GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

[Animavore]

Who gives a shit about Obama or Sanders? They're not the target of criticism here. I have issues with the way Sanders supporters have gone about things too, but it's a separate case.
The rest of your post is so full of assumptions about what you think i think about Trump supporters it's laughably ironic, given you're trying to criticise me for making assumptions on what Trump supporters think, that I can't even be bothered addressing it.

[Animavore]

Utter nonsense when taken in context.

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

He implied it. You don't know for a fact his supporters would've rioted without a hint. In fact, in another twist of irony, you're making assumptions and not giving them credit.

[Animavore]

Ever see the film Bulworth? In some small ways Trump reminds me of that. Just, Budworth gone wrong.

[Forty Two]

Utter nonsense when taken in context.

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

He implied it. You don't know for a fact his supporters would've rioted without a hint. In fact, in another twist of irony, you're making assumptions and not giving them credit.

How did he imply it? All he said was that he thought there would be riots under given circumstances. He's right. I think it's possible too.

You think Trump "implies" more than he says, because you don't like Trump. You think Obama does not imply more than he says, because you already know he's the kind of guy that wouldn't hint in such away. That's really it.

Many people have been speaking in very strong terms about the reaction of the people if the GOP establishment decides that after six months of primaries and caucuses in 50 states, where one candidate out of an initial field of about 11 has won the vast majority of states, and is shy of a "first ballot" win by only a few delegates, that Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney is going to come in and take over, not having been vetted in a single primary or caucus. I mean, this is a big, big deal. People are suggesting it can destroy the Republican party. So, is it such a stretch to think that if an event occurs that has the capacity to destroy a party that has been with us for over 150 years might cause some rioting?

Of course it might. It's obvious it might.

For fuck's sake, man. After the NCAA Basketball championship game this year, there very likely could be rioting! Oh my gosh! I've just implied that people should riot after the championship game! Oh, no!! There might be rioting at the next G20 summit on international trade, in fact I'm pretty sure there will be, because every time they have a G-whatever conference there are serious riots.

People are just taking stuff Trump says way the hell out of proportion, and suggesting that he has some evil intent, precisely because they already believe he is evil.

[Tero]

[Forty Two]

Who gives a shit about Obama or Sanders? They're not the target of criticism here.

It's a comparison, son. You are happy to read an implication where none is offered in the case of Trump, but in the case of Obama, you were sure he made no implication.

I have issues with the way Sanders supporters have gone about things too, but it's a separate case.

Just because it's a separate case does not mean comparisons aren't relevant. You plainly already believe Trump has evil intent, and therefore you think the mere mention by him of what many other people already understand -- that there could very well be rioting if the leaders of the GOP make a backroom deal to nominate a candidate who was not in the primaries -- is a call for rioting.

The rest of your post is so full of assumptions about what you think i think about Trump supporters it's laughably ironic, given you're trying to criticise me for making assumptions on what Trump supporters think, that I can't even be bothered addressing it.

Whatever -

The point is, Trump literally -- and couldn't be clearer -- just said that "if X happens, then I think there would be riots." There is no language implying he is calling for action by anyone. Listening to the context of his statement, he expounds very clearly that it is not what he wants, but it's just his opinion as to what would happen in the case of that bizarre and undemocratic eventuality. You ARE making assumptions when you claim he was "clearly" implying that he wanted a riot to occur.

[Animavore]

Yes there is language implying a call to action. It may have passed over without a word if he didn't put the idea out there. It may even pass off without incident now that he has. You're saying that it would happen anyway and Trump is just pointing that out. But what makes you think it would? Maybe no one would've thought of that without a prompt. How can you say?

Your other allegation that I "plainly believe Trump is evil" is ludicrous to me. I don't even believe in evil. I mean, that's a supernatural belief. Absurd to me.

Stop making assumptions about what I think.

[Svartalf]

Well, it was already obvious back then that it was going to happen

[Forty Two]

Yes there is language implying a call to action.

what language implies a call to action?

It may have passed over without a word if he didn't put the idea out there.

What might have passed over without a word? Nothing happened. Nobody rioted.

It may even pass off without incident now that he has. You're saying that it would happen anyway and Trump is just pointing that out.

No, I'm saying lots of people have pointed out exactly how upset voters would be if the circumstances described came to fruition. Yes, he's "just pointing that out" -- like everyone else voicing an opinion. He was fucking asked about it. You realize, the reporter asked him a question? What's the responsible thing for him to do? Say "oh, no, if the GOP leaders install a Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney as the nominee, after 6 months of the most hard fought primaries and caucuses in recent memory, with record - never before seen -- primary voter turnouts to the polls - the voters will take it in stride, knowing full well that the system worked as it's supposed to?"

Ted Cruz said that voters would "revolt." Did he really mean that there would "rise in rebellion?" LOL. How irresponsible of him, encouraging a revolution.

But what makes you think it would? Maybe no one would've thought of that without a prompt. How can you say?

Nobody would have thought that people might riot if the GOP establishment installs a candidate against the winner of the primaries?

Your other allegation that I "plainly believe Trump is evil" is ludicrous to me. I don't even believe in evil. I mean, that's a supernatural belief. Absurd to me.

Stop making assumptions about what I think.

Agreed. Then stop making assumptions about what Trump really meant, as opposed to what he said. Deal?

[Animavore]

No. No deal. And quit this breaking my comments into individual sentences to then argue against with full paragraphs, half of which don't mean shit. My paragraphs should be taken as a whole because, believe it or not, sentences are related to one another and aren't in need of disection into little fragments you can then load with assumptions to deflect from what's actually being said. You're debating style is as dishonest as a sock down the jocks

[pErvinalia]

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?

Jesus Christ. How many times do I have to say it? I'm not claiming that busting up a Trump rally is free speech.

[Forty Two]

Neither am I, so why are you arguing with me on the point?

And, before you say it, nobody is ideologically worshiping free speech here. Whoever you know that does that isn't here.

[JimC]

Yes there is language implying a call to action. It may have passed over without a word if he didn't put the idea out there. It may even pass off without incident now that he has. You're saying that it would happen anyway and Trump is just pointing that out. But what makes you think it would? Maybe no one would've thought of that without a prompt. How can you say?

Your other allegation that I "plainly believe Trump is evil" is ludicrous to me. I don't even believe in evil. I mean, that's a supernatural belief. Absurd to me.

Stop making assumptions about what I think.

More to the point, even if it did not have a chance of causing violence, the uncivilised language is the very opposite to Presidential, it has all the flavour of thuggery...

[laklak]

... as dishonest as a sock down the jocks

Dishonest is such a loaded word. I prefer to see it as advertising.

[Tyrannical]

Trump has an event in Arizona, and his supporter Sheriff Joe Arpaio is providing the security

Multiple groups are expected to protest

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County is relishing the opportunity to host Donald Trump at a rally on his own turf Saturday — and serve as the muscle at the same time.
After taking a few days off from his long streak of attention-grabbing rallies, Trump is cranking back up this weekend, and has scheduled one of his events right in the backyard of the long-serving and controversial Arizona sheriff.
Story Continued Below
“Here I’m gonna be kinda wearing two hats — in charge of the security there in the town and also participating, I would imagine, with Trump in the rally, so it makes it interesting,” Arpaio said in an interview with POLITICO, adding that it “is going to be a lot of fun taking care of business there.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/d ... z43JXXc9uf