2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Polish Leppy 22]

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.

Take a deep breath, Wooly. First, I'm not defending Trump or things he's said. I'm defending his (and everyone's) freedom of speech. It's disgusting that people who disagree with him feel entitled to shut him up.

One can easily argue Trump is offensive, divisive, inciting, etc. It's also plain as day to see Hillary and Bernie inciting class warfare. So show me a group of angry conservatives protesting a Hillary or Bernie rally, blocking entry, trying to shut it down, and I'll concede and send you a case of beer.

 

[GoIrish41]

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

First, that is the picture I have in my head the next time I am debating Lep and KMoose. So thanks. It is much more entertaining than one it replaced.

You are going to find the 63 three African American supporters that support him and call it a trend. Look across the crowds at Trump rallies like he once complained that the media refused to show. Not a whole lot of diversity going on at those events.

 

[woolybug25]

Take a deep breath, Wooly. First, I'm not defending Trump or things he's said. I'm defending his (and everyone's) freedom of speech. It's disgusting that people who disagree with him feel entitled to shut him up.

One can easily argue Trump is offensive, divisive, inciting, etc. It's also plain as day to see Hillary and Bernie inciting class warfare. So show me a group of angry conservatives protesting a Hillary or Bernie rally, blocking entry, trying to shut it down, and I'll concede and send you a case of beer.

You said that they were just as divisive, which is a bold faced lie. You don't hear the other side stating the type of things Trump is saying... hell... you don't hear that from any candidate on either side.

You have the right to say whatever you want to in this country, but you do not reserve to say it without consequence.

Lets be real here too... Trump isn't really trying to stop it. He acts like he is and even blames it on "professional antagonists". But he could vet the people entering his events. He could change the format of his events. There is a lot he could be doing other than offering to pay legal fees and encouraging violence. He doesn't do that because that type of energy is what is driving his popularity. Every time there is a big riot, his poll numbers increase. That's why isn't doing a damn thing about it... in fact... he wants to see more of it.

 

[Bishop2b5]

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?

No intent to make anything up. The anti-Trump protesters are clearly trying to insult Trump supporters at his rallies by dressing up as Klansmen or Nazis, insinuating that anyone who supports him are Nazis or Klansmen. Calling all Conservatives racists, Nazis or Klansmen is extraordinarily insulting and inflammatory (not to mention erroneous), just as it would be to call all Liberals welfare moms, drag queens, terrorist sympathizers, or wetbacks. I asked you to imagine if anti-Bernie/Hillary protesters did the same thing at their rallies and how their supporters would react.

There are undoubtedly some narrow-minded uneducated supporters of Trump. Look at Bernie's & Hillary's supporters, though. You don't think they have their share of mindless sheep who couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag and who believe anything their candidate says in order to get their vote, regardless of how unfeasible or dishonest it is? Let's face it, neither side has a monopoly on the uneducated turnip-head market.

I don't think your question is racist. It's legit, but shows a very common misconception amongst Liberals. I find it somewhat perplexing and amusing that Liberals instinctively assume all minorities should automatically support Dems. I believe most Dem policies towards minorities are more harmful than helpful and have done much to cripple them, infantilize them, keep them from achieving as much as they could, and have been a disaster for them. Some have looked at the results and come to the conclusion that Liberal policies aren't as helpful or effective for them in the long run as Conservative ones. Believe it or not, there are plenty of Black, Mexican, gay, and female Conservatives. I understand where you're coming from, though. I feel the same way any time I see a business owner, police officer, or member of the military who's a Democrat.

 

[Bishop2b5]

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

gotcha...

Wooly, I'm quite capable of expressing my thoughts and views clearly. Please don't twist and intentionally reinterpret them for me.

 

[woolybug25]

Wooly, I'm quite capable of expressing my thoughts and views clearly. Please don't twist and intentionally reinterpret them for me, please.

Obviously you didn't, because you clearly said that you disagree with his divisiveness but aren't okay with people protesting it. I didn't twist anything, those are your words. You failed to express your thoughts clearly.

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.

What you aren't getting is that people are pissed at what he is saying because it's hateful, it's racist and it's offensive.

Spare me the "disgusting efforts" crap. Trump wants this type of behavior at his rallies. That's why he is encouraging it. As I said before, he could easily quell this if he wanted to.

 

[GoIrish41]

Duplicate post.

