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

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You see, that is where you are blinded. He is not connected. He knows them. I know a lot of people but I don't trust them. That is the politician I want.

Oh really? And you know this how? He told you?

He does not preach hate. Seriously. Rough up...how about the 1968 DNC convention that was held in...wait for it...CHICAGO! That was violence. Talking about the protesters is a way to make him look bad as well as keep his views or 'new views' out of the news.

Call it what you want, it is clearly upsetting minorities who are interpreting it as hate though.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?

It was recruited and organised. Nothing more than marketing to get a crowd. Responsibility has already been claimed for it. If I had enough money I could get a crowd of 1,000-2,000 people to turn up anywhere I wanted them to. I don't know why this fact will not get through to you.

Maybe because actions like this aren't and don't happen at other political candidate events. That is just a sticking point that you are trying to sweep under the rug.

Trump calls it like it is. I wonder what the media would say about Teddy Roosevelt today. He has the freedom to speak his mind. He doesnt have handlers, and the powers that be a terrified they will lose their grip. Thats the best reason to vote for him. This is the change people wanted when they voted for Obama, to take the power back. Thata what the smear of Trump is about. They even likened him to hitler. What a joke. The establishment is scared, and the attacks on Trump show their desperation. I think Trump is not the best candidate for president out of the 300 some million Americans out there, but he is the best of whats available right now, which is the real shame of it all.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?

It was recruited and organised. Nothing more than marketing to get a crowd. Responsibility has already been claimed for it. If I had enough money I could get a crowd of 1,000-2,000 people to turn up anywhere I wanted them to. I don't know why this fact will not get through to you.

Maybe because actions like this aren't and don't happen at other political candidate events. That is just a sticking point that you are trying to sweep under the rug.

I have already given my view as to why this its focused on Trump. Go back and read the discussion on it.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?

It was recruited and organised. Nothing more than marketing to get a crowd. Responsibility has already been claimed for it. If I had enough money I could get a crowd of 1,000-2,000 people to turn up anywhere I wanted them to. I don't know why this fact will not get through to you.

Maybe because actions like this aren't and don't happen at other political candidate events. That is just a sticking point that you are trying to sweep under the rug.

I have already given my view as to why this its focused on Trump. Go back and read the discussion on it.

Yea. We are arguing in circles because you don't want to open your eyes to the possibility that Trump probably has something to do with violence happening ONLY at Trump rallies and no other ones. You excuse his behavior (heck many Trump supporters celebrate it) then call out the people reacting to it. It's hypocritical. Especially since he started it. Then Trump supporters have the audacity to pretend like TRUMP is the victim here? Lol... He reaps what he sows.

Another embarrassing tactic is to verbally attack Trump's so-called "hateful speech" with hateful speech, complete with the playground name-calling (in the case of John Oliver's political hit-piece something regarding foreskins, or on SNL the portrayal of Trump supporters as full-blown Nazis), the disrespectful gestures, threats and name-calling of the "protestors", all while claiming the moral high-ground.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It is a straw man.

In one post you claim people are saying "Trump said some things I don't like, therefor he is evil". You tear that down as being " non-sequitur, invented by people whom have never met Trump".

Whom has said that? You used quotations so I assume you can directly quote someone?

I doubt it. You created that argument in order to easily destroy it. Unless you can directly quote, it is a vast generalization and misrepresentation of those that may carry signs saying "Trump = Hate, Trump is Hitler".

Trump spreading hate or equating to Hitler does not mean they believe he is evil, and that was your straw man claim.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You see, that is where you are blinded. He is not connected. He knows them. I know a lot of people but I don't trust them. That is the politician I want.

Oh really? And you know this how? He told you?

He does not preach hate. Seriously. Rough up...how about the 1968 DNC convention that was held in...wait for it...CHICAGO! That was violence. Talking about the protesters is a way to make him look bad as well as keep his views or 'new views' out of the news.

Call it what you want, it is clearly upsetting minorities who are interpreting it as hate though.

