GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

[piscator]

Donald Trump wavers on paying legal fees for violent supporters

(CNN)Donald Trump seemed to walk back his promise to pay the legal fees of supporters who are charged for violence at his rallies when pressed on the subject by ABC's "Good Morning America" on Tuesday.

"By paying those (legal) fees, wouldn't you be rewarding and encouraging violence?" asked host George Stephanopoulos.

"No, no I didn't say that. I haven't looked at it yet, and nobody's asked me to pay for fees, and somebody asked me a question and I haven't even seen it, so I never said I was going to pay for fees," the Republican front-runner said, at first denying what he has said both during a campaign rally and on Sunday during an interview.

At a rally in February, Trump told his supporters about protesters: "Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell -- I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise."

And in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" this Sunday, Trump said he had directed his staff to "look into" paying the legal fees of a supporter who sucker punched a protester at a rally last Wednesday in North Carolina.

"I've actually instructed my people to look into it, yes," Trump replied when asked about paying the fees.

On Tuesday, questioned again if he was "open to that," and if paying the fees meant rewarding violence, Trump said, "Well maybe so, and maybe that's why I wouldn't do it. I don't condone violence at all, and you know I looked and I watched and I'm going to make a decision."

"I certainly don't condone violence and maybe you're right and maybe that's why I wouldn't do it," he said.

[Tyrannical]

Bernie's Brown Shirts need to be brought under control lol

[pErvinalia]

If he (or anyone) is stopped from speaking at a particular event, then that is a restriction of free speech. You can't qualify the restriction by saying that it doesn't apply to "privileged white men" or the like because they have other opportunities.

As an overall measure of free speech, of course you can.

Free speech isn't quantitative. It's an individual right. If Trump were a black, trans, genderqueer, woman with a disability, would free speech have been violated by protesters disrupting the rally, planning to rush the stage, and shouting down the speaker at every turn?

I think here you have to take a leaf from Voltaire's book, and thoroughly detest Trump (and protest against him) while defending his right to speak...

That's simply naive and frankly a juvenile approach to the world. You'd give Hitler his free speech? Fuck that. Major progression has only ever happened with major disruption. That's the reality of the world, not some sophist approach to silly ideological liberal positions.

Yes, indeed. The juvenile approach is to shut down the hateful speech. To suggest that the rise of Hitler was a result of freedom of speech is really bizarre. To stop fascism from rising, we have to make sure people with fascist ideas can't say them out loud? LOL.

I can say LOL too.

And I didn't say Hitler was a product of free speech.

You did ask "you'd give Hitler his free speech?" -- the answer is, of course, a resounding yes. That's the point. You don't defeat or stop a Hitler by trying to take away his right to speak his political opinions.

As i said, ideological liberalism is naive. Proof right there ^.

[pErvinalia]

For example, governments themselves have quite reasonably denied the right to speak of some extremists like that anti-semitic holocaust denier, whose name I have forgotten...

That was a sad day for free speech, actually, when a government prosecuted a historian for writing unapproved stuff. That's no different than would be prosecuting Salman Rushdie for the Satanic Verses because it was anti-Islam.

And if a lunatic group took to the streets demanding to rape women whenever they felt like it, it would be quite appropriate for Dykes on Bikes to sort them out with gusto...

If a lunatic group takes to the streets demanding to rape women whenever they felt like it, it would be a very good thing to have happen. The film could be studied and the pro-rape persons identified. They'd very likely be pretty good suspects to look into.

But, indeed, counter protests are free speech. I agree with Rev on that. What isn't free speech is commandeering private property (a microphone or stage), or pushing/shoving other people. And, if they engage in fighting words while protesting to antagonize a crowd, then it's not going to be surprising if fights break out.

But, yes, when the Nazis march down main street, the proper response is to counterprotest.

But, however you might detest a given politician, saying you have the right to stop a campaign speech sets a very dangerous precedent. Do we want to see a gang of NRA thugs breaking up a Bernie Sanders election speech...

Bernie Sanders actually has a good rep with the NRA and he is very pro-gun ownership.

But, in any case, that is the point -- if Trump groupies showed up to a Bernie rally and got into the seats and just started disrupting the place, antagonizing Bernie supporters, egging them on and picking fights, and then shouting over and over anytime Bernie tried to speak, that would be a big problem. That's not the exercise of free speech.

