Trump to win?

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Sure CBN and Infowars are certainly not credible but neither is the rest of the media. No one listens to them anymore either. There is NO source to turn to for objectivity.

This is classic vt false equivalence. Comparing Infowars to all media. It's like comparing religion to science. We'll their both wrong some of the time so they're the same. It's a Falwell to Hawking comparison.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Infowars is wrong probably 99% of the time, but where the mainstream does not report a fact and another source does should the fact be ignored?

Infowars is propaganda definitely. But will you admit that at times MSNBC, FOX, and other mainstream also are partially propaganda? Is there any source that is objective or are you reading from your own bias? Is Drudge doing a better job than mainstream media?

http://www.journalism.org/2011/05/09...rge-influence/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...ominant-205182

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...man-in-america

Drudge is definitely conservative. Why is it's influence over media grown so much? Could it be that people no longer trust other media?
Drudge was certainly first to point out the Lewinsky scandal and the falseness of the National Guard document used against Bush during the 2004 election. CBS looked like the fools they were in the Guard incident.

I want the truth and unfortunately the media does not seem to provide it most of the time. The majority of Americans feel the same.

Your condescending comments have no place on the board. Criticize the subject matter not the individual.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Infowars is wrong probably 99% of the time, but where the mainstream does not report a fact and another source does should the fact be ignored?

Infowars is propaganda definitely. But will you admit that at times MSNBC, FOX, and other mainstream also are partially propaganda? Is there any source that is objective or are you reading from your own bias.

I want the truth and unfortunately the media does not seem to provide it most of the time. The majority of Americans feel the same.

Your condescending comments have no place on the board. Criticize the subject matter not the individual.

In your case there is no subject without the individual. When you create the subject you are the subject. Only an idiot would re-publish a source they admit is "wrong probably 99% of the time". Seriously vt, do you not get how idiotic that sounds to anyone else? Try to think before you post.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

So Soros is not funding moveon disruptions of free speech but the Koch's are to blame for everything?

So Infowars correctly points out the disruptions of free speech, and you continue to call someone you disagree with an idiot.

Take this example of a liberal source:

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/11/469978...rump-to-hitler






And the same type of salute for Clinton:

View image on Twitter

Follow
Raheem Kassam @RaheemKassam

Like, O-M-G. People are raising hands, pledging to Hillary Clinton in this pic. Must be HITLER right!? #HeilTrump
6:25 PM - 5 Mar 2016

• 
  
• 
  354354 Retweets
• 
  365365 likes

It's all comical and scary at the same time. Think about having an open mind instead of attacking a fact no matter where it come from.

There are countless examples of accusations against one side while the other has done the same thing, such as the Scalia replacement discussion where Democrats argued in the past for no Supreme Court candidate in an election year. The Democrats are caught on film, and still try to prevaricate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._nominees.html

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

Well, one thing this thread is good for…it does make you go back and check the facts and timelines. Nixon started bombing Cambodia just over a year after he took office. The riots in Chicago were still fresh in the public’s consciousness. Kent state (protesting Cambodia) was almost immediately.

Thanks for the link, Woody. As one commenter wrote…A freight train of images.

I had friends who got the first conscientious deferments in several states. You just had to stand up and say no. It was such a lie. Bork comes off as an idiot. I would like to hear Noah Adams thoughts on making the film.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

santafe and vt,

i decided to try to track down moveon's role at the disrupted chicago trump rally. found this statement on the moveon website:

“Like so much of what Donald Trump says, his attempt to scapegoat progressive activists and MoveOn.org for violence at his cancelled rally in Chicago is profoundly dishonest and untrue.

“MoveOn proudly supported University of Illinois at Chicago students and local organizers in their courageous nonviolent protest outside the event. We helped student leaders by printing signs and recruiting MoveOn members to attend the student-led protest.

“But let’s be clear about one thing, the protest Friday night was a direct result of the violence that has occurred at Trump rallies and that has been repeatedly encouraged by Trump himself from the stage. There is only one person to blame for the chaotic and often violent nature of Trump rallies: Donald J. Trump. This sort of violence does not happen at Sanders, Cruz, Clinton, Rubio, or Kasich events, despite the fact that there are often protests at their events.

i couldn't find anything linking moveon to ORGANIZED VIOLENCE, expect on conservatively skewed websites, like the washington times. the moveon spokesman DOES have a point, imo, re no violence at other candidates' rallies in spite of the presence of protesters. given what we know about the demographics of trump supporters, my own supposition is that it's most likely that trumps' folks initiated violence.

also, i don't recall any other candidate saying from behind the podium, with reference to a protester, "i'd like to punch that guy in the face."

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

JK,

Both Trump and Move On are at fault.

Trump knew that holding a rally at the University of Illinois was guaranteed to get a large protest. He also cancelled even though the police didn't ask him too. He wanted to look like a victim. It was a set up.

Move On know that the presence of thousands of protesters would lead some to infiltrate the gathering and try to shout down as well as irritate some Trump supporters.

When you get a few left wing crazies and a few right wing crazies together it's not surprising that violence results.

Many Trump supporters are likely right wing and many Move On supporters are left wing but most are not violent.

But why should any protest shout down any speaker on whatever side they dislike? Was Black Lives Matter correct to take over the podium from Bernie Sanders?

