Trump is just showing what a generous person he is. He has made numerous comments that he does not condone what the old man did.
This idiocy in Chicago is why I vote for TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!**
- Thread starter robEERt
- Start date
Trump is just showing what a generous person he is. He has made numerous comments that he does not condone what the old man did.
America the Beautiful was playing in my head reading that.
I notice you left out education in bold.
Who remembers a presidential candidate, "I paid for this microphone"? It is amazing that people cry for respect and want their 1st amendment rights be protected. Who sees the parallel in events?America the Beautiful was playing in my head reading that.
I notice you left out education in bold.
The Donald Trump rents a location to make his speech. People are paid to disrupt his event. Now, the Cuntreeboy is yelling for respect for those who interrupt Trump and demand their voices be heard as is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Does the 1st Amendment really guarantee the right to protest by interrupting a person(Trump) who has abided by all legal requirements to peaceably assemble and deliver his message? Of course that was not the speak that was protected by the amendment. But, we get a bunch of misguided people screaming for protection of their right to disrupt the opposition. Really, do you think that is a protected action?
To show how asinine you are, could Trump supporters organize disruption on Hillary meetings? There are many Wounded Warriors who could use $500, and there are many Trump supporters with financial means to pay teams of 5 to interrupt her with shouts of Benghazi. After that is settled down, let another team of 5 interrupt shouting Email, and continue until the meeting is totally disrupted by organized teams to shout any claim that has been levied against her(or Bill). See how that game is played? I do not think it would be difficult to get recruits against Hillary. Nor do I think fund raising would be any problem. Of course, Trump would be totally above the fray. And those honorable military people would have an extra $500 in their pocket to say something they feel needs to be said.
I was marching around with a 2x4 and an American flag Hacksaw Jim Duggin style while typing that.America the Beautiful was playing in my head reading that.
I notice you left out education in bold.
Yes, I would definitely add in education to that as well. The system at all levels has regressed. There is a reason for that and it needs to be rebooted.
Who is suggesting a return to pre-civil rights America? Your straw men are not even cleverly assemble anymore. Trump references Reagan-era Americanism and Clinton-era economy. However, unless foreign oil dries up or somehow becomes extremely expensive to extract, or the US develops some new widget or technology I don't see a return to the 90's ecomony no matter who is in office.
If people are going to heckle and just incite an issue, that's one thing. To actually encourage violence against them is something entirely different. To tell his supporters that if somebody decks somebody else that he'll pay their legal bills, that's encouraging violence against them. That's a dangerous message for a potential President to put out there IMO. If somebody disagrees with you and are vocal about it, just deck them. Is that what we are?
I agree that we go too far with the political correctness bullshit, but there's also a reason for it because people were stereotyping and generalizing about entire groups of people. That's not OK either. I don't know where the balance is, but for me personally it is to look at each person/incident as it's own person/event. Blacks riot over perceived social injustices and they are thugs with no respect for anything, whites do it because their team won the Stanley Cup and you get crickets. Do the inner city blacks represent what you could expect from ANY black person? No. That's ridiculous. Do the Stanley Cup rioters represent what you could expect from all white people? Equally ridiculous.
With statements like "Mexico is sending their rapists" and talks about making a registry of Muslims and not letting any of them in, Donald Trump is, IMO, appealing to a base that has always been there but have been lurking in shadows because we had mostly moved past that kind of thinking ... now they are out in the light again. I don't think we are better as a country for it.
However, there is something to be said about taking issues head on and not talking around them. We do way too much of the latter also, but I think there is a better and less divisive way to do the former.
I agree with all of that.
I'll say I think by Trump saying he would cover the legal bills of that individual was his way of saying he'll stand up for those who believe in him. As I've repeatedly said, I don't like Trump, I don't support Trump, but there are things in his message I can get behind. Hell, there are things in Bernie and Hillary's platforms I can get behind. I still don't think they should be President. I guess most of all, like all things, I form the basis of my opinions on these candidates based on my metrics and mine alone. They are not developed or influenced in any meaningful way by outside entities be it media or otherwise.
I understand that about you. There are a number of people on the board that are like that, some lean more right and some lean more left. Of course there are a number that aren't like that, and I am not sure that they can tell the difference.
I also understand where you're coming from with Trump. While I think I agree that it might be his way of saying he'll stand up for them, I still don't think it's something that should be said because it's clear that at least a few of his supporters think they are being encouraged to physically attack people. It's about understanding your audience and what your words are going to mean to them. There's also the possibility that he means exactly what he's saying too.