I haven't linked that activity to "free speech". Protest is about the real world, ideological worship of free speech is about a naive fantasy world.

Protest is an exercise of that very free speech. What are you even talking about?

What are you talking about? You just said that it's not an exercise of free speech, and then you said it IS an exercise of free speech. I don't give a shit about ideological adherence to free speech. The point I am making is that progress isn't made with "free speech", it's made when people get off their arses and demand it from the elites. And sometimes that requires aggressive tactics. As I said, this is the real world. Ideological adherence to free speech is a naive fantasy world.

Are you saying that disrupting a Bernie Sanders rally or a Trump rally is free speech?

Reread what I wrote. I am clearly not calling it free speech (but it might be in certain circumstances).

[pErvinalia]

Donald Trump wavers on paying legal fees for violent supporters

(CNN)Donald Trump seemed to walk back his promise to pay the legal fees of supporters who are charged for violence at his rallies when pressed on the subject by ABC's "Good Morning America" on Tuesday.

"By paying those (legal) fees, wouldn't you be rewarding and encouraging violence?" asked host George Stephanopoulos.

"No, no I didn't say that. I haven't looked at it yet, and nobody's asked me to pay for fees, and somebody asked me a question and I haven't even seen it, so I never said I was going to pay for fees," the Republican front-runner said, at first denying what he has said both during a campaign rally and on Sunday during an interview.

At a rally in February, Trump told his supporters about protesters: "Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell -- I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise."

And in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" this Sunday, Trump said he had directed his staff to "look into" paying the legal fees of a supporter who sucker punched a protester at a rally last Wednesday in North Carolina.

"I've actually instructed my people to look into it, yes," Trump replied when asked about paying the fees.

On Tuesday, questioned again if he was "open to that," and if paying the fees meant rewarding violence, Trump said, "Well maybe so, and maybe that's why I wouldn't do it. I don't condone violence at all, and you know I looked and I watched and I'm going to make a decision."

"I certainly don't condone violence and maybe you're right and maybe that's why I wouldn't do it," he said.

I reckon he's got ADHD, or something like that, by the way he talks. He's all over the shop. He often can't finish a sentence before starting another one.

[Forty Two]

Donald Trump wavers on paying legal fees for violent supporters

(CNN)Donald Trump seemed to walk back his promise to pay the legal fees of supporters who are charged for violence at his rallies when pressed on the subject by ABC's "Good Morning America" on Tuesday.

"By paying those (legal) fees, wouldn't you be rewarding and encouraging violence?" asked host George Stephanopoulos.

"No, no I didn't say that. I haven't looked at it yet, and nobody's asked me to pay for fees, and somebody asked me a question and I haven't even seen it, so I never said I was going to pay for fees," the Republican front-runner said, at first denying what he has said both during a campaign rally and on Sunday during an interview.

At a rally in February, Trump told his supporters about protesters: "Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell -- I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise."

What he said at that rally was "if you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato" to knock the crap out of them. That was a reference to a previous rally where he was assaulted in that way. If I saw someone getting ready to throw stuff at Hillary Clinton, I'd want to knock the crap out of that person, too.

And in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" this Sunday, Trump said he had directed his staff to "look into" paying the legal fees of a supporter who sucker punched a protester at a rally last Wednesday in North Carolina.

"I've actually instructed my people to look into it, yes," Trump replied when asked about paying the fees.

Sure, he said he was looking into it. He wanted to see the entire tape and see exactly what happened. Ultimately, he hasn't agreed to pay anyone's fees.

On Tuesday, questioned again if he was "open to that," and if paying the fees meant rewarding violence, Trump said, "Well maybe so, and maybe that's why I wouldn't do it. I don't condone violence at all, and you know I looked and I watched and I'm going to make a decision."

"I certainly don't condone violence and maybe you're right and maybe that's why I wouldn't do it," he said.

[/quote]

Sounds reasonable. But, it all depends on the context. If someone was going to physically assault Bernie Sanders, then I would hope someone would physically respond, and the responder should have their legal fees paid. However, legal fees for initiating violence, clearly is not appropriate.

But, it has to be spun that Trump announced that he would pay for his supporters to beat up opposition people. That's the narrative.

