Drumpf Nein!
But no one could have seen this coming, right?
Woo-hoo, my alma mater!!
Animals....all of 'em. This country is fucked.
That footage is wild. Wonder who thought a university campus on the west side of Chicago was a good location for a Trump rally.
Saw several protestors throwing punches in news video. Heroes!

Packing a political speech with protestors, threatening disruption until it must be cancelled for safety concerns. Heroes!

I look forward to future heroism from Trump opponents. Some suggestions:
--Smash up the offices of Trump-supporting media organizations like Breitbart. Noble!
--Beat Trump-rally attendees with sticks. Brave!
--Break out the windows of Trump-supporting businesses. Night of the Krystal Heroes!
--Armed goons at polling places. Such honor!
--For the most ambitious, heroic protestors, an old favorite of political heroism worldwide: the gasoline-soaked tire.

That'll show those fascist bullies!
So Drumpf will make this work to his advantage. He will claim that *those people* are destroying his 1st amendment rights and his poor supporters are set upon by thugs and goons. He couldn't have asked for better advertising and the butthurt white teabagging GOP will flock to his flag.
I'm also not so about the "hero" label here.

This is the Republican Primary. If you're a progressive...don't you want them to nominate the worst possible candidate? Don't you want them to keep fighting amongst themselves rather than giving them reason to circle the wagons against an aggressive outside force?

If Trump is the Republican nominee, there will be plenty of opportunities to protest and to fight against his election...but right now is the time to let the Republicans devour themselves.
@12, yeah let them figuratively *go there* and display their hate for all the world to see. Continue to treat them with dignity and constitutional discretion. Don't give the wanna-be martyrs (like @6) any cover.
I doubt this event will have any great impact in the long run. Yes, Trump will try to spin it to further push his authoritarian agenda and yes, we shouldn't be giving him any more illegitimate attention than he has already garnered, but let's not be too hasty to deter youth from expressing their right to free speech. We need their political awareness and involvement in this election and maybe that's what we're getting a preview of. It should go without saying that any violence whatsoever is inexcusable.
I'm not sure what good comes out of this. I realize that this makes people feel empowered. But the only real power comes in the voting booth. Did this increase or decrease the number of people who will show up to vote for Trump in the country? Did it demoralize his supporters in any way? Or does it just feed their victim mythology?
Trump is a horrid bore, and his supporters are complete and total morons. He is the perfect candidate for the Republican party at this time in history.

The GOP made their bed through years of pandering to the greed and stupidity of this country, and now they need to wallow in it. On the other hand, the people of intelligence and good concience need to show up and vote him into oblivion and disgrace. Will we have the good sense of past generations, or will we see a President Trump because of apathy and purity tests? And if we do see a President Trump, what will a GOP Congress and the judiciary do with him?

Do we have the
yes. yes, we have the.
Just like Candlejack, we have the
Sorry, I should have deleted that last part. I was being hassled by three small dogs who wanted to go out as I was typing that post. It's one of the charms of Slog's Somewhat Backwards Technology that one can't go back and edit things.
The idea that not allowing people with other views, especially those people disagree with to speak or assemble through force and protest is a good thing is pretty twisted.

Nothing that happened matters if people don't vote.
@11, Fascists, in a war. Because Fascists are bad people. But you knew that, didn't you? You just had to go with the "thug" interpretation that you like so well.
Trump supporters complaining about protesters is laughable, on the order of "you're intolerant for not tolerating my intolerance!" laughable.
As Catalina so eloquently described, the GOP "made their bed" since 'W by being obstructionists and making a fertile ground for Trump. However, Trump is not GOP in the least; rather he is con artist populist who hijacked the party for his power and greed and is definitely follows no ideological political compass -- as his history shows.
Comment 23: The words starting "since 'W..." should not be construed to paraphrase Catalina, as she may elect to push that date back - to who knows (since Warren Harding?).
Adversary, ya see, this is why respecting people is important. If Trump goes around yelling "let's have a race war", you can't really be surprised when minorities think it might be prudent to start defending themselves early. This is the cost of Trumps uncivil campaigning. It's not that the protesters are right, its that when Trump calls for violence, its hardly shocking that it will come from both sides. Maybe you all should stop calling for violence?
Raindrop dear, I would take it back to at least Nixon and the start of the Southern Strategy.

