Posted by Tina
A mob of anti-Trump agitators trapped a woman who was attempting to get into Trumps event site. Waving Mexican flags, they taunted her and threw eggs, one hitting her in the face. Video showed the American flag and a Trump hat being burned within the mob. Later as Trump supporters left the event they were assaulted and spit upon. One reporter said it was the most violent campaign protest he’d ever seen. I saw footage this morning showing a man with a bloody ear leaving the event. The lefty mayor stood in solidarity with the thugs and blamed Trump for the violent behavior. How pathetic that a person elected to a position of leadership excuses violence.
CNN reported the level of intelligence displayed in a typical signs that read, “We need socialism,” “A vote for Trump is a vote for fascism,” “F— Donald Trump,” “Donald Trump has got to go.” Absurdly, some signs condemned “hatred” and “violence.”
This is ugly, disgusting, and intolerant, and it definitely runs against the SACRED VALUES of free speech and right of assembly. There has been very little condemnation in media or from left leadership. John Podesta did issue the following: “Violence against supporters of any candidate has no place in this election.” How generic!
Be honest, if these were Tea party folks what would the media and left leaders be saying today?
Actually, don’t bother, we already know.
Just in case it hadn’t occurred to you terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
The FBI defines terrorism:
“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
This is the party that claims to be kind, compassionate, inclusive, and tolerant, a blatant lie.
This behavior is disgusting and unacceptable, there is no doubt about it. It also gives Trump exactly what he wants. Violent protesters are morons–in addition to being unethical, their actions are always counter-productive and bring more sympathy to their target than to themselves.
That said, it should be noted that Donald Trump remains the only candidate in the race who has openly endorsed violence against his critics. The fact that more critics than supporters have actually engaged in violence is moral luck–if Trump’s supporters did what Trump told them to do, they’d be the ones throwing the punches.
Re : “This behavior is disgusting and unacceptable”
It is just the sort of behavior YOUR violent, inflammatory, disgusting and unacceptable rhetoric inspires. Congratulations Chris!
I shall never forget your mocking and taunting comment about the photo of the little kid holding up the “MAKE AMERICA MEXICO AGAIN in the Post Scripts blog entry Assimilation Matters. You wrote, “Counterpoint: Learn to take a freaking joke.”
Yeah, some joke since La Raza, MEChA and Mexican flag wavers play a prominent role in the violence.
The left is the scum of the earth, and that includes propagandist agitators like you, Chris attacking conservative blogs.
Here are some descriptions of Trump protestors in action culled from several sources and different rallies, most of them from the San Jose protest. I will not bother to cite any of the multiple sources, but they are all from major media outlets or their affiliates.
Many of the protesters carried the Mexican flag during the demonstration.
Demonstrators also burned an American flag outside the convention center.
“It was unbelievable,” said Steve Tong, a Cupertino resident who attended the Trump rally.
Tong said after the rally, he was walking toward a nearby parking structure and saw protesters surrounding and taunting an elderly couple.
A young man wearing a “Build The Wall” T-shirt was assaulted by several young men. Fearing for the man’s safety, KPIX 5 reporter Len Ramirez yelled at him to get away.
For several minutes, there was no police presence and protesters thumped Trump supporters’ cars in the parking garage as they tried to leave.
Andrew Acevedo, of Redwood City, said he was assaulted several times while getting stuck inside the anti-Trump protest rally.
As police tried to restore order protesters forced a police pickup to retreat.
Another young man was chased down like prey. He ran until finding some police officers who stopped his attackers.
Some protesters grabbed Trump hats and tried to burn them, while others banged on the cars of supporters trying to leave the rally.
And at one point, a mostly male mob that was five to six people deep even surrounded a female Trump supporter and began to pelt the defenseless woman in the face with eggs and watermelon.
The protesters don’t just target women. They go for people in wheel chairs, too.
Some protesters even threw water bottles and water at the Trump supporters as they walked along a sidewalk leading to the Albuquerque Convention Center.
Dereck Scott of Albuquerque was among those who were hit with a plastic bottle.
Scott, who is in a wheelchair, said the attack was unprovoked and unnecessary. He says he has a right to vote for the candidate he prefers.
