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

originally posted by: tadaman
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.

Agree - we saw it yesterday too with the blocking of the highway. These people just want to veto others rights.

a reply to: UKTruth

As I said - all we know is that he had two accounts.

All we know is that he had one account; the other may be spoofed.

originally posted by: DJW001
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?

edition.cnn.com... presidential-debates/

First part of Trumps answer in this video covers the incident.
"I do not like it"
"I do not condone it at all"

He has not ever totally denounce violence, nor should he, as sometimes it is necessary to contain violence.
But, in terms of the incident you asked for, it's there.

Holding up a bernie sign does not constitute violence.
The thug behaviour by some of the protesters already discussed does. There were some awful thugs in that crowd.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

As I said - all we know is that he had two accounts.

All we know is that he had one account; the other may be spoofed.

No, we know there were TWO accounts for this person.
We have no information to support your conspiracy theory that one was started in 2013 by Nazi's to discredit this guy.

a reply to: UKTruth

We have no information to support your conspiracy theory that one was started in 2013 by Nazi's to discredit this guy.

Please learn to read English. Here is what we know about the account claiming to be "Jamaal":

The Twitter feed goes back six months and is filled with tweets about rioting and looting, BLM, and profuse racial epithets (for blacks and whites). "Jamaal Williams" appears to have a brother "Jayrome Williams" who is the most frequently tweeted to/from user. It was a pro-Trump blogger's wet dream and that's when the doubt really set in — it was over the top. There was also a couple references to Baltimore which didn't add up.

[Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Here is what we know about the person depicted in the photographs:

1. His name is Kevin.
2. He's not from Chicago.
3. He appeared to be a rapper.
4. He doesn't talk about rioting or looting or politics.
5. Not a single mention of Trump, Chicago, a rally, or BLM

Got it?

a reply to: UKTruth

First part of Trumps answer in this video covers the incident.
"I do not like it"
"I do not condone it at all"

He spent more time justifying it than he did saying "I don't condone it." He denied having seen footage of the punch in question. (I guess he doesn't watch the news.) When the moderator listed some of the things Trump has said to encourage violence, his supporters started to cheer. As usual, he concludes with the lie that it is the protesters who are throwing punches. I hope you never have to live with the sort of political terror that Trump is creating here in your country.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

We have no information to support your conspiracy theory that one was started in 2013 by Nazi's to discredit this guy.

Please learn to read English. Here is what we know about the account claiming to be "Jamaal":

The Twitter feed goes back six months and is filled with tweets about rioting and looting, BLM, and profuse racial epithets (for blacks and whites). "Jamaal Williams" appears to have a brother "Jayrome Williams" who is the most frequently tweeted to/from user. It was a pro-Trump blogger's wet dream and that's when the doubt really set in — it was over the top. There was also a couple references to Baltimore which didn't add up.

[Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Here is what we know about the person depicted in the photographs:

1. His name is Kevin.
2. He's not from Chicago.
3. He appeared to be a rapper.
4. He doesn't talk about rioting or looting or politics.
5. Not a single mention of Trump, Chicago, a rally, or BLM

Got it?

Lol have another look at the video - the account was created in 2013.
You are talking about one of the accounts.

The other was a hate filled thug CV with videos of him breaking the law. HIM, not someone else. Where did these neo nazi conspirators get a private video of him mouthing off firing a gun in the air lol.

Sorry you have a lot of work to do to turn your conspiracy theory into even something worth further consideration.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

First part of Trumps answer in this video covers the incident.
"I do not like it"
"I do not condone it at all"

He spent more time justifying it than he did saying "I don't condone it." He denied having seen footage of the punch in question. (I guess he doesn't watch the news.) When the moderator listed some of the things Trump has said to encourage violence, his supporters started to cheer. As usual, he concludes with the lie that it is the protesters who are throwing punches. I hope you never have to live with the sort of political terror that Trump is creating here in your country.

'I do not like it'
'I do not condone it at all'

That is what he said about the incident involving a thug at his rally that punched the agitator.

You asked for him saying it - there it is.
There are also other examples.
I guess you are going to go back on your promise to reverse yourself on this opinion after you were provided proof.

a reply to: UKTruth

'I do not like it'
'I do not condone it at all'

That is what he said about the incident involving a thug at his rally that punched the agitator.

You asked for him saying it - there it is.
There are also other examples.
I guess you are going to go back on your promise to reverse yourself on this opinion after you were provided proof.