 

[GoIrish41]

No intent to make anything up. The anti-Trump protesters are clearly trying to insult Trump supporters at his rallies by dressing up as Klansmen or Nazis, insinuating that anyone who supports him are Nazis or Klansmen. Calling all Conservatives racists, Nazis or Klansmen is extraordinarily insulting and inflammatory (not to mention erroneous), just as it would be to call all Liberals welfare moms, drag queens, terrorist sympathizers, or wetbacks. I asked you to imagine if anti-Bernie/Hillary protesters did the same thing at their rallies and how their supporters would react.

There are undoubtedly some narrow-minded uneducated supporters of Trump. Look at Bernie's & Hillary's supporters, though. You don't think they have their share of mindless sheep who couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag and who believe anything their candidate says in order to get their vote, regardless of how unfeasible or dishonest it is? Let's face it, neither side has a monopoly on the uneducated turnip-head market.

I don't think your question is racist. It's legit, but shows a very common misconception amongst Liberals. I find it somewhat perplexing and amusing that Liberals instinctively assume all minorities should automatically support Dems. I believe most Dem policies towards minorities are more harmful than helpful and have done much to cripple them, infantilize them, keep them from achieving as much as they could, and have been a disaster for them. Some have looked at the results and come to the conclusion that Liberal policies aren't as helpful or effective for them in the long run as Conservative ones. Believe it or not, there are plenty of Black, Mexican, gay, and female Conservatives. I understand where you're coming from, though. I feel the same way any time I see a business owner, police officer, or member of the military who's a Democrat.

Plenty is a bit subjective. The Democrats have plenty. The GOP has a relative few. Don't just consider Trump rallies though. Look at their crowd at the upcoming convention. If past years are predictive, it'll have almost exclusively white folks. Diversity is not a strength of the Republican Party. They said four years ago that they were going to open their tent. Do you think they are in a better place with minorities now or then? In my view, Trumps candidacy did not create that. He simply exposed a dark side within your party. Perhaps it's a minority, but he gave them a voice. He's being endorsed and supported by Klansmen and neoNazi skinheads. That does not mean that all his supporters are racists, but indifference toward his rhetoric is a thing, too. They can't get upset when people call them bigots if they associate with openly bigoted groups of people and don't condemn it. They can't look on and cheer at people getting beat up at rallies and get indignant when people cast them as violent thugs. There are lots of stupid democrats, but they know it's not ok to punch and kick protestors at a rally. That may be because their candidates aren't encouraging them to do so.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Obviously you didn't, because you clearly said that you disagree with his divisiveness but aren't okay with people protesting it. I didn't twist anything, those are your words. You failed to express your thoughts clearly.

Quite obviously I did express my thoughts quite clearly. You chose to use a strawman to stay in the game. My exact quote was, "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." They aren't protesting violence at his rallies. They aren't protesting divisiveness (or else they'd be pitching a snit fit at Hillary & Bernie for playing Black against White and inciting class warfare). They're attempting to shout down and disrupt anyone who disagrees with their political views... infringing upon others' right to free speech. Don't be obtuse or intentionally dishonest and twist what I said. It's not necessary and is beneath you.

What you aren't getting is that people are pissed at what he is saying because it's hateful, it's racist and it's offensive.

Ahh, there we have it. The standard Liberal reply to everything and everyone they disagree with: "I can't argue against your policies, so I'll call you a racist and a hater." Not wanting to permanently cripple & shackle minorities and strip them of incentive and self esteem by treating them like helpless children who can't survive without somebody supporting them isn't racist. It's a heck of a lot more respectful and helpful towards them in the long run and a LOT more likely to help them succeed. Not everybody who disagrees with your failed policies does so because they're racists.

Not wanting our borders to be wide open to anyone & everyone because of the horrendous impact it's had on our culture, crime rate, social systems, etc. is an anti-immigrant or anti-Mexican or anti-Muslim racist or hater. Do you let anyone and everyone invade your home uninvited and demand you feed, house, and support them regardless of their criminal background or avowed intention to harm you & your family? Does that make you a hater or racist for not doing so? No, it makes you realistic and protective of your home & family. Stop the "you're a racist/hater" bs anytime someone disagrees with your beliefs. It's old, tired, inaccurate and a lame substitute for honest, factual discussion.

