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

a reply to: UKTruth

Given the number and size of Trump rallies - if this is the compilation then I think we should conclude that Trump rallies had very little violence heading into Chicago.

But the Chicago protest was not violent. Yes, they shouted a lot, and made rude gestures, but there were no bloody noses. None of this should be surprising as tickets were made available to the mostly minority student body first. The Trump campaign knew that, and they knew that Trump was not popular in Chicago even before he became a political candidate. Either the Trump campaign is completely incompetent, or they wanted an incident for the publicity.

Very mild in fact - probably a lot less than an average night in town.

Evidence that Trump supporters consider violence to be entertainment.

a reply to: UKTruth

There is nothing partisan about using video evidence, eye witness statements and statements directly from the people responsible for the violence.

Unless, of course, those statements were not really made by the actual protesters:

Trump propaganda exposed. Could you imagine people being allowed to wear Klan insignia or hold up "White Power" banners at a legitimate Republican rally?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Given the number and size of Trump rallies - if this is the compilation then I think we should conclude that Trump rallies had very little violence heading into Chicago.

But the Chicago protest was not violent. Yes, they shouted a lot, and made rude gestures, but there were no bloody noses. None of this should be surprising as tickets were made available to the mostly minority student body first. The Trump campaign knew that, and they knew that Trump was not popular in Chicago even before he became a political candidate. Either the Trump campaign is completely incompetent, or they wanted an incident for the publicity.

Very mild in fact - probably a lot less than an average night in town.

Evidence that Trump supporters consider violence to be entertainment.

Chicago protests have already been shown to be violent (including on video).
Where did I say violence was entertainment... pretty sad accusation. I am merely pointing out that the level of violence we saw at Trump rally's is not that high and something you see regularly in a town centre.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

There is nothing partisan about using video evidence, eye witness statements and statements directly from the people responsible for the violence.

Unless, of course, those statements were not really made by the actual protesters:

Trump propaganda exposed. Could you imagine people being allowed to wear Klan insignia or hold up "White Power" banners at a legitimate Republican rally?

A twitter reverse image search on an image finds another account for a thug and that's proof of false comments from that person and across the board??? - wow.

Nice try but you are asking for it to be believed that someone spent the last 6 months setting this guy up to blame him for violence in Chicago. Quite a conspiracy theory but I am not buying it. More likely the thug had two accounts and he's been suspended on one of them for his violent, disgusting behaviour.

a reply to: UKTruth

Your concept of violence is strangely fluid. Shouting is violent, but smashing a stranger in the face is no big deal because you see it in the town center every day.



Wonder who he means by "we?"

a reply to: UKTruth

Nice try but you are asking for it to be believed that someone spent the last 6 months setting this guy up to blame him for violence in Chicago. Quite a conspiracy theory but I am not buying it. More likely the thug had two accounts and he's been suspended on one of them for his violent, disgusting behaviour.

It's more likely that the Nazis, and yes, they are actual Nazis, chose a suitable gangbanger at random, then created an account for him under another name just so they could put words in his mouth.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Your concept of violence is strangely fluid. Shouting is violent, but smashing a stranger in the face is no big deal because you see it in the town center every day.

Wonder who he means by "we?"

I have already stated several times that they guy who punched the agitator in the face was rightly arrested for it.
I am pointing out, correctly, that given the amount of people and the number of rallies' the level of violence is very low at Trump rallies.

I think that is a pretty simple statement to understand without rehashing a single incident discussed earlier.

I can see that you are making every effort possible to twist words to your narrative though - a bit like Trump haters do to him.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Nice try but you are asking for it to be believed that someone spent the last 6 months setting this guy up to blame him for violence in Chicago. Quite a conspiracy theory but I am not buying it. More likely the thug had two accounts and he's been suspended on one of them for his violent, disgusting behaviour.

It's more likely that the Nazis, and yes, they are actual Nazis, chose a suitable gangbanger at random, then created an account for him under another name just so they could put words in his mouth.

I see - I think I will reject your conspiracy theory.
I'll go with the video of the guy actually shooting his semi automatic in the air.

a reply to: UKTruth

I have already stated several times that they guy who punched the agitator in the face was rightly arrested for it.

Funny... it doesn't look like he was under arrest when he was interviewed... it looks as though Trump and all of his supporters approved the action. Perhaps you can find a clip where Trump calls the act "reprehensible."

a reply to: UKTruth

I'll go with the video of the guy actually shooting his semi automatic in the air.

Whoever it really was and whatever the circumstances, you will believe it was at the rally, even though no gunshots were reported by people who were actually there.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

I have already stated several times that they guy who punched the agitator in the face was rightly arrested for it.

Funny... it doesn't look like he was under arrest when he was interviewed... it looks as though Trump and all of his supporters approved the action. Perhaps you can find a clip where Trump calls the act "reprehensible."

How do you know Trump and all his supporters approved the action? You seem to be reaching for hyperbole and not actually thinking.

Trump has on several occasions said he does not want or approve of violence at his rallies. He may not have used language YOU want him to use to disapprove this particular act of violence - i.e. 'reprehensible'. Then again, why would he? He is winning lots of votes precisely because he is not pandering to the language police.

As for the other 10,000 at hat event, I can see no logical way to determine they all approved of that piece of violence.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

I'll go with the video of the guy actually shooting his semi automatic in the air.

Whoever it really was and whatever the circumstances, you will believe it was at the rally, even though no gunshots were reported by people who were actually there.

