Who holds the blame for the events in Chicago?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

haha this forum

If any of you bothered to conduct basic research, you'd realize that this catastrophe of a rally was inevitable: Trump was holding a rally at a university, which is to say that he was implicitly being subsidized by student tuition dollars, a point noted by faculty members of the University of Illinois-Chicago. Apparently, controversy had been building for quite some time before this rally took place for entirely understandable reasons, especially among students, who had every right to be mad that a literal fascist was invading their campus against the wishes of nearly the entire student body and faculty.

It's hard to say that students were "disrupting" an event that took place on their campus, where more than a few of them live. If anything, Trump was disrupting their college, which is largely non-white, by being a magnet for Stormfronters and white supremacists. I, for one, would be very angry if I had to deal with a bunch of deranged, asinine white supremacists on my college campus who were not students. I'd protest their presence and call them names, all of which is legal and "above the board". So would you!

Then, there's fact that Trump supporters have a penchant for violence. Do you know what isn't violent in the slightest? Tearing a Trump banner or a Trump poster. Do you want is violent? Sucker-punching a protester or "throwing debris" at a protester or getting in a brawl with a protester. Most violent acts at Trump rallies have been perpetrated by attendees. Naturally, this has been overlooked because most protesters thus far have been young Black or Latino men, who are clearly bloodthirsty thugs seeking violence.

Who I blame for the events in Chicago:
1. UIC administrators, who should be suspended as soon as possible for allowing this happen. These people are morons.
2. Donald Trump supporters, who are truly bottom of the barrel human beings who get off on beating people up.
3. Donald Trump, who uses events like these for PR purposes.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Which group started the attacks? That's the most pressing question.

It's hard to say but it appears that Trump supporters started the attacks. The eyewitness reports and bad video footage is very unreliable but based on past history at Trump events, where clearly peaceful protesters have had to be protected for their own safety, it's pretty clear which side is violent and which side is not. To be clear, this does not exactly justify disrupting rallies, particularly those held at stadiums, but there's a big distinction between disrupting a rally by chanting and bashing people's heads in or punching people.

That last, of course, was said at the same Fayetteville rally where John McGraw sucker-punched Rakeem Jones — the action that Donald Trump later claimed to "not condone."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11202540/trump-violent

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

haha this forum

If any of you bothered to conduct basic research, you'd realize that this catastrophe of a rally was inevitable: Trump was holding a rally at a university, which is to say that he was implicitly being subsidized by student tuition dollars, a point noted by faculty members of the University of Illinois-Chicago. Apparently, controversy had been building for quite some time before this rally took place for entirely understandable reasons, especially among students, who had every right to be mad that a literal fascist was invading their campus against the wishes of nearly the entire student body and faculty.

It's hard to say that students were "disrupting" an event that took place on their campus, where more than a few of them live. If anything, Trump was disrupting their college, which is largely non-white, by being a magnet for Stormfronters and white supremacists. I, for one, would be very angry if I had to deal with a bunch of deranged, asinine white supremacists on my college campus who were not students. I'd protest their presence and call them names, all of which is legal and "above the board". So would you!

Then, there's fact that Trump supporters have a penchant for violence. Do you know what isn't violent in the slightest? Tearing a Trump banner or a Trump poster. Do you want is violent? Sucker-punching a protester or "throwing debris" at a protester or getting in a brawl with a protester. Most violent acts at Trump rallies have been perpetrated by attendees. Naturally, this has been overlooked because most protesters thus far have been young Black or Latino men, who are clearly bloodthirsty thugs seeking violence.

Who I blame for the events in Chicago:
1. UIC administrators, who should be suspended as soon as possible for allowing this happen. These people are morons.
2. Donald Trump supporters, who are truly bottom of the barrel human beings who get off on beating people up.
3. Donald Trump, who uses events like these for PR purposes.

Does the university regularly allow usage of its facilities to political candidates for rallies? Or is it only acceptable to do so for "approved" political candidates?

In this particular case, I'm not sure, but the UIC would likely run into legal difficulties if it refused to allow Trump to use its space if it, in the past, allowed other candidates to host rallies. That said, I think political candidates should have the good sense and decency to not hold rallies in locations where they're obviously unwelcome/despised.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/09/trump-rallies-raise-safety-concerns-college-campuses

This article does a decent-enough job of highlighting the valid concerns of faculty. All in all, I think there could have been clever/legals ways that the administration could have prevented this event from taking place, to the benefit of both Trump supporters and students.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

In this particular case, I'm not sure, but the UIC would likely run into legal difficulties if it refused to allow Trump to use its space if it, in the past, allowed other candidates to host rallies. That said, I think political candidates should have the good sense and decency to not hold rallies in locations where they're obviously unwelcome/despised.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/09/trump-rallies-raise-safety-concerns-college-campuses

This article does a decent-enough job of highlighting the valid concerns of faculty. All in all, I think there could have been clever/legals ways that the administration could have prevented this event from taking place, to the benefit of both Trump supporters and students.