 

[woolybug25]

Quite obviously I did express my thoughts quite clearly. You chose to use a strawman to stay in the game. My exact quote was, "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." They aren't protesting violence at his rallies. They aren't protesting divisiveness (or else they'd be pitching a snit fit at Hillary & Bernie for playing Black against White and inciting class warfare). They're attempting to shout down and disrupt anyone who disagrees with their political views... infringing upon others' right to free speech. Don't be obtuse or intentionally dishonest and twist what I said. It's not necessary and is beneath you.

Again... Give me a break. He could stop it and chooses not to do so. Here you are again stating that people don't have the right to protest. Free speech goes both ways.

Ahh, there we have it. The standard Liberal reply to everything and everyone they disagree with: "I can't argue against your policies, so I'll call you a racist and a hater." Not wanting to permanently cripple & shackle minorities and strip them of incentive and self esteem by treating them like helpless children who can't survive without somebody supporting them isn't racist. It's a heck of a lot more respectful and helpful towards them in the long run and a LOT more likely to help them succeed. Not everybody who disagrees with your failed policies does so because they're racists.

Not wanting our borders to be wide open to anyone & everyone because of the horrendous impact it's had on our culture, crime rate, social systems, etc. is an anti-immigrant or anti-Mexican or anti-Muslim racist or hater. Do you let anyone and everyone invade your home uninvited and demand you feed, house, and support them regardless of their criminal background or avowed intention to harm you & your family? Does that make you a hater or racist for not doing so? No, it makes you realistic and protective of your home & family. Stop the "you're a racist/hater" bs anytime someone disagrees with your beliefs. It's old, tired, inaccurate and a lame substitute for honest, factual discussion.

It's comical that you keep acting like anytime someone says something that a liberal doesn't like, they are racist. They call Trump racist because he says racist shit. You're damn right they disagree with him, because the shit that comes out of his mouth is hateful. Hell... You even agreed with that.

 

[Bishop2b5]

There are lots of stupid democrats, but they know it's not ok to punch and kick protestors at a rally. That may be because their candidates aren't encouraging them to do so.

I'll give ya 3:1 that if you get protesters disrupting every Hillary or Bernie rally and dressing up to insult their followers as the protesters have done at Trump rallies, you'd see the same results. Hillary & Bernie aren't encouraging their supporters to punch anyone because no protesters are behaving that way at their rallies.

As for the rest of your post, I don't agree with all you say, but I do agree with much of it and as always, enjoy your well-reasoned and insightful point of view.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Again... Give me a break. He could stop it and chooses not to do so. Here you are again stating that people don't have the right to protest. Free speech goes both ways.

Again, please stop with the strawman tactics and intentional twisting of my positions or what I've said. I'm much better at explaining my views than you are. If you disagree with me, that's fine. Refute something I've actually said with facts and an honest argument. Don't intentionally misstate my point or anything I've said in order to make it easier to argue against.

I've never said they have no right to protest, speak their mind, or disagree with anything Trump or anyone else says. They absolutely have the right to do so. What they don't have the right to do is to disrupt someone else's speech or protest in a way that denies someone else their own right to hear or express views that differ from their own.

It's comical that you keep acting like anytime someone says something that a liberal doesn't like, they are racist. They call Trump racist because he says racist shit. You're damn right they disagree with him, because the shit that comes out of his mouth is hateful. Hell... You even agreed with that.

You think Trump's views are racist because they differ from your own. While I dislike the guy, don't want him as president, and disagree with a lot of what he says & does, I don't believe his policies are racist at all. Just because his or anyone else's views about something don't toe the Democrat party line doesn't make them racist or hateful any more than disagreeing with some of these self-absorbed, thin-skinned, #safespace college kids means you're attacking them, assaulting them, or committing an act of violence against them out of hatred. They absolutely cannot conceive of the idea that they might be wrong or that other views than their own have merit, thus anyone who questions them or disagrees with them must be a bad, bad, stupid, evil person. When you assume that anyone whose views differ from you own must be bad and motivated by whatever motive you want to assign to them regardless of their actual motive, you run the very high risk of becoming close-minded to other ideas, other ways of viewing things, other solutions that might in fact work better, other points of view, and just flat out being wrong sometimes.

 

[BGIF]

Bill Clinton: Hillary can 'put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us' - CNNPolitics.com

Seatlle (CNN)Bill Clinton, while campaigning for his wife in Spokane, Washington, on Monday, seemingly knocked President Barack Obama's legacy in a riff that his aides said was unintended.

