2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

ancapailldorcha

Inquitus wrote: »

I am far from a Trump supporter, but it seems basically a load of SJW's turned up to disrupt the event and provoked violence, both with Trump supporters and then attacking the police afterwards.

Censorship of any kind makes me extremely uneasy. Anyone should have the right to voice their opinions be they Donald Trump, Ayn Rand or Karl Marx.

Royal Legend

Trump is playing to base human instinct, closet racists will vote for him, its going to be black vs white, rich vs poor. I hate the comparison because it is used too liberally by left wing groups, but his campaign is not much different to a campaign in a certain european country in the mid to late 1930's

JPNelsforearm

Pulling American flags off people, attacking Trump supporters, Black lives matters, La Raza and SJW's, what cancerous concoction.

"protesting is a business for them"

Same as in Ireland, professional agitators.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGFff6N0Bsg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5GK0X0kG9w

Fr Tod Umptious

Back a few months ago Marty O' Malley, remember him, he had to apologise when he suggested that "all lives matter".

That's what you are dealin with here with these SJW types.
And the biggest problem is that the Democrats don't have the balls to stand up to them in the slightest.

Which leaves a vacuum for Trump and his rhetoric to fill

Manach

Whilst not supporting Trump myself, comparisons of him with Hitler show both a lack of imagination and a lack of contextualised historical knowledge that points instead to a crisis in their education system.

Memnoch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Censorship of any kind makes me extremely uneasy. Anyone should have the right to voice their opinions be they Donald Trump, Ayn Rand or Karl Marx.

I'm just wondering where exactly is the censorship that people are talking about? If there's been any censorship it has been at the behest of trump who has repeatedly demanded that his supporters first silence any protest against his hate driven rhetoric by shouting loudly around protesters followed by increasingly escalating suggestions and speeches urging his supporters to commit acts of violence against anyone who stands up to speak out against this vile excuse for a human being.

In the end it was Trump's decision to cancel the rally after consulting with local police because the gathering of protesters and supporters created a situation that was the tinderbox that could erupt into violence at any moment. If anyone is to blame for this situation it is Trump for fanning the flames of racism and extremism and for preying on the fears and insecurities of ordinary people for his own personal gain. The re-writing of recent history in the last few posts in this thread would be baffling if it wasn't so tragically hilarious.

strelok

you have one side sending violent scumbags to opposing rallys for the express purpose of kicking the **** out of people they disagree with

but they're not the problem

alright

Christy42

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm just wondering where exactly is the censorship that people are talking about? If there's been any censorship it has been at the behest of trump who has repeatedly demanded that his supporters first silence any protest against his hate driven rhetoric by shouting loudly around protesters followed by increasingly escalating suggestions and speeches urging his supporters to commit acts of violence against anyone who stands up to speak out against this vile excuse for a human being.

In the end it was Trump's decision to cancel the rally after consulting with local police because the gathering of protesters and supporters created a situation that was the tinderbox that could erupt into violence at any moment. If anyone is to blame for this situation it is Trump for fanning the flames of racism and extremism and for preying on the fears and insecurities of ordinary people for his own personal gain. The re-writing of recent history in the last few posts in this thread would be baffling if it wasn't so tragically hilarious.

He should still be able to have rallys and in the end it wasn't his supporters that were the problem by the looks of it.

Really anyone there should be ashamed of themselves. I can only hope Bernie moves quickly to denounce what happens (in a I will fight him on the podium, not in the streets kinda speech).

This is a major boost for Trump. I agree that Trump has been fanning the flames of hatred and extremism and would hate to see him get anywhere close to the whitehouse. However to win this the fight has to be done correctly, people can't give him easy wins like this. Plus if we start descending to his level then it won't matter who wins as Trump's ideology will have won.

BoJack Horseman

But don't worry.... The evil Trump will be crushed by those supporting a far greater evil



Morons.

Memnoch

strelok wrote: »

you have one side sending violent scumbags to opposing rallys for the express purpose of kicking the **** out of people they disagree with

but they're not the problem

alright

Could you kindly supply some proof or some kind of link, not a Trump interview, to prove what you are saying re: violent scumbags

Royal Legend

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Deleted post.

