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

HOW THE USA PATRIOT ACT REDEFINES "DOMESTIC TERRORISM" - ACLU.org

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
HOW THE USA PATRIOT ACT REDEFINES "DOMESTIC TERRORISM" - ACLU.org

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

I already posted that for you much earlier.

Who Really Fits the Profile of a Terrorist - US News and World Report

The media and the political community, experts say, tend to take a different attitude towards domestic terrorism than the FBI, which is focused on investigating and prosecuting a case. The Patriot Act definition of domestic terrorism is subject to broad interpretation, calling it a case where someone threatens or intimidates others for a political end, putting people's lives at risk.

The FBI’s list of the eight “most wanted” domestic terrorists, in fact, includes fugitives associated with the Earth Liberation Front, an extremist environmental group born in the 90s, and the Black Panthers, a militant political organization founded in the 60s. All have been charged with serious crimes, such as bombing government facilities, hijacking and bank robbery.And while their names may not be at all familiar to most Americans (and their causes sounding like something from a history book), they remain longtime fugitives from justice, earning them a place on the list.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Appeal to Definition from logicallyfallacious.com

Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined through argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.

I already posted the definition from the FBI (not a dictionary) - as you know as you were involved in the debate at the time. Let's not pretend otherwise. It just sends us around in circles.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Who Really Fits the Profile of a Terrorist - US News and World Report

The media and the political community, experts say, tend to take a different attitude towards domestic terrorism than the FBI, which is focused on investigating and prosecuting a case. The Patriot Act definition of domestic terrorism is subject to broad interpretation, calling it a case where someone threatens or intimidates others for a political end, putting people's lives at risk.

The FBI’s list of the eight “most wanted” domestic terrorists, in fact, includes fugitives associated with the Earth Liberation Front, an extremist environmental group born in the 90s, and the Black Panthers, a militant political organization founded in the 60s. All have been charged with serious crimes, such as bombing government facilities, hijacking and bank robbery.And while their names may not be at all familiar to most Americans (and their causes sounding like something from a history book), they remain longtime fugitives from justice, earning them a place on the list.

Why can we not just use the FBI definition - the one I posted and you reposted (thinking I hadn't)?
I'll continue to use that thanks and under that definition the people in Chicago who ran riot against Trump's rally in Chicago are domestic terrorists.

So ... we have several different definitions of "domestic terrorism" none of which are fulfilled (at least in the mind of any logical reasonable human being) to images of folks "flipping the bird" or "ripping up a paper campaign sign" etc.

Violence has no place in American politics. Period. We have been mostly free from the kinds of politically motivated mayhem that many places in the world regularly face. Of course, there have been exceptions, and there will always be.

The utter stupidity of referring to the presence of 10,000 plus people as some sort of homogeneous "action" is nothing more than garden-variety nonsense. It would be just as easy to refer to the 9000 or so Trump supporters at the rally as "right-wing thugs" (and perhaps, even more so) simply because they were unified in their adherence to the political positions of one man, Candidate Donald Trump, who has time-after-time shown himself to be a far-right extremist, an authoritarian who advocates, regularly and continuously, the use of violence against those he sees as political opponents.

The complexion of the "opposition" in the case of the 3/11 Chicago protests is needless to say, utterly varied. Folks inspired by MoveOn and other related groups, Students and Faculty from the University of Chicago that dissented from having their institution serve as the basis for a political rally for a known advocate for political violence, and many other diverse groups.

And probably some folks that just wanted to "start trouble" were present on both sides ... that cannot be logically eliminated.

What is utterly PREPOSTEROUS however, it the idea that everyone who showed up to protest is a member of a unified "leftist" political front that advocates using violence and intimidation to further their political ends. I made the point earlier in the face of specious "evidence" presented here, that even if every instance that has been thrown up here as "evidence" were indeed violent terrorism (and they aren't by any reasonable measure) that would still be only a infinitesimal fraction of the folks who showed up to protest.

And even THAT is giving a huge "benefit of the doubt" to strategically cut Youtube clips, images from Imgur, etc. etc.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... we have several different definitions of "domestic terrorism" none of which are fulfilled (at least in the mind of any logical reasonable human being) to images of folks "flipping the bird" or "ripping up a paper campaign sign" etc.

Violence has no place in American politics. Period. We have been mostly free from the kinds of politically motivated mayhem that many places in the world regularly face. Of course, there have been exceptions, and there will always be.

The utter stupidity of referring to the presence of 10,000 plus people as some sort of homogeneous "action" is nothing more than garden-variety nonsense. It would be just as easy to refer to the 9000 or so Trump supporters at the rally as "right-wing thugs" (and perhaps, even more so) simply because they were unified in their adherence to the political positions of one man, Candidate Donald Trump.