And you know he is connected how? Because he has money? Because he has given money to politicians? How do you now there is a relationship that exists that makes him connected in the context you positioned? What's the nature of this connection?

He is not clearly upsetting minorities. This is not about majority / minority. Its about politcal power. If it really was a minority issue then he would get no support from minority groups.

He has been endorsed by Ben Carson, has been praised on some of his issues by none other than Louis Farrakhan (who has agreed with the view that Muslim immigration is dangerous), several black pastors. He is getting a lot of votes from hispanics and asians. There is no minority/majority divide despite people wanting there to be. The divide, like I said, is political and its cuts across all groups.

The left seem hell bent on dividing the nation on race by creating their own narrative and then trying to blame it on Trump. It is not working.

Trump is dividing by policy
The left divides by race

a reply to: introvert

Trump spreading hate or equating to Hitler does not mean they believe he is evil, and that was your straw man claim.

No. A straw man is misrepresenting your opponent's argument and then refuting the misrepresentation, kind of like what you're doing. It does not mean they don't believe he is evil either. For instance, Mitt Romney's claim regarding Trump: "twisted example of evil trumping good". Or how about this Huffpo article, This Venn diagram is proof Trump is evil, imaginary or both.

You tell me why people are protesting Trump.

I like how all the republican candidates say they want to take our country back.....to what?......the way it was under bush????.....or the 1950's??....it must mean, how do we get back everything from of all these minorities. the jobs, the property, the bank accounts, etc....

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: woodwardjnr

Interesting trailer, and to see the gangsta coming out in Trump.

Can you imagine the sh!tstorm everywhere if he actually gets the big chair?

I imagine there will be a sh!tstorm if he doesn't. If he doesn't I hope Texas finally decides to secede. Someone should.

originally posted by: jimmyx
I like how all the republican candidates say they want to take our country back.....to what?......the way it was under bush????.....or the 1950's??....it must mean, how do we get back everything from of all these minorities. the jobs, the property, the bank accounts, etc....

I believe they are talking about taking it back from corporations and special interests. I don't think it has anything to do with going back to the horse and cart.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A straw man is misrepresenting your opponent's argument and then refuting the misrepresentation

Yup, that's what you did and I already stated how and why.

It does not mean they don't believe he is evil either.

It doesn't mean that they do either. You made it up (misrepresentation) to tear it down (refutation).

Straw man.

For instance, Mitt Romney's claim regarding Trump: "twisted example of evil trumping good". Or how about this Huffpo article, This Venn diagram is proof Trump is evil, imaginary or both.

One is a Republican, that knows Trump, and the other is a piece written by the COMEDY editor for the Huffpo.

This is what you said:

invented by people whom have never met Trump

Where is the proof of some narrative that Trump is evil? Quoting a religious nut and a comedy writer is not indicative of that.

At least be intellectually honest. You made that up just to tear down it's ridiculousness.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?

It was recruited and organised. Nothing more than marketing to get a crowd. Responsibility has already been claimed for it. If I had enough money I could get a crowd of 1,000-2,000 people to turn up anywhere I wanted them to. I don't know why this fact will not get through to you.

Maybe because actions like this aren't and don't happen at other political candidate events. That is just a sticking point that you are trying to sweep under the rug.

I have already given my view as to why this its focused on Trump. Go back and read the discussion on it.

Yea. We are arguing in circles because you don't want to open your eyes to the possibility that Trump probably has something to do with violence happening ONLY at Trump rallies and no other ones. You excuse his behavior (heck many Trump supporters celebrate it) then call out the people reacting to it. It's hypocritical. Especially since he started it. Then Trump supporters have the audacity to pretend like TRUMP is the victim here? Lol... He reaps what he sows.

Well now - I see progress here.
Am I open to the possibility that Trump probably has something to do with the violence? Yes absolutely. In fact I will go further. He absolutely has a large part to play in it. I just don't think it has anything to do with him saying he wants to punch someone in the face.