Not saying that, i am sure there are other examples in history where someone aims a campaign at base instinct and simplistic views, it just so happens that one such campaign was Germany in the 30's

If he does get the nomination, it will be interesting to see what % he gets in a straight fight with Clinton or whoever comes out of the democratic side. you would hope that he would get destroyed in a presidential election, if not it may say more about the real America than we could ever imagine

ancapailldorcha

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm just wondering where exactly is the censorship that people are talking about? If there's been any censorship it has been at the behest of trump who has repeatedly demanded that his supporters first silence any protest against his hate driven rhetoric by shouting loudly around protesters followed by increasingly escalating suggestions and speeches urging his supporters to commit acts of violence against anyone who stands up to speak out against this vile excuse for a human being.

The censorship is a result of these SJW types who've resorted to violence as an attempt to shut down Trump's talk which, ironically will only serve to enhance his arguments. This is becoming more widespread with even Universities catering to these people with safe spaces and cancelled talks instead of publicly debunking the arguments.

Memnoch wrote: »

In the end it was Trump's decision to cancel the rally after consulting with local police because the gathering of protesters and supporters created a situation that was the tinderbox that could erupt into violence at any moment. If anyone is to blame for this situation it is Trump for fanning the flames of racism and extremism and for preying on the fears and insecurities of ordinary people for his own personal gain. The re-writing of recent history in the last few posts in this thread would be baffling if it wasn't so tragically hilarious.

No, it isn't. It's the fault of the protesters plain and simple. If you don't like Trumps arguments and attitude (I personally detest them) then the logical approach is to debate him and debunk them. It's not difficult. Shutting down talks like this will achieve nothing. Trump and Sanders have attained their current followings due to anger at the establishment. The extremity of their ideologies should make it plain how deep this anger is running.

Fr Tod Umptious

Interestingly the attitude that Trump is responsible for the violence last night is the most bizarre example of victim blaming any of us have ever seen.

Memnoch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The censorship is a result of these SJW types who've resorted to violence as an attempt to shut down Trump's talk which, ironically will only serve to enhance his arguments. This is becoming more widespread with even Universities catering to these people with safe spaces and cancelled talks instead of publicly debunking the arguments.

I'm still waiting to see evidence that it was the people protesting against trump that resorted to any kind of violence. There may have been violence as a result of high emotions on both sides but if that is the case then the responsibility for that should solely Lie with Trump for fostering this kind of atmosphere in the first place.

If someone wants to protest trump and they go as an individual then they get beaten up by his supporters because he will pay their legal bills. I don't see what other option people who want to protest trump's policies have other than by protesting in groups. To say that people should not be allowed to protest against Trump is in fact exactly the kind of censorship that you seem to be railing against. It seems now that the only kind of political correctness that is acceptable is the political correctness that allows racists, xenophobes and hatemongers to spread hate speech without anyone standing up to them.

No, it isn't. It's the fault of the protesters plain and simple. If you don't like Trumps arguments and attitude (I personally detest them) then the logical approach is to debate him and debunk them. It's not difficult. Shutting down talks like this will achieve nothing. Trump and Sanders have attained their current followings due to anger at the establishment. The extremity of their ideologies should make it plain how deep this anger is running.

Nonsense. Ordinary people don't have a platform to engage in a debate with Trump. Those who have tried to go to his rallies and protest individually have had violence committed against them at the behest of Trump. Shutting down the talks is not the responsibility of the protesters and to say so is disingenuous and dishonest and is in fact the very censorship that you speak off. Trump has a right to say what he thinks but he should not have a right to incite violence and hatred. Those who want to protest against Trump equally have a right to have their opinions heard.

ancapailldorcha

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm still waiting to see evidence that it was the people protesting against trump that resorted to any kind of violence. There may have been violence as a result of high emotions on both sides but if that is the case then the responsibility for that should solely Lie with Trump for fostering this kind of atmosphere in the first place.