..and you will believe a reverse image search exonerates him, despite the fact that both twitter accounts show him to be a thug and a video of him breaking the law. By the way the video was claimed to be hrs after the event.

As I said , hopefully he will be arrested for breaking the law now we have more details on him and it can be cleared up by the police.

a reply to: UKTruth

How do you know Trump and all his supporters approved the action? You seem to be reaching for hyperbole and not actually thinking.

Did you see anyone try to restrain the man who threw the punch? Anyone at all?

Trump has on several occasions said he does not want or approve of violence at his rallies. He may not have used language YOU want him to use to disapprove this particular act of violence - i.e. 'reprehensible'. Then again, why would he? He is winning lots of votes precisely because he is not pandering to the language police.

I would settle for a video of Trump saying anything about the incident beyond his legal people are looking in to the possibility of providing the man with legal support.

As for the other 10,000 at hat event, I can see no logical way to determine they all approved of that piece of violence.

Trump has been known to praise reward people who attack protesters:

a reply to: UKTruth

..and you will believe a reverse image search exonerates him, despite the fact that both twitter accounts show him to be a thug and a video of him breaking the law. By the way the video was claimed to be hrs after the event.

I'm not sure what you mean by "exonerates him." The reverse image search shows that right wing propagandists appropriated images of a gangbanger and falsely attributed statements to him. As I said, we do not know whether the gangbanger was free at the time... or even still alive. The video makes a number of claims, and shows footage of violent incidents that did not happen at the Chicago rally in such a way as to make it appear they did. Some of the footage is actually years old, including from the NATO protests in Chicago, and the rioting in Ferguson. If this is the sort of coverage you have been mistaking for reporting, it is no wonder you have no idea what really went on.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

How do you know Trump and all his supporters approved the action? You seem to be reaching for hyperbole and not actually thinking.

Did you see anyone try to restrain the man who threw the punch? Anyone at all?

Trump has on several occasions said he does not want or approve of violence at his rallies. He may not have used language YOU want him to use to disapprove this particular act of violence - i.e. 'reprehensible'. Then again, why would he? He is winning lots of votes precisely because he is not pandering to the language police.

I would settle for a video of Trump saying anything about the incident beyond his legal people are looking in to the possibility of providing the man with legal support.

As for the other 10,000 at hat event, I can see no logical way to determine they all approved of that piece of violence.

Trump has been known to praise reward people who attack protesters:

I see, so because he wasn't restrained all 10,000 approved of it? Some logic.

Are you sure you want me to post a video of Trump saying he disapproves of the violence? Will that mean you will then change your mind and accept you don't actually have all the facts to form a good opinion?

Yes, Trump has been known to encourage people to use violence to restrain violence. No debate there. I am on the side of violence up to deadly force to stop violent behaviour depending on the level of violence one is trying to stop.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

..and you will believe a reverse image search exonerates him, despite the fact that both twitter accounts show him to be a thug and a video of him breaking the law. By the way the video was claimed to be hrs after the event.

I'm not sure what you mean by "exonerates him." The reverse image search shows that right wing propagandists appropriated images of a gangbanger and falsely attributed statements to him. As I said, we do not know whether the gangbanger was free at the time... or even still alive. The video makes a number of claims, and shows footage of violent incidents that did not happen at the Chicago rally in such a way as to make it appear they did. Some of the footage is actually years old, including from the NATO protests in Chicago, and the rioting in Ferguson. If this is the sort of coverage you have been mistaking for reporting, it is no wonder you have no idea what really went on.

No it really doesn't show anything of the sort.
You seem to have made up a lot of 'facts' in the post above.

All we know is the person shooting a gun in the air with a twitter account taking credit for violence at the Trump rally also has another Twitter account.

Beyond that we do not have any basis to support your conspiracy theory.

a reply to: UKTruth

Are you sure you want me to post a video of Trump saying he disapproves of the violence? Will that mean you will then change your mind and accept you don't actually have all the facts to form a good opinion?

Absolutely. Please find a clip of Trump denouncing the face punching incident and denouncing the use of violence and I will admit I don't have all the facts.

Yes, Trump has been known to encourage people to use violence to restrain violence. No debate there. I am on the side of violence up to deadly force to stop violent behaviour depending on the level of violence one is trying to stop.

So... is holding up a sign that says "Bernie" sufficiently violent to warrant the use of force?

This is all embarassing and reprehensible.

US politics is now at the mercy of the lowest common denominator.

What a bright future should these people win the election. If they have no respect for the democratic process, what hope do we have that their candidates will respect the law once elected.....they will have broken it to win.

They are breaking the law to stop people from talking and sharing ideas.

Pathetic display.

a reply to: UKTruth

All we know is the person shooting a gun in the air with a twitter account taking credit for violence at the Trump rally also has another Twitter account.

Wrong. All we know is that there is a twitter account claiming to take credit for violence at the Trump rally. The account features images of a gangbanger. We do not know if the images are of the owner of the twitter account. We know that the images were of another twitter account owner. That account does not take credit for violence at the Trump rally.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

All we know is the person shooting a gun in the air with a twitter account taking credit for violence at the Trump rally also has another Twitter account.

Wrong. All we know is that there is a twitter account claiming to take credit for violence at the Trump rally. The account features images of a gangbanger. We do not know if the images are of the owner of the twitter account. We know that the images were of another twitter account owner. That account does not take credit for violence at the Trump rally.

You seem to have trouble understanding that the guy breaking the law and shooting his gun in the air IS the guy with the other twitter account. He's a thug either way. As I said - all we know is that he had two accounts.

I still reject your conspiracy theory.