The complexion of the "opposition" in the case of the 3/11 Chicago protests is needless to say, utterly varied. Folks inspired by MoveOn and other related groups, Students and Faculty from the University of Chicago that dissented from having their institution serve as the basis for a political rally for a known advocate for political violence, and many other diverse groups.

And probably some folks that just wanted to "start trouble" were present on both sides ... that cannot be logically eliminated.

What is utterly PREPOSTEROUS however, it the idea that everyone who showed up to protest is a member of a unified "leftist" political front that advocates using violence and intimidation to further their political ends. I made the point earlier in the face of specious "evidence" presented here, that even if every instance that has been thrown up here as "evidence" were indeed violent terrorism (and they aren't by any reasonable measure) that would still be only a infinitesimal fraction of the folks who showed up to protest.

And even THAT is giving a huge "benefit of the doubt" to strategically cut Youtube clips, images from Imgur, etc. etc.

As I said - lets use the definition of the people who actually police domestic terrorism. Makes things much easier, I am sure you will agree.

The acts that fit the description of terrorism have been discussed (not flipping the bird or tearing signs - they were shown more to illustrate just how disgustingly vile these people are).

I am quite sure that a few in the crowd of 'protesters' did not even know why they were there (in fact I know this because some were interviewed and could not even begin to articulate themselves).

However, there were not one or two that resorted to violence, intimidation and coercion. There were many. At least 20 in just one incident for example that threatened human life by blocking an ambulance on the road.

You do realise, I hope, that domestic terrorism can even be brought as a charge for financial matters these days - there are articles to research on the FBI's website to give you more information here. It is a far broader term than it once was.

Under the definition right now, the crowd rioting did contain a group of people committing domestic terrorist acts. That is simply a fact. The only unknown is whether the organisers of these events sent these people with the expressed intent of committing these crimes. Given their hateful rhetoric and the organisation shown as things unfolded, my opinion is they did indeed.

The absurdity that many isolated actions could be fitted into the framework of "domestic terrorism" when such occurances are patently NOT the part of any unified group acting against the government or even against citizens to intimidate them, any more than we can take the actions at almost any previous Trump rally as the exact same thing ... as we have certainly had picture after picture, video after video of this very obvious Coalition of Trump Operatives acting to intimidate and coerce ANYONE who disagrees with the Political Positions of their Lord and Master, DJT.

How pathetic! How disgustingly disrespectful to those AMERICANS who have actually BEEN the victims of terrorism, or who have given their lives, or their arms, legs, eyes or so forth in our military battles against ACTUAL TERRORISTS.

Perhaps we should go find that seasoned 78-year campaign veteran who, on camera, sucker-punched a protester being held helpless by Trump security ... I mean, there we have prima facie evidence of a Conspiracy among Trump Operatives (I mean, you don't think the guy in the audience just "happened" to be there, do you???) to intimidate and coerce people ACROSS THE USA with their thuggish threats.

How easy it is to create such absurd propaganda!

a reply to: UKTruth

Just because you think it is more complicated it does change the definition. Its a working definition used by the FBI. It doesn't fit my agenda (if I actually had an agenda). It just is. It's the definition. Understand?

Why hasn't the FBI filed charges then?

How have you determined that Trump might be a racist and bigot? You have no proof of it at all. Certainly not 100% proof. So why are you willing to say it's up for debate and not to call it 'a joke' or 'ridiculous'? Given what you have been saying you must want to be 100% sure until you even associate that label with him?

We do have proof of his own words and statements. The problem is that his comments can be interpreted many different ways. We could say it's proof, or we could say it's just a lack of class.

Either way, I would not call it terrorism.

And I don't know why you are on this 100% proof kick.

I have watched and read pretty much everything said by Trump publicly (and also had relayed things not public) and am happy to post all of the information that leads me to believe Trump is not a racist or bigot at all.

Why? I'm not calling him a racist or a bigot. It's off topic and the only reason we are talking about it is because you tried to throw it in as a red herring and I didn't fall for it.

Can you post anything to show that the Chicago incident was driven by peace, love and courage? That's what moveon.org say of their movement and in their statement about Chicago (which I posted and rejected on the basis of what actually happened).

No. I never claimed they were driven by peace and love. In fact, I said the opposite.

You need to do better, man. So far you are just compounding your absurdity. At what point do you stop making a fool of yourself?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The absurdity that many isolated actions could be fitted into the framework of "domestic terrorism" when such occurances are patently NOT the part of any unified group acting against the government or even against citizens to intimidate them, any more than we can take the actions at almost any previous Trump rally as the exact same thing ... as we have certainly had picture after picture, video after video of this very obvious Coalition of Trump Operatives acting to intimidate and coerce ANYONE who disagrees with the Political Positions of their Lord and Master, DJT.

