2016 Presidential Horse Race

[ACamp1900]

Has trump considered a giant moat filled with "fricken sharks with laser beams" attached to their heads?

Clearly he knows with our debt we can only afford ill-tempered Sea Bass...

 

[GoIrish41]

Clearly he knows with our debt we can only afford ill-tempered Sea Bass...

Not to worry ... the Mexicans are picking up the check.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Not to worry ... the Mexicans are picking up the check.

 

[Rack Em]

With castles, you have the added benefit of being able to rent them out for wedding receptions.

He makes great deals.

 

[Buster Bluth]

There is a VAST chasm between "better off than we used to be" and "great again"...

Well there's an easy way to test our greatness, are we still the greatest economic force in the history of civilization, with history's strongest military to go along with it?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

My God, some of these are hilarious: I created some Donald Trump Emojis - The Oatmeal

 

[Legacy]

Well there's an easy way to test our greatness, are we still the greatest economic force in the history of civilization, with history's strongest military to go along with it?

So, America has never stopped being great?

The Middle East wars have taken a terrible toll on American soldiers - and is not over nor will it be for a long time.

More than half of the 2.6 million Americans dispatched to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan struggle with physical or mental health problems stemming from their service, feel disconnected from civilian life and believe the government is failing to meet the needs of this generation’s veterans, according to a poll conducted by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation.

(That number includes hundreds of thousands of troops who did not serve within the borders of Iraq or Afghanistan but who worked in support of operations in those nations from bases and ships in the Middle East and South Asia.)

One in two say they know a fellow service member who has attempted or committed suicide, and more than 1 million suffer from relationship problems and experience outbursts of anger — two key indicators of post-traumatic stress.

More than 600,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who have become partially or totally disabled from physical or psychological wounds are receiving lifelong financial support from the government, a figure that could grow substantially as new ailments are diagnosed and the VA processes a large claims backlog.

For more than 1.1 million vets, serving in the wars has left them in worse physical health, according to the poll. Eighteen percent — about 470,000 current and former service members — reported being seriously injured while deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan or in support of the wars. Some of those wounds have been profoundly life-altering — lost limbs, widespread burns, massive brain damage. Others are more prosaic, often the results of accidents or wear and tear on the body, but nonetheless have saddled veterans with enduring pain.

The poll found that the wars have caused mental and emotional health problems in 31 percent of vets — more than 800,000 of them. When more specific questions were asked, the rates increased: 41 percent — more than 1 million — report having outbursts of anger, and 45 percent have relationship problems with their spouse or partner. Both are indicators of post-traumatic stress and could suggest that rates of affliction may be higher than the government has forecast.

“The days of getting out of the military and getting a job — a good job — right away are over,” White said. “You have to study, and you have to be patient — and you have to be lucky.”

A Legacy of Pain and Pride

 

[GATTACA!]

He would definitely refer to our board as "Trump Envy"

Little ACamp and Liar Wooly

 

[woolybug25]

Wait, he referred to the wall under his own brand? Lmfaooo at all of this.

Yup. He's said it on multiple occasions. I'm surprised people don't get more annoyed by it.

I'm a great builder. What do I best in life, I build. Your infrastructure is crumbling. Isn't it nice to have a builder? A real builder. So you take precast plank. It comes 30 feet long, 40 feet long, 50 feet long. You see the highways where they can span 50, 60 feet, even longer than that, right? And do you a beautiful nice precast plank with beautiful everything. Just perfect. I want it to be so beautiful because maybe someday they'll call it The Trump Wall. Maybe. So I have to make sure it's beautiful, right? I'll be very proud of that wall. If they call at this The Trump Wall, it has to be beautiful. And you put that plank up and you dig your footings.

Trump on Border: Maybe They'll Call It "The Trump Wall" | Video | RealClearPolitics

As you know, I know how to build. I know how to get it done. We'll have a great wall. We'll call it the Great Wall of Trump.