[Forty Two]

What are you talking about? You just said that it's not an exercise of free speech,

Never -- I made the distinction between protesting (free speech) and disrupting another person's free speech. Like, it's o.k. to stand and protest by a street preacher annoyingly preaching Jesus from a soap box. But, it's not free speech to push him off the soap box and take the microphone from him. It's not free speech to assault him. It's not free speech for a crowd to show up and scream in his face, or rush his stage, or throw tomatos. Or tear up his signs.

and then you said it IS an exercise of free speech.

I've been quite clear on this. You are probably too infected by the progressive stack and identity politics ideas, that you can't simply make a distinction between "speaking" and conduct disrupting another person's lawful activities.

I don't give a shit about ideological adherence to free speech. The point I am making is that progress isn't made with "free speech", it's made when people get off their arses and demand it from the elites. And sometimes that requires aggressive tactics. As I said, this is the real world. Ideological adherence to free speech is a naive fantasy world.

Nobody is "ideologically adhering to free speech." At least I'm not. Look, whether Trump is the desired progress, or Sanders is the desired progress, that's all a matter of opinion. Sanders supporters and Trump supporters have the equal right to seek their progress and speak out for theirs and against the other's. Whatever tactics are lawful for one are also necessarily lawful for the other. That's not "ideological adherence" - that's common sense application of equality under the law.

It doesn't matter if it's white people or black people, trump supporters or bernie supporters -- they can speak their mind, but it's illegal to throw tomatoes, tear up signs, commandeer microphones, intimidate, threaten, assault, and the like. It's a criminal conspiracy to plot to and take a predicate act toward rushing someone's stage. I don't give a fuck whether the "cause" they're fighting for is their idea of "progress."

Are you saying that disrupting a Bernie Sanders rally or a Trump rally is free speech?

Reread what I wrote. I am clearly not calling it free speech (but it might be in certain circumstances).

I did -- so, your answer was "not necessarily, but it might be in some circumstances." You realize that we're in agreement on that basic point? The issue seems to be defining what those circumstances are.

Let me ask you this -- are those circumstances the same for disruption of a trump rally and disrupting a bernie rally? That is, if it would be "free speech" when disrupting a trump rally, would the same conduct also be free speech in disrupting a bernie rally? Or, do you make a distinction based on the merits or lack thereof of the candidate being subjected to the disruption?

[Animavore]

[Forty Two]

Love Bob Newhardt. That's one of the best insults ever.

[Forty Two]

Contested convention would be fun to watch -- http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... on-n541146

[piscator]

Donald Trump on Wednesday sounded like a man ready to take the stage as the Republican Party's nominee by acclamation at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland come mid-July, delegate math and a debate scheduled (and later canceled) for next Monday be damned.

Denying him the GOP nomination as part of a contested convention, he declared, would "disenfranchise" the millions of people he is bringing into the party and could spark riots. The only problem: Delegate math.
Trump, who flooded the morning television shows with a deluge of off-camera telephone calls after a night of big wins that knocked Florida Sen. Marco Rubio out of the race, said that even if he doesn’t amass a majority of delegates by July, the party should unite behind him anyway. But Trump has a ways to go when it comes to getting to the magic number of 1,237.

At this point in the 2012 race, which began a month earlier than this year's, Mitt Romney was already on his way to securing a simple majority of total delegate votes, though even he did not get there until a resounding victory in Texas on May 29.

“I think we'll win before getting to the convention, but I can tell you, if we didn't and if we're 20 votes short or if we're 100 short and we're at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400, because we're way ahead of everybody, I don't think you can say that we don't get it automatically. I think it would be — I think you'd have riots,” Trump told CNN's "New Day."

...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/t ... nee-220859

[Forty Two]

Oh my gawd! He said "riot"! you heard him,... he said "riot" -- so that means he is calling for riots. He wants there to be riots because he said that if the GOP establishment tries to take away the nomination from a candidate who won the primaries to the tune of 1200 delegates in a large field of candidates, that there will be a lot of people really, really upset about it and "I think you'd have riots."

And, he's right. You fucking would. It's like saying when a bunch of radical Leftists protest the G-20 conference or something that "I think there would be riots." What the fuck? It's not CALLING FOR a riot to point out that there would be one.

