Who holds the blame for the events in Chicago?

[Higgs]

This poll and thread alone shows how divided we are by this man. He will bring great destruction to the land if president.


Reagan started America's decline.

Bush 43 put us on life support.

Obama did his best to heal us.

Trump would be the death of this country.

>says Trump has divided us
>proceeds to divide us

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I apportion the fault as follows:
Protestors - 51%
Drumpf supporters - 19%
Drumpf - 30%

Could you do the rest of us a favor and change quotes to use Trump instead of Drumpf?  I don't like seeing other people misquoted or being misquoted myself by your little John Oliver extension.

Sounds like an assault on free speech to me.

[RightBehind]

This poll and thread alone shows how divided we are by this man. He will bring great destruction to the land if president.


Reagan started America's decline.

Bush 43 put us on life support.

Obama did his best to heal us.

Trump would be the death of this country.

>says Trump has divided us
>proceeds to divide us

Trump has divided us. He certainly hasn't unified us. If he gets 270, het ready for four years of unrest.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I apportion the fault as follows:
Protestors - 51%
Trump supporters - 19%
Trump - 30%

Could you do the rest of us a favor and change quotes to use Trump instead of Drumpf?  I don't like seeing other people misquoted or being misquoted myself by your little John Oliver extension.

Is that fixed? I never can tell.

[muon2]

* There are many other large venues in Chicagoland suitable for a rally with 10,000 people.

Why would the campaign pick the Pavilion, and once they did and saw signs of trouble why not switch to a different location well in advance of the event?

Bulls were playing at United Center.

Rosemont Horizon (Allstate Arena) had a Wolves match on Saturday. It it had been available, it might have been a better location.

Sears Centre is 25 miles from Chicago and barely even in Cook County.

The UIUC Pavilion is adjacent to an expressway, and only peripheral to the campus. The only university events it appears to host are basketball games for UIUC. Is south of the expressway a No Go area?

The Pavilion is adjacent to an expressway but it's right by one of the most notorious traffic bottlenecks in the Chicago expressway system. The Circle Interchange is so well known that UIC was once called UI Circle Campus.

The Allstate Arena would have been my first choice if I were advising the campaign. It's adjacent to O'Hare for the candidate's convenience, it's easy to reach from both the city and suburbs, it's easy to police. It's about twice the capacity of the Pavilion (18.5K to 9.5K) but I suspect that Trump could fill it.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Ask yourselves why other candidates don't have protestors like this and the reasons there started to be protesters.

I stand with the protesters. At least the ones who were peaceful about it.

Oh, except for those times when Black Lives Matter protest Bernie. And Hillary. Good times!

Protests like this? Because you have to have crowds like this and only Bernie does. Trump supporters are lunatics, but not lunatic enough to invade another person's rally...that is until this happened; we'll see if that starts.

Yeah last night was a declaration of war. I'm looking forward to it. Let's see Bernie take on some Pasco County hicks down there in Tampa. Those guys will send these whiny college kids packing.

The best part of this post is that we all know that if a college kid so much as frowned at Sanchez during a Trump rally, Sanchez would immediately piss his pants and start desperately pleading with the person not to hurt him (assuming he could stop crying long enough to get the words out, which is doubtful).

Hey, I never said I'd throw a punch. I'm a lover, not a fighter . But Big Bubba from Pasco County, he's a different character.

[Higgs]

This poll and thread alone shows how divided we are by this man. He will bring great destruction to the land if president.


Reagan started America's decline.

Bush 43 put us on life support.

Obama did his best to heal us.

Trump would be the death of this country.

>says Trump has divided us
>proceeds to divide us

Trump has divided us. He certainly hasn't unified us. If he gets 270, het ready for four years of unrest.

I agree that Trump is a divider but if you're the one preaching that divisive politics is bad then don't go and insult a conservative icon like Reagan, further dividing people.

[RightBehind]

This poll and thread alone shows how divided we are by this man. He will bring great destruction to the land if president.