"If you believe we can rise together, if you believe we've finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics, then you should vote for her," the former president said about his wife.

Republicans immediately seized on the comment, with the Republican National Committee arguing that the comment "is about as off message as you can get" in an email to reporters.

The former president regularly heralds Obama, especially while campaigning for Hillary Clinton, a candidate who has gone lengths to tie herself to the legacy of the two-term Democratic president.

"I think President Obama deserves a lot of credit for doing what he did with one hand tied behind his back because a lot of the people that elected him in 2008 didn't show up in 2010, that's our fault," Bill Clinton said in February, commending Obama for his work despite congressional opposition.

Angel Urena, Bill Clinton's spokesman, did not directly explain what the former president meant by the "awful legacy of the last eight years," but reiterated that Bill Clinton thinks "President Obama doesn't get the credit he deserves for setting us back on course for economic prosperity."

"When Republicans controlled the White House, their trickle-down approach drove our economy to the brink of a collapse," Urena said. "After President Obama was elected, Republicans made it their number one goal to block him at every turn. That unprecedented obstruction these last eight years is their legacy, and the American people should reject it by electing Hillary Clinton to build on President Obama's success so we can all grow and succeed together."

Hillary Clinton regularly lauds Obama's legacy, particularly when speaking to audiences friendly with the president.

While campaigning in Arizona on Monday, Clinton repeated her oft-used line about how her former rival "doesn't get the credit her deserves" for bringing the economy back from the brink after 2008's crash.

 

[Buster Bluth]

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

It seems that his foreign policies are hit-and-miss. He wants Europe to step up and be their own deterrent to Russia, which is great. But at the AIPAC he called for the US to resume its role as being the leviathan force of Israelis, and called for ramping up tensions with Iran. Then he says we need to get out of Korea too, even though pivoting to Asia is an enormous priority.

It's very weird.

 

[BGIF]

Trump vows strong U.S. ties with Israel, draws fire from Clinton | Reuters

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Monday vowed an unbreakable U.S. alliance with Israel if he is elected president in November, seeking to clear up confusion over his repeated pledges to remain neutral in any peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

Trump's speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, was part of a daylong effort by the anti-Washington candidate to persuade establishment Republicans to get behind his insurgent candidacy and give up on an effort to deny him the party's presidential nomination.

Describing Israel as ready to negotiate a peace agreement, Trump said the Palestinians would have to be willing to accept that Israel will forever exist as a Jewish state and able to stop attacks on Israelis.


"The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable," the New York billionaire businessman said.

Trump has drawn fire for his position on Middle East peace negotiations. He has described himself as extremely pro-Israel, but has said he would take a "neutral" stance in trying to negotiate an elusive peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Trump's critics have said he could harm long-standing U.S. support for Israel. Trump's leading Republican rival, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, reminded the AIPAC gathering of Trump's position.

"Let me be very, very clear," Cruz said. "As president I will not be neutral. America will stand unapologetically with the nation of Israel."

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, a former secretary of state, used her AIPAC appearance to attack Trump.

"We need steady hands, not a president who says he’s neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday and who-knows-what on Wednesday because everything’s negotiable," she said.

Clinton also took aim at Trump's vow that, if elected, he would deport illegal immigrants and bar Muslims temporarily from entering the United States.

"If you see bigotry, oppose it, if you see violence, condemn it, if you see a bully, stand up to him," she said.

In a rarity, Trump delivered his AIPAC speech with the aid of a TelePrompter, abandoning his typical free-wheeling style. Throughout the day, his public remarks lacked their usual bombast, an obvious effort to appear more presidential.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Clinton also took aim at Trump's vow that, if elected, he would deport illegal immigrants and bar Muslims temporarily from entering the United States.

"If you see bigotry, oppose it, if you see violence, condemn it, if you see a bully, stand up to him," she said.

The audacity and misrepresentation from Hillary would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous and dangerously misleading. Even she doesn't believe a word of this. She says it because she knows it appeals to a certain segment of voters.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The audacity and misrepresentation from Hillary would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous and dangerously misleading. Even she doesn't believe a word of this. She says it because she knows it appeals to a certain segment of voters.

You could say that for all of the remaining candidates accept Sanders and maybe Kasich.