I question whether he has any concept of the truth. He seems to think the truth is whatever he wants it to be in that moment. He's certainly not alone in that when it comes to politicians.
Even though I'm far from a Trump supporter, the one thing in this country that bothers me a great deal is how quickly we are to label someone, especially something as strong as "racist". Far too often we infer our beliefs on what someone else says, and are too quick to accuse them of being something they are not.
Trump may be a closet racist, he may not be. But if people are going to call him a racist then they better have the proof to back it up.
You highlight the things I absolutely can't stand about Trump. I try to apply a modicum of logic and personally experience to these situations. There are times where what you say is not at all what is received by the listening audience. I think anyone that is married can attest to that. But back to Trump, I think one of the things most endearing about him to his supporters is his speaking from the hip. They see it as genuine. Those of us who prefer a more polished message even off the cuff cringe at some of the stuff he says. Now, where most people will walk it back and clarify their comments, he just doubles down which again, his supporters love and those of us with an understanding of leadership realize you don't always have to unwavering to be right. There are times where I've dug in and set a course and then realized I set the wrong course pretty early on. Then I've gone back and adjusted. Willingness to adapt a plan to the environment is a good thing. I don't think he feels like he has to do that.
I do like him keeping the GOP front and center of the media though. Who would have thought that with Hillary in the mix that would have been possible. The Trump effect (good and bad) coupled with the indictment she is going to get will cost her and the DNC their chance at the Whitehouse.
I think I get some of what Trump is after by "standing up" for people that feel left out, etc, but I think he is going too far when saying he'll pay for the legal fees of that guy. The optics of that are bad. Yes, the black guy was only there to cause trouble and he had just given the middle finger to the crowd as security was escorting him out but still, an old, redneck-type guy sucker punching him in the face looks bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. No way Trump should say he's gonna pay the legal bills for that guy.
Going right to get votes is one thing but the further right you go the more you lose center votes, and when you're going to far right that you're getting the robEERt vote not only begrudgingly but with glee, then you've gone too far. There are a lot of people that on the one hand feel left out by the political process but OTOH don't want to be part of a group openly racist, homophobe-types that "want our country back." IMO he's overplaying that hand.
Of course, if he gets the GOP nomination he'll rush back to the center but there is going to be an awful lot of video clips to play to remind November voters what went on.
Going right to get votes is one thing but the further right you go the more you lose center votes, and when you're going to far right that you're getting the robEERt vote not only begrudgingly but with glee, then you've gone too far. There are a lot of people that on the one hand feel left out by the political process but OTOH don't want to be part of a group openly racist, homophobe-types that "want our country back." IMO he's overplaying that hand.
Of course, if he gets the GOP nomination he'll rush back to the center but there is going to be an awful lot of video clips to play to remind November voters what went on.
I don't think Trump is a closet racist. He has been famous for decades and he loves spouting off and yet his spouts over those decades haven't been racist. He declined to be associated with the party that was associated with David Duke 15 or so years ago.
So I don't think Trump himself is racist. But he doesn't hesitate in the slightest to appeal to the racist tendencies of people to get votes and that is troubling to say the least.
I'm not arguing with you, as I do agree. However, he really opened himself up to have his future words and actions parsed when he opened his campaign with "the Mexicans are sending their rapists" remarks. And then he followed that up later with his statements regarding Muslims. And then he claims not to know who David Duke is and not know anything about any white supremacist groups. He later backed off of that and made some excuse about a faulty ear piece or whatever ...
When you take those things in aggregate, it isn't hard to see where some reach that conclusion. Whether the conclusion is accurate or not is really something only Trump himself knows, and that assumes he's honest with himself.
I think it would be foolish to not recognize that we all have some kind of racial bias ... but to extend that to make the accusation that somebody is actually racist is a bridge too far. As has been pointed out, generalizations are one of my biggest annoyances because they really don't apply. (well, except the one about Asian drivers)
I am going to try to drop the word potential and make the phrase to apply to President. Does that make a difference? What if heckler is able to get onto the stage with Hillary? What if the heckler actually jumps the fence to the WH and has access to the first family, do you take him down at that time?
Some people got pissed off because of what happened to candidate RFK. There is a danger involved if there is not a safe perimeter around the candidates for this office. There are no Constitutional rights that protect these actions nor the perpetrator.
I do not give a damn what you people are suggesting as PC for these outlaws. They are dangerous or putting a candidate in danger if these acts are going to be supported. You have got to have the capacity to analyze the situation and see the exposure you are putting on someone/anyone who chooses to seek the office.