Trump on Border: We'll Call It "The Great Wall Of Trump" | Video | RealClearPolitics

 

[Bishop2b5]

Video from a different angle shows a woman wearing a hood. But again, if they were protesting Trump, I would assume she was wearing it to mock Trump and his supporters (and not that she herself actually supported the KKK). So for the black guy to punch the other guy protester (who was holding a sign that read "Trump is bad for America"), I found myself just as confused as you are, Wooly. However, I shouldn't assume that Trump has zero African American support. I guess I just found it confusing what exactly happened in this video.

The two protesters were throwing up Nazi salutes and parading around as a Klan member, insinuating that Trump and his supporters were Nazis/Klansmen. I believe the black gentleman took offense to that and to the rally being disrupted in such an offensive manner and expressed his distaste for such idiocy and boorish behavior in a physical manner. I would go so far as to bet that similar behavior at a Bernie or Hillary rally would result in similar feelings of displeasure at being insulted in such a distasteful manner and result in some less than peaceful reactions.

 

[BGIF]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-meeting-with-the-washington-post/?tid=sm_tw

By Philip Rucker and Robert Costa March 21 at 3:30 PM

Donald Trump revealed part of his foreign policy advisory team and outlined an unabashedly noninterventionist approach to world affairs during a wide-ranging meeting Monday with The Washington Post's editorial board.

The Republican presidential front-runner, for the first time, listed five of the people who are part of a team, chaired by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), counseling him on foreign affairs and helping to shape his policies. They are Keith Kellogg, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Walid Phares and Joseph E. Schmitz.

Trump's meeting with members of The Post's editorial board covered a range of issues, including media libel laws, violence at his rallies, climate change, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the U.S. presence in Asia.

Trump — who is set to give a major address on foreign policy later Monday before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — said in his meeting at The Post that he advocates an aggressive U.S. posture in the world with a light footprint. In spite of unrest abroad, especially in the Middle East, Trump insisted that the United States must look inward and steer its resources toward rebuilding domestic infrastructure.

"I do think it’s a different world today, and I don’t think we should be nation-building anymore," Trump said. "I think it’s proven not to work, and we have a different country than we did then. We have $19 trillion in debt. We’re sitting, probably, on a bubble. And it’s a bubble that if it breaks, it’s going to be very nasty. I just think we have to rebuild our country."

He added: "I watched as we built schools in Iraq and they’re blown up. We build another one, we get blown up. We rebuild it three times and yet we can’t build a school in Brooklyn. We have no money for education because we can’t build in our own country. At what point do you say, 'Hey, we have to take care of ourselves?' So, I know the outer world exists and I’ll be very cognizant of that. But at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially the inner cities."

Trump cast China as a leading economic and geopolitical rival and said the United States should toughen its trade alliances to better compete.

"China has got unbelievable ambitions," Trump said. "China feels very invincible. We have rebuilt China. They have drained so much money out of our country that they’ve rebuilt China. Without us, you wouldn’t see the airports and the roadways and the bridges. The George Washington Bridge [in New York], that’s like a trinket compared to the bridges that they build in China. We don’t build anymore. We had our day."

Trump praised George P. Shultz, who served as President Ronald Reagan's secretary of state, as a model and was harshly critical of the current secretary of state, John F. Kerry. He questioned the United States’ continued involvement in NATO and, on the subject of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, charged that America’s allies are "not doing anything."

"Ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO, and yet we’re doing all of the lifting," Trump said. "They’re not doing anything. And I say: 'Why is it that Germany’s not dealing with NATO on Ukraine? Why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of Ukraine, why aren’t they dealing? Why are we always the one that’s leading, potentially the third world war with Russia.' "

Trump said that U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. "We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore," Trump said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money."

Trump sounded a similar note in discussing the U.S. presence in the Pacific. He questioned the value of massive military investments in Asia and wondered aloud whether the United States still was capable of being an effective peacekeeping force there.