Your article states that “It has been our standard practice for decades to rent available space on campus to any political candidate when requested”. So there's the answer to that question.

As for the rest of it, clearly the concerns about violence were valid ones, but I do have a bone to pick with Professor Brier, in that if a group of students attends a rally to protest inside the venue, it is entirely reasonable for the security to eject them. It's hard to imagine the security for any event not doing so. To expect otherwise is absurd.

Also there is a much wider line between actual violence and having people say nasty things than is presented here. Every student has the right to be safe. Safety does not mean a right not to have people say mean things.

Surely then, safety also means the right to be able to respond to mean things without the fear of physical retaliation, no? As I pointed out in an earlier post, the issue is that Trump rallies nearly always attract protesters and, whether or not this is an appropriate response to Trump, the reaction from Trump supporters is often violent. I believe that this was what the faculty member was referring to.

Anyways, this idea that Trump deserves dignity and respect granted towards other candidates is repulsive to me. Legally, this is an upstanding and correct view. All candidates should be granted access to public spaces if any other candidate was granted access. However, from a moral standpoint, this view is inane and this, not the legal merits of granting candidates access to campaign space, is what my posts were referring to. We would not expect universities to host George Wallace rallies without resistance nor would we expect them to host Pat Buchanan rallies without resistance. In fact, most forum members would applaud the disruption of a George Wallace event. When you campaign on a platform that embraces the most base tendencies of humanity and that lauds immorality on a systematic scale, you will receive a base response. You reap what you sew. I have no sympathy for the racists who lost the opportunity to see their bloated orange blimp due to the high-energy actions of college students.

Let it be known: the only political actors who have been able to stump the Trump have been an assorted gaggle of young racial minorities. They did what the Republican Party, with its centuries of accumulated institutional authority and treasure trove of financial support, has failed to do over the past year. If you're a Republican, this should make you feel bad.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

huh? I was not advocating for any sort of legislation banning certain candidates from speaking or anything of the sort. I simply believe that it would have been sensible for university administrators to search for means to re-route Trump away from speaking at their campus through various channels. They could have conveniently rented out space to other groups before the primary or asked him politely to consider holding his event elsewhere and coordinated with the private sector to make this happen. None of this, to my knowledge, would have been illegal. It would have been sensible. It certainly would not have invoked the specter of a "progressive state". It would not have been an infringement upon free speech. Any claims to the contrary are ridiculous and display a total ignorance of how speech rights are exercised in practice: they're governed by social norms. Trump violated social norms by attempting to hold a rally at this university. There would have been nothing illegal or immoral to attempt to steer him elsewhere.

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow and the catalyst for this commitment is hardly inspiring, rooted not in any sort of commitment to democracy but rather to ideological purity. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

Anyways, we'll stump the Trump in November and I don't think we need the right's help. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

You're arguing that there's nothing "noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of" people you think are bad (or dangerous or something?), and then bemoaning that he assumes that "students of the left" are "authoritarians"...?  eh?

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here.  But I'm trying to figure out what substantive point you're making -- your post is more about the associations of what he's saying than the content itself.

I'm being a dick on purpose here. I want to make TJ think about the fact that he's more concerned about student protesters and his general dislike of liberal students than a dangerous quasi-fascist politician. I also want to vent. I think the substance of my argument is okay and I could defend that but I'll be honest instead because it's nearly 5 in the morning.

Not everything is political philosophy. Yes, Trump has a right to hold rallies and his supporters have the right to hear him speak. That's all well and good. That doesn't mean that these students deserve to be maligned by pearl-clutching latte liberals or conservatives, who have essentially done nothing besides wring their hands and decry the lack of civility in politics, all the while making false equivalencies between Trump and Sanders. In general, the notion that Trump supporters, who commit violence on a regular basis towards protesters, are comparable to these students is inane and smacks of stupid "horseshoe theory of politics" garbage that fits into TJ's desired narrative.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

You're arguing that there's nothing "noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of" people you think are bad (or dangerous or something?), and then bemoaning that he assumes that "students of the left" are "authoritarians"...?  eh?

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here.  But I'm trying to figure out what substantive point you're making -- your post is more about the associations of what he's saying than the content itself.

alcon trynna rope me into an argument. he wants to beat me. he wants to win.