How pathetic! How disgustingly disrespectful to those AMERICANS who have actually BEEN the victims of terrorism, or who have given their lives, or their arms, legs, eyes or so forth in our military battles against ACTUAL TERRORISTS.

Perhaps we should go find that seasoned 78-year campaign veteran who, on camera, sucker-punched a protester being held helpless by Trump security ... I mean, there we have prima facie evidence of a Conspiracy among Trump Operatives (I mean, you don't think the guy in the audience just "happened" to be there, do you???) to intimidate and coerce people ACROSS THE USA with their thuggish threats.

How easy it is to create such absurd propaganda!

You attempts to place me in a position of being disrespectful to terrorism victims are well noted. I reject them as just another tactic to establish moral superiority, which is common when speaking with someone from the left of the political spectrum. Not saying you are but you have used a common tactic, which I call out for what it is. You need to learn quickly that these tactics no longer work and no longer make people afraid to state their point.

Domestic terrorism is now a very broad scope in America, as is clear from the extensive discussion on the subject over the past 2 years especially, but really ever since 911. Just holding up a sign in protest and having the paint fall off it led to terrorist charges in one instance for heavens sake. Terrorism is simply no longer restricted to bomb plots and mass shootings.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Just because you think it is more complicated it does change the definition. Its a working definition used by the FBI. It doesn't fit my agenda (if I actually had an agenda). It just is. It's the definition. Understand?

Why hasn't the FBI filed charges then?

How have you determined that Trump might be a racist and bigot? You have no proof of it at all. Certainly not 100% proof. So why are you willing to say it's up for debate and not to call it 'a joke' or 'ridiculous'? Given what you have been saying you must want to be 100% sure until you even associate that label with him?

We do have proof of his own words and statements. The problem is that his comments can be interpreted many different ways. We could say it's proof, or we could say it's just a lack of class.

Either way, I would not call it terrorism.

And I don't know why you are on this 100% proof kick.

I have watched and read pretty much everything said by Trump publicly (and also had relayed things not public) and am happy to post all of the information that leads me to believe Trump is not a racist or bigot at all.

Why? I'm not calling him a racist or a bigot. It's off topic and the only reason we are talking about it is because you tried to throw it in as a red herring and I didn't fall for it.

Can you post anything to show that the Chicago incident was driven by peace, love and courage? That's what moveon.org say of their movement and in their statement about Chicago (which I posted and rejected on the basis of what actually happened).

No. I never claimed they were driven by peace and love. In fact, I said the opposite.

You need to do better, man. So far you are just compounding your absurdity. At what point do you stop making a fool of yourself?

I am on the 100% proof 'kick' because that has been your defence of the progressive terrorists and the organisations that inspire and contribute financially.

On Trump, I was confused as to why you had a double standard. How you have been so critical of him based on opinion, but get defensive and invoke 100% proof and evidence that will stand up in court when the left are called out. Double standard - fully exposed. Your constant snipes at me personally just make me smile. I can feel your frustration at not being able to shut someone up that doesn't agree with you. Get used to it. It's a brave new world.

Here is the peaceful loving and courageous Bill Ayers (who was also reported to be at the event in 'protest'). Note the word 'we' and what a lovely retweet from a thug who was there.

I guess when one associates with domestic terrorists, it's no wonder one is led to the same action.

a reply to: UKTruth

Anyone who incites violence and hate is eventually going to be at the center of clashes, which is what you're seeing.

We need someone as President who can calm the waters and be respectful to everyone, and at least TRY to bring people together.

Trump is clearly not that guy. He lacks the people skills. He chooses insults at EVERY turn.

Honestly, it feels like Trump supporters are just looking for an excuse to uprise. Will they honor election results? Will they go away if he loses? Trump suggests riots if he's not nominated. Will he make the same warning about him not being elected?

Trump refuses to tone it down... He refuses to attempt to calm the waters. He continues to fuel division.

a reply to: UKTruth

Here is the peaceful loving and courageous Bill Ayers (who was also reported to be at the event in 'protest'). Note the word 'we' and what a lovely retweet from a thug who was there.

Your bias is painfully obvious. The violence occurred after Trump cancelled the rally because the University would not allow him to use his personal security force to eject the protesters. Ayers was taking too much credit for claiming to shut Trump down. Trump was the biggest thug there.

Apparently, as we continue to observe in reports in the media and elsewhere, among some Trump apologists, egotism and arrogance literally know no bounds.

That is, of course, because many if not all are closet (frustrated) authoritarians themselves. This "desire to control" is precisely what shows through so clearly in the rhetoric and tactics they use. That's why the Cult of Personality around Trump, the epitome of the cowardly bombast, attracts so many "miniature versions" of his personality. Pocket thugs just waiting for the chance.

And yet, in the inverted way that most psychological projections occur, when these desires to abuse others are frustrated (or ignored) these Trumpite thugs start whining and crying about "being victimized" ... and we see this particularly in response to the 3/11 Chicago Protests.

