinking about such things as their mutual connection to the CFR before you believe they are not on the same team!

I think a vote for trump is a vote for trump. trump hasnt changed his opinion since i saw a 1988 interview.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Cav, I'll admit it ... I have a kinda difficult time following what you say sometimes.

I am sorry for your PSTD, but I don't think that is an explanation for what we see at Trump rallies. I think that's good ol' fashioned mob-bullying.

You think BLM is doing this as a "false flag" protest? I'm unsure of what that means. Here's what I see, based on the facts.

The Trump campaign scheduled a campaign rally in the middle of one of the most firmly Democratic areas in the nation, knew that certain groups were planning to protest (mostly outside the venue but also inside) and sure enough, they failed to do any sort of vetting at the door (apparently not even checking the "tickets" from the online registration from teh event.)

Some more activist folks who are generally speaking on "the left" (but this is not the homogeneous group you guys so often refer to) ... Democrats, college students, and yes some folks from BLM as well as Bernie supporters, decided to make a statement against the violence that has been ramping up at Trump rallies by showing up in sufficient numbers to keep that from happening. They played right into the hands of the Trump campaign, who of course, cancelled the event and spent the next 48 hour news cycle crying about their First Amendment rights being squelched. (Which is patently absurd).

I'm still not sure what group of people you're referring to as "WE." Republicans? Trump supporters? Veterans? the "silent majority" of Americans as you see it?

I've never asked you for any "sympathy" ... again ... and this is a perfect example: I have no idea what you're even talking about more than 70% of the time.

so your blaming trump for scheduling a rally in a state that hes trying to win? Ive seen his rallys those protesters are not protesters but they are there to incite violent behavior from a crowd.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The GOP has rallies in Chicago every election, so the point about holding a rally in one of the most democratic areas in the country is ridiculous. I suppose he should have just skipped Chicago. And how you have special insights into the wants and desires of both the campaign and the protesters is magical, but excuse us for being a little incredulous about your psychic gift and these "facts".

The agitators banded together on Twitter and elsewhere under the hashtag #shutitdown, which you can still search, and which doesn't mean peacefully protest, and doesn't mean lets go to a trump rally to keep violence from happening. Since the event had to be cancelled, it appears they accomplished that mission. If that's what Trump wanted according to your gift, then he is surely an evil genius mastermind for setting this all up, and we thank you for not falling into outright paranoia and fantasy to deliver us clear and unbiased truth.

Trump will be assassinated. He wants everyone riled up, gun in hand, expecting the world to be given to them on a platter.

When they're not given fuh all, they'll still have their guns. Guess who they'll be targeting?

originally posted by: UKTruth

Reagan had to implement control which killed one person and injured 180 others when he had to stamp down violent protesters. The death nor the injuries were any fault of Reagan's.

Reagan wasn't encouraging violence in his speeches. He wasn't telling his supporters to punch people in the face. The Reagan comparison doesn't apply.

Just stop being ignorant about Trump's encouraging violence at his rallies.

Is Trump a Thug? Probably, but no more than the rest of the idiots in DC.

Hillary's been known to intimidate Bills girlfriends, possibly had people bumped off, lies constantly... THUG.

Obama is pretty much the same, constant lies, he relates to the thugs "if I had a son..."

The violence at Trump rallies falls squarely on the protesters' shoulders, when you go somewhere you shouldn't and act a fool, you should expect repercussions. Just ask the idiot kid from UVA that just got 15 years hard labor in North Korea.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Are these rallies held at the University of Chicago? Perhaps not so ridiculous at all.

I say, you're not offended by my words, are you? Words, after all, hold no power.

While we're using words though, let's consider this one: disingenuous. And how about another: utterly.

Because that's the nature of your post. I didn't claim any special insights into anything. I certainly didn't claim any psychic gift, so your comment, as such, is utterly disingenuous.

Let's see what else falls under that category in your post.

"Agitators" eh? Well, isn't that a conveniently loaded term. So, these agitators don't have the same rights to freedom of speech and assembly as Trump supporters? The rally was open invitation. These folks attended. Most of them left when the event was cancelled. Also utterly disingenuous is that you now are evidencing the same "psychic powers" you just speciously charged me with ... how many of the protesters inside the event were there because of the Twitter hashtag again?

Tell us, with your ability to read the minds of the protesters en mass ... which ones were ...

Oh, wait a minute, you don't have psychic powers either. So, in essence, you're doing exactly what you tried to accuse me of.

