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

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Try a sword fight with a pen.

Are you seriously going to play dumb with us here?

originally posted by: jjkenobi
This thread is hilarious! Anti-Trump supporters continually crash Trump events CAUSING the violence, then liberals turn around and complain there is violence at Trump events. That they caused in the first place!

Why don't you see violent interruptions at Trump/Hillary events? Think about it.

Do you think Cleveland is buying 2000 sets of riot gear before the RNC event because they are worried conservatives are going to get rowdy at their own event? Or could it POSSIBLY be because they are 100% sure that liberals will come to "protest" and end up rioting and destroying property and getting thrown in jail.

And it has NOTHING to do with Donald Trump encouraging and endorsing this behavior? I notice these things don't happen at Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio rallies. Apparently they can take care of their dissenting opinions without resorting to mob justice.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

By what causal connection do words effect emotion?

All due respect, but this is quite a stupid question. I say that not only because it is true, but also as an example of how simple words and statements can incite emotion. Such a statement can breed feelings of anger and resentment. Do you enjoy reading a post that claims your question is stupid? Of course not.

Do words not have an effect in cases of bullying? How about emotional abuse in marriages? Psychological warfare?

A war of words.

Again with all due respect, One would have to be swimming in the deep end of cognitive dissonance to attempt to deny the power of words.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

Words and language are very important. There is no superstition. Many of us understand that the spoken word is as powerful as the clenched fist.

Then try punching someone with a word. Attributing special powers to inanimate objects is the definition of superstition.

Perhaps you misunderstand. Are emotions superstition? Is fear, anger and excitement superstition? How about love?

It is words that affect emotion. Emotion can dictate or motivate action.

Surely you are not so naive as to say that just because speech cannot directly cause physical harm that they have no power whatsoever.

Lets assume speech can drive someone to violence - it clearly can as we have seen all through history.

Here is what has actually been said (and in some cases done)

TRUMP:
- uses language like 'punch that guy', ' I'll pay for the legal bills', etc. when he is talking about how to deal with a person causing problems, not by protesting, but by shouting abuse and threatening to throw things at him.
- also tells supporters to take it easy and not hurt protesters when the people protesting are not being aggressive. (this part is not reported but you only have to watch his rallies to hear it used more often than his 'punch this guy' statements)

THOSE THAT ATTACK TRUMP
- $40m of attack ads in a week
- accusations he is Hitler
- disruptors at his rallies shouting insults and making threats to throw things at him
- progressive organisations organising attacks on his rallies, recruiting people with the purpose of shutting down his speech and resulting in physical attacks, ripping up signs, taunting, blocking ambulances..
- attempted physical attack on Trump himself

Can any honest person really say that it is Trump inciting violence? I know which is worse from the above.

The fact that the Trump supporters were restrained in Chicago and that Trump called the rally off is a credit to the entire Trump Campaign. The real villains here are the progressives hell bent on causing trouble.

To date, we've seen several INDIVIDUAL and SMALL GROUPS get violent at Trump rallies. Given the size of these rallies, ten to thirty plus thousand, that really doesn't bother me that much. I've been to plenty of rock concerts and professional sport events that were of comparable size, and there always seems to be at least a couple of folks getting rowdy anytime you get this many people together.

What happened in Chicago was something else though. The word is that there were hundreds of protesters there who were going to charge the stage in mass. That is a plan designed to get someone killed. A hundred plus people charging someone under Secret Service protection could get bloody real quick. Try that at this point against any candidate on either side and people will die. So in my opinion whoever planned and funded that protest hated Trump so much that they were willing to sacrifice at least some of their own supporters lives. Fortunately, Mr. Trump had the good sense to cancel.

So as we talk about violence at political rallies lets distinguish between individual acts of violence, spurred by passions of the moment, that are of course to be condemned, but aren't outside the norm for any event of comparable size and, acts of of organized violence that have the intention to get people killed for a political goal.

I'd also like to add, I don't blame Sanders for the actions of his supporters, and given that it happened in Rhambo's Chicago, I'd speculate that it is more likely to be caused by forces loyal to Hillary.

a reply to: UKTruth

Why aren't these people protesting Cruz, Rubio or Kasich events?

Could it possibly be that there is something Trump is saying that is pissing people off?

a reply to: UKTruth

Newsflash! When you act like a bully to a large part of people who disagree with you, they push back. What did you expect when Trump started his campaign? That the people he was pissing off would just roll over and take it?

a reply to: cosmickat

As a South African with a perspective from outside - and as a supporter of absolutely None of the candidates for this American Presidential election,i have to wonder though:

The racial divide that Trump is trying to take advantage of,was there when he came on the political scene. Imo,Obama,your current president,has done more to foster racial division in America than any other president in recent decades. Had he done his utmost best to Unite your nation-i suppose there would not have been such fertile soil for Trump.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

This gets to the point of the thread. I was wondering if Trump is a physical bully as well as a word bully. He did threaten to send some of his men to Bernie rallies to rough them up.