And I would also argue that it would be more difficult for someone like Trump to hijack the Democratic Party than the GOP. In part because of the super delegates, but mostly because Democrats just don't pull in the morons like the GOP does. There's not nearly as much pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Azzam @26 says, "Trump said things that made me feel bad, so it is ok to riot at his speeches, punch his supporters, and attempt to assault him."
Catalina, as usual, says it best. We have the
Adversary, I didn't say it made me feel bad, for all you know I am a one of your fellow nazis. I just noticed that when people yell fire in a crowded theater sometimes people get trampled. Get it?
Azzam @32 says, "Political speech I don't like should be banned just like crying 'fire!' in a crowded theater."
Once again, I didn't ask anyone to ban anything. All I said was, Trump, being a Nazi, calling on his fellow Nazis to commit violence, cannot act surprised when some people respond in kind. Is this good for America? I guess you think so. I wasn't defending any particular action. Did you notice that other candidates have not called for violence, and there is no violence at their rallies? Are you so dim as to be unable to see the cause and effect?
This is how you defend freedom: by standing up to Fascist bullies.
Troll be trollin'...
This is sooooo surreal. I never thought I'd see this when I was a snarky Mitt Romney supporter!
Azzam @34 says, "Even though liberals like me call Trump a violent Nazi, it's totally his fault, not ours, if someone kills him."
Trump's supporters have been assaulting non-violent protesters at his behest for weeks, but now his goons are crying like babies because a few protesters are punching back. It's no coincidence that there is only one candidate whose rallies erupt in chaos. When you openly incite violence, you get violence. I don't condone any of it, but I'm a lot less mad at the people protesting the bigoted, authoritarian demagogue than the barbarians who do his bidding.
Knat, thank you, I love it! Who'd have thought that three yappy little dogs and a Beacon Hill Housewife could launch a meme?

New video shows that Michelle Fields, the reporter who claimed to have been assaulted by a Trump staffer, is lying.…

(Fields claimed that "Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance. Nonetheless, I was shaken.

The Washington Post’s Ben Terris immediately remarked that it was Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who aggressively tried to pull me to the ground.")

Your narrative--that is Trump and his supporters who are violent--is based on lies. Every campaign has disruptive protesters removed from rallies. Only Trump is attacked for it. Trump is the only candidate who has been attacked at a rally. Funny that in a supposedly racist, misogynist country that has never happened to Obama or Clinton.
It always amazes me how both republicans and democrats will basically excuse any behavior as long as the person doing it believes the same political dogma they do.

Why is it that every asshole on the planet thinks it is ok for them to be an asshole because they are doing it for the "right" reasons, or because they are the sole arbiter of truth?
We're dealing with a bunch of racist thugs. Fuck the high road.

Trump's supporters are drawn to him because they see him as powerful and successful. Trump the martyr doesn't have nearly as much pull.
Seandr @43 "The ends justify the means, amirite?"
@40: Glad you like it. It was a quick, slapdash effort since the source photo (your avatar) is so small, and Google can't find any larger versions.

@42: I do believe that's the point Adversary has been trying to make in this thread (intentionally or not), to much anger.
Oh look, Satan is back again.
It sure must be easy to win debates when instead of arguing against what someone actually said, you can just pretend they said something else and argue against that instead.

Protestors interrupting and eventually cancelling a rally & speech by a presidential candidate claiming that the audience and/or candidate are "white supremacist" sounds... vaguely familiar. I do wonder if everyone who calls such protestors "heroes" today felt the same way on August 8, 2015.…
Now Trump is offering to pay the legal fees for his supporter charged with misdemeanor assault for punching a black guy in the face, and then told a reporter he may have to kill his victim if he sees him again. This is unreal, and it's actually happening.

@43, That is literally the worst possible way to respond to Trump's violence. This is presidential politics, not a fucking soccer match. We all have to be better than this. Trump's supporters are probably a lost cause but the rest of us don't have to sink to their level.
Venomlash @46 "The things my friends say don't sound very good when restated clearly. Please allow them to continue to obfuscate."

"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. ... Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. ... Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’....Political designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell
@42 +1
@41: You're correct. Trump and his supporters are not violent. Most humans aren't. But never have we had a presidential candidate explicitly use headed rhetoric to incite violence. The videos show that irrefuteably. Contorted comparisons and parsing can't negate that (as Trump tries to do on Fox News Sunday).