Assault on man in wheel chair
https://twitter.com/gburkNM/status/735274006568439808/video/1
At one point, a man was sucker-punched and knocked to the ground and police arrested his assailant. In another instance, demonstrators closed in on a Trump supporter and started punching him in the face.
The protesters spilled into the nearby streets, with some standing on cars. Some held signs that read, “We need socialism” and “A vote for Trump is a vote for fascism.”
That is socialism for you. Looks more like the early days of Nazi party, before they came to power, when the brown shirt thugs were working the streets.
I find it poignant and telling when San Jose Mayor, Democrat Sam Liccardo, reacted angrily to the events stating, “At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign.”
OH REALLY??? So, it is “irresponsible”for Trump to even step foot in San Jose? It is “irresponsible”for Trump to even step foot inside California?
Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta condemned reports of violence on Twitter, writing, “Violence against supporters of any candidate has no place in this election.” WINK, WINK. NUDGE, NUDGE.
Pie: “It is just the sort of behavior YOUR violent, inflammatory, disgusting and unacceptable rhetoric inspires. Congratulations Chris!”
Don’t be so PC, Pie. Words aren’t violence.
You can’t point to any “violent” rhetoric of mine; the one quote of mine you cited isn’t even close.
You also freak out about this:
“Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta condemned reports of violence on Twitter, writing, “Violence against supporters of any candidate has no place in this election.” WINK, WINK. NUDGE, NUDGE.”
But I didn’t see a similar reaction from you when Trump said this:
““If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you?” Trump said, drawing cheers and laughter. “Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise. They won’t be so much, because the courts agree with us too — what’s going on in this country.”
Or this:
““I’d like to punch him in the face,” he told the Las Vegas crowd when one protester was ejected.”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-protests-20160313-story.html
There’s no “wink wink, nudge nudge” in that first one; that’s Trump openly telling his supporters to engage in physical violence against protesters, and then saying he would pay the legal fees. The second one doesn’t go that far, but it does encourage violence.
And there have been incidents of Trump’s supporters following his instructions and committing violence against protesters; those incidents simply weren’t reported on Post Scripts.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/a_list_of_violent_incidents_at_donald_trump_rallies_and_events.html
But I don’t judge a candidate based on what their supporters say and do. I judge them based on what they say and do. Again: Trump remains the only candidate who has openly endorsed violence. Even if you think the other candidates are *secretly* OK with their supporters committing violence (which doesn’t make much sense; the other candidates are smart, and know that violence by their supporters makes them look bad), they at least have the decency to publicly condemn it. And yes, public conduct by our public officials does matter more than private conduct or private beliefs.
Excuse me Chris, but I am not being PC. I am not trying to control your language like the left-wing, free speech suppressing PC movement of your ilk does. Get it? Is there anyone at home in that thick skull of yours? Do you ever think at all?
You like to attack people by tossing about accusations xenophobia, bigotry, racism, sexism and so on. You do so indiscriminately and at the drop of a hat. Your justifications for using them to attack others, especially the good folks of Post Scripts are at are garbage.
Those words are meant to hurt, and when used viciously and repeatedly like you use them, are a form of violence. Adolf Hitler knew well how to use words as a form of violence and so do you.
So **** off.
The fact remains that the left-wing protestors ARE violent. Much more violent than ANY rare incidents instigated by Trump followers. True, Trump’s response to such violence was boneheaded, but his response was one of defense, not one of pro-active violent aggression and disruption as practiced by your comrades.
Lastly, I don’t give a crap about how you claim to judge a candidate. Strut all you like, but I think you are lying not only in this forum, but to yourself.
Oh, by the way, anything that disrupts the Trump campaign is good for Democrats — up to a point. If he starts looking like the victim to the general public, your party is screwed.
Pie, bigotry is bigotry. What else are we supposed to call it?
I suppose we could leave you to yourselves, all alone here in the echo chamber to indulge you bigotries, but that would not be good for you … and it would be terrible for circulation.
Oh, shut up and have another cocktail.
Pie, arguing that speech is violence is, by definition, political correctness. You’re no better than the college whiners calling for “safe spaces” from words they don’t like.