“South Korea is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we’re not reimbursed fairly for what we do," Trump said. "We’re constantly sending our ships, sending our planes, doing our war games — we’re reimbursed a fraction of what this is all costing."

Asked whether the United States benefits from its involvement in the region, Trump replied, "Personally, I don’t think so." He added, "I think we were a very powerful, very wealthy country, and we are a poor country now. We’re a debtor nation."

Trump began the hour-long meeting by pulling out a list of some of his foreign policy advisers.

"Walid Phares, who you probably know. PhD, adviser to the House of Representatives. He’s a counterterrorism expert," Trump said. "Carter Page, PhD. George Papadopoulos. He’s an oil and energy consultant. Excellent guy. The honorable Joe Schmitz, [was] inspector general at the Department of Defense. General Keith Kellogg. And I have quite a few more. But that’s a group of some of the people that we are dealing with. We have many other people in different aspects of what we do. But that’s a pretty representative group."

Trump said he plans to share more names in the coming days.

Kellogg, a former Army lieutenant general, is an executive vice president at CACI International, a Virginia-based intelligence and information technology consulting firm with clients around the world. He has experience in national defense and homeland security issues and worked as chief operating officer for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad following the invasion of Iraq.

Schmitz served as inspector general at the Defense Department during the early years of President George W. Bush’s administration and has worked for Blackwater Worldwide. In a brief phone call Monday, Schmitz confirmed that he is working for the Trump campaign and said that he has been involved for the past month. He said he frequently confers with Sam Clovis, one of Trump's top policy advisers, and that there has been a series of conference calls and briefings in recent weeks.

Papadopoulos directs an international energy center at the London Center of International Law Practice. He previously advised the presidential campaign of Ben Carson and worked as a research fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.

Phares has an academic background, teaching at the National Defense University and Daniel Morgan Academy in Washington, and has advised members of Congress and appeared as a television analyst discussing terrorism and the Middle East.

Page, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and now the managing partner of Global Energy Capital, is a longtime energy industry executive who rose through the ranks at Merrill Lynch around the world before founding his current firm. He previously was a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he focused on the Caspian Sea region and the economic development in former Soviet states, according to his company biography and documents from his appearances at panels over the past decade.

Trump’s meeting with The Post was on the record. An audio recording was shared by the editorial board, and a full transcript will be posted later Monday. Trump was accompanied to the meeting, which took place at The Post's new headquarters, by his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, and spokeswoman, Hope Hicks.

 

[GoIrish41]

The two protesters were throwing up Nazi salutes and parading around as a Klan member, insinuating that Trump and his supporters were Nazis/Klansmen. I believe the black gentleman took offense to that and to the rally being disrupted in such an offensive manner and expressed his distaste for such idiocy and boorish behavior in a physical manner. I would go so far as to bet that similar behavior at a Bernie or Hillary rally would result in similar feelings of displeasure at being insulted in such a distasteful manner and result in some less than peaceful reactions.

Similar behavior at a Bernie or Hillary rally would not happen. It would make no sense. Those people are their protesting (legally but in extraordinarily poor taste IMO) about things that the candidate has said, and have resulted in many supporters joining "the cause." When a candidate focuses on hate and bigotry, he's going to draw protests from folks. And when he encourages them from the podium to take matters into their own hands and that he will pay their legal fees, that will encourage bad reactions to legal protests.

 

[phgreek]

Similar behavior at a Bernie or Hillary rally would not happen. It would make no sense. Those people are their protesting (legally but in extraordinarily poor taste IMO) about things that the candidate has said, and have resulted in many supporters joining "the cause." When a candidate focuses on hate and bigotry, he's going to draw protests from folks. And when he encourages them from the podium to take matters into their own hands and that he will pay their legal fees, that will encourage bad reactions to legal protests.

first off...No protest preventing people entry/exit from a facility, nor disrupting a function inside said facility is legal/protected. People put up with it, but it isn't legal. You can generally protest outside in specific areas proscribed beforehand, or at l;east meating distance guidelines. Authorities put up with "spontaneous" protest, but it is almost always a violation of law.

