GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

[Seth]

[Tyrannical]

So, looks like they are not prosecuting that Trump campaign manager over that tussle with a reporter. Case fell apart when they questioned the secret service agents there. Seems that the SS already removed the reporter from the secure area around Trump, but then she sneaked back over. SS then said something along the lines that the campaign manager had the right and authority to physically remove her from the secure area. Much like a bouncer in a bar I guess

[Forty Two]

Trump is going to gain some momentum coming up. NY is going to go big for Trump.

[Animavore]

It's great watching the Republican party destroy itself like this. Can't imagine their reputation will recover for some time. I reckon at least another two Democrat terms.

[Tero]

Trump making America great again with manly things: steel and coal. Speech in PA

Before a crowd of thousands, Republican front-runner Donald Trump made a campaign promise not often heard in these parts anymore: a pledge to bring back Pittsburgh's steel industry.

"Steel, we're bringing back," he told an enthusiastic audience gathered at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center on Wednesday evening (many waiting were turned away by the Secret Service, which cut off the crowd at 4,500). "Coal — clean coal, clean coal. We're bringing it back."

Trump returned to that promise repeatedly, noting last week's announcement by U.S. Steel that it would lay off up to one-quarter of its nonunion workforce. The company has cited imports from China and slumping demand for pipe from the natural gas industry.

"We're going to build United States Steel back," Trump said. And as he has done throughout the campaign, Trump blamed declining U.S. manufacturing employment on poorly negotiated trade deals.

[Animavore]

"Clean coal". Lol.

[Svartalf]

hey, back when I was in Ireland, that's what they called peat, message from the boird na mona

[Animavore]

And it was lol then too.

[Seth]

So, looks like they are not prosecuting that Trump campaign manager over that tussle with a reporter. Case fell apart when they questioned the secret service agents there. Seems that the SS already removed the reporter from the secure area around Trump, but then she sneaked back over. SS then said something along the lines that the campaign manager had the right and authority to physically remove her from the secure area. Much like a bouncer in a bar I guess

Yup. He should have removed her like this.

All Trump protesters at Trump events should be sprayed in the face with pepper spray and frog-marched out of the venue and into the paddy wagon on the legal basis that they are committing the criminal offense of "disrupting lawful assembly."

18-9-108. Disrupting lawful assembly

(1) A person commits disrupting lawful assembly if, intending to prevent or disrupt any lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, he significantly obstructs or interferes with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action, verbal utterance, or any other means.

(2) Disrupting lawful assembly is a class 3 misdemeanor; except that, if the actor knows the meeting, procession, or gathering is a funeral, it is a class 2 misdemeanor.

And under Colorado law, ANY PERSON who witnesses this violation has the legal authority to place the person under arrest and use reasonable and appropriate physical force to do so:

18-1-707. Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape

(7) A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

Fuck all Trump protesters, with prejudice.

[piscator]

Trump's speech isn't any freer than other Americans who understand he's woefully unfit for office.

Trump will lose anyway. Not only because of Trump's jugaloo dictator personal qualities, but because too many would-be Trump voters either can't find their polling place, or just can't fill in a ballot correctly, which has more to do with why they feel disenfranchised than even Republican voter suppression.

[Seth]

Trump's speech isn't any freer than other Americans who understand he's woefully unfit for office.

What the fuck does that even mean? One's right to free speech isn't dependent on one's intelligence or fitness for anything, including public office.

Trump will lose anyway. Not only because of Trump's jugaloo dictator personal qualities, but because too many would-be Trump voters either can't get to their polling place, or just can't fill in a ballot correctly.

Listen, if the ignorant dependent-class ghetto dwellers and illiterate non-english-speaking illegal immigrants who are currently being "registered to vote" can do so thanks to the Democrat machine that's trying to make it easy enough that a microcephalic Zika baby can do so, us rednecks won't have any problem, so thanks, Democrats.

The thing Trump has going for him is that he has the ability to connect with his audience and spark them to action in what's becoming unprecedented numbers. However stupid you might think Trump-favoring rednecks might be, they still get to vote and now they have a reason to do so and a candidate that they like to stimulate them into action.

That's what's scaring the ever-living fuck out of the liberal fascists. They were hoping that the rednecks would eschew voting because Cruz and everybody but Trump are more-of-the-same Republican Progressive establishment puppets.

Trump's anything but, whatever the hell he really is, so the rednecks are stirred up and will go to the polls in much greater numbers than before, and probably in greater numbers than either Hillary or Bernie Marxist useful idiots because Hillary is a duplicitous wizened cunt who even Democrats are starting to hate and Bernie is too devoutly Marxist to appeal to the non-radical middle-of-the-road Democrat dependent class.

Hell, I'm even thinking about registering to vote this year just so I can vote for Trump just so he can burn it all down, and that's after many years of "I don't give a fuck who wins because they are all Marxist Progressive liberal fascist useful idiots anyway."