 

[BGIF]

RealClear GOP Polls

RealClear GOP Polls

3/21/16
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination CNN/ORC Trump 47, Cruz 31, Kasich 17 Trump +16

2016 Republican Presidential Nomination CBS News/NY Times Trump 46, Cruz 26, Kasich 20 Trump +20



Arizona Republican Presidential Primary FOX 10/Opinion Savvy Trump 46, Cruz 33, Kasich 17 Trump +13

Utah Republican Presidential Caucus Deseret News/KSL Cruz 42, Kasich 13, Trump 21, Rubio 17 Cruz +21


Cruz needs those Rubio votes if he going to get to Utah Majority + 1 for the sweep. This poll has Kasich and Trump numbers switched from previous poll. Threshold is 15%.

 

[BGIF]

If you see bigotry, oppose it, if you see violence, condemn it, if you see a bully, stand up to him

I thought she was talking about the people that blocked the roadway in Arizona and shut down the rally in Chicago.

 

[phgreek]

First, that is the picture I have in my head the next time I am debating Lep and KMoose. So thanks. It is much more entertaining than one it replaced.

You are going to find the 63 three African American supporters that support him and call it a trend. Look across the crowds at Trump rallies like he once complained that the media refused to show. Not a whole lot of diversity going on at those events.

didn't say there was...what question did you ask?

 

[dales5050]

My God, some of these are hilarious:

They are funny but also not as accurate as they can be.

Why Trump tied to WalMart when Clinton seems to not catch much from the left for actually sat on the WalMart board and for her husband who signed NAFTA...a deal crafted by Bush 1 to be fair.

It's like some bizzaro world out there where the left are blind to half of the story.


Pour gas on Trump but to ignore Clinton is just as bad.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'll give ya 3:1 that if you get protesters disrupting every Hillary or Bernie rally and dressing up to insult their followers as the protesters have done at Trump rallies, you'd see the same results. Hillary & Bernie aren't encouraging their supporters to punch anyone because no protesters are behaving that way at their rallies.

I could've quoted all of your posts, but this one stood out among the rest and I wanted to point out how unbelievably wrong you are on the topic of Trump rallies. IMO, there are a couple things to consider. 1) The rhetoric. Trump does have the freedom to say what he wants and people have the freedom to attend his rallies to listen/support. But Trump's rhetoric throughout this entire process has been hateful. You can't deny that. In fact, you're sort of defending it by saying liberals don't agree with it so they automatically think it's hateful. No. It's hateful because it's effing full of hate. 2) Bernie, HRC, and probably every other candidate on either side not named Trump aren't using hatred to fuel their energy. I'd take those 3:1 odds any day because I know for a fact that no other candidate would allow that sort of violence to happen without actually trying to stop it, let alone encourage it. There is a video going around the web right now (I'll try and find it) comparing how Obama handled all of his rally protesters versus how Trump handles his. It's night and day. Even if thousands of Trump supporters showed up protesting Bernie, he would not encourage his followers to violently remove them. If you can't accept that, that's on you. Claiming it to be typical liberal tactics is absurd and pretty ignorant.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

They are funny but also not as accurate as they can be.

Why Trump tied to WalMart when Clinton seems to not catch much from the left for actually sat on the WalMart board and for her husband who signed NAFTA...a deal crafted by Bush 1 to be fair.

It's like some bizzaro world out there where the left are blind to half of the story.


Pour gas on Trump but to ignore Clinton is just as bad.

I don't disagree. I can't stand HRC for the reasons you listed above and more. Anyone who actually takes the time to vet her can see the extreme hypocrisy in what she says versus what she actually does. You have uninformed voters in both parties. It's annoying but it's true. Most people don't take the time to do their own research and instead rely on Facebook and mainstream news outlets to bring them up to speed on the candidates. I have a massive issue with the entire political process and media who reports on it.

 

[kmoose]

1) The rhetoric. Trump does have the freedom to say what he wants and people have the freedom to attend his rallies to listen/support. But Trump's rhetoric throughout this entire process has been hateful. You can't deny that. In fact, you're sort of defending it by saying liberals don't agree with it so they automatically think it's hateful. No. It's hateful because it's effing full of hate.

I want to start off by saying that I think Trump should have realized by now that you simply cannot go through the entire campaign trail speaking in hyperbole to get people motivated. It's a proven method in sports, and other arenas, to motivate people; but it's not very effective in politics. However.............