Like it or not, “bigotry” has an actual meaning, as do the other terms you pointed out. I use the term when it applies. You’ve denied clear, dictionary-definition examples of bigotry so many times that your claim that I use it indiscriminately is meaningless. You think Ann Coulter ranting about “white genocide” isn’t bigotry. You think calling for a ban on all Muslim immigrants isn’t bigoted or xenophobic. You think saying “When Mexico sends its people…they’re rapists” isn’t bigoted or xenophobic. To claim that these labels don’t apply to such extreme, textbook examples of such is willful denial, and there is no sense in even engaging with such ridiculous arguments. You are trying to make the word “bigotry” meaningless, so that no one takes actual bigotry seriously. Meanwhile, you make yourself the victim of imaginary bigotry and “violence” and compare your opponents to Hitler. This is the attitude of a baby. You’re unhinged. Get help.
Your accusations of bigotry and xenophobia are specious and asinine. One day you will call the wrong person a bigot to their face and end up in the hospital, if you are lucky.
Coulter uses the language of progressives to make a point. That does not make her a bigot.
Trump’s aim was to get a handle on the importation of Islamic terrorism with a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. That was neither xenophobic nor bigoted, you idiot. He does not hate Muslims nor fear people who are Muslims.
You position is overblown nonsense motivated by progressive gobbledygook.
I did not say you were Hitler or compared you to Hitler, I said to had the same command of violent speech.
I am quite cool headed about this. It is YOU who needs to get a grip, jerk.
So take your “You’re unhinged. Get help” comment and shove it up your ***.
Ranting about “white genocide” is the language of progressives? No, it’s the language of white supremacists.
Trump’s intentions are meaningless–the policy is bigoted. Would you argue that Japanese internment was not bigoted because the intention was “to get a handle on the problem of Japanese spies in the US?” It doesn’t matter that the people who did this thought they were keeping us safe–their actions were still bigoted.
Jimmy Carter must have been a bigot and xenophobe when he stopped visas for Iranian Muslims. Plus, he deported many diplomats, students and others.
1980: Jimmy Carter Banned Iranian Immigrants From U.S., Deported Students During Hostage Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R_s1hvIMGg
Progressives and liberals believe only Republicans and conservatives are bigots when it serves their agenda. They would never consider applying the same rules and considerations to everyone.
Peggy: “Jimmy Carter must have been a bigot and xenophobe when he stopped visas for Iranian Muslims.”
Peggy, Jimmy Carter did not stop visas for “Iranian Muslims,” so your entire premise is incorrect. He stopped visas for ALL Iranians, regardless of religion. There is a ton of precedent for restricting immigration based on nationality. There is NO precedent for restricting immigration based on religion. Trump would be the first president in our history to try this.
Carter’s policy was part of his sanctions on Iran and was lifted as soon as the hostage crisis was over. Contrast that with Trump’s proposal to lift a ban on Muslim immigrants after “we figure the whole thing out,” which is devoid of meaning. Carter also made exemptions for Iranians who denounced the regime. Contrast that with Trump’s attitude toward Syrian refugees, who he says we shouldn’t help.
There is no comparison between Carter’s plan to block immigration from members of a nation we were involved in a specific conflict with, and Trump’s plan to block immigration from members of a religion that spans the entire globe. The comparison is ridiculous.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/dec/17/why-trumps-muslim-ban-idea-isnt-really-same-jimmy-/
Peggy, do you support Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban all Muslim immigration, despite warnings by foreign policy experts that this would harm our reputation around the world, embolden ISIS’ “war on Islam” narrative and make the war on terror more difficult?
1980: Jimmy Carter Banned Iranian Immigrants From U.S., Deported Students During Hostage Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R_s1hvIMGg
Progressives and liberals believe only Republicans and conservatives are bigots when it serves their agenda. They would never consider applying the same rules and considerations to everyone.
– See more at: http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2016/06/03/abusive-militant-agitators-intimidate-assail-woman-bloody-man-trump-event/#comments
Last week Trump supporters pepper sprayed protesters in the face. Where was the outrage then?
http://gawker.com/photographs-show-trump-supporters-pepper-spraying-prote-1780399845
This does not in any way excuse the actions of the protesters last night. It is only to say that if you’re using their actions to justify voting for Trump, you should also consider the violence that Trump’s own supporters have engaged in, and that only Trump’s supporters have their candidate’s vocal approval to engage in violence.