The rally was cancelled. BoJack posted a link a few pages back. If Trump was egging on his supporters to engage in violence, then, yes he must bear some of the responsibility for that. However, this wasn't the case.

Memnoch wrote: »

If someone wants to protest trump and they go as an individual then they get beaten up by his supporters because he will pay their legal bills. I don't see what other option people who want to protest trump's policies have other than by protesting in groups. To say that people should not be allowed to protest against Trump is in fact exactly the kind of censorship that you seem to be railing against. It seems now that the only kind of political correctness that is acceptable is the political correctness that allows racists, xenophobes and hatemongers to spread hate speech without anyone standing up to them.

Where have I said that nobody should be allowed to protest Trump exactly? I'm all for protest. I just expect protesters to behave themselves and abide by the law, something many on both sides of the left-right divide seem unable to do.

Memnoch wrote: »

Nonsense. Ordinary people don't have a platform to engage in a debate with Trump. Those who have tried to go to his rallies and protest individually have had violence committed against them at the behest of Trump. Shutting down the talks is not the responsibility of the protesters and to say so is disingenuous and dishonest and is in fact the very censorship that you speak off. Trump has a right to say what he thinks but he should not have a right to incite violence and hatred. Those who want to protest against Trump equally have a right to have their opinions heard.

You misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that everyone who disagrees with Trump should personally debate him. I'm saying that his arguments should be debunked by blogs, newspapers, journals, think tanks and the like. These forms of media have wide reach.

JPNelsforearm

Royal Legend wrote: »

Not saying that, i am sure there are other examples in history where someone aims a campaign at base instinct and simplistic views, it just so happens that one such campaign was Germany in the 30's

If he does get the nomination, it will be interesting to see what % he gets in a straight fight with Clinton or whoever comes out of the democratic side. you would hope that he would get destroyed in a presidential election, if not it may say more about the real America than we could ever imagine

Of course you're not, he's just a kind of Hitler :rolleyes:. What is this "base instinct" and "simplistic" view, you send jobs overseas and you import cheap labour, Trump is running to be president of the USA not USA inc, obviously he will campaign against that, he is filling a huge hole in the political landscape, opportunist or not, he has changed the debate to issues that a lot of people clearly care about.. Politics is about the national interest, not the multinational no matter the cry from both the right and left side of the open borders crowd. However "base" that may be, in the current zeitgeist of political correctness and other sociology derived virus's that infect the body politic.

Hande hoche!

The Chicago fracas will probably end up boosting Trump support in the Illinois primary.

JPNelsforearm

Hande hoche! wrote: »

The Chicago fracas will probably end up boosting Trump support in the Illinois primary.

Of course, I mean, who would you side with? Black lives matters, communists, Mexican supremacists and organised left wing troublemakers etc who use strength of numbers and the threat of violence to shut down speech and right of assembly.....or Trump. Middle America has always rejected the likes of Bill Ayers and the weather underground etc, that wont change, no matter how much free **** they get promised.

https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/708459586127134720?lang=en
https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/708484054199439360?lang=en



https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/708619775153475584

Memnoch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The rally was cancelled. BoJack posted a link a few pages back. If Trump was egging on his supporters to engage in violence, then, yes he must bear some of the responsibility for that. However, this wasn't the case.

Here's a bit from a guardian article on the same rally:

After the postponement was announced a Trump campaign statement said: “Mr Trump just arrived in Chicago and after meeting with law enforcement has determined that for the safety of all of the tens of thousands of people that have gathered in and around the arena, tonight’s rally will be postponed to another date.

“Thank you very much for your attendance and please go in peace.”

Donald Trump's campaign violence is condoned all the way to the top | Lucia Graves
Despite Trump’s statement that he had consulted law enforcement, the Chicago police department emphasised it had no involvement in the decision.

There is a growing catalogue of violence at Trump events. In the past week alone an attack on a non-violent protester led to criminal charges against a Trump supporter, and Michelle Fields, a reporter for conservative website Breitbart, was allegedly assaulted by Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager.