To be clear, I'm being a dick on purpose here. I want to make TJ think about the fact that he's more concerned about student protesters and his general dislike of liberal students than a dangerous quasi-fascist politician. I also want to vent. I think the substance of my argument is okay and I could defend that but I'll be honest instead because it's nearly 5 in the morning.

I really don't argue just to be competitive.  That can be a fun part of debating, but I'm genuinely concerned about what you might be arguing here. 

I'm not sure I've seen TJ said he's more concerned about student protestors (maybe I missed that?) and he's certainly been vocal about how awful he thinks Trump is.  Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to think that defending someone's free speech rights is a tacit defense of them, or indication that you don't think they're awful...which is a weird sentiment to express in a post where you complain people are accusing you and likeminded people of authoritarianism.

Basically Alcon, I don't like your pearl-clutching about the evils of left-wing students, nor do I like TJ's pearl-clutching about the evils of left-wing students. I don't think they pose any sort of threat to the freedom of speech or the freedom of association nor do I think the disruption of this event is particularly troubling, especially in light of the fact that there hasn't been a "popular" response to Trump but, instead, a response by anemic elites.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

You're arguing that there's nothing "noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of" people you think are bad (or dangerous or something?), and then bemoaning that he assumes that "students of the left" are "authoritarians"...?  eh?

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here.  But I'm trying to figure out what substantive point you're making -- your post is more about the associations of what he's saying than the content itself.

alcon trynna rope me into an argument. he wants to beat me. he wants to win.

To be clear, I'm being a dick on purpose here. I want to make TJ think about the fact that he's more concerned about student protesters and his general dislike of liberal students than a dangerous quasi-fascist politician. I also want to vent. I think the substance of my argument is okay and I could defend that but I'll be honest instead because it's nearly 5 in the morning.

I really don't argue just to be competitive.  That can be a fun part of debating, but I'm genuinely concerned about what you might be arguing here.  

I'm not sure I've seen TJ said he's more concerned about student protestors (maybe I missed that?) and he's certainly been vocal about how awful he thinks Trump is.  Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to think that defending someone's free speech rights is a tacit defense of them, or indication that you don't think they're awful...which is a weird sentiment to express in a post where you complain people are accusing you and likeminded people of authoritarianism.

Basically Alcon, I don't like your pearl-clutching about the evils of left-wing students, nor do I like TJ's pearl-clutching about the evils of left-wing students. I don't think they pose any sort of threat to the freedom of speech or the freedom of association nor do I think the disruption of this event is particularly troubling, especially in light of the fact that there hasn't been a "popular" response to Trump but, instead, a response by anemic elites.

I don't think left-wing students are "evil" and I'm not "pearl-clutching" except in the sense that I vehemently disagree with behavior that I can clearly explain why I'm troubled by

Is this basically a fancy way of saying that you don't like that I'm concerned about something you aren't, but you want to criticize me for being concerned without actually arguing with me?

To be even more transparent: I'm a human being, not some sort of automaton and I'm a Mexican one at that. As a result, this election has #rattled me and I feel angry and irritated all of the time. Because I spend a lot of my time reading and writing high-falutin publications, I feel the need to express myself using bigger words and such and to make my statements appear more meaningful. This leads to polemics that are mostly just vitriol. I'm letting off steam.

I'm not particularly pleased that I have to bear the burden of being Mexican this election cycle and feel irritated that other people are more concerned about FREE SPEECH and muh liberal freedoms than millions of families being separated or a current of xenophobia that's sweeping the West, yes. Are you surprised? Did you really have to make these posts to unearth this fact? Come on man! It's not that complex. Frankly, I'm irritated that you guys can afford to be "reasonable" because, ultimately, xenophobia and general hostility towards racial minorities has no affect on your existence.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Yeah. I don't like DFB. I do not wish him well. I wish he was one of the illegals he loves so much. This isn't exactly a new sentiment from me, and it long predates Trump, as DFB himself can attest.

Er, I don't mind that you hate me but it's worth noting that you're rooting for nice abuelitas to be deported and that you've rooted for little children to drown in the Mediterranean. This is what I'm concerned about: the fact that you have no empathy for some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. If you felt conflicted about deporting old women or sending six year olds back to Syria to die, I might respect your position, even if I vehemently disagreed with it, but your callousness is seriously unnerving and gross.

I actually didn't mind you before you made a series of posts that lacked any sort of sensitivity or humanity. I respect DavidB and other generally anti-migrant posters because, at the very least, they are human beings. I can no longer say this about you. You're either an edgelord troll or a despicable person.