Here’s some advice to Trump protesters considering using these disgusting tactics:
“Donald Trump Subsists on a Diet of Chaos. Starve Him.”
https://www.google.com/amp/www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/amp45479/rules-for-trump-protesters/?client=safari#
So, these sorry young men running around playing intifada, why are they doing that?
They have a reason.
Can you imagine the lame stream and chattering class response if it were Trump supporters engaging in violence outside of Hillary of Bernie rallies? So far, except on Fox, it has been treated as “no big deal.” This sort of thing has been going on for a couple hundred years.
I also note that Hillary and Bernie have, so far, kept their mouths shut unless directly asked to comment about the violence by journalists. Do either come out with a passionate and strong statement demanding that the violence must stop, now?
No. Of course not. They will pussy foot around until they perceive that anti-Trump violence threatens their campaigns.
Pie,
You are demanding that Clinton and Sanders demand an end to the violence without being prompted by a question. This is fair.
However, you make no such demand of Trump, whose supporters have also engaged in violence, and who have done so with his express permission. This, obviously, is not fair.
Why do you judge candidates more harshly for not condemning violence than you do candidates who openly ENCOURAGE violence? It makes no sense. Can you explain it to me? Because it looks like a complete double standard.
I am not demanding anything. I was making an observation and offering an opinion.
You have the comprehension skills of a three year old.
Why are you so damn stupid? What the hell did you do in college anyway? Smoke dope and hang out in the quad?
They’d first need to have a press conference to make themselves available to answer questions. Hillary hasn’t held a press conference in over six months.
“It has been 181 days since Hillary Clinton last held a formal news conference.
“Landsbaum:
Does she owe it to voters to be interrogated by the press? Sure. But it makes sense for Clinton to wait until after she’s officially clinched the Democratic nomination (a task Bernie Sanders has made surprisingly difficult) to open herself up to further ridicule.
Two small points first: (1) “Interrogated”? No. Asked to be held to account for policies and statements she has made? Yes. (2) “Further ridicule”? Again, no. The media’s job is to ask questions of candidates and, if/when they don’t give real answers, to push again and again. If Clinton gives poor, incomplete or inaccurate responses — as she did in her statement on the State Department’s inspector general report about her email server — then it is the media’s job to call her on that. That’s not called ridicule. It’s called accountability.
Now, the bigger point. It’s exactly because she hasn’t officially clinched the Democratic nomination that Clinton should have granted a news conference or two over the past six months. She has been in the midst of a struggle for the future direction of the Democratic Party with someone who alleges that she is both insufficiently loyal to core principles and a late arriver to policy positions. She also has been part of an ongoing FBI investigation of her controversial — to put it mildly — decision to exclusively use a private email server while serving as secretary of state.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/02/hillary-clinton-shouldnt-do-press-conferences-because-shes-not-good-at-them-um-what/
Again, reporters can’t ask candidates important questions if they’re hiding from the press, because they don’t want to be forced to give answers we’d ALL love to hear. Heaven forbid we’d actually be informed voters.
“It has been 181 days since Hillary Clinton last held a formal news conference.”
If she were still in office this might be a concern. But she’s a citizen now, and they throw press conferences only when they want to.
I totally disagree with this guy. She can do her campaign media anyway she wants, and if voters think she’s too close, they don’t have to vote for her.
But … oh, my Lord … they do … they have to ! The alternative is a wildly ignorant,
megalomaniacal gasbag!
All this “critiquing” from her own side is pure panic. But we can hardly blame them.
Forgot my other comments here. The only question the Trump supporters here need to answer is this:
If you really believe that violence has no place in politics, why do you support a man who has openly told his supporters to commit violence against his protesters?
I don’t really need you to answer me. This is something you need to answer for yourself.
I do not support Trump, but that is easy to answer, you twit. Think about it. It may come to you.
Oh, and take that “I don’t really need you to answer me. This is something you need to answer for yourself” tone and stick where the sun don’t shine, Pastor Chris.
Currently waiting in line at the Hillary rally in Fresno. There’s a guy driving around with “Fuck Lying Crooked Hilary” on one window and “Make America Great” on the other. (I’d embed a pic but I don’t know how.) He was honking loudly and squealing his tires. He stopped for a bit and spoke with some Clinton supporters and was civil with them, saying “I’m sure you are all nice, peaceful people, but I should have the right to protest.” Secret Service agents went to speak to him and now he’s gone.