Reagan started America's decline.

Bush 43 put us on life support.

Obama did his best to heal us.

Trump would be the death of this country.

>says Trump has divided us
>proceeds to divide us

Trump has divided us. He certainly hasn't unified us. If he gets 270, het ready for four years of unrest.

I agree that Trump is a divider but if you're the one preaching that divisive politics is bad then don't go and insult a conservative icon like Reagan, further dividing people.

Merely my opinion if I didn't come across that way. I know the right loves Reagan, but I think he waa one of the two worst presidents this country ever had (the other being his vice president's son) and my belief that we've been in a decline since his administration and Trump will only finish the job once and for all.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Of course being divisive isn't the worst thing ever. The American right fetishises Thatcher, and she personally prided herself in her ability to divide people.

[Lyin' Steve]

I apportion the fault as follows:
Protestors - 51%
Drumpf supporters - 19%
Drumpf - 30%

Could you do the rest of us a favor and change quotes to use Trumpf instead of Drumpf?  I don't like seeing other people misquoted or being misquoted myself by your little John Oliver extension.

Is that fixed? I never can tell.

No, it still shows Drumpf to the rest of us.  Are you actually changing it to Trump and then it gets changed back when you submit?  That's a really aggressive extension.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I apportion the fault as follows:
Protestors - 51%
Trump supporters - 19%
Trump - 30%

Could you do the rest of us a favor and change quotes to use Trump instead of Drumpf?  I don't like seeing other people misquoted or being misquoted myself by your little John Oliver extension.

Is that fixed? I never can tell.

No, it still shows Drumpf to the rest of us.  Are you actually changing it to Trump and then it gets changed back when you submit?  That's a really aggressive extension.

When I'm typing I always spell it with a capital T and no f, and it appears that way in my preview, but whenever I'm scrolling through the page its the D f version. Because of how the brain works I have pretty much become immune to the distinction and have just been assuming the text displays for everyone else as the correct spelling.

Here's a screencap of what I see.

[Meclazine for Israel]

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 ...!!!!!.....Stop....!!!..!

It was starting to sound like the "scantily clad women rape argument".

It's just media attention. Trump has massive media focus. You can see it in the eyes of the protesters how excited they are to be on TV. They look more excited than 13 yo girls at a Taylor Swift concert.

It's possibly their only 30 seconds of national media spotlight and denying Trump that spotlight is their goal.

Job done. It's that simple.

[Lyin' Steve]

I apportion the fault as follows:
Protestors - 51%
Trump supporters - 19%
Trump - 30%

Could you do the rest of us a favor and change quotes to use Trump instead of Drumpf?  I don't like seeing other people misquoted or being misquoted myself by your little John Oliver extension.

Is that fixed? I never can tell.

No, it still shows Drumpf to the rest of us.  Are you actually changing it to Trump and then it gets changed back when you submit?  That's a really aggressive extension.

When I'm typing I always spell it with a capital T and no f, and it appears that way in my preview, but whenever I'm scrolling through the page its the D f version. Because of how the brain works I have pretty much become immune to the distinction and have just been assuming the text displays for everyone else as the correct spelling.

Here's a screencap of what I see.

This time it worked -- came up Trump

[Meclazine for Israel]

Whose rights did the protesters infringe on last night? Trump called it off.

The 20,000 supporters who came to hear their candidate.

I dont necessarily have to share their political viewpoint, but they do have a right to at least listen to their candidate.

This issue is caused either by:

(a) the locality; or
(b) the political bent of the protesters;

And of course the media. If Trump was running Rubio numbers, this would not be an issue.

The glaring heat of the world's media news outlets all in attendance is simply.something the protesters cannot ignore.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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

[RightBehind]

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

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump is indirectly to blame, as his rhetoric encourages extremists from both sides to come out of the woodwork. In this instance, however, the protestors are to blame. If they really want to protest Trump, they should go and cast their ballots against one of his opponents (in the primary or the general). This does not excuse the other incidents of Trump supporters attacking people.