If he becomes President, who will he bully next and how? He will have power, which gives him the opportunity to do some real damage, not just emotional damage. He has already been shown in this thread to be a bully when it comes to managing his corporations, so there is no reason to think he won't do the same as President.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Why aren't these people protesting Cruz, Rubio or Kasich events?

Could it possibly be that there is something Trump is saying that is pissing people off?

He is the front runner for the nomination and the very people he is criticising as part of his policy platform are the people taking out the ads to demonise him and organise coordinated attacks. These people are set to lose out if he wins. There is your answer. I do not believe for a second that 1000+ people would just turn up to cause chaos just because he uses language like 'i'd like to punch him in the mouth'.

Now ask yourself this - would Chicago have happened if Trump was polling 5%???? Answer honestly.

a reply to: UKTruth

Can any honest person really say that it is Trump inciting violence?

Trump has brought his misfortune upon himself and the events that followed are the result of him saying incredibly stupid things. Cause and effect.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Newsflash! When you act like a bully to a large part of people who disagree with you, they push back. What did you expect when Trump started his campaign? That the people he was pissing off would just roll over and take it?

It just occurred to me that we as a society take a bit of satisfaction in seeing a bully get what they have coming to them. I remember a video that was popular some years ago in which an overweight kid had finally had enough of the bullying and physically gave his bully something to remember. Although we never like to see people resort to violence to resolve conflict, justice was served and we all gave the fat kid a virtual pat on the back.

But why is it that we have a man running for president who is using a bully-like attitude and platform to gain support, and those that feel they are being bullied fight back, our thinking changes? Instead of a pat on the back for sticking up for themselves, we generalize and demonize?

I don't agree with what they did in Chicago, but I understand why they did it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Newsflash! When you act like a bully to a large part of people who disagree with you, they push back. What did you expect when Trump started his campaign? That the people he was pissing off would just roll over and take it?

In the same way, when someone turns up to a Trump rally and tries to bully everyone there by hurling abuse and stopping people speaking, what do you think is going to happen? Do YOU think you can piss all those people off and they will all just roll over? See how that works? Consider your hypocrisy called out.

Fact is Chicago did not happen because a large group of people responded naturally to what Trump was saying. It was an organised and recruited effort to cause chaos, not a spontaneous reaction to anything Trump said. It was organised by his political enemies. This is about politics, not the language Trump uses to deal with disruptors.

a reply to: UKTruth

Now ask yourself this - would Chicago have happened if Trump was polling 5%???? Answer honestly.

That's a very good point. If he was not doing well I don't believe it would be as much an issue.

The problem is that he is popular and he has a lot of his supporters parroting the same language and terminology he uses. Instead of having one man spitting ignorance and hate, we have an army of his supporters doing it as well.

Compounds the issue, does it not?

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

That's the same moral reasoning used by someone who says "she had it coming because of the clothes she was wearing".

You are basically saying that one persons words(or dress which is a form of free speech) make them culpable for another person's actions.

a reply to: darkbake

The US has seen a history of violent actions between political parties since it started as a country.

To think this is even new is naïve.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

When you act like a bully to a large part of people who disagree with you, they push back.

In your world, Trump is being the bully and BLM are pushing back.

In my world, BLM are being the bullies and Trump is pushing back.

Keep pushing, Trump. I really don't want you to become President but you're doing a great job of showing the world how ugly the Democrats become when that thin veneer of civility gets scuffed.

a reply to: jefwane

You are basically saying that one persons words make them culpable for another person's actions.

Yes, it's called Incitement.

originally posted by: introvert
But why is it that we have a man running for president who is using a bully-like attitude and platform to gain support, and those that feel they are being bullied fight back, our thinking changes? Instead of a pat on the back for sticking up for themselves, we generalize and demonize?

I don't agree with what they did in Chicago, but I understand why they did it.

Because Trump isn't the "bully" in that scenario, he's the fat kid finally standing up the bullies and handing out a few bloody noses.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Now ask yourself this - would Chicago have happened if Trump was polling 5%???? Answer honestly.

That's a very good point. If he was not doing well I don't believe it would be as much an issue.

The problem is that he is popular and he has a lot of his supporters parroting the same language and terminology he uses. Instead of having one man spitting ignorance and hate, we have an army of his supporters doing it as well.

Compounds the issue, does it not?

Well I am not sure all his supporters are spitting hate or even the majority of them. Did you see the BLM member and the Trump supporters coming together to talk through differences and embracing? Not something shown on MSM but it happened and is happening.

The fact that he is polling highly is the very reason this is happening.

My belief is that the REAL people inciting violence are the people in the political arena who are scared of Trump because he might win. When you get wall to wall coverage demonising him and agitators actually organising mobs against him I point the finger there.