Trump’s rhetoric has done little to keep it in check. When the Republican frontrunner appeared in St Louis earlier on Friday, for an event that entailed more than 30 arrests, he complained: “Part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long [to kick protesters out] is nobody wants to hurt each other any more.” Trump added: “There used to be consequences. There are none any more. These people are so bad for our country. You have no idea folks, you have no idea.”

Where have I said that nobody should be allowed to protest Trump exactly? I'm all for protest. I just expect protesters to behave themselves and abide by the law, something many on both sides of the left-right divide seem unable to do.

Clearly emotions on both sides ran high and some people behaved wrongly. I don't see how this extrapolates to the accusation that one side i.e. the left, sent violent scumbags, as alleged in a post above, to shutdown the rally. And I still have seen no evidence that it was so-called social justice warriors that instigated or caused the violence. As you can see from above it is Trump who has repeatedly called for violence and this kind of chaos is a natural result of his devisive rhetoric.

You misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that everyone who disagrees with Trump should personally debate him. I'm saying that his arguments should be debunked by blogs, newspapers, journals, think tanks and the like. These forms of media have wide reach.

That's all very well and good but neither of those are forms through which groups of ordinary citizens can express themselves. Democratic protest is an inalienable right for exactly this reason. If you are really worried about freedom of speech then a Trump presidency should scare the hell out of you considering his attitude towords protesters, journalists, and really anyone who dares to speak out against him.

JPNelsforearm

Memnoch wrote: »

Clearly emotions on both sides ran high and some people behaved wrongly. I don't see how this extrapolates to the accusation that one side i.e. the left, sent violent scumbags, as alleged in a post above, to shutdown the rally. And I still have seen no evidence that it was so-called social justice warriors that instigated or caused the violence. As you can see from above it is Trump who has repeatedly called for violence and this kind of chaos is a natural result of his devisive rhetoric.
.

video and twitter evidence, not an accusation, a statement of fact, left wingers from "dozens of organisations", coalesced and recruited thousands of people to "shut Trump down", they did so by weight of numbers and the implicit threat of violence, that the police told Trump to cancel the rally as they could not guarantee safety. The video posted above and on the previous pages illustrates this. Keep banging that right wing bogeyman drum though, its all Trumps fault, he says mean things, violent left wing mobs are Trumps fault! only on boards:rolleyes:

Billy86

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Censorship of any kind makes me extremely uneasy. Anyone should have the right to voice their opinions be they Donald Trump, Ayn Rand or Karl Marx.

Or protestors thereof. The fact is his censorship was entirely of his own making (I don't recall many Rubio or Cruz rallies being closed down from protests?), and was enforced by the people as a result of his own rhetoric. Trump and many of his supporters' true colours are really starting to show... sure, they love to "just tell it how it is" about all the terrorist Muslims and dirty Mexicans while publicly plotting 'what to do with them', but when those same Muslims and Mexicans turn around and stand up for themselves, guess who the very first group to jump up and down throwing a tantrum while beating the victim card is?

Yep, those same guys who love "just telling it like it is".

Billy86

strelok wrote: »

you have one side sending violent scumbags to opposing rallys for the express purpose of kicking the **** out of people they disagree with

but they're not the problem

alright

I take it you have the evidence of the protesters throwing the first punches?

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

video and twitter evidence, not an accusation, a statement of fact, left wingers from "dozens of organisations", coalesced and recruited thousands of people to "shut Trump down", they did so by weight of numbers and the implicit threat of violence, that the police told Trump to cancel the rally as they could not guarantee safety. The video posted above and on the previous pages illustrates this. Keep banging that right wing bogeyman drum though, its all Trumps fault, he says mean things, violent left wing mobs are Trumps fault! only on boards:rolleyes:

Show me the video where we see the protesters throwing the first punches.

By the way, why are you so pro free speech but anti free assembly?

ancapailldorcha

Memnoch wrote: »

Trump’s rhetoric has done little to keep it in check. When the Republican frontrunner appeared in St Louis earlier on Friday, for an event that entailed more than 30 arrests, he complained: “Part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long [to kick protesters out] is nobody wants to hurt each other any more.” Trump added: “There used to be consequences. There are none any more. These people are so bad for our country. You have no idea folks, you have no idea.”