Now, those assaulting people are probably going to face assault charges...those unlawfully assembling could/should face charges from the municipality/property owner ranging from trespass to fire code violations to local assembly related violations.

The police should be mopping up the protesters not following the law...immediately. Then my guess is, you wouldn't have them getting their asses kicked.

None of that is actually the biggest problem. The biggest problem is one of failing to understand and prioritize what is the most offensive issue here.

The problem here is that people "expect" other people to disrupt speech they disagree with...and expect everyone should just accept that...I think that is naive and counter to how vehemently you should protect real free speech ...people preventing speech should be far more offensive to all of us than anything anyone could conjure and put to words.

 

[Legacy]

In case it has not been posted, the Economist Intelligence Unit (part of the Economist) has ranked Donald Trump becoming President as one of the top ten Global Risks facing the world.

In order:
1. China experiences a hard landing
2. Russia's interventions in Ukraine and Syria precede a new "cold war"
3. Currency depreciation culminates in an emerging-markets corporate debt crisis
4. "Grexit" is followed by a euro zone break-up
5. Beset by external and internal pressures, the EU begins to fracture
6. The rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilises the global economy
7. Donald Trump wins the US presidential election (tie in Risk Intensity with #6 "jihad terriorism destabilizing...")
8. The UK votes to leave the EU
9. Chinese expansionism prompts a clash of arms in the South China Sea
10. A collapse in investment in the oil sector prompts a future oil price shock

Their explanation:

A businessman and political novice, Donald Trump, has built a strong lead in the Republican Party primaries, and is the firm favourite to win the Republican nomination for the presidential election in November. Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies—and these tend to be prone to constant revision—but a few themes have become apparent. First, he has been exceptionally hostile towards free trade, including notably NAFTA, and has repeatedly labelled China as a "currency manipulator". He has also taken an exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jihadi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil). Although we do not expect Mr Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil or a sudden economic downturn. In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war—and at the least scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 other American and Asian states signed in February 2016. His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the US) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond. However, it is worth noting that the innate hostility within the Republican hierarchy towards Mr Trump, combined with the inevitable virulent Democratic opposition, will see many of his more radical policies blocked in Congress—albeit such internal bickering will also undermine the coherence of domestic and foreign policymaking.

 

[Rack Em]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-meeting-with-the-washington-post/?tid=sm_tw

By Philip Rucker and Robert Costa March 21 at 3:30 PM

This is a very reasonable platform by Trump. However, the tone and message are a contrast from his previous statements and conduct. It makes it difficult to believe.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Similar behavior at a Bernie or Hillary rally would not happen. It would make no sense. Those people are their protesting (legally but in extraordinarily poor taste IMO) about things that the candidate has said, and have resulted in many supporters joining "the cause." When a candidate focuses on hate and bigotry, he's going to draw protests from folks. And when he encourages them from the podium to take matters into their own hands and that he will pay their legal fees, that will encourage bad reactions to legal protests.

You're right. Most conservatives/ libertarians, as much as they despise what Bernie says, respect his right to say it and don't try to silence him.

 

[GoIrish41]

You're right. Most conservatives/ libertarians, as much as they despise what Bernie says, respect his right to say it and don't try to silence him.

Laughable! Aren't you a spin doctor? They are beating the snot out of people to silence them. Protestors aren't disrupting Bernie and Hillary rallies because they are not appealing to people's ' anger and hatred or spouting ignorant racial garbage.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Similar behavior at a Bernie or Hillary rally would not happen. It would make no sense. Those people are their protesting (legally but in extraordinarily poor taste IMO) about things that the candidate has said, and have resulted in many supporters joining "the cause." When a candidate focuses on hate and bigotry, he's going to draw protests from folks. And when he encourages them from the podium to take matters into their own hands and that he will pay their legal fees, that will encourage bad reactions to legal protests.

