Who holds the blame for the events in Chicago?

[ProudModerate2]

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, and protecting his cause.

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.

[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.

[RightBehind]

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.

He can claim to be loving, doesn't mean he is.

[ProudModerate2]

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, and protecting his cause.

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.

Ljube (like many other drumpf supporters on Atlas) are trolling.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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!"? 

[jimrtex]

* 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.

The campus proper is adjacent to the Circle Interchange. The university was renamed when the Circle Campus and Medical Center were merged into a single institution. Mayor Daley (senior) is given primary credit for creation of the campus, and also selecting the site. This picture of a model (from 1963) gives particular emphasis to the location.



The Circle Campus was renamed the East Campus, while the Medical Center was renamed the West Campus.

The Pavilion is on the extreme edge of the campus, and has its own parking garage - likely so it can be used for non-academic events. Dreamers probably anticipated UIC replacing Northwestern in the Big 10.

Was the Rosemont Horizon available? They have hockey matches (Wolves) tonight and tomorrow. Do they have permanent ice and cover it, or would they have to prepare for the matches? Articles about the McCormick Event's Center (DePaul's new arena) suggest there are parking problems at Rosemont Horizon. This might have been a rationalization - and having an arena closer to campus makes sense.

[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.

[heatmaster]

These protestors are entirely to blame....they and there ilk have a double standard, when that low rent black agitator Al Sharpton goes off spreading his horses@#& narrative after Ferguson and Baltimore,  you don't hear anything from these loser rent-a-mob, I know someone is paying there loser a@#$& to show up; most of these boobs wouldn't know sh@# from shinola!

[Mr. Illini]

Unlike Green Line, I am quite proud of my city and state this week.

I don't understand the eagerness of many in this thread to blame the protesters for apparently suppressing Trump's free speech.

He decided to host his rally in the city of Chicago. He chose to do it on one of our university campuses.

He and his team knew well that it is a city (and a setting, being a university) that is sure to be unfriendly to him. The protest for the event had more RSVPs than the event itself.

Despite this, the university and city allowed him to book and populate the venue for his speech, enabling his right to free speech.

Being the setting that it was, the event was met with swift and strong protest. Protesters were utilizing their own right to free speech. There were some cases of fist fights - unclear of which side was initiating them - but the event was shut down largely because it was entirely disrupted by dissent. The Donald's campaign was never informed of any security threat, according to CPD.

It was made clear that Trump isn't welcome here. Not very sorry about it.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Good to get an opinion from the home town.

[ag]

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.

I feel very sorry for the grandfather and his wife. However, I insist on the ability of the protesters to be able to tell them that they are a scoundrel and a bridge, and that their grandchildren should be ashamed of them.

[MK]

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.

AMEN

[ag]

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.

Just for reference, I would like to quote the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  Citing it in full:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So, a simple question. Do you consider the terms "Congress" and "goon squads" to be synonymous?

[Lyin' Steve]

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.

Just for reference, I would like to quote the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  Citing it in full:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So, a simple question. Do you consider the terms "Congress" and "goon squads" to be synonymous?

If the marines start taking over people's houses to use as barracks and Congress does nothing to stop them, would you say that the third amendment was being violated?

The Constitution has generally been interpreted as demanding not only that Congress refrain from violating those rights but also make laws preventing others from violating those rights.

If someone is unable to exercise his right to free speech because a squad of UNpeaceable-assembled protesters is screaming and threatening and intimidating and resorting to violence to prevent him from doing so, and Congress chooses to do nothing, then Congress has condoned those actions and is in violation of the contemporary (and traditional) interpretation of the first amendment.

Of course, Congress has delegated this duty to the municipal governments, which often have laws on the books that prevent exactly this sort of behavior, so it's hardly Congress's fault if the police fail to charge people for violation of the laws they are sworn to uphold.

[ag]

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.

Just for reference, I would like to quote the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  Citing it in full:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So, a simple question. Do you consider the terms "Congress" and "goon squads" to be synonymous?