Now, these rallies are attracting uglier and and it's going to get a hell of a lot worse. Donald even refuses to tone it down a notch. He has the celebrity skills to do that blemishing his "tough" image. But he won't. Why is that? What is he up to? Donald Trump is pure evil.

@52, Trump is inciting violence from supporters who are willing to commit acts of violence on his behalf. I mean, #notalltrumpsupporters and all that, but at this point anyone who votes for him or aligns themselves in any way with his campaign needs to be held accountable for what they're supporting, even if they aren't personally punching people in the face. This is simply not acceptable.
@52, I should add, I realize we're in agreement, but we can't be splitting hairs over how many of his supporters are violent because this problem is too huge and too dangerous to treat lightly. Trump is running a campaign centered around violence and scapegoating minorities, period.
I was wrong, Trump does have an ideolgoy. Ezra Klien writes a great piece on the ideology of violence.
I watched video of the Chicago rally and the ONLY people I saw punching anyone were protesters. Trump is the ONLY candidate upon whom someone launched a violent attack. Trump's is the ONLY campaign that has hundreds of people from other campaigns entering the rallies with the express purpose of shutting them down. You all are rolling a narrative that is 180 degrees from the truth.

All campaigns throw disruptive protesters out of their rallies. Why is Trump's the only campaign that has been attacked for it?
@56: Because all the other candidates are not behaving like a rabid dog?
@56, Because Trump is the only one asking his supporters to beat the shit out of the protesters, even offering to pay their legal bills? Maybe? Gee, I just don't know. Maybe you could hold everyone's hand and patiently explain this to us because we just don't understand these things we're observing with our own eyes.
Protesters throwing punches.…

Death threats against Trump:…

Death threats against pro wrestling guy just for supporting Trump:…
Trump supporter sucker punches non-violent protester…

Trump supporter then tells Inside Edition “we might have to kill him”…

Trump says he might pay his supporter's legal fees after he is charged with misdemeanor assault…

Trump had previously told his supporters that he would pay their legal fees if they knocked the crap out of any protesters (at least he is a man of his word?)…

You are a terrible person and your gaslighting is getting really tiresome…
@60 well no surprise, you're lying, you're lying about the contents of your own links. You said Trump "would pay their legal fees if they knocked the crap out of any protesters."

The actual quote from your own link is, "So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you? Seriously." (There had been rumors of protesters with tomatoes planning to throw them.) Hitting someone who is about to throw an object at a presidential candidate is probably legal and certainly far different from offering to pay the legal fees of people who hit ANY protestors, which was your lie, you lying sack of shit. That's from this link here, so everyone can see your lie.…

Besides that, the ONE and ONLY violent incident you came up with on the part of Trump's supporters is the sucker punch. That's out of millions of people. Wow, what a bunch of rabid dog Nazis.
Also, all candidates get death threats but Trump is the only babyman who cries about it (also also infowars lol)
You rock blip!
@61, If believing all that bullshit helps you sleep at night I suppose that's a plus, but you've got a long slog ahead of you if you think you can convince everyone else to disbelieve their own eyes and ears.

@63, Why thank you, raindrop.
Also, gaslighting lol

Blip @60 "Disagreeing with me on the internet is a form of mental abuse."

Blip @60 "I am getting hit with facts from outside my bubble. The cognitive dissonance is so intense I feel like I am going insane!"
gaslighting = overwhelming people with false information and insisting their own observations are wrong. That may work well for you in your personal relationships but it's a fool's errand pretty much everywhere else. Keep trying tho.
If you are going to keep lying, I'll keep busting you. From your own link, THE FIRST SENTENCE: "Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of mental abuse...."…

I understand why you feel overwhelmed, you are used to lying and getting away with it, not used to being called on it. I barely have to type to kick your ass anymore, pretty much just copy and paste.
You're right I'm so embarrassed. Ok gotta go bye
I retract my earlier statement that Adversary was playing devil's advocate to point out the hypocrisy in saying it was OK to engage in violence against Trump supporters* because they're generally more awful people, supporting an awful candidate, who advocates awful polices and behavior. Anyone who insists that this is the first and only violent incident at a Trump rally is not in touch with reality. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