I'll respectfully disagree with you, my friend. Calling everything you don't like "hate and bigotry" doesn't make it so. It's simply a way of smearing ideas or speakers without actually considering or addressing what they actually mean. It's been all too common in recent years for the Left to automatically yell "racist" or "you hate poor people" or "you clearly hate..." any time the Right speaks out against letting countless illegal immigrants in, never-ending welfare to people fully capable of working, but who have done little or nothing to make themselves employable, or any other Liberal pet cause.

I can assure you that Conservatives do not hate Blacks, Mexicans, the poor, or any other such group. We just believe that there are better ways to help them than what the Left prescribes, that letting countless people into our country illegally, or legally allowing those in who refuse to assimilate and then foment hate & violence against us are bad for the country. Calling anyone who disagrees with Liberal policy a racist or hate monger plays well to the crowd, but is simply dishonest and grossly inaccurate.

I'm with phgreek about the legality and ethicality of the protesters. They're absolutely seeking to infringe upon others' right to free speech because they don't like what they're saying. If they disagree with Trump's message that's absolutely their right, but the proper and legal way to deal with that is to not go listen to him, protest from across the street, support a candidate with differing views, or encourage others to vote against him. Disrupting his speeches & rallies amounts to nothing more than shouting down ideas & speech you don't like and preventing those who do want to hear him from doing so.

They may 100% believe his ideas are wrong, but they don't have the moral authority to force others to agree with them and prevent them from listening to him. Imagine if people in the past - just as sure of their own beliefs - had prevented people from speaking out about subjects such as civil rights, ending slavery, entering or not entering a particular war, suffrage, child labor, or a hundred other such topics.

I strongly disagree with virtually all of Hillary's & Bernie's positions & policies, but I'd be appalled and embarrassed if Conservative protesters disrupted their rallies to prevent them from speaking and insulted their followers by calling them Nazis or radical terrorists, or did something as boorish as to send in protesters dressed up as welfare moms or drag queens, insinuating that that's what their supporters must be. That's EXACTLY what the Trump protesters are doing with the Klan outfits, Nazi salutes and inflammatory insults about racists & haters, and it's absolutely just as dishonest, inaccurate, disgusting and insulting.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'll respectfully disagree with you, my friend. Calling everything you don't like "hate and bigotry" doesn't make it so. It's simply a way of smearing ideas or speakers without actually considering or addressing what they actually mean. It's been all too common in recent years for the Left to automatically yell "racist" or "you hate poor people" or "you clearly hate..." any time the Right speaks out against letting countless illegal immigrants in, never-ending welfare to people fully capable of working, but who have done little or nothing to make themselves employable, or any other Liberal pet cause.

I can assure you that Conservatives do not hate Blacks, Mexicans, the poor, or any other such group. We just believe that there are better ways to help them than what the Left prescribes, that letting countless people into our country illegally, or legally allowing those in who refuse to assimilate and then foment hate & violence against us are bad for the country. Calling anyone who disagrees with Liberal policy a racist or hate monger plays well to the crowd, but is simply dishonest and grossly inaccurate.

I'm with phgreek about the legality and ethicality of the protesters. They're absolutely seeking to infringe upon others' right to free speech because they don't like what they're saying. If they disagree with Trump's message that's absolutely their right, but the proper and legal way to deal with that is to not go listen to him, protest from across the street, support a candidate with differing views, or encourage others to vote against him. Disrupting his speeches & rallies amounts to nothing more than shouting down ideas & speech you don't like and preventing those who do want to hear him from doing so.

They may 100% believe his ideas are wrong, but they don't have the moral authority to force others to agree with them and prevent them from listening to him. Imagine if people in the past - just as sure of their own beliefs - had prevented people from speaking out about subjects such as civil rights, ending slavery, entering or not entering a particular war, suffrage, child labor, or a hundred other such topics.