These kinds of criticisms of Trump are hyperbolic in the extreme, and are pathetic and sad. It's like criticizing Obama because in a 2008 speech he referred to "if they pull a knife, you pull a gun" -- Oh, my god!!!! Run!!!! Obama is inciting violence!!! [run in circles screaming] He wants people to shoot people who have knives! Oh my god!

How about when Obama said he was looking for "whose ass to kick" over an issue related to the BP oil crisis. Oh, my god! Obama wants to kick people!

In his 2008 Campaign, Obama said that people should go and "argue with your neighbors -- get in their face!" Really? Getting in someone's face! He means to intimidate neighbors by getting right up in their face!!

In 2009, Obama said "i don't want to quell any anger.... I am angry!!!" about the Wall Street debacle. All this divisive and angry rhetoric! People may actually bring guns, get in their neighbor's faces angrily and such! He's inciting people!

In 2009 regarding healtcare, Obama was "gearing up for a fight!"

During the town hall meeting protests of the summer of 2009, Senior White House adviser David Axelrod and deputy chief of staff Jim Messina told Democrat Senators, “If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard." That's unprecedented rhetoric there! Hit back twice as hard! What!?

[Animavore]

Utter nonsense when taken in context. Trump is clearly dropping a hint to his supporters. Do you honestly think any of his fans listening, when they hear him saying something like that, aren't rocking back and forth, frothing, and saying, "Too damn right we will."?

Sheer dishonesty.

[Forty Two]

Utter nonsense when taken in context. Trump is clearly dropping a hint to his supporters. Do you honestly think any of his fans listening, when they hear him saying something like that, aren't rocking back and forth, frothing, and saying, "Too damn right we will."?

Sheer dishonesty.

You only think it's "clear" that he is dropping a hint to his supporters to riot because you already think the guy wants people to riot.

Look - it wasn't Trump supporters disrupting Sanders or Clinton rallies - it was Sanders supporters and Moveon.org activists disrupting Trump.

You aren't looking at context, because if you read all of what Trump said, he was referring to what would happen if a candidate, most likely him, came close to 1237, and the establishment said to forget it, and we'll ignore the primaries, and bring in someone who never campaigned before. "I think there would be riots," he said. And, there might be - certainly uproar and people really fucking pissed off and probably street protests and lots of loud yelling.

He did not advocate for riots, call for riots or in any way suggest anyone should riot. Neither did, of course, Obama in the quotes I cited really mean that you should bring guns to fights or get, literally, in your neighbors' faces. But, the notion that it's "clear" that Trump is signalling to his supporters to riot, and that his supporters are sitting their just itching for someone to give them permission to riot, is total and complete invented horseshit -- it's all in your mind. It's in your own preconceived notion of who a Trump supporter is, which comes, very likely, from your own conceit and denigration of who you think is not worthy or is beneath you.

This is what anti-trump folks often think - Trump supporters are the unwashed hoi polloi, racist white males with no education. http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-ny ... ays-a-lot/

“For a campaign frequently depicted as offering a rallying point for the white working class, the people volunteering to help Mr. Trump here are noteworthy for their ethnic diversity,” reported the Times on Sunday. “They include a young woman who recently arrived from Peru; an immigrant from the Philippines; a 70-year-old Lakota Indian; a teenage son of Russian immigrants; a Mexican-American.”

Of course, that's not the narrative that fits for the Progressives (including most of the media), so they sit in disbelief that minorities could support Trump. But, to me, it's all too clear why they would support him. Because most people don't give a fuck about the latest craze of identity politics and politically correct safe space bullshit. Most of the common people of all stripes want fucking jobs and opportunities, and not to have the country drained by illegal immigration and loss of quality manufacturing and other enterprises here in the US because of unfair trade deals with China, Japan, India, Mexico, etc.

People need to wake up and understand that people may be uneducated and of average, give or take, intelligence, but that doesn't mean they are only motivated by baser motives of racism, sexism, xenophobia and the like. They think. They have concerns. Those concerns matter. And, bailing out giant finance companies while letting China and Japan and other countries fleece the US does not help the US, and pretending that the economy has turned around because the unemployment rate is down (reflecting a depressed number of people in the labor force) is not fooling anyone.

[Forty Two]

Utter nonsense when taken in context.

In short, the allegation that Trump called for riots is just what you stated.