Indeed. However, unless he has directly incited hatred and acts of violence then it falls within his right to free speech.

Memnoch wrote: »

Clearly emotions on both sides ran high and some people behaved wrongly. I don't see how this extrapolates to the accusation that one side i.e. the left, sent violent scumbags, as alleged in a post above, to shutdown the rally. And I still have seen no evidence that it was so-called social justice warriors that instigated or caused the violence. As you can see from above it is Trump who has repeatedly called for violence and this kind of chaos is a natural result of his devisive rhetoric.

I acknowledged in my post above that violent thugs originate from all over the left-right spectrum, not specific parts of it.

Memnoch wrote: »

That's all very well and good but neither of those are forms through which groups of ordinary citizens can express themselves. Democratic protest is an inalienable right for exactly this reason. If you are really worried about freedom of speech then a Trump presidency should scare the hell out of you considering his attitude towords protesters, journalists, and really anyone who dares to speak out against him.

It does, I assure you. I think he is little more than a petty, snarling nativist who will say absolutely anything he thinks will win him votes. I fully support the right to protest but protesters need to abide by the law.

JPNelsforearm

Billy86 wrote: »

Show me the video where we see the protesters throwing the first punches.

By the way, why are you so pro free speech but anti free assembly?

Well, its more a case of not wanting to see police using tear gas and beanbag rounds and people getting hurt rather then "being anti freedom of assembly". When you have people deliberately agitating for a fight, usually left wing organisations, see the Pegida rally in Dublin and this Trump rally, the only way to allow both parties to hold their events is to violently enforce the peace and have a massive and costly police presence. Even at that fighting will spill over, property will be destroyed and innocent people will get hurt.
The commies know this, and they know the police know this, they also know the police dont want this to happen, so usually the rally and or speech is cancelled for safety reasons.
So I think freedom of speech has more value than freedom of assembly in that you can let both parties have their say peacefully by temporarily restricting the counter protesters freedom of assembly when they promote violence or imply it. Or allowing them to hold their protest on a different day. Freedom of assembly in this case is just a cloak to hide behind so they can no platform Trump.

The alternative is letting the police beat the **** out of people on the streets, now as much as I loath commies, I dont think someones deserves the end of a rubber bullet because they hold an extreme religious belief.

ancapailldorcha

There have been several mod warnings on this thread about the quality of posting. This will be the final one. Posts which are newsdumps, smileys and pithy one liners will be deleted and their authors may face further mod action.

Thanks,
The Politics mods.

Black Swan

NBC/Wall Street Journal national polls for Republican presidential nomination:

Dates Taken | Trump | Cruz | Rubio | Kasich
20-24 Sep | 21 | 5 | 11 | 6
15-18 Oct | 25 | 9 | 13 | 3
25-29 Oct | 23 | 10 | 11 | 3
6-9 Dec | 27 | 22 | 15 | 2
9-13 Jan | 33 | 20 | 13 | 3
14-16 Feb | 26 | 28 | 17 | 11
3-6 Mar | 30 | 27 | 20 | 22

The 2 most recent polls suggest that Trump and Cruz are relatively close, with Cruz leading in February and Trump leading in March, but the differences between the 2 falling within the margins of error. Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich are considered established politicians with the GOP, and Trump an outsider. What would happen in the polls if Rubio and Kasich dropped out, leaving only Trump and Cruz? Would the Rubio and Kasich established GOP voters favour GOP established Cruz, or stay at home, or move to Trump?

It will be interesting to see if the recent escalated Trump supporter and protester clashes in St Louis and Chicago affect this polling.

Caution should be exercised when attempting to interpret polls, especially when comparing the results of one polling organisation with another (e.g., different organisations, methods, samples, time frames, etc.). I would be especially cautious of the RCP average, which seems to ignore all these differences and potential sources of error.

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Well, its more a case of not wanting to see police using tear gas and beanbag rounds and people getting hurt rather then "being anti freedom of assembly".