I strongly disagree with virtually all of Hillary's & Bernie's positions & policies, but I'd be appalled and embarrassed if Conservative protesters disrupted their rallies to prevent them from speaking and insulted their followers by calling them Nazis or radical terrorists, or did something as boorish as to send in protesters dressed up as welfare moms or drag queens, insinuating that that's what their supporters must be. That's EXACTLY what the Trump protesters are doing with the Klan outfits, Nazi salutes and inflammatory insults about racists & haters, and it's absolutely just as dishonest, inaccurate, disgusting and insulting.

I said I found the type of protests that feature Nazi salutes and Klanwear to be unsavory, so you will get no argument from me on that point. However, we part ways on the intent of Trump's rhetoric, the type of people it seems to attract (not all of them of course) or the inevitable violence that that toxic mixture brews up. Nobody is getting the crap beat out of them at Bernie's rallies ... and let's not pretend he and Hillary are not getting detractors at their events. I recall an early Sanders rally during which a Black Lives Matter protestor seized the mic from his hand. And nobody got punched.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I said I found the type of protests that feature Nazi salutes and Klanwear to be unsavory, so you will get no argument from me on that point. However, we part ways on the intent of Trump's rhetoric, the type of people it seems to attract (not all of them of course) or the inevitable violence that that toxic mixture brews up. Nobody is getting the crap beat out of them at Bernie's rallies ... and let's not pretend he and Hillary are not getting detractors at their events. I recall an early Sanders rally during which a Black Lives Matter protestor seized the mic from his hand. And nobody got punched.

This all started with people standing quietly at Trump rallies and getting ejected.

Silently protesting Muslim woman ejected from Trump rally - CNNPolitics.com

Sikh-American Protester Removed from Trump Rally - NBC News

 

[phgreek]

This is a very reasonable platform by Trump. However, the tone and message are a contrast from his previous statements and conduct. It makes it difficult to believe.

I don't think the press will be as easy on campaign reboots, moderation, and general demeanorchange for Trump as they were for Hillary...may not matter in the nomination process...but they are going to club him like a baby seal in the general...

 

[Bishop2b5]

I said I found the type of protests that feature Nazi salutes and Klanwear to be unsavory, so you will get no argument from me on that point. However, we part ways on the intent of Trump's rhetoric, the type of people it seems to attract (not all of them of course) or the inevitable violence that that toxic mixture brews up. Nobody is getting the crap beat out of them at Bernie's rallies ... and let's not pretend he and Hillary are not getting detractors at their events. I recall an early Sanders rally during which a Black Lives Matter protestor seized the mic from his hand. And nobody got punched.

Start sending people dressed as stereotypical welfare moms, terrorists, gangbangers, drag queens, or illegal Mexicans wearing wet clothes into Bernie or Hillary rallies to disrupt their speeches and insult their followers, then as they're dragged away have them make insulting gestures and taunt the crowd and see what happens.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Start sending people dressed as stereotypical welfare moms, terrorists, gangbangers, drag queens, or illegal Mexicans wearing wet clothes into Bernie or Hillary rallies to disrupt their speeches and insult their followers, then as they're dragged away have them make insulting gestures and taunt the crowd and see what happens.

Trump has been inciting his crowds. He's arguing that people should be hurt but not too badly. He says that people who disrupted crowds used to be carried out on a stretcher. He says that he would pay legal fees for anyone who gets prosecuted for beating up a protester.

These are just facts. I can't figure out why anyone would defend him.

 

[phgreek]

This all started with people standing quietly at Trump rallies and getting ejected.

Silently protesting Muslim woman ejected from Trump rally - CNNPolitics.com

She stood up behind him...I assume he was on TV...he always is. As well she meant to be a distraction IN the rally.

Sikh-American Protester Removed from Trump Rally - NBC News

These guys held up a sign IN a Trump Rally.


Specifically their conduct, is not protected IMO. Had they been in a designated area outside the rally, they are protected. Therefore, if their presence brings the ire of attendees, and they are removed for the violation, and yea, their own safety...screw 'em.

