The New Exchange » Trump rally in Chicago postponed amid growing security concerns

The Man · 3/12/2016 12:16 pm

Rongone wrote:
The Man wrote:
Rongone wrote:

So, from your perspective, it's OK to for him to say things to attendees at his rallies like: I'd like to punch him in the face, or in the old days he'd be carried out on a stretcher, or throw the guy out, get him out of here. That's OK? He viciously attacks anybody that disagrees with him and encourages violent reaction against those that oppose him. His supporters hear that and assume he condones them putting those words into action. To me that is "doing something wrong". He needs to take responsibility for that. Heck, if a kid acted that way on the playground at school, he'd be reprimanded, his parents called in for consultation, and possibly be suspended from school. We should expect more from an adult. Especially one running for president of the U.S.
In my opinion, it is ok for anyone to say anything that they wish, we do have freedom of speech. The voters are the ones who need to tell him that what he said is not ok, by not voting for him. The media just feeds him and makes him more popular.

As one of my old Political Science professors, Dr. Reeder, used to say when explaining free speech as defined in the Constitution: "Think of free speech as two people of opposing views discussing a subject while gesturing with their hands and arms. Neither one impinges the other's free speech until one of their gestures clips the other person's jaw."

Inciting violence or a riot is not protected by free speech.

I don't think Trump incited acts of violence, or incited a riot, and he certainly didn't personally commit violence. Your mileage may vary.

tennyson · 3/12/2016 12:17 pm

The Man wrote:
tennyson wrote:
The WHOLE tone of the R-tribe Primaries has been combative (at least till the last debate). The stage was set long ago for battle. Some (the Don in particular) has laid groundwork with his rhetoric for predictable opposite blowback.

Are either good ? No.

Was it rather predictable that this could and likely would happen and likely will continue - certainly.

I don't necessarily see the problem with that though. Things will play out. Any way you slice it, we're going to get a terrible president taking office in 2017.

Let's let history decide that AFTER the fact.

I understand your trepidation, however. But there have been trepidations in the past about potential President that never came to pass in reality.

BTW, I DO disagree with you that the tone of the primaries has not been bad. It certainly (most notably on the R-tribe side) has kept it from being a debate about subjects and their solutions. Most of it has been calling each other names or the same about groups that they want to villify purely for political theater.

Last edited by tennyson (3/12/2016 12:21 pm)

The Man · 3/12/2016 12:19 pm

tennyson wrote:
The Man wrote:
tennyson wrote:
The WHOLE tone of the R-tribe Primaries has been combative (at least till the last debate). The stage was set long ago for battle. Some (the Don in particular) has laid groundwork with his rhetoric for predictable opposite blowback.

Are either good ? No.

Was it rather predictable that this could and likely would happen and likely will continue - certainly.

I don't necessarily see the problem with that though. Things will play out. Any way you slice it, we're going to get a terrible president taking office in 2017.
Let's let history decide that AFTER the fact.

I understand your trepidation, however. But there have been trepidations in the past about potential President that never came to pass in reality.

True, and good point. But with the current crop of clowns on both sides, it's really difficult to not be pessimistic.

Rongone · 3/12/2016 12:28 pm

The Man wrote:
tennyson wrote:
The WHOLE tone of the R-tribe Primaries has been combative (at least till the last debate). The stage was set long ago for battle. Some (the Don in particular) has laid groundwork with his rhetoric for predictable opposite blowback.

Are either good ? No.

Was it rather predictable that this could and likely would happen and likely will continue - certainly.

I don't necessarily see the problem with that though. Things will play out. Any way you slice it, we're going to get a terrible president taking office in 2017.

hopefully, the tone and temper of this primary will be left in the dust of history

Last edited by Rongone (3/12/2016 12:30 pm)

Rongone · 3/12/2016 12:29 pm

The Man wrote:
Rongone wrote:
The Man wrote:

In my opinion, it is ok for anyone to say anything that they wish, we do have freedom of speech. The voters are the ones who need to tell him that what he said is not ok, by not voting for him. The media just feeds him and makes him more popular.

As one of my old Political Science professors, Dr. Reeder, used to say when explaining free speech as defined in the Constitution: "Think of free speech as two people of opposing views discussing a subject while gesturing with their hands and arms. Neither one impinges the other's free speech until one of their gestures clips the other person's jaw."

Inciting violence or a riot is not protected by free speech.

I don't think Trump incited acts of violence, or incited a riot, and he certainly didn't personally commit violence. Your mileage may vary.

Drumpf has to accept responsibility for the tone of his rhetoric and the subsequent affect on his audience. He can't place the blame solely on the media or his opponents.

The Man · 3/12/2016 12:32 pm

Rongone wrote:
The Man wrote:
tennyson wrote:
The WHOLE tone of the R-tribe Primaries has been combative (at least till the last debate). The stage was set long ago for battle. Some (the Don in particular) has laid groundwork with his rhetoric for predictable opposite blowback.

Are either good ? No.

Was it rather predictable that this could and likely would happen and likely will continue - certainly.

I don't necessarily see the problem with that though. Things will play out. Any way you slice it, we're going to get a terrible president taking office in 2017.

Drumpf has to accept responsibility for the tone of his rhetoric and the subsequent affect on his audience. He can't place the blame solely on the media or his opponents.

I disagree. Donald Trump doesn't have to accept responsibility for anything that he said, the voters need to make him accountable for things he has said by not voting for him, if they disagree with him. I also don't think Hillary needs to apologize for all of the lies that she has told. If the voters don't like her, they won't vote for her.

Americans make this process a whole lot more complicated than it actually is.

Brady Bunch · 3/12/2016 12:32 pm

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/03/12/trump-startled-ohio-protester.cnn

Protestor just tried to rush the stage and get at Donald Trump.

tennyson · 3/12/2016 12:34 pm

Is there really ANYONE here who did not see this coming ??

Brady Bunch · 3/12/2016 12:44 pm

tennyson wrote:
Is there really ANYONE here who did not see this coming ??

Nope, considering Trump's supporters don't seem to see the role he plays in this and Trump haters can't bring themselves to condemn the response back.

It is always the other person's fault, they can't see the role everyone is playing in this.

tennyson · 3/12/2016 1:17 pm

Brady Bunch wrote:
tennyson wrote:
Is there really ANYONE here who did not see this coming ??
Nope, considering Trump's supporters don't seem to see the role he plays in this and Trump haters can't bring themselves to condemn the response back.

It is always the other person's fault, they can't see the role everyone is playing in this.

Then the next question then becomes do we think a corresponding thing will occur on the D-tribe side and IF NOT, WHY NOT ? Something at least to ponder.