This is horsecrap!

Trump is not inciting to riot.  What he IS doing is calling for (A) our EXISTING immigration laws to be enforced, and (B) a reassessment of our immigration policy in light of deadly incidents that suggest that our current de facto immigration policy might not be in the best interests of the USA.  And he has facts to back up his reasoning; the San Bernadino murderous jihadist's wife entered our country with minimal vetting.  

If we are going to blame Trump and his constituency for what others (who are non-supportive of Trump) do at his (Trump's) events, then how dare anyone criticizing Trump for his comments on Muslims?  Where is the outcry about hateful Jihadist rhetoric, the effect it has on its listeners, and how others have their head in the sand on this issue because they hope that Muslims in America will become citizens and staunch voting Democrats?  

I suggest we blame the disturbances at Trump's events on those doing the disturbing.  Period.

[RightBehind]

Trump is indirectly to blame, as his rhetoric encourages extremists from both sides to come out of the woodwork. In this instance, however, the protestors are to blame. If they really want to protest Trump, they should go and cast their ballots against one of his opponents (in the primary or the general). This does not excuse the other incidents of Trump supporters attacking people.

This is horsecrap!

Trump is not inciting to riot.  What he IS doing is calling for (A) our EXISTING immigration laws to be enforced, and (B) a reassessment of our immigration policy in light of deadly incidents that suggest that our current de facto immigration policy might not be in the best interests of the USA.  And he has facts to back up his reasoning; the San Bernadino murderous jihadist's wife entered our country with minimal vetting.  

If we are going to blame Trump and his constituency for what others (who are non-supportive of Trump) do at his (Trump's) events, then how dare anyone criticizing Trump for his comments on Muslims?  Where is the outcry about hateful Jihadist rhetoric, the effect it has on its listeners, and how others have their head in the sand on this issue because they hope that Muslims in America will become citizens and staunch voting Democrats?  

I suggest we blame the disturbances at Trump's events on those doing the disturbing.  Period.

Trump brings out the worst in people. Hate only breeds hate. You cannot deny that his supporters have also acted uncivilized. He's a war criminal in the making and only stirs up fear and hate. Not love.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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".

[Ljube]

Trump is indirectly to blame, as his rhetoric encourages extremists from both sides to come out of the woodwork. In this instance, however, the protestors are to blame. If they really want to protest Trump, they should go and cast their ballots against one of his opponents (in the primary or the general). This does not excuse the other incidents of Trump supporters attacking people.

This is horsecrap!

Trump is not inciting to riot.  What he IS doing is calling for (A) our EXISTING immigration laws to be enforced, and (B) a reassessment of our immigration policy in light of deadly incidents that suggest that our current de facto immigration policy might not be in the best interests of the USA.  And he has facts to back up his reasoning; the San Bernadino murderous jihadist's wife entered our country with minimal vetting.  

If we are going to blame Trump and his constituency for what others (who are non-supportive of Trump) do at his (Trump's) events, then how dare anyone criticizing Trump for his comments on Muslims?  Where is the outcry about hateful Jihadist rhetoric, the effect it has on its listeners, and how others have their head in the sand on this issue because they hope that Muslims in America will become citizens and staunch voting Democrats?  

I suggest we blame the disturbances at Trump's events on those doing the disturbing.  Period.

Trump brings out the worst in people. Hate only breeds hate. You cannot deny that his supporters have also acted uncivilized. He's a war criminal in the making and only stirs up fear and hate. Not love.

Yet, he preaches love at each one of his rallies. "We have to love everybody," says TRUMP.

[RightBehind]

Trump is indirectly to blame, as his rhetoric encourages extremists from both sides to come out of the woodwork. In this instance, however, the protestors are to blame. If they really want to protest Trump, they should go and cast their ballots against one of his opponents (in the primary or the general). This does not excuse the other incidents of Trump supporters attacking people.