*I still stand by that statement though. It's not hard to be better than a Trump supporter, so there's no reason why you shouldn't be.
@69 I watched the videos in your link. They are, in order from top to bottom:
1) The famous sucker punch--like I said I'll give you that one.
2) a protester who gets shoved along because she keeps stopping as she is being removed
3) a journalist who gets taken down by a Secret Service officer after disobeying and getting chest to chest with the officer. Whether that was right or wrong, that's a federal agent, not a Trump supporter.
4) A protester who is on the ground and won't get up to be removed, so security is trying to drag him or get him up.
5) Again, protesters who aren't cooperating with security get shoved along.
6) A Trump security person who takes signs from a protester. The protester then chases him and grabs him, whereupon the security man smacks him. The protester then wrestles/grabs a second security person.
7) A Trump supporter aggressively confronts a protester and maybe spits on him. He is quickly backed off by other Trump people.
8) Another Trump protester who is on the ground, struggling with those who are trying to remove him.

What I can't get over is how much this reminds me of Nazi Germany.

Here's a video I want you to watch: protesters linking arms, disrupting a Trump event by shouting and chanting, and refusing to be separated and led out. This is why force is being used to remove them--they are deliberately making it necessary.…
@70: Please finish the sentence. I support Donald Trump because _______.
I don't advocate violence against Trump supporters. It's not nice to be unkind to stupid people, and they have a lot of troubles - like all that money they sent to that guy in Nigeria, and that 25% tithing that their minister told them they have to pay if they don't want to go to hell.

Making America Great Again is a tall order when you have to be reminded to velcro your shoes every morning.
@50: "I'm going to keep on pretending that you guys are saying something else, and I'm going to quote a notable writer to prove it!"
Ironic, since the Orwell quote perfectly describes Trump's dog-whistles.

@59: >infowars

@61: "So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise."
Oh, but it's okay because he mentioned a tomato, right? (And no, beating someone up because they're throwing a tomato is NOT legal by self-defense.)

@67: Nice selective quotation.
"Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of mental abuse in which information is twisted or spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception, and sanity."
Ironically, you prove the point by selectively omitting information.
@71 When you can't refute me with facts, and when lies and attacks don't work, you try to change the subject. Sure, I understand why you'd do that. But I decline to take the bait.

This thread is about whether whether protesters who halted a Trump rally with with disruptive behavior, death threats, and violence (injuring at least one cop), and who tried to attack Trump a day later, are 'heroes.' It's about whether Trump's campaign is responsible for the violence at his events, or the opposition to that campaign, including those who have irresponsibly called him and his followers Nazis, bear the blame. It's about the factual question how much violence there has actually been and who has perpetrated it.

So, do you have anything relevant to add? Or are you going to slink away like lying little sack of shit and coward Blip?
@74: I'm not laying out bait. But your response is most interesting and I'll take as a No that you are not supporting Donald J. Trump for president.
Wow. First you assume one way, then you assume the other way. Please don't make important decisions on anything ever.
Good. I'll take @76 as a validation of @75. I'm not assuming anything Adversary; just reading between your lines.
@77, If you just tell him he's right he'll shut up.
At least everyone agrees that shutting down speech they don't agree with is what makes America great...
@79 the exact opposite of my point.

@77 you are still off-topic. No one, for or against Trump, should regard anyone throwing punches at his rallies, issuing death threats, shutting down speech they disagree with, or physically attacking candidates as 'heroes.'

@78 You seem so frustrated. Your feelz tell you you are right but you just...can't...prove it.
...I was being sarcastic...
@81 I know, I just wanted to point out that I among few in this thread am clear on the whole free speech, democracy thing.
@80: Agree. Then Trump should tone it down, right? Otherwise you're being illogical.
@ What has Trump done to impede anyone's free speech or participation in democracy? Removing people from his events does not count, they are private. The right to free speech does not include the right to go into someone's private event and disrupt it.

How about you, do you agree the protesters/Trump opposition should tone it down? No more throwing punches, no more rushing the podium, no more death threats or assaulting cops? Or are they heroes like fuckstick said?
Anti-Trump (and at least some of them pro-Bernie) people harass, threaten 70 year old woman/Trump supporter, vandalize her house.…
I forgot to add: Hero!
Heroes, all of them!
@84: "What has Trump done to impede anyone's free speech or participation in democracy?"
He's called for libel laws to be expanded to allow him to sue people who say unflattering things about him, and he has threatened to sue people who say unflattering things about him.
@88 Well that's interesting, and I probably disagree with him there. But calling for a change in the law through democratic process is a far cry from violence, nor is it what anyone including Raindrop mean when they say he should tone down his rhetoric.