Yep, utterly disingenuous.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So it is Trumps fault? That is what you are saying here.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

So it is Trumps fault? That is what you are saying here.

Quote me.

I'll be glad to oblige.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth

Reagan had to implement control which killed one person and injured 180 others when he had to stamp down violent protesters. The death nor the injuries were any fault of Reagan's.

Reagan wasn't encouraging violence in his speeches. He wasn't telling his supporters to punch people in the face. The Reagan comparison doesn't apply.

Just stop being ignorant about Trump's encouraging violence at his rallies.

No Reagan didn't say it - he just actually ordered the police to break up a protest by any means necessary. One dead and 180 injured as a result.... ooooo but saying you'd like to punch someone in the face is soooo much worse LOL.

Know your history!

originally posted by: stargatetravels
Yes he's a bully and he incites violence.
The man is a scumbag and asshole.

Good recap.

originally posted by: HillaryTrump
...riled up, gun in hand, expecting the world to be given to them on a platter.
When they're not given fuh all, they'll still have their guns. Guess who they'll be targeting?

You just perfectly described the Progressive movement.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No I'm not offended by your words. I'm offended by lies and falsity.

First you stated "Here's what I see, based on the facts", and then you continued to state, factually I assume, that the organizers "knew that certain groups were planning to protest". Afterwords you stated, factually I assume, that the hooligans "decided to make a statement against the violence that has been ramping up at Trump rallies by showing up in sufficient numbers to keep that from happening", once again implying your magical insight into what people know, what they decide, and their general intentions. Since this is what you see based on facts, even with the complete absence of evidence showing these facts to be factual, I can only assume you have a special gift, and I don't mean special in the olympic sort of way.

"Agitators" eh? Well, isn't that a conveniently loaded term. So, these agitators don't have the same rights to freedom of speech and assembly as Trump supporters? The rally was open invitation. These folks attended. Most of them left when the event was cancelled. Also utterly disingenuous is that you now are evidencing the same "psychic powers" you just speciously charged me with ... how many of the protesters inside the event were there because of the Twitter hashtag again?

As I stated earlier, only to be met with your keenly selective comprehension, these agitators gathered around the hashtag #shutitdown, and coordinated a group to do just that—this according to msnbc and a quick twitter search. No, I'm not reading their minds. I can only wish I had that kind of omniscience. Until then I can only deal with evidence.

Yes agitators and hooligans, and yes suppression of free speech. Yes a candidate for election in a free democratic society wasn't able to speak to his supporters, who are free to hold their assembly in peace. Only one person was scheduled to speak at that rally, and he couldn't. No one else was stopped from speaking. No one else was stopped from assembling. No one else had their rights violated. The mob who suppressed the person who was supposed to speak is immediately apparent, as was their aims.

You're on the wrong side of history.

a reply to: Gryphon66

But, but...
Trump's just words. And words hold no power, right?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Accusing me of lies and falsity when you've done nothing to prove that is ludicrous.

And yes, you are clearly offended by words ... which makes your positions all the more hypocritical.

Quote me if you want to talk about what I said. That function is not difficult to use. If you're trying to deal honestly.

The only magical insight on display here, again, is your own. You're claiming to know what was on the minds of people in Chicago as well as what I actually mean ... as opposed to what I actually say.

Which "agitators" are you referring to? Again, you're conveniently lumping hundreds of citizens together under your trite little label Do you have a list of the respondents to that Twitter hashtag that you've somehow correlated with attendance at the Trump rally?

You deal with evidence? HA! Show us some then, don't just tell us about it! Show us the evidence that all or even most of the protesters inside the rally subscribed to this Twitter hashtag you find so incredibly relevant.

No, not agitators and hooligans ... except from the perspective of your agenda. You act as if Trump supporters are the only Americans with free speech and the right to assemble. What rot.

Trump couldn't speak? Why not? How was he prevented? By his own cowardice? That's not the protesters fault.

Using loaded words like "mob" and "agitators" and "hooligans" merely demonstrates how weak your position is. You have to deploy emotionally-loaded terms because you have no facts, no evidence, and you're merely repeating yourself, and then you want to complain that people (unlike you) are overly affected by mere words. Here's two more for you: specious balderdash. (Since we're going all 19th century with our vocab today.)

I'll take my side of history over yours any day. You're speaking in support of a proven thuggish authoritarian and his churlish acolytes.

originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: Gryphon66

But, but...
Trump's just words. And words hold no power, right?

Have I stated that "Trump's just words"?

LesMis is the advocate (for others at least) that "words have no power.'

You'll have to take that argument up with them.