Well that would require not being violent. But the fact is, we don't know who initiated the violence - the protesters or Trump supporters. If you have video evidence of the protesters doing so, please do post it. If not, then you can't try to say it was on them.

When you have people deliberately agitating for a fight,

What, like making comments about a whole group of people have no respect for human life and "believe only in Jihad" based on their religion? Or saying black people are inherently lazy? Or that the system is racist against white people in favour of black people? Maybe you meant comments like saying drugs, crime and rape are an entire immigrant nations contribution to the US? Or could it be saying you "have to treat them [women] like sh*t"?

Or would it be just flat out advocating violence and telling your supporters to use violence against non violent protesters. Which is exactly what he did in Iowa.

usually left wing organisations, see the Pegida rally in Dublin and this Trump rally, the only way to allow both parties to hold their events is to violently enforce the peace and have a massive and costly police presence. Even at that fighting will spill over, property will be destroyed and innocent people will get hurt.

Again, unless you have video evidence of the protesters starting all the violence, you are blaming Trump and his supporters as much as you are blaming the protesters.

The commies know this, and they know the police know this, they also know the police dont want this to happen, so usually the rally and or speech is cancelled for safety reasons.

Trump canceled this, not the police. But unless you've not been actually reading this thread, you already knew that.

So I think freedom of speech has more value than freedom of assembly in that you can let both parties have their say peacefully by temporarily restricting the counter protesters freedom of assembly when they promote violence or imply it.

So you support constitutional free speech fully, but not constitutional free assembly.

Or allowing them to hold their protest on a different day. Freedom of assembly in this case is just a cloak to hide behind so they can no platform Trump.

How about we just create 'free speech/protest zones' like Bush did, that way you can spew all the hatred you want while effectively shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting 'lalalala I can't hear you lalalala' and pretending nobody has a problem with it, rather than you know, addressing those that have a problem with it.

The alternative is letting the police beat the **** out of people on the streets, now as much as I loath commies, I dont think someones deserves the end of a rubber bullet because they hold an extreme religious belief.

Communists are religious extremists now? :pac:

Seriously, jokes aside, GOP candidates and supporters as a whole are one of the last groups that should be giving out about people holding 'extreme religious beliefs'.

BoJack Horseman

Is tea-party nominee Ted Cruz now part of the GOP establishment?

Billy86

Black Swan wrote: »

NBC/Wall Street Journal national polls for Republican presidential nomination:

Dates Taken | Trump | Cruz | Rubio | Kasich
20-24 Sep | 21 | 5 | 11 | 6
15-18 Oct | 25 | 9 | 13 | 3
25-29 Oct | 23 | 10 | 11 | 3
6-9 Dec | 27 | 22 | 15 | 2
9-13 Jan | 33 | 20 | 13 | 3
14-16 Feb | 26 | 28 | 17 | 11
3-6 Mar | 30 | 27 | 20 | 22

The 2 most recent polls suggest that Trump and Cruz are relatively close, with Cruz leading in February and Trump leading in March, but the differences between the 2 falling within the margins of error. Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich are considered established politicians with the GOP, and Trump an outsider. What would happen in the polls if Rubio and Kasich dropped out, leaving only Trump and Cruz? Would the Rubio and Kasich established GOP voters favour GOP established Cruz, or stay at home, or move to Trump?

It will be interesting to see if the recent escalated Trump supporter and protester clashes in St Louis and Chicago affect this polling.

Caution should be exercised when attempting to interpret polls, especially when comparing the results of one polling organisation with another (e.g., different organisations, methods, samples, time frames, etc.). I would be especially cautious of the RCP average, which seems to ignore all these differences and potential sources of error.

To be honest at this point Kasich strikes me as far too reasonable to get any kind of nomination in the current GOP, Rubio is coming over as someone who has been put up for his good looks and minority appeal without having too much else, and while Cruz is the next closest and would be the main beneficiary of a) some kind of Trump meltdown/backlash or b) either of the other two dropping out, he would also struggle badly in the election. As a party, they are not at all in as good spot heading into this election imo (given they also don't want Trump).