He did not condone something he claimed he did not see, then turned around and started justifying violence again. You proved nothing.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I never said I was going to be involved in this behavior, you'll notice I used the term they very intentionally, but like the last sentence in your post , I think my analysis of the situation is accurate.

a reply to: UKTruth

Lol have another look at the video - the account was created in 2013.

According to whom? This is getting tedious. What is your interest here? Please don't say it's the truth. Trump flees the truth like a vampire flees the light.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

'I do not like it'
'I do not condone it at all'

That is what he said about the incident involving a thug at his rally that punched the agitator.

You asked for him saying it - there it is.
There are also other examples.
I guess you are going to go back on your promise to reverse yourself on this opinion after you were provided proof.

He did not condone something he claimed he did not see, then turned around and started justifying violence again. You proved nothing.

And so we go round in circles.
You asked for proof that Trump doe snot support the violent act in question.

He said:

'I do not like it'
'I do not condone it at all'

Now apparently that is not to your liking - which is what I said would happen.
You have a view and facts will never matter to you - that much is clear.

a reply to: UKTruth

He said:

'I do not like it'
'I do not condone it at all'

Do you believe him? He went on and on about how Americans are angry, claimed he did not see the act in question, said he did not like the act he claims not to have seen, then went on to justify future violence. Does that strike you as being sincere?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Lol have another look at the video - the account was created in 2013.

According to whom? This is getting tedious. What is your interest here? Please don't say it's the truth. Trump flees the truth like a vampire flees the light.

Did you even watch the video you are using to make all these conspiracy claims?!
It clearly states the account was created in July 2013.
It shows the same person from the other account on video firing his semi auto into the air in a public place surrounded by others.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

He said:

'I do not like it'
'I do not condone it at all'

Do you believe him? He went on and on about how Americans are angry, claimed he did not see the act in question, said he did not like the act he claims not to have seen, then went on to justify future violence. Does that strike you as being sincere?

I believe, as he has said and demonstrated, that he fights back against violence with violence.
He has also said that he does not want, support or like violence.

I think as a presidential front runner, he should now call for no more violence and not react to attacks if they do occur. I don't think he will though.

The idea though, that he is inciting violence or supports unprovoked attacks on people is nonsense. There is no evidence for it.

a reply to: UKTruth

I believe, as he has said and demonstrated, that he fights back against violence with violence.

There's that fluid definition of violence again. Holding up a sign is not violence.

He has also said that he does not want, support or like violence.

Where? The quote you linked to showed him justifying violence in general more than denouncing a single act.

I think as a presidential front runner, he should now call for no more violence and not react to attacks if they do occur. I don't think he will though.

Exactly; in fact, he has threatened to send his supporters to disrupt Sanders rallies. Just suggesting it will make it happen. Who will rid me of this troublesome...?

The idea though, that he is inciting violence or supports unprovoked attacks on people is nonsense. There is no evidence for it.

Open your eyes; you yourself admit that he is not preaching non-violence. His campaign is based on channeling anger and justifying violence. "Maybe next time we'll have to kill him."

Only the stupid people cause problems at Trump rallies. It is simple, if you do not like Trump, protest by NOT voting for him. The stupid people will simply get themselves arrested. Which in itself is not a bad thing, IMO. Peaceful protest is OK. But what has been seen so far is not Peaceful.

a reply to: Ceeker63

But what has been seen so far is not Peaceful.

What have you actually seen?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

I believe, as he has said and demonstrated, that he fights back against violence with violence.

There's that fluid definition of violence again. Holding up a sign is not violence.

He has also said that he does not want, support or like violence.

Where? The quote you linked to showed him justifying violence in general more than denouncing a single act.

I think as a presidential front runner, he should now call for no more violence and not react to attacks if they do occur. I don't think he will though.

Exactly; in fact, he has threatened to send his supporters to disrupt Sanders rallies. Just suggesting it will make it happen. Who will rid me of this troublesome...?

The idea though, that he is inciting violence or supports unprovoked attacks on people is nonsense. There is no evidence for it.

Open your eyes; you yourself admit that he is not preaching non-violence. His campaign is based on channeling anger and justifying violence. "Maybe next time we'll have to kill him."

Your failure to even register the facts is just silly
I have already given you specific quotes from Trump that tells you directly from source that he has denounced the violent act you wanted evidence of.

The one area where we ate least have some common ground is that (I think) we both agree that Trump should just let his haters use violence if they want to and not to retaliate. These are the only areas where I can see that he is advocating violence - as retaliation.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Ceeker63

But what has been seen so far is not Peaceful.

What have you actually seen?

Plenty all discussed already - we don't have to go over it again.