Who holds the blame for the events in Chicago?

[Dr. Arch]

The apologists for Trump's bigotry know no bounds. After today it should be pretty damn clear what the consequences of letting Trump ascend to power would be. Anyone who isn't terrified and disgusted is fooling themselves.

[Dr. Arch]

By Trump not only refusing to condemn the previous contained incidents of violence by his supporters at his events and outside of the events as well, but providing reasons why he understood it, he is tacitly endorsing other acts of violence. And, as we know, violence tends to escalate the larger the crowd where group mentality kicks in.

[Dr. Arch]

The Terrorists who came to shut down a legal gathering. Absolutely disgusting

I find it hilarious that these protesters are labeled as terrorists, but people like the Charleston shooter and the Washington hijackers are somehow not.

[Dr. Arch]

By Trump not only refusing to condemn the previous contained incidents of violence by his supporters at his events and outside of the events as well, but providing reasons why he understood it, he is tacitly endorsing other acts of violence. And, as we know, violence tends to escalate the larger the crowd where group mentality kicks in.

Stop justifying violence. It is unbecoming. It hurts your cause.

I'm not justifying violence; I am LITERALLY condemning his non-contempt towards PREVIOUS acts of violence BY HIS SUPPORTERS. Violence from EITHER side is bad, but in overly-charged crowds, when one act of violence is committed it precipitates, and it was a matter of time this would happen because there were already isolated events happening with more frequency over the last couple of days. Trump could have CONDEMNED those previous acts and stemmed this crap at the bud, but he refused to.

[Dr. Arch]

By Trump not only refusing to condemn the previous contained incidents of violence by his supporters at his events and outside of the events as well, but providing reasons why he understood it, he is tacitly endorsing other acts of violence. And, as we know, violence tends to escalate the larger the crowd where group mentality kicks in.

Stop justifying violence. It is unbecoming. It hurts your cause.

I'm not justifying violence; I am LITERALLY condemning his non-contempt towards PREVIOUS acts of violence BY HIS SUPPORTERS. Violence from EITHER side is bad, but in overly-charged crowds, when one act of violence is committed it precipitates, and it was a matter of time this would happen because there were already isolated events happening with more frequency over the last couple of days. Trump could have CONDEMNED those previous acts and stemmed this crap at the bud, but he refused to.

OK Arch. My point stands. These protesters appearing at TRUMP rallies are violent and are trying to provoke the TRUMP supporters. Can you give me any justification for that?

In a crowd of 25 to 35 thousand people, you will always have a couple of them with a short fuse. Those could react violently to the violent attacks and provocations by the protesters.

Anti-Trump protesters should be condemned here. It's a travesty that not everybody is condemning the protesters and standing up in defense of TRUMP. The hypocrisy of the Establishment and the Left is astounding.

There is no justification for provoking anyone. I am condemning BOTH group for the acts of violence but pointing at Trump himself as the source because of my previous statements. He has not tried once to stem violence, and that galvanizes future violent confrontations from both ends because: 1) The supporters feel their candidate is supporting violent actions and are, thus, incentivized to continue them, and 2) The protesters snap into a defensive posture and feel they must strike back. It's a domino effect, and we know who pushed the first domino months ago.

The fact you characterize the protesters as violent and Trump's supporters as peaceful is pure bias. BOTH of them were violent, but for very different reasons.

[Dr. Arch]

There is no justification for provoking anyone. I am condemning BOTH group for the acts of violence but pointing at Trump himself as the source because of my previous statements. He has not tried once to stem violence, and that galvanizes future violent confrontations from both ends because: 1) The supporters feel their candidate is supporting violent actions and are, thus, incentivized to continue them, and 2) The protesters snap into a defensive posture and feel they must strike back. It's a domino effect, and we know who pushed the first domino months ago.

The fact you characterize the protesters as violent and Trump's supporters as peaceful is pure bias. BOTH of them were violent, but for very different reasons.

Arch, the TRUMP's supporters were peaceful until the protesters started showing up at TRUMP's rallies. There are no TRUMP supporters at Hillary's, Bernie's, Rubio's, etc... rallies. This means that the protesters started this.

Now, at that moment, everybody should have voiced their condemnation of these protesters and called for them to stop showing at TRUMP's rallies and called them for what they are - terrorists. But nobody did so. Why is that? Because they all hate TRUMP's discourse and these protesters played into the narrative that TRUMP's discourse somehow caused violence, even though he never called for any violent act and preaches love for everybody at each one of his rallies.

By the way, these Chicago protesters are clearly highly organized and possibly paid. Even Rubio acknowledged that much.

So the black man that was beat up was a terrorist; the journalist that was slammed to the floor was a terrorist??? By your definition, heckling is terrorism. Obama was heckled once in the White House. Should have he ordered the heckler beat up, jailed, or executed???