The bullies got stood up to ... and they literally cannot stand it.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth

Anyone who incites violence and hate is eventually going to be at the center of clashes, which is what you're seeing.

We need someone as President who can calm the waters and be respectful to everyone, and at least TRY to bring people together.

Trump is clearly not that guy. He lacks the people skills. He chooses insults at EVERY turn.

Honestly, it feels like Trump supporters are just looking for an excuse to uprise. Will they honor election results? Will they go away if he loses? Trump suggests riots if he's not nominated. Will he make the same warning about him not being elected?

Trump refuses to tone it down... He refuses to attempt to calm the waters. He continues to fuel division.

I agree with this. The violence on both sides is going to lead to something very serious and neither side is willing to tone down.
I am in no doubt that the rhetoric of the left is by far the biggest problem with the naked hatred of Trump suspicious in its over reaction. This is turn is doing nothing more then building up even more resentment. It's a cycle that is going to be hard to break.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Here is the peaceful loving and courageous Bill Ayers (who was also reported to be at the event in 'protest'). Note the word 'we' and what a lovely retweet from a thug who was there.

Your bias is painfully obvious. The violence occurred after Trump cancelled the rally because the University would not allow him to use his personal security force to eject the protesters. Ayers was taking too much credit for claiming to shut Trump down. Trump was the biggest thug there.

LOL Trump was not actually there but he was the biggest thug there? Blimey. and you call me bias! Bill Ayers is throwing himself into the mix. I have not had any confirmation that he was actually there (though reports are that he was earlier in the night - still trying to track down the interview he gave). The violent thugs who rioted in Chicago sure appealed to his sense of order though. I think Ayers represents these people well.

The violence got worse after the cancellation, but started before inside the venue.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Apparently, as we continue to observe in reports in the media and elsewhere, among some Trump apologists, egotism and arrogance literally know no bounds.

That is, of course, because many if not all are closet (frustrated) authoritarians themselves. This "desire to control" is precisely what shows through so clearly in the rhetoric and tactics they use. That's why the Cult of Personality around Trump, the epitome of the cowardly bombast, attracts so many "miniature versions" of his personality. Pocket thugs just waiting for the chance.

And yet, in the inverted way that most psychological projections occur, when these desires to abuse others are frustrated (or ignored) these Trumpite thugs start whining and crying about "being victimized" ... and we see this particularly in response to the 3/11 Chicago Protests.

The bullies got stood up to ... and they literally cannot stand it.

Lovely description of the progressive movement lol... points for that

Ha - progressive terrorists turn up to stop his event and Trump was trying to control them apparently. Couldn't make it up

I get your post though - it's another leftist tactic. Accuse others what they are guilty of themselves...like racism, bigotry, control and violence.

Here is more on that racist thug from earlier on standing up, nobly, to the bullies LOL



Nice try, though. I like the bit where he says he is off to loot some shops afterwards. It's tough fighting for freedom I guess. Just another example of those loving peaceful courageous leftist angels doing their thing for humanity

I think Trump supporters waited for the ballot box response in Chicago and they crushed the thugs into dust. In Cook County, 123k votes for Trump and second place Kasich on 74k... I think Trump has already thanked the thugs sent by moveon.org

Here is a guy who is clear and sensible.

These are rebellions brought on by anarchists who show up with the intent to create chaos. They live and breathe violence and disorder and will not be placated except for silencing those with whom they disagree. Their presence is a threat to ordered liberty in the United States. This totalitarian movement of Riot-Starters is made up of a patchwork quilt of cop-haters, criminals, anarchists in general, university students, and organized labor. Along the way to these rallies, they pick up and encourage people to get involved.

This is why you see university students, juveniles, and criminals as useful tools of the professional organizers. It is stealth by nature; this rebellion is a wolf in a sheep’s clothing, duping people along the way. We need to stop blaming the victim and muster the courage to stand up to this very dangerous movement.

This has nothing to do with an individual candidate’s policy positions or rhetoric. It has everything to do with Trump and his supporters’ right to assemble peaceably. The law-abiding men and women who showed up at the rally and wanted to participate, including the candidate, had their civil rights, as afforded by the Constitution, violated. They didn’t start this, but I don’t expect them to back down, either. What I expect – and frankly, what all Americans should expect of each other – is that when we exercise our Constitutional rights and people try to intimidate us or shut us down, we don’t give in. This event was nothing compared to what will happen at the Republican convention in Cleveland, and it is designed to intimidate.

Powerful and wise words from the sheriff
I think it should be clear to the agitators that the police all over the country are very much on his side. The military too.

So domestic terrorist Bill Ayers WAS at the 'protest'.
More video taped eye witness journalism.



What a stand up bunch these loving 'protesters' are