Who holds the blame for the events in Chicago?

[ag]

Free speech is extremely important: but so is the right to protest against it. It is important that those supporting Trump are made aware of what others think of them: this does not restrict their own rights.

On the substance, Donald Trump is fully to blame for what is happening in this campaign.

[ag]

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.

Trust me: a lot of people around would not have a kind word to say in your favor when St. Peter is deciding whether to send you up or down.

[ag]

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.

Get help.

I doubt he could be, or should be, helped.

[ag]

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.

Trust me: a lot of people around would not have a kind word to say in your favor when St. Peter is deciding whether to send you up or down.

MAKE HEAVAN GREAT AGAIN

Wherever you wind up, would be hell by definition.

[ag]

Man.

Most days I'm pretty optimistic about the possibility that people mostly have the capacity not to be sadistic and/or oppressive toward people just for disagreeing with them.  This is an internet thread and doesn't change that.  But I've definitely hit my quota.  I'm disappointed in even some of the more "reasonable" voices in the last few pages.

I'm out.

That is what happens when the social norms are trampled upon. Some people did not like "political correctness" and wanted "straight talk". Well, they will get what they wanted.

[ag]

Man.

Most days I'm pretty optimistic about the possibility that people mostly have the capacity not to be sadistic and/or oppressive toward people just for disagreeing with them.  This is an internet thread and doesn't change that.  But I've definitely hit my quota.  I'm disappointed in even some of the more "reasonable" voices in the last few pages.

I'm out.

That is what happens when the social norms are trampled upon. Some people did not like "political correctness" and wanted "straight talk". Well, they will get what they wanted.

Getting otherwise reasonable people to engage in the sort of pointlessly pseudo-sadistic behavior which, considering you can't actually hurt him, serves only to make him feel justified and make you look crazy?

Again, ugh, this thread.

As a rapist,... or possibly a good man, as I have been defined since the beginning of this campaign, I can hardly be resposible for the tone of this conversation. If you wonder, if I consider these guys personal enemies, do not keep wondering: I do.

[ag]

Man.

Most days I'm pretty optimistic about the possibility that people mostly have the capacity not to be sadistic and/or oppressive toward people just for disagreeing with them.  This is an internet thread and doesn't change that.  But I've definitely hit my quota.  I'm disappointed in even some of the more "reasonable" voices in the last few pages.

I'm out.

That is what happens when the social norms are trampled upon. Some people did not like "political correctness" and wanted "straight talk". Well, they will get what they wanted.

Getting otherwise reasonable people to engage in the sort of pointlessly pseudo-sadistic behavior which, considering you can't actually hurt him, serves only to make him feel justified and make you look crazy?

Again, ugh, this thread.

As a rapist,... or possibly a good man, as I have been defined since the beginning of this campaign, I can hardly be resposible for the tone of this conversation. If you wonder, if I consider these guys personal enemies, do not keep wondering: I do.

Well, seeing as you haven't crossed the border illegally and thus haven't wronged me, the feeling isn't mutual.

Well you have wronged me and many others here. You did it gratuitously, unprovoked, just for the fun of it. And you are one of those who is endangering the world ad we know it, threatening to provoke countless deaths and infinite suffering. Wonder why so many people hate you?

[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.

[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?

[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.