If Trump has been advocating such incredible violence, and it's influencing his supporters, how come there haven't been gang style beatings all over his rallies?

 

[RDU Irish]

I could've quoted all of your posts, but this one stood out among the rest and I wanted to point out how unbelievably wrong you are on the topic of Trump rallies. IMO, there are a couple things to consider. 1) The rhetoric. Trump does have the freedom to say what he wants and people have the freedom to attend his rallies to listen/support. But Trump's rhetoric throughout this entire process has been hateful. You can't deny that. In fact, you're sort of defending it by saying liberals don't agree with it so they automatically think it's hateful. No. It's hateful because it's effing full of hate. 2) Bernie, HRC, and probably every other candidate on either side not named Trump aren't using hatred to fuel their energy. I'd take those 3:1 odds any day because I know for a fact that no other candidate would allow that sort of violence to happen without actually trying to stop it, let alone encourage it. There is a video going around the web right now (I'll try and find it) comparing how Obama handled all of his rally protesters versus how Trump handles his. It's night and day. Even if thousands of Trump supporters showed up protesting Bernie, he would not encourage his followers to violently remove them. If you can't accept that, that's on you. Claiming it to be typical liberal tactics is absurd and pretty ignorant.

Just one example - It's OK to hate people legally mining coal but it is not OK to condemn people illegally in our country. That is just hateful.

 

[GoIrish41]

I want to start off by saying that I think Trump should have realized by now that you simply cannot go through the entire campaign trail speaking in hyperbole to get people motivated. It's a proven method in sports, and other arenas, to motivate people; but it's not very effective in politics. However.............

If Trump has been advocating such incredible violence, and it's influencing his supporters, how come there haven't been gang style beatings all over his rallies?

At virtually every rally he holds, someone gets their ass kicked as the crowd cheers and Trump encourages the violence. It has become a central feature of his rallies -- one might suggest it draws a certain amount of people to witness (or participate in) the spectacle. I'm sure you will let us know what the hair splitting difference is between that reality and whatever "gang style" beatings are.

 

[RDU Irish]

Maybe Trump is hiring goons to stage WWE style events.

Actually if I were him, I would do that and have it go epic brawl - then expose it as a yuge hoax to expose how easily the media is puppetted.

 

[kmoose]

At virtually every rally he holds, someone gets their ass kicked as the crowd cheers and Trump encourages the violence. It has become a central feature of his rallies -- one might suggest it draws a certain amount of people to witness (or participate in) the spectacle. I'm sure you will let us know what the hair splitting difference is between that reality and whatever "gang style" beatings are.

How many rallies has Trump held, and can you list the names of everyone who "gets their ass kicked as the crowd cheers" at each one? Or are you maybe guilty of exactly the same thing as Trump; using hyperbole to get people riled about something? So far, I have seen only one guy get punched during a rally. That was in NC. There were punches thrown (and it looked a little like bedlam for a moment) in Chicago, but Trump wasn't even there, so you can hardly say that he was inciting it. And there was ample eyewitness accounts that pegged the protestors as the instigators of the violence there.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Just one example - It's OK to hate people legally mining coal but it is not OK to condemn people illegally in our country. That is just hateful.

The hatred doesn't come from difference of opinion in the context of policy. It comes from actually stereotyping large groups of people and labeling them as rapists, terrorists, murderers, etc and then during rallies actually advocating that the crowds "rough them up" as the protesters are on their way out. Trump inciting violence is hateful. Trump inciting bigotry is hateful. Trump wanting to be tougher on immigration is not hateful. The difference is how he approaches the topic. Other candidates have similar views, yet none of them incite the kind of violence that Trump does.

 

[RDU Irish]

The hatred doesn't come from difference of opinion in the context of policy. It comes from actually stereotyping large groups of people and labeling them as rapists, terrorists, murderers, etc and then during rallies actually advocating that the crowds "rough them up" as the protesters are on their way out. Trump inciting violence is hateful. Trump inciting bigotry is hateful. Trump wanting to be tougher on immigration is not hateful. The difference is how he approaches the topic. Other candidates have similar views, yet none of them incite the kind of violence that Trump does.

You mean, like Trump supporters are a bunch of idiot bigots? Or is that not hateful because it is true?