Last edited:
A person that does that isn't a heckler then, are they? The parallels you try to draw at times are ridiculous. A person standing in a crowd shouting stuff is far different from somebody making physical movements toward the person speaking. (or jumping the WH fence, entering into restricted area and trying to gain access to the WH) Even you should be able to see that ... or is even the little bit of credit I give you still too much?
Here is the current POTUS handling a heckler:
Now, imagine if that was Trump. How does it look for the POTUS to say "throw that bum out and if anybody wants to rough him up, go ahead"? Instead, Obama tells people (secret service I assume) to leave him alone, to let him stay, asks him to let him finish and then addresses his concerns. Diplomacy. Trump has none.
You are amazingly stupid. The parallel being made and you choose to ignore is someone getting close. I you want to substitute another title for heckler to get a better visual of the picture being drawn. Hinkley did not have a sign on his back that said "heckler". Ditto for the guy(SS) who shot RFK. If they are approaching, Secret Service has to make a split second decision. In your story of your favorite person, what does SS do if the man stands and move forward? It is too late if he has intention to shoot. But you are a little to ignorant to appreciate the situation. The situation I saw of the man bridging the barrier and getting in front of the stage where Trump was could have been fatal. But you see no danger since your man was able to invite the man to finish his remarks. You would have seen somebody change color if a firecracker would have gone off or a motor backfire.
I think the assassination of RFK is what prompted the Secret Service to begin giving protection to POTUS candidates. In the video you can see a bunch of Secret Service guys immediately surround Trump, they're back to Trump and looking out at the crowd.
They don't piss around with this stuff. Some visitor from Egypt tweeted something he would off Trump and lots of people would be happy and in response he's being deported from the country. And I don't blame the government. Threats or anything like it on politicians aren't something to fool around with. One thing that separates us from the Banana Republics is that politicians go in and out of office as a result of elections, not violence.
They don't piss around with this stuff. Some visitor from Egypt tweeted something he would off Trump and lots of people would be happy and in response he's being deported from the country. And I don't blame the government. Threats or anything like it on politicians aren't something to fool around with. One thing that separates us from the Banana Republics is that politicians go in and out of office as a result of elections, not violence.
You're too stupid to realize that you're talking about two entirely different types of people, with two totally different intentions.
A person standing and trying to talk over the speaker or yelling something is disruptive, but not necessarily dangerous as the video clearly shows. You try to make a stupid point about if that person wanted to shoot ... as if everybody walking into an event and is going to have that close of potential contact with the president isn't going to go through multiple layers of security. It is you who is a little too ignorant to understand the situation.
Again ... somebody heckling and somebody trying to get close, aren't the same things. You seem to feel as if both should be handled the same way.
Here's the definition of a heckler, my slow friend:
A heckler is a person who harasses and tries to disconcert others with questions, challenges, or gibes. Hecklers are often known to shout disparaging comments at a performance or event, or to interrupt set-piece speeches, with the intent of disturbing performers and/or participants.
Nothing in there about trying to approach or shoot anybody. To put it even more plainly, they only use their voice.
Opie, would you attempt to share with this dense asshole that these situations are looked upon as serious business for the Secret Service. The protection of the candidates that are serious challengers get 24/7 protection. Hostile crowds and individuals participating get serious attention. Anyone who gets too familiar will be watched very intently until the until the process is over. Trump has his own security force and I would think that would make the task doubly difficult unless Trump's forces are made up of x-SS agents. I would further think anyone getting too much action will get a free ride out of town by Trump security.
I don't know the details but I do know that RFK had his own private security, including Rosey Grier, and he ended up dead and it was after that event that POTUS candidates officially started to get Secret Service protection. (It was after Lincoln's assassination that the Secret Service was formed to start protecting the POTUS.)
Some anti-Trump person at his rally would likely just want to hit him with a tomato or something to embarrass him but no way is the Secret Service going to take a chance.
Trump provokes this by his over the top rhetoric but at the same time the people against Trump that go to his rallies are taking the bait and it could backfire in terms of PR. If anti-Trump people keep going to Trump rallies and disrupting while anti-Hillary people aren't disrupting Hillary rallies the Trump side will spin it like, they're the intolerant ones disrupting our rallies even though we leave them alone.
Or another possibility is that Trump folks will start disrupting Hillary rallies too and we'll have an election season of disrupted rallies all over the place.