At least Trump will shake the halls of government to its foundation if he wins, and that can't be a bad thing.

[piscator]

Trump's speech isn't any freer than other Americans who understand he's woefully unfit for office.

What the fuck does that even mean? One's right to free speech protest isn't dependent on one's intelligence or fitness for anything, including public office.

Fixed. Protest is free speech too. Brownshirts and dictators never get that.

At least Trump will shake the halls of government to its foundation if he wins, and that can't be a bad thing.

Trump will be cockblocked at every turn. Then a video will surface of Trump wanking in the Oval Office, and the Democrats will appoint Jerry Springer as Special Prosecutor. Jerry will not only make Ken Starr look like a weak and ineffective prosecutor, but will require Trump explain the entire meaning of the word "Is" on the prosecution's 5-season HBO reality series.

[Animavore]

Trump is the effigy of the failure of the GOP.

[Seth]

Trump's speech isn't any freer than other Americans who understand he's woefully unfit for office.

What the fuck does that even mean? One's right to free speech protest isn't dependent on one's intelligence or fitness for anything, including public office.

Fixed. Protest is free speech too.

How did you "fix" it? The strike-out doesn't change anything. Yes, protest is free speech too, however there is a substantial distinction between "protest" and "disruption of lawful assembly."

In this context this means that anti-Trump protesters have every right to freely and peaceably assemble OUTSIDE of the venue and protest their little hearts out. The "disrupting lawful assembly" law was enacted in Colorado in 1971 in response to Marxist fascist disruptions during the Vietnam War protests.

ANNOTATION

Statute is constitutional as applied. By adopting an actual disruption standard that focuses on punishment for actual disruption of an assembly, this section is constitutionally based on conduct, not content. Dempsey v. People, 117 P.3d 800 (Colo. 2005).

Under the terms of this section, a defendant must intend to disrupt a meeting. That element of the offense subsumes two notions. First, the nature of the assembly or meeting defines the bounds of appropriate protest. The standard is drawn from the implicit customs and usages or explicit rules germane to a given meeting. Once the nature of the event is clear, the second question becomes whether the defendant intended to disrupt that event or, stated otherwise, whether the defendant was aware that his or her conduct was inconsistent with the customs of the assembly and whether he or she thereby intended his or her conduct to disrupt the assembly significantly. Dempsey v. People, 117 P.3d 800 (Colo. 2005). (emphasis added)

Thus, as we see, the deliberate and intentional disruption of the peaceable exercise of the right of free assembly and speech among Trump supporters, whose purpose at the assembly is to hear Donald Trump speak, and whose purpose is for Donald Trump to freely exercise his right to speak to his admirers determines the "bounds of appropriate protest."

Wearing a "Trump sucks" tee-shirt while otherwise passively attending the event would likely fall within the boundaries of "implicit customs and usages or explicit rules germane to a given meeting." On the other hand, shouting Trump down, throwing a pie at him, attempting to rush the stage and steal the microphone or inciting riotous behavior by Trump supporters would clearly not be, within the venue.

Outside the venue, in an otherwise public place suitable for that purpose, even noisy demonstrations would be within the ambit of the free speech rights of the protesters.

Brownshirts and dictators never get that.

Never get what? Free speech? Wrong. Free speech rights, as defined by law, apply to everyone and every message other than those forms of speech that cross the boundary created by the Supreme Court of speech which causes, or is likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace, like inciting a riot or using "fighting words" to provoke a physical confrontation.

This is why the Neo-nazis of Skokie received police protection while they marched and chanted white power and anti-semetic sentiments. Under US law Adolph Hitler would have, in most cases, have been lawfully exercising his free speech rights except for when he explicitly called for violence or murder, and even then the question would be how "immediate" the threat of such violence would have been before legal sanction might apply.

This is the state of the law in the US. Mileage in other, less free, more totalitarian and dictatorial liberally fascist countries of course, varies.

In our system, the anodyne for hateful speech is more free speech by those who disagree, with the consumers in the marketplace of ideas deciding who wins the debate.

In Marxist Progressive liberal fascist regimes like the UK and Germany, hateful speech is itself criminalized, as the current upcoming prosecution of some German comedian for insulting the head of state of Turkey proves, but that's just an example of despotic liberal totalitarian fascism, not an argument for suppressing free speech.

Of course the conundrum created by your suggestion is "who gets to decide who is a "brownshirt" or "dictator" and who doesn't."

Here in the US we don't make that decision, we allow all forms of speech that do not incite imminent unlawful violence, however reprehensible or disgusting it may be.

That's why we let Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or any other Marxist Progressive liberal fascist open their pie-holes at all.

[Seth]

Trump is the effigy of the failure of the GOP.

This, at least, is absolutely true. And that's a good thing because the only thing that can emerge from this failure is a stronger political system.