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

originally posted by: EvillerBob

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.

Perhaps you misunderstand the example?

a reply to: UKTruth

Look at it this way.

He is being attacked by politicians and the media because he is doing well in the polls. He is polling highly because he has the support. He has the support because of the things he says.

No matter what, it all comes down to what he says.

If he was a reasonable, moderate Republican, he probably would not have the support he does. Reasonable moderate Republicans do not talk like Trump.

He is popular, and demonized by the media, because he has enough people that support him and actually think the way that Trump talks.

a reply to: Raxoxane

I am not American.

My perspective is, like you, from outside the US. Half of my family though are American and some are even Trump supporters.

I did acknowledge the fact that the US, as a country, had already suffered racial division throughout it's history when I first replied to the OP back on the 1st page of the thread.

It is my opinion though, that as a candidate for the presidency Trump does nothing to distance himself from endorsements from David Duke and Stormfront. It is quite the opposite, his slurs, tweets and throw away comments appear tailor-made to appeal to the more divisive sections in society.

Far Right + Far left = Recipe for disaster

a reply to: introvert

Racial politics started by Republicans demagouging Obama.
How Trump Happened

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

So the protesters got together and just randomly decided to pick on Trump and not any of the other Republican candidates? It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rhetoric Trump has been using on the campaign trail?

So how does Thomas Dimassimo from child actor to Thug represent America ?

originally posted by: EvillerBob

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.

In my world I don't remember excusing either behavior. I'm not in chicago or any other Trump event violently protesting them. That doesn't excuse the fact that something is characteristically different about Trump's campaign that draws these types into it. You should read this article. I promise you it isn't partisan slanted in any way. It talks about how Trump attracts and encourages violent people from both sides of the debate to show up at his events:
Someone Will Die

What we have seen over the last two weeks isn't just an escalation of chaos and low level violence but a progressive normalization of unacceptable behavior - more racist verbal attacks, more violence. This is in turn clearly attracting more people who want trouble - on both sides. If you're an angry racist who wants to act out on his anger, can you imagine any better place to go than a Trump rally? If you hate Trump, his supporters and all he stands for and want to get physical about it, where best to go?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: EvillerBob

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.

Perhaps you misunderstand the example?

a reply to: UKTruth

Look at it this way.

He is being attacked by politicians and the media because he is doing well in the polls. He is polling highly because he has the support. He has the support because of the things he says.

No matter what, it all comes down to what he says.

If he was a reasonable, moderate Republican, he probably would not have the support he does. Reasonable moderate Republicans do not talk like Trump.

He is popular, and demonized by the media, because he has enough people that support him and actually think the way that Trump talks.

Well i don't disagree that what he says garners support - however I do not believe his words created the incident in Chicago. Without marketing an event to cause chaos it would never have happened.

I would point out a couple of things though. First, most of what Trump says is pretty reasonable (if you are willing to look at the specifics we have been given), BUT he doesn't do himself any favours with the occasions where he lets his ego take over his mouth. If he ever learned to not 'punch back' as he puts it, he would easily get elected. His issues arise when his ego is bruised and he feels he has to defend himself.

The other thing I would say is that the fact he has so much support tells you immediately that his rise in the polls is not about bigotry or racism. It just can not be. I refuse to accept that 40-50% of Americans are so racist or violent they would vote in a man who has been painted the way he has been in the media. If that IS the case, then you guys are headed for another civil war - whether he gets elected or not.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

So the protesters got together and just randomly decided to pick on Trump and not any of the other Republican candidates? It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rhetoric Trump has been using on the campaign trail?

There was nothing random about Chicago. It was organised by left leaning organisations. My view is that they did it because Trump is a serious threat politicly. As for the smattering of other protesters at each event, I suspect hat has more to do with an insane amount of attack ads demonising him as a racist than him saying he wants to punch someone.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

So the protesters got together and just randomly decided to pick on Trump and not any of the other Republican candidates? It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rhetoric Trump has been using on the campaign trail?

There was nothing random about Chicago. It was organised by left leaning organisations. My view is that they did it because Trump is a serious threat politicly. As for the smattering of other protesters at each event, I suspect hat has more to do with an insane amount of attack ads demonising him as a racist than him saying he wants to punch someone.

Yea it wasn't random because Trump says inciteful things that piss people off, prompting THOSE people to turn around and do things like in Chicago. How are you not getting this detail?

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.

And yet speach is protected, but violent actions are not... Hmm, I wonder why?

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?

Could it be they are jokes and everyone knows they don't have a chance?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you seriously going to play dumb with us here?

So a pen is mightier than a sword?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Yea it wasn't random because Trump says inciteful things that piss people off, prompting THOSE people to turn around and do things like in Chicago. How are you not getting this detail?

Because that's not the detail.

You say that they are "incited" and attacking him because they are pissed off.

I say they are scared that he is saying things that people want to hear, things that will threaten their political position, and they are desperate to drown out that message.

It's an important difference.

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?

So when someone says something the tolerant and peaceful left doesn't like violence is OK?

Because that is what you are saying.

The argument continues. Trump said some things, therefor any subsequent action displayed by others is his fault. Pure superstition.

originally posted by: Sargeras

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?

So when someone says something the tolerant and peaceful left doesn't like violence is OK?

Because that is what you are saying.

And that is exactly the position of the left. It always has been. Why do you think the KKK was started by the Democrats?

a reply to: UKTruth

however I do not believe his words created the incident in Chicago. Without marketing an event to cause chaos it would never have happened.

If Trump did not say the things he has, there would be no "market" to pander to.

The other thing I would say is that the fact he has so much support tells you immediately that his rise in the polls is not about bigotry or racism. It just can not be.

Not all of his support comes from bigotry or racism. But some of it is. That is clear.

I refuse to accept that 40-50% of Americans are so racist or violent they would vote in a man who has been painted the way he has been in the media.

It's not that hard to imagine.

If that IS the case, then you guys are headed for another civil war - whether he gets elected or not.

That may be the case.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Yea it wasn't random because Trump says inciteful things that piss people off, prompting THOSE people to turn around and do things like in Chicago. How are you not getting this detail?

Because that's not the detail.

You say that they are "incited" and attacking him because they are pissed off.

I say they are scared that he is saying things that people want to hear, things that will threaten their political position, and they are desperate to drown out that message.

It's an important difference.

Racial divisiveness towards minorities is generally a reason to start being fearful as a minority. Such words haven't traditionally worked out well for minorities after being said in this country. Especially when that divisiveness is something that "people want to hear" as you said.

originally posted by: Sargeras

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.

And yet speach is protected, but violent actions are not... Hmm, I wonder why?

There are still consequences to pay for the things you say.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you seriously going to play dumb with us here?

So a pen is mightier than a sword?

At this point I'm not sure if you are trying to be clever in some failing sort of way or just trolling. Either way, it's clear that there is no intellectual merit in continuing this conversation.