ETA: I don't mean to say that the people disrupting the Trump rallies are Hillary folks but they're definitely anti-Trump and they'll be voting for Trumps opponent (should Trump get the GOP nomination) and that opponent will likely be Hillary.
Some anti-Trump person at his rally would likely just want to hit him with a tomato or something to embarrass him but no way is the Secret Service going to take a chance.
Trump provokes this by his over the top rhetoric but at the same time the people against Trump that go to his rallies are taking the bait and it could backfire in terms of PR. If anti-Trump people keep going to Trump rallies and disrupting while anti-Hillary people aren't disrupting Hillary rallies the Trump side will spin it like, they're the intolerant ones disrupting our rallies even though we leave them alone.
Or another possibility is that Trump folks will start disrupting Hillary rallies too and we'll have an election season of disrupted rallies all over the place.
ETA: I don't mean to say that the people disrupting the Trump rallies are Hillary folks but they're definitely anti-Trump and they'll be voting for Trumps opponent (should Trump get the GOP nomination) and that opponent will likely be Hillary.
I didn't say that. Don't misquote me. If you are going to participate on this board, learn how to use the quote function and learn to follow along.
Yeah, because anyone that says "13-9" deserves to have the hell beat out of them, right?
I'm not the "dumb motherfvcker". You are the one defending Trump.
Put on a Pitt shirt and try it. I'm not saying they deserve it, I mean outside of delivering a Pitt fan some comeuppance. I'm saying they go into trying to invoke that reaction so they can cry foul. It's not hard to understand the psyche of these types of demonstrations.Yeah, because anyone that says "13-9" deserves to have the hell beat out of them, right?
I'm not the "dumb motherfvcker". You are the one defending Trump.
You are just too damned stupid to realize the situation. There are times that I am sure you are attempting to pull my leg just to get a rise out of me, but then I realize you are serious and just that dense. Probably just from Ohio, Pa, or Va. - attempting to be cute and just a stupid ass attempting to play a roll.
Those playing the rolls may or may not be dangerous. I am not talking about the little gay blade sitting in row 30 or the young girl over in the corner. Either would be looked as as someone trying to develop a name and inviting being tossed - sorta like those college sit-in type.
Then, you have those running in packs like wolves. They have the potential to be dangerous and they have got to be given every consideration. Opie mentioned the fellow who broke the barrier and security protected Trump by backing up to him. What would have happened if someone working in concert with the one in front approached from the rear of the stage? There is exposure and neither of them was wearing a sign that identified them nor their roll. The verbal heckler could be there just to divert attention.
The leading candidates are in absolute need of 24/7 security. The thing most covered in poice academy is to never overlook the obvious.
How brave would Trump be if he didn't have this protection? Yeah, he'd be a little whiny a$$ punk up there. He knows he can say whatever he wants and get away with it. He is race baiting, gender baiting, and playing on American fears of immigrants to gain support from those Americans that would blow sh!t up if they had a chance. The same people supporting Trump would be your same supporters for George Wallace in 1968. Fact!
Happened to a Va Tech fan when I was in school. Idiot wouldn't shut up and made the mistake of taunting the students in the student section. He knew he was going to piss us off, I don't think he realized how strong the reaction would be.
I have zero respect for those that would seek to provoke like that. The one time I stood in the Maryland student section for a football game I kept my mouth shut and was as polite as I could be.
Hahahahahha, do you see how many black faces are at his rallies? He has more support from the AA community than Bernie does.
Liberals demand safe spaces so that they won't be "triggered." They then leave the comfy confines and head to a campaign rally of a candidate they disagree with. They organize and cause disruptions, rip peoples Trump signs up, taunt, etc and then get mad if someone confronts them about it.
Nixon was caught on tape in the White House using many varied racial slurs towards blacks, Jjews, Hispanics and even Italians. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Clearly you have never seen True Romance either. Here is the scene from the movie.
Disclaimer, scene contains racist statements and racial slurs. Wanted to provide a trigger warning for the men with vaginas on here:
Nice.........I am not Sicilian. Funny but true story; Years ago I made a visit to the family home in Italy. While on the visit I asked about a cross I saw atop a mountain overlooking the town. I ask the significance of it. It was to honor the return of the descendants of the town who had spent hundreds of years of bondage in Sicily after the Sicilians had taken the men of the town after a battle.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
WVU Release WVU Baseball - Mountaineers Head to TCU to Close Out Regular Season
- Latest: Walter Brennaneer
-
-
-
-