If I hated Trump, and I was struck by a desire to hear his archie bunker routine...I wouldn't be a dick and take a sign in, or otherwise try and "trump" his message with one of my own. Unless I wanted...1) to get tossed; 2) a black eye; 3) to impress one of the many social justice warriors.

 

[GoIrish41]

Start sending people dressed as stereotypical welfare moms, terrorists, gangbangers, drag queens, or illegal Mexicans wearing wet clothes into Bernie or Hillary rallies to disrupt their speeches and insult their followers, then as they're dragged away have them make insulting gestures and taunt the crowd and see what happens.

Well if we are just going to make stuff up, I guess the limits to what might happen are bounded only by our imaginations.

I think a huge component in the Trump rally violence has to do with the types of people he attracts. Again, not all of them, but enough.

And everybody can start calling me racist right now, but I'm going to ask the obvious question .... black guy at a Trump rally? Really, not a protestor but an actual supporter? Is that an actual thing?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Laughable! Aren't you a spin doctor? They are beating the snot out of people to silence them. Protestors aren't disrupting Bernie and Hillary rallies because they are not appealing to people's ' anger and hatred or spouting ignorant racial garbage.

Now that's laughable. Hillary and Bernie are just as divisive in other ways (gender, class, etc.), but you don't see conservatives blocking the entrance and chanting "shut it down!" now do you? I don't know what's worse: the fact that you can't see the difference, or the fact that you would like to limit individual's freedom of speech you don't like.

No one should be getting beat up at any of these things. With that said, any politician who rents out an arena can make anyone leave if they wish.

 

[woolybug25]

Now that's laughable. Hillary and Bernie are just as divisive in other ways (gender, class, etc.), but you don't see conservatives blocking the entrance and chanting "shut it down!" now do you?

No one should be getting beat up at any of these things. With that said, any politician who rents out an arena can make anyone leave if they wish.

When was the last time you heard Hillary call a portion of a race "rapists"?

When have you heard Bernie suggest repeating a program formally called "Project Wetback"?

When have you heard Hillary banning an entire religion from entering the country?

When have you heard Bernie refer to a female's menstrual cycle?

Spare us the "they are divisive too" bull. If you honestly don't think Trump is offensive, divisive and inciting... then you are either lying or a complete fool.

 

[phgreek]

Well if we are just going to make stuff up, I guess the limits to what might happen are bounded only by our imaginations.

I think a huge component in the Trump rally violence has to do with the types of people he attracts. Again, not all of them, but enough.

And everybody can start calling me racist right now, but I'm going to ask the obvious question .... black guy at a Trump rally? Really, not a protestor but an actual supporter? Is that an actual thing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOaEGQzFaPg

 

[Bishop2b5]

Trump has been inciting his crowds. He's arguing that people should be hurt but not too badly. He says that people who disrupted crowds used to be carried out on a stretcher. He says that he would pay legal fees for anyone who gets prosecuted for beating up a protester.

These are just facts. I can't figure out why anyone would defend him.

I'm not defending Trump. I disagree with his thinly veiled incitement to violence. I'm condemning the disruption of his rallies and attempts to silence dissenting views and free speech by shouting down anyone or anything the protesters disagree with. That's a major infringement of others' free speech. I'm also condemning the disgusting efforts to smear anyone with differing beliefs or views as hate mongers, racists, Nazis or Klansmen. I'd be just as opposed to protesters doing these things at Hillary or Bernie rallies.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm not defending Trump. I disagree with his thinly veiled incitement to violence. I'm condemning the disruption of his rallies and attempts to silence dissenting views and free speech by shouting down anyone or anything the protesters disagree with. That's a major infringement of others' free speech. I'm also condemning the disgusting efforts to smear anyone with differing beliefs or views as hate mongers, racists, Nazis or Klansmen. I'd be just as opposed to protesters doing these things at Hillary or Bernie rallies.

So you don't disagree that Trump incites violence, but you disagree strongly that people should be able to protest it?

gotcha...