This is horsecrap!

Trump is not inciting to riot.  What he IS doing is calling for (A) our EXISTING immigration laws to be enforced, and (B) a reassessment of our immigration policy in light of deadly incidents that suggest that our current de facto immigration policy might not be in the best interests of the USA.  And he has facts to back up his reasoning; the San Bernadino murderous jihadist's wife entered our country with minimal vetting.  

If we are going to blame Trump and his constituency for what others (who are non-supportive of Trump) do at his (Trump's) events, then how dare anyone criticizing Trump for his comments on Muslims?  Where is the outcry about hateful Jihadist rhetoric, the effect it has on its listeners, and how others have their head in the sand on this issue because they hope that Muslims in America will become citizens and staunch voting Democrats?  

I suggest we blame the disturbances at Trump's events on those doing the disturbing.  Period.

Trump brings out the worst in people. Hate only breeds hate. You cannot deny that his supporters have also acted uncivilized. He's a war criminal in the making and only stirs up fear and hate. Not love.

Yet, he preaches love at each one of his rallies. "We have to love everybody," says TRUMP.

He's a walking contradiction with his words.

[Ljube]

He's a walking contradiction with his words.

Explain me how?

[Meclazine for Israel]

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

I applaud their right to protest, but not at the expense of a grandfather and his wife who travelled 150km from rural Illinois to be denied an opportunity to listen to their candidate in a Presidential election year.

That is an apalling outcome for democratic process.

Then these two were heckled to their car as "racist neo-nazis".

If that is your defintion of "freedom of assembly", it is all yours.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump is indirectly to blame, as his rhetoric encourages extremists from both sides to come out of the woodwork. In this instance, however, the protestors are to blame. If they really want to protest Trump, they should go and cast their ballots against one of his opponents (in the primary or the general). This does not excuse the other incidents of Trump supporters attacking people.

This is horsecrap!

Trump is not inciting to riot.  What he IS doing is calling for (A) our EXISTING immigration laws to be enforced, and (B) a reassessment of our immigration policy in light of deadly incidents that suggest that our current de facto immigration policy might not be in the best interests of the USA.  And he has facts to back up his reasoning; the San Bernadino murderous jihadist's wife entered our country with minimal vetting.  

If we are going to blame Trump and his constituency for what others (who are non-supportive of Trump) do at his (Trump's) events, then how dare anyone criticizing Trump for his comments on Muslims?  Where is the outcry about hateful Jihadist rhetoric, the effect it has on its listeners, and how others have their head in the sand on this issue because they hope that Muslims in America will become citizens and staunch voting Democrats?  

I suggest we blame the disturbances at Trump's events on those doing the disturbing.  Period.

Trump brings out the worst in people. Hate only breeds hate. You cannot deny that his supporters have also acted uncivilized. He's a war criminal in the making and only stirs up fear and hate. Not love.

But if these folks were angry blacks protesting criminal justice inequities or the outcome of the Trayvon Martin case, you wouldn't say that of Al Sharpton.  When violence occurred in Ferguson and Baltimore, were you OK with Sharpton and others leading folks in chants of "No Justice, No Peace!"?  

Donald Trump is nowhere near that level of condoning actual violence.  Trump is, however, been put in a position of having to respond to the violence of others at his rallies that are instigated by others, and not by his supporters.  This does not justify Trump, or anyone in the crowd, to use "deadly force", but it does justify security, police, or another lawful authority to remove folks who are disrupting an event that was put on by the Trump campaign.

A political rally is not a public meeting.  If you don't like Trump, don't go to his rallies.  If you wish, protest outside.  But don't interrupt the business going on; that's not YOUR right.  Trump does send the message that it's HIS rally and he's not going to be intimidated off of a stage.  Good for him!  If we're OK with goon squads disrupting Trump rallies, then this isn't a 1st Amendment country anymore, and it won't be Trump that killed it.

[DavidB.]

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.

This is a very good post.