I am against most policies of Trump and most policies of Sanders. But I believe in the 1st amendment and the freedom of assembly. If a group wants to and hear a speech, they should not be interrupted by having protesters shouting down a speaker. They should be separated and allowed to hold signs. Both sides can have discussions to try to find common ground. Each side should be allowed to have gatherings unimpeded by the opposition.

Unfortunately the radicals on both sides won't let this happen which is a major reason why Americans are abandoning both parties in large numbers.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

JK,

Both Trump and Move On are at fault...

The only fact you have to stand on is that Trump cancelled his event. The rest is speculation and heresay. You cannot say anything about anyone's intent. Clearly, Trump needs to control his message and events otherwise the media will make him look like a fool. Recall Mayor Dailey screaming at protestors.



It would not do his ego well to have all his applause lines greeted with boos and heckles, so he took his ball and went home. Typical cowardly response. He's happy to bully and rough-up protestors (and encourage his followers to pile on) when they are a tiny minority. But when they show up in numbers, he cowers. That's The Donald. Always has been. Folks up in the Northeast know his shtick, but the rest of the country has yet to catch on.

And another thing; this free speech argument is incoherent. Nobody's speech rights were violated. Everyone there had a right to free speech and assembly and went about expressing it in their own way. Because freedom!

I'm thinking you're not entirely clear about the whole First Amendment thing. It "guarantees" that government will not restrict speech, assembly, religious expression, etc. And since none of that happened, it's not an issue here. Protesters had as much right to speak, assemble as Trump and his fans. Full stop.

Instead, you seem to want that Trump should have his say but his opponents should remain silent, especially while he speaks. Fortunately, there's no legal or constitutional basis for that view. The protestors did not interfere with the Trump people's right to assemble. The Trump people chose not to assemble while their opponents were present. Now you can try to argue that as a private event, Trump has a right to decide who attends. But that necessarily negates any free speech arguments. You can argue that "fighting words" were used and this necessitated action to preserve order. But that again negates the speech argument.

Why anyone would expect that people who are in Trump's direct line of fire should sit quietly and await their fate is beyond me. I can't understand why people opposing a hate mongering bully with neo-fascist and authoritarian tendencies should be denounced rather than lauded. Trump for his part has ejected people standing still and not uttering a word (the Muslim woman comes to mind). He's ejectws reporters asking questions. He's ejected folks quietly holding signs. He's all but urged his followers to do violence (skirting the limits of the law all along) and said that he would pay for their defense. It's about time the people rejected him for a change.

I think Trump and his people ought to be made as uncomfortable as the law allows and as often as possible, too. His supporters are right to be made uncomfortable by the people they demonize. They should expect this sort of welcome everywhere they go. They should have to look into the faces of the people they want gone and connect with the reality of their humanity, no matter how much of the Trump people want to make them into "unpersons."

Now I recognize the irony of protesters being allowed to show up to an event to disrupt a speaker in the name of free speech. But that's far less ironic than preventing protest because of free speech. Democracy and pluralism are funny like that sometimes.

Show me the authority on what constitutes an appropriately peaceful, respectful protest, and I'll show you just who controls you. Civility is nice, but in the hands of the powerful it is cudgel used to shut down any expression considered unwelcome. It's time people found their voice and agency. We need them now more than ever.

Keep at it kids!

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

So you are fine with a large number of anti Sanders or anti Clinton people going to one of their events and shouting them down so they cannot speak?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

So you are fine with a large number of anti Sanders or anti Clinton people going to one of their events and shouting them down so they cannot speak?

You bet. Let them try, at least.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

For Woody

[rjwjr]

Re: Trump to win?

Woodsman,

I must respectfully disagree with your opinion.

I feel that you are lumping Trump supporters together yet railing against Trump lumping together certain groups.

I feel that you are encouraging disruptive protest as a means for railing against Trump's bullying.

In a word, I am calling your suggestions hypocritical.

I did not intend to vote for Trump initially, however, responses like yours...but more importantly the actions of Mitt Romney, the other Republican candidates, the PACs, and the "establishment" in general...have me believing that Trump's message has the establishment very worried. We've discussed on here in the past threads about "how to fix the system" and "how to get a 3rd party started". I'm starting to believe that Trump...is not the solution...but is the start of the process. (After a re-read of my post and further thought, I think the Tea Party movement may have been the start of the process, Trump is the re-start.) He is the conduit for the everyday American to tell the establishment to go fuck themselves. Apologies for the language.

I hope he is elected. I hope it results in political leaders of both parties that begin to listen better to the American citizens rather than billionaires, corporate interests, political favor exchanging, or whatever. I'm willing to give him my vote in hopes that it brings about this change. The more "they" pile on him, the more of a supporter I seem to become.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

http://www.thenation.com/article/why...s-so-different

Somebody is going to get killed.

[rjwjr]

Re: Trump to win?

http://www.thenation.com/article/why...s-so-different

Somebody is going to get killed.

That would be unfortunate, but not surprising in a political shift the magnitude of the one in process.

Does anyone else believe that the blame for any such result lies at the feet of the protesters' puppet-masters? MoveOn.org has admitted to printing signs and recruiting many of these protesters.

I'm not in favor of Trump's handling of the disrupt-ers, but there would be no Trump response necessary if there were no disrupt-ers. A case could be made that this is a form of entrapment...an activity that the left normally rails against; with good reason.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.