If the marines start taking over people's houses to use as barracks and Congress does nothing to stop them, would you say that the third amendment was being violated?

The Constitution has generally been interpreted as demanding not only that Congress refrain from violating those rights but also make laws preventing others from violating those rights.

If someone is unable to exercise his right to free speech because a squad of UNpeaceable-assembled protesters is screaming and threatening and intimidating and resorting to violence to prevent him from doing so, and Congress chooses to do nothing, then Congress has condoned those actions and is in violation of the contemporary (and traditional) interpretation of the first amendment.

Of course, Congress has delegated this duty to the municipal governments, which often have laws on the books that prevent exactly this sort of behavior, so it's hardly Congress's fault if the police fail to charge people for violation of the laws they are sworn to uphold.

Donald Trump or his supporters are not being prevented from speaking anywhere. It its their opponents that are being prevented from making, in their face, a very important point: that Donald Trump and his supporters are scum. Violence is, of course, another matter: but speech is not violence. Showing up at a Trump event to oppose it is not preventing Trump and his supporters from expressing their opinions in the least. Preventing the opponents from speaking in public events is, in fact doing that. If Trump wants to restrict his events only to his supporters, he should have to close them to general public.

Speech has consequences. The sort of speech that Trump and his supporters have been engaged in calls for robust response. Not by the government, of course: that would violate 1st amendment. But by individual people. Restrictions on that response by the government would constitute a clear an unambiguous violation of the 1st amendment. Not, as you try to argue here, the converse.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Donald Trump or his supporters are not being prevented from speaking anywhere.

Thread title comprehension failure.

[Lyin' Steve]

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.

Just for reference, I would like to quote the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  Citing it in full:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So, a simple question. Do you consider the terms "Congress" and "goon squads" to be synonymous?

If the marines start taking over people's houses to use as barracks and Congress does nothing to stop them, would you say that the third amendment was being violated?

The Constitution has generally been interpreted as demanding not only that Congress refrain from violating those rights but also make laws preventing others from violating those rights.

If someone is unable to exercise his right to free speech because a squad of UNpeaceable-assembled protesters is screaming and threatening and intimidating and resorting to violence to prevent him from doing so, and Congress chooses to do nothing, then Congress has condoned those actions and is in violation of the contemporary (and traditional) interpretation of the first amendment.

Of course, Congress has delegated this duty to the municipal governments, which often have laws on the books that prevent exactly this sort of behavior, so it's hardly Congress's fault if the police fail to charge people for violation of the laws they are sworn to uphold.

Donald Trump or his supporters are not being prevented from speaking anywhere. It its their opponents that are being prevented from making, in their face, a very important point: that Donald Trump and his supporters are scum. Violence is, of course, another matter: but speech is not violence. Showing up at a Trump event to oppose it is not preventing Trump and his supporters from expressing their opinions in the least. Preventing the opponents from speaking in public events is, in fact doing that. If Trump wants to restrict his events only to his supporters, he should have to close them to general public.

Speech has consequences. The sort of speech that Trump and his supporters have been engaged in calls for robust response. Not by the government, of course: that would violate 1st amendment. But by individual people. Restrictions on that response by the government would constitute a clear an unambiguous violation of the 1st amendment. Not, as you try to argue here, the converse.

His events are not open to the general public.  They are open to those who Trump, as the event organizer, chooses to allow to attend.  Just because anyone can go in doesn't mean it's public property and therefore a no man's land -- anyone can enter a public school, but I can't run into a classroom and start shouting hateful, disgusting words.  They'd throw me out, and hopefully charge me with a crime.

With that said, the intent of the protesters was quite clearly stated to be preventing Trump from speaking.  They shout over him as loudly as possible at his events to try to stop his audience from hearing him.  Last night they prevented him from speaking (by creating such a threatening environment that Trump legitimately believed, apparently after consultation with the police, that they might resort to violence against his supporters) and bragged about it, using that exact phrase, all over social media.