I have not excused Trump's behaviour - on this thread I have already pointed out where I think he is making mistakes.

The four Trump years will see America try to destroy itself, then he will be voted out for some one who promises to 'right all the wrongs' yeah, good luck with that, 200 years of being brainwashed wiped away in 4 years??

a reply to: introvert

Yup, that's what you did and I already stated how and why.

But you did it poorly and you were wrong.

It doesn't mean that they do either. You made it up (misrepresentation) to tear it down (refutation).

Straw man.

Now I misrepresented something. Care to tell me which argument I misrepresented? Because you've failed to do that.

One is a Republican, that knows Trump, and the other is a piece written by the COMEDY editor for the Huffpo.

Where is the proof of some narrative that Trump is evil? Quoting a religious nut and a comedy writer is not indicative of that.

People are equating Trump to Hitler, Mussolini, and his followers to Nazis. Are Hitler and the Nazis good or evil?

At least be intellectually honest. You made that up just to tear down it's ridiculousness.

All while you try desperately to misrepresent my argument and refute it.

a reply to: UKTruth

Well it is behavior like Trump's that I find unacceptable as a national political candidate. Plus it inspires hate. Anti-Trump protesters aren't alone in the violence department. There is plenty of violence originating from the pro-Trump side too. And it seems that Trump, if not encouraging it, he is supporting it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Well it is behavior like Trump's that I find unacceptable as a national political candidate. Plus it inspires hate. Anti-Trump protesters aren't alone in the violence department. There is plenty of violence originating from the pro-Trump side too. And it seems that Trump, if not encouraging it, he is supporting it.

I just don't think his language is inciting anything.
I don't think race has anything to do with it.

Maybe round the edges, but it is not the driver.

The evidence I see point to it being a political divide and with a shrinking and suffering middle class, policy differences between the right
and left always become more divisive. Throw in the risk to the status quo of govt. and corporate corruption and you get a mix that leads to violence. Trump is the problem in so much that he represents significant danger to those that are currently benefiting form the prevailing system.

Those very same interests are now at play to completely destroy Trump by building a portrait of him using every negative thing they can piece together to create a monster. It's getting more acute now because it's never taken this much effort to destroy someone before. People really opened their eyes (or at least enough of them) in 2012 and I said at the time (on this site) that it would a be pre-cursor to significant change in 2016.

I think Trump seems like a pretty decent guy, but is an ego maniac and makes enormous mistakes when attacked. His part in the violence is that he is giving ammunition to his enemies to exaggerate and exploit. If the feelings that really came to play in 2012 were not so strong Trump would have been sunk months ago and probably never got started. He is not making people violent at all - he is no more than a spokesperson to represent feelings that already existed.

It was Ron Paul that took the genie out of the bottle and its not going back in. Before it gets better it is going to get worse.

a reply to: UKTruth

You are blind. The news has been full of Trumpisms since summer of last year of racially divisive speech and rhetoric. How do you think it must feel to be a Muslim-America these days? How about asking these guys?

What about THIS?

In a press conference Friday morning in Palm Beach, Florida, Trump defended attendees at his events who go after anyone who seems different. He claimed that the protesters are the ones who are violent, and they deserve to be taken out.

"It was a guy who was swinging -- was very loud -- and then started swinging at the audience. And you know what? It swung back," Trump said.

"And I thought it was very, very appropriate," he added. "He was swinging. He was hitting people. And the audience hit back. And that's what we need a little bit more of. Now, I'm not talking about just a protestor. This was a guy who should not have been allowed to do what he did. And frankly, if you want to know the truth, the police were very, very restrained."

Is that acceptable behavior? Or should a Presidential candidate be endorsing such behavior?

I've got no qualms with proportional violence. There's a reason those who control the streets carry guns. Pen is is only mightier than a sword in the hands of one who doesn't wield it effectively.

You show up someplace you're not wanted trying to stir up trouble you deserve to get punched.