You keep saying Trump supporters were peaceful until they were challenged. Well of course you won't be combative with people who agree with you (hello?) The problem is how they RESPOND to disagreement which is a NATURAL part of political relations. Your claim that Trump supporters who wouldn't otherwise commit acts of violence, will in the face of someone voicing against their positions just downright destroys itself.

Your claim that supporters wouldn't otherwise be violent is like saying: "Well, there was no wood for the fire to burn, therefore, the fire wasn't dangerous to the wood to begin with, but the wood showed up. Therefore, the current burning of the wood is mostly the wood's fault. The wood shouldn't have been there." Seriously, what?

[Dr. Arch]

The protesters, of course. Why were they trying to stop TRUMP's rally?
By organizing a protest with so many participants at the venue of a previously announced rally, they assume all responsibility for the violent consequences.

Please.... At every gay pride parade/college campus, there are always Christianist protesters. We may shout at them and give them a hard time or try to kiss in front of them or something, but we don't beat them up.

Trump deserves to be protested because of his racist and inflammatory comments. But he needs to handle the protests in a manner that does not incite violence.

The Christians don't beat up gays either. It's the protesters who started this.

I love how you continue to paint Trump supporters as pacifists. There is clear bias in your responses, and you are not analyzing the situation objectively. It takes two to have a fight.

HECK, even with the disgusting Westboro Baptist Church nothing of these proportions happened. It really makes you question what is festering behind the scenes.

[Dr. Arch]

Arch, remember BLM disrupting Bernie's event?
These protesters are violent and they have their own agenda. They are against the Law and Order.

TRUMP's supporters are peaceful. At least the overwhelming majority of them.

I don't know anything about a particular black man or a journalist. I saw a guy punching a protester at one of TRUMP's rallies, which I condemn, of course. But that has nothing to do with TRUMP or his supporters.

Did Bernie incite a riot when they showed up? No.

No, a number of Trump supporters aren't peaceful. This is just simply wrong.

Research the black man and the journalist then. Also, you saw a supporter punch a protester at one of Trump's rallies, but it has nothing to do with Trump or his supporters? What?

[Dr. Arch]

Arch, remember BLM disrupting Bernie's event?
These protesters are violent and they have their own agenda. They are against the Law and Order.

TRUMP's supporters are peaceful. At least the overwhelming majority of them.

I don't know anything about a particular black man or a journalist. I saw a guy punching a protester at one of TRUMP's rallies, which I condemn, of course. But that has nothing to do with TRUMP or his supporters.

Did Bernie incite a riot when they showed up? No.

No, a number of Trump supporters aren't peaceful. This is just simply wrong.

Research the black man and the journalist then. Also, you saw a supporter punch a protester at one of Trump's rallies, but it has nothing to do with Trump or his supporters? What?

Trump didn't incite a riot.  He had his organizers state clearly that there was to be no violence, and iirc there was a please for calm and peace on loop after the event had closed while people were still milling around and Bernie Sanders supporters were starting fights.

This was at an event with tens of thousands of supporters and thousands of protesters.  The Seattle Bernie event was in Westlake Square, which holds a few hundred people and always has heavy police presence since it's a hot spot for protests and riots during the day and muggings, homelessness and drug-related crime at night.

No, Trump did not incite a riot, but please read my previous statements on his stance on previous violent acts at his events by supporters.

Are you implying that those couple of women would've incited a riot if it weren't a heavily secured area? I highly doubt it.

[Dr. Arch]

Arch, remember BLM disrupting Bernie's event?
These protesters are violent and they have their own agenda. They are against the Law and Order.

TRUMP's supporters are peaceful. At least the overwhelming majority of them.

I don't know anything about a particular black man or a journalist. I saw a guy punching a protester at one of TRUMP's rallies, which I condemn, of course. But that has nothing to do with TRUMP or his supporters.

Did Bernie incite a riot when they showed up? No.

No, a number of Trump supporters aren't peaceful. This is just simply wrong.

Research the black man and the journalist then. Also, you saw a supporter punch a protester at one of Trump's rallies, but it has nothing to do with Trump or his supporters? What?

I researched the journalist and there is no evidence for her accusations. I don't know how to research about the black man. Can you tell me what happened? It could be the clip I saw of one of TRUMP's supporters punching a protester.

I agree that a number of TRUMP's supporters aren't peaceful, but the vast majority is. So, we shouldn't condemn them all and TRUMP because there are a couple of rotten apples in their midst.
TRUMP calls for tolerance at every one of his rallies, even love of others. So, I don't see how he could be responsible for what has been happening at his rallies.

Might be the same case: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/03/10/3758520/trump-protester-punched-in-face/

If you acknowledge that a number of Trump supporters aren't peaceful, then you should qualify your statements so that your claim reflects this reality, rather than making sweeping generalizations painting all of his supporters, including these violent supporters whose existence you acknowledge, as, essentially, peaceful. Doing that only demonstrates your tacit support of/apologism for their actions.