[Meclazine for Israel]

the intent of the protesters was quite clearly stated to be preventing Trump from speaking.  

...and prevent him from getting in the basking hot glare of the US Political media machine.

...and directly accost and dissuade Trump supporters from voting for him.

Trump says "his supporters are "nice," but they were "taunted" by protesters"

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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.

Sorry that their safe space was breached, I guess.

[Kingpoleon]

Everyone, with the police the least likely to blame.

* Trump himself, for inciting hatred and acting as a far-right populist rat catcher
* The Trump supporters for buying the sh*t he spews out on a daily basis
* The left-leftist mob who always seem to have a problem if someone gets democratically elected and something isn't running exactly how "they wanted it" or how it "should be" in their politically correct, naive dream world.

The brave police officers are just the unlucky people in between who have to do their best to prevent worse things from happening ...

[RightBehind]

He's a walking contradiction with his words.

Explain me how?

He says he wants to take out terrorists families, then says he doesn't want to kill them.

He says he's going to ruin the protesters lives, but doesn't want to.

He encourages violence against protesters, then condemns it.

He promises to pay legal bills for his supporters, now he's sounding less confident on that front.

He disavows David Duke then says two days later he knows nothing about him.

Trump's supporters are being duped and they either don't know or don't care.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

This is how you run a successful campaign! Say every position ever imaginable so it resonates with someone. Nobody should care! All that matters is his beautiful voice. The charm! The theatrics! The nimble navigation!

[Ljube]

He's a walking contradiction with his words.

Explain me how?

He says he wants to take out terrorists families, then says he doesn't want to kill them.

He says he's going to ruin the protesters lives, but doesn't want to.

He encourages violence against protesters, then condemns it.

He promises to pay legal bills for his supporters, now he's sounding less confident on that front.

He disavows David Duke then says two days later he knows nothing about him.

Trump's supporters are being duped and they either don't know or don't care.

Thank you for pointing that out. You can choose the positions you like, like from a menu.
My picks:

He says he doesn't want to kill terrorists families.

He says he doesn't want to ruin the protesters lives.

He condemns violence against protesters.

He's sounding less confident on his promise to pay legal bills for his supporters.

He disavows David Duke.

[RightBehind]

He's a walking contradiction with his words.

Explain me how?

He says he wants to take out terrorists families, then says he doesn't want to kill them.

He says he's going to ruin the protesters lives, but doesn't want to.

He encourages violence against protesters, then condemns it.

He promises to pay legal bills for his supporters, now he's sounding less confident on that front.

He disavows David Duke then says two days later he knows nothing about him.

Trump's supporters are being duped and they either don't know or don't care.

Thank you for pointing that out. You can choose the positions you like, like from a menu.
My picks:

He says he doesn't want to kill terrorists families.

He says he doesn't want to ruin the protesters lives.

He condemns violence against protesters.

He's sounding less confident on his promise to pay legal bills for his supporters.

He disavows David Duke.

My point is Trump is no different than your typical flopping politicians. He's just more loud and obnoxious about it.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

He's a walking contradiction with his words.

Explain me how?

He says he wants to take out terrorists families, then says he doesn't want to kill them.

He says he's going to ruin the protesters lives, but doesn't want to.

He encourages violence against protesters, then condemns it.

He promises to pay legal bills for his supporters, now he's sounding less confident on that front.

He disavows David Duke then says two days later he knows nothing about him.

Trump's supporters are being duped and they either don't know or don't care.

Thank you for pointing that out. You can choose the positions you like, like from a menu.
My picks:

He says he doesn't want to kill terrorists families.

He says he doesn't want to ruin the protesters lives.

He condemns violence against protesters.

He's sounding less confident on his promise to pay legal bills for his supporters.

He disavows David Duke.

My point is Trump is no different than your typical flopping politicians. He's just more loud and obnoxious about it.

Exactly and loud and obnoxious is much better than awkward Romney, choking Little Marco, and Lyin' Ted!