Clinton’s late, so they brought out some flamenco dancers*–which would be fun if they could be seen through the crowd.
*Shh, don’t tell Jack–wouldn’t want to scare him.
There is NO precedent for restricting immigration based on religion. Trump would be the first president in our history to try this. ”
Imagine being the first in our history at a time when religious terrorists are murdering, disfiguring, burning, and raping people and invading nations all over the world with an aim that matches Hitlers…kill the Jews, the infidel the “unclean”, and generally rule over and oppress the entire world.
Some ADULT has to re-establish a sensible, workable strategy to DEFEAT this enemy.
Your “adult” has failed and made a huge mess that must be cleaned up.
Tina,
Please explain how temporarily banning Islamic immigration is a “sensible, workable strategy to defeat the enemy,” when national security experts argue that it would:
1) Alienate our allies
2) Embolden ISIS by strengthening their “war between the West and Islam” narrative
3) Increase terrorist recruting
4) Block refugees from escaping ISIS, thus giving them more people to victimize
5) Increase hate crimes against Muslims already here
6) And overall increase division between the US and the Muslim community.
You have never responded to a single one of these objections. You have simply repeated that it is a “sensible” policy, as if saying it over and over again will magically make it true.
Please explain.
Please explain how temporarily banning Islamic immigration is a “sensible, workable strategy to defeat the enemy.”
It isn’t a strategy to defeat the enemy. It is a strategy to temporarily halt importing people of the Muslim faith “until we can figure out how to better vet them.”
Given what Obama has done to:
1) Alienate our allies
2) Embolden ISIS by strengthening their “war between the West and Islam” narrative
3) Increase terrorist recruting
4) Block refugees from escaping ISIS, thus giving them more people to victimize
5) Increase hate crimes against Muslims already here
6) And overall increase division between the US and the Muslim community
…does it even matter what Trump says? You do realize who has presided over the situation for the last eight years?
WAKE UP! The situation is already dire.
Explain yourself! Explain to our readers why Obama is still treated as if he has done zero damage. Explain why the terror threat has grown and expanded across the globe. Explain why he negotiated a deal with a known terror supporting nation. Explain why he insulted our allies and sucked up to our enemies. Explain why we have lost half of Iraq, a nation our soldiers fought and died to free.
While you’re at it, explain why his economic policies suck.
Explain!!!!!!!!!!
Tina: “It isn’t a strategy to defeat the enemy. It is a strategy to temporarily halt importing people of the Muslim faith “until we can figure out how to better vet them.””
To what end? If it’s not to defeat the enemy, then what’s the point? It won’t keep Americans safer, as I’ve already explained; it will only strengthen terrorists.
“Given what Obama has done to”
This isn’t an answer, it’s a deflection. You still haven’t rebutted a single one of the objections to this discriminatory policy.
“1) Alienate our allies”
We’re not going to agree here. Our relationships with our allies are generally stronger under Obama then they were under Bush, as is our approval rating around the world.
“2) Embolden ISIS by strengthening their “war between the West and Islam” narrative”
How has Obama strengthened this narrative when he repeatedly states, as Bush did, that we are not at war with Islam?
“3) Increase terrorist recruting”
In what way?
“4) Block refugees from escaping ISIS, thus giving them more people to victimize”
What? You’re kidding here. YOU are the one who has tried to block the Obama administration from importing refugees!
“5) Increase hate crimes against Muslims already here”
What has Obama done to increase hate crimes against Muslims?
“6) And overall increase division between the US and the Muslim community”
This makes no sense. Again, you and your party are the ones denigrating Muslims and advocating keeping them out of America–not Obama. What are you talking about here?
Since I’ve responded to your objections against Obama, can you respond to the objections to Trump’s plan to keep out Muslim immigrants? You still haven’t done so; all you did was claim (baselessly) that Obama has done the same things, but that’s not a reason why we should embrace a plan that would have the same negative effects, so…your argument is impossible to follow.
Dire?
In your head it is, certainly. Out here on the street, it’s really not so bad. Maybe if you got out a little more, away from the tube?
I was listening to the Family Radio again. They do a little news, very little, in keeping with the spiritual focus there. Still, you’d think war with China over those South China Sea islands was imminent.
But it’s not.
Tina, it’s not.