Regarding the how you don't see Trump as responsible, see my previous statements. If after that you can't see it still, then it is difficult to have you see it, and we'll have to agree to strongly disagree.

[Dr. Arch]

So to be clear:

1. Trump's rhetoric attracts some people who might be prone to start sh!t

2. Hundred of protesters show up to start sh!t

3. Sh!t starts

Verdict: Trump's fault.

1. Trump's rhetoric attacks people at a deep-rooted personal level with racial and authoritarian undertones. People, in general, might be prone to start sh!t. Trump does not condemn the escalating violence some of his protesters had been demonstrating.

2. Hundreds of protesters finally show up all at once because of his remarks, which are inflammatory, and his inaction to condemn wrongful actions mostly in part of his supporters. Both Trump's supporters and the protesters want to start sh!t for different reasons.

3. Sh!t starts


Verdict: Trump is at fault through indirect agency and tacit approval.

There, fixed.

[Dr. Arch]

Just by reading this thread, I can tell a lot of tribal thinking is going around and if this, in any way, echoes what the majority of Trump's supporters are thinking, this chaos was just the beginning of something much more threatening.

[Dr. Arch]

My goodness. I have to laugh at the people who are forcing the argument that protesting a Trump event would be the same as protesting a Sanders event.

It has been clear to anyone with more than half a brain that everything about Donald Trump's campaign and candidacy has been unconventional. It's unlike anything we've seen in modern times. The guy says whatever he wants with no regard for the consequences. He calls Mexicans rapists, associates women who dare to think critically with menstruation, deems all Muslims a terrorist threat, insults prisoners of war who have made huge sacrifices for their country, calls on his supporters to rough up protesters, hurls every kind of bad name at his political opponents, offers zero substantive plans for the country... and we're supposed to treat this man like he's just the same as any other politician? If that were true, he wouldn't get the support he's been getting; it's obvious he's different. His rise has caught everyone off guard.

What makes Donald Trump different is without a doubt the incendiary nature of everything he says. People are shocked at what comes out of his mouth, and there's entertainment value in that. The thing is, it makes him completely different from someone like Bernie Sanders who does have some tact and respect. Accordingly, protesting a Trump event is fundamentally different than protesting a Sanders event; the protestors would be protesting completely different things. Trump protestors protest obvious hate and divisiveness (for proof that this hate is there and being dredged to the surface by Trump, see every Trump event ever). They protest dangerous rhetoric. Sanders protestors would be reacting with revenge to the legitimate Trump protestors (they are legitimate because Trump has threatened the very core of their identities), or responding with bombast to a controversial but tame and detailed set of policies. The reaction would here not match the initial action from Sanders. So Trump protests and Sanders protests are apples and oranges. Actually not even that, because there are good reasons to eat both of those. It's like apples and veal. Eating apples make sense, but eating veal is pretty senseless when you realize there's no need to kill a baby cow 'cuz you can just have steak.

In other words, Bernie Sanders has established himself on policy grounds, which means that the best way to protest him is to dialogue, because dialogue is actually possible. Trump is just a pathos candidate, which means the only way to protest him is to send a counter charge of emotion. These are the terms he's established, and being so inflammatory means it will be worse. This is why no one will protest the other candidates like what we saw yesterday: The other candidates have set different rules for engagement (this is also why yesterday's events are Trump's fault). Since these rules of engagement are different, it also means that it probably will be the protestors' fault if something similar does happen to the other candidates. Yes, it's a double-standard, but it's one that has come directly from the candidates themselves.

[Dr. Arch]

And the protesters had a right to protest. Freedom of assembly.

But they don't have a right to be disorderly in public.  They don't have the right to disrupt a public event that is sponsored by a particular organization for a particular purpose.  Their right to protest is one that occurs on public property.  If they want to picket folks as they go in, that's fine, but they don't have a right to obstruct ingress and egress, threaten, or physically harm persons.  People attending Trump's rallies have rights to, including the right from not being assaulted or battered by a demonstrator.  And a demonstrator who threatens folks at a public rally while disrupting it is committing an assault.  That's not the 1st amendment, any more than a bank robber handing over a note demanding money and stating that he has a gun is "free speech".

And what of all the assaults that trump supporters commit on others ?
Are you just intentionally forgetful of those assaults ?
The vast majority of protesters who are there, and not physically hurting anyone, are punched, hit, pushed around, and assaulted by trump supporters.
And the violence is condoned by trump, who says that he will pay for anyone's lawyer who is involved with violence.

Yes the demonstrators are disruptive, but that is what a demonstration is all about.
trump supporters should not, and can not, strike demonstrators for being at the rallies. They just need to allow security/police to eject the protestors.

According to Ljube though, Trump's message is all about Love. 100%. Believe it.