But I appreciate you actually responding in a reasoned way, with facts rather than lies, attacks, and subject-changing.
@89: He's also engaged in really egregious race-baiting, called for America to commit war crimes as a matter of policy, and encouraged his supporters to physically assault protesters. (No matter how private the event, the sort of violence he condones against disruptors is NOT legal.)
And if you're so concerned about "responding in a reasoned way", Satan, would it kill you to address what people actually said instead of beating an endless succession of strawmen? How about it?
A little background reading for everyone, especially sweet Adversary.

And some foreground reading too, specifically the psychological game that abusers play: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

This thread is remarkable.
@90 Cool. Which of those things makes it heroic to punch his supporters, threaten him with death, and attempt to physically attack him at a rally? Which is NOT a strawman. That's what the protesters Herz called 'heroic' did.

@91 Your second link is to an article on the behavior of 'abusers,' particularly 'sex offenders.' What part of disagreeing with you on the internet is most like a sex offense in your opinion?
@92: Accounts vary as to who threw the first punch at the rally; are you saying that protesters shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves against physical assault? Punching a Trump supporter is absolutely heroic if it's done in self-defense. And I DEFY you to show me evidence that the protesters at that rally threatened Trump with death or attempted to physically attack him (a pretty good trick seeing as he never showed up). Go ahead, show me what you've got, you loud imbecile.
Ironically, although you claim that you're not beating a strawman, you've badly misrepresented Herz's argument. First off, he didn't call anyone "heroic"; he referred to them as "hero protesters". Quotation marks have MEANING, you know. Secondly, he was referring to the actual protesters at the actual cancelled rally, and you're pretending that he spoke in support of all people who have expressed opposition to Trump. This little game of make-believe is the basis for your attempt to tar all protesters (those arguably engaging in heroism) with the same brush as a few jerks who take things too far on the internet. You're attempting to refute an argument that your opponent didn't actually make; THAT is a strawman.

aaand there you go putting the RV in DARVO.
These protesters are not throwing punches in self-defense.…

You are right, the physical attack was the next day, not Chicago. Same protest movement though.

Here's an article about the Secret Service investigating death threats against Trump.…

More death threats in days before Chicago rally…

"Multiple law enforcement sources told that there was a credible threat against Trump from groups of protesters who planned to storm the stage."…

More death threats:…

Here's a twitter search for the words kill, assassinate, or shoot + Trump near Chicago on just March 10&11.…

Some results: "Somebody really need to shoot Donald trump when he come to Chicago ."
"Who Ever Kill Donald Trump While He In #Chicago Friday Onna Behalf Of Chicago We Gone Make You A Go Fund Me Account For Yo Bond Money"
"Metro basically gave the go to shoot Donald Trump"

I am getting tired of wasting my time with you, you won't accept any information from outside your bubble.
@94: "These protesters are not throwing punches in self-defense."
There's nothing in that write-up or video that shows a protester attacking a Trump supporter. You can see a protester and a supporter grappling before the protester throws the supporter off of him, and you can see a protester shoving a supporter away from him after being advanced on menacingly, and you can see a protester attempting to pull away from security to reach the microphone. You're delusional if you think any of that is evidence of protesters starting fights.

Do you have any evidence that any of the protesters in attendance had threatened Trump's life or safety? Because right now your argument boils down to "some people threatened Trump, therefore other people are violent thugs". By that same logic, Trump is personally responsible for the beatings of Muslims and Hispanics committed by people espousing his rhetoric.

And again, Breitbart and InfoWars are NOT credible sources.

"I am getting tired of wasting my time with you, you won't accept any information from outside your bubble."
In other words, I won't blindly accept your cited evidence as supporting your unrelated claims, so you're taking your ball and going home. Don't worry, though; I'm not tired of wasting my time with you, Satan. I do so love to argue.

I keep seeing "Chicago Trump Rally Shut Down By Hetero Protesters"

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.