Trump supporter sucker-punches black protester at Trump rally

First topic message reminder :

At last night’s Trump rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, a group of protestors were being peacefully led out by security when a Trump supporter stood up and sucker-punched one of the protestors as he was walking by. The unprovoked attack was captured on video from multiple angles.

The Washington Post spoke with Rakeem Jones, the man who was hit, over the phone earlier this morning:

“Boom, he caught me,” Jones told The Washington Post in a telephone interview. “After I get it, before I could even gain my thoughts, I’m on the ground getting escorted out. Now I’m waking up this morning looking at the news and seeing me getting hit again.”

Jones said he and four friends — a “diverse” group that included a white woman, a Muslim, and a gay man, had gone to the rally as a “social experiment.” He said the woman with them started shouting once Trump’s speech began.

***

In the video above, it is readily apparent that at least one security guard watched the attack take place before choosing to detain Jones. We have yet to see any evidence indicating that the man who punched Jones was even asked to leave.

http://gawker.com/trump-supporter-sucker-punches-protestor-at-north-carol-1764017993

Tommy Monk wrote:If they are going with the intent to disrupt others rights to freely gather and freely speak then they are doing so against the constitutional rights of everyone!


They are not above the rules just because they personally don't like what some others may be PERFECTLY LEGALLY meeting up and talking about!!!


This self righteous belief of some that they are above the law and can trample over the rights and freedoms of other law abiding people, just because they don't like it, is an affront to the principles of the rights and freedoms of everyone... and exactly how fascist dictatorships start...!


What is trump saying that is so bad...!?


He wants to strengthen the already existing border line with mexico and enforce the already existing laws on preventing illegal immigration, drug trafficking and people smuggling from there...?

He wants to try to protect usa citizens by trying to prevent dangerous Muslim terrorists from entering the USA and killing them...?


If he wasn't saying what huge numbers of USA people wanted then he wouldn't be so popular!!!


And if you are going to insult trump and his popular ideas and beliefs... then you are also insulting the huge numbers of normal everyday American people who support him!!!


Are you really saying that such a large section of American people are evil and are hitlerite Nazis. ..!?

There you go again...hung up on rules. Relax and enjoy life. You don't have to be, or have a dictator every step of the way.

Rules are for when it's necessary and useful. The idea of rules goes against the grain of all-power-to-the-people...the spirit of democracy. Relax...rules for the sake of rules are a waste of time.

Trump is saying some outrageous things. He needs to be told, and that's what is happening. Later, when he is turned into a fool at the voting booth, he can mull over what the people told him and how he was wrong.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No it's not.  It's a criticism of a certain type of food.  But the food is not linked to anyone or anything, save that in the New World they discovered corn, and people found it very useful cracked and dried, to carry and eat when traveling.

It's not even like snails or frogs and French people.  The redneck bounty-hunters could be any race or ethnicity.  It's what they did, not who they were.

It's a racial slur Quill.

No it's not. Not even close. It doesn't make sense as anything to do with race.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's a racial slur Quill.

No it's not.  Not even close.  It doesn't make sense as anything to do with race.

So in what context did you use the word Quill? Were you referring to non-white people when you mentioned "crackers"?

They get the point as it applies to crackers and rednecks. Southerners generally live within their own ideology, and have no independent moral ground. This individual spoke of killing...so it's as easy for him as powdering a baby's behind. Obviously you caught that part, so my mission is complete.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No it's not.  Not even close.  It doesn't make sense as anything to do with race.

So in what context did you use the word Quill? Were you referring to non-white people when you mentioned "crackers"?

They get the point as it applies to crackers and rednecks. Southerners generally live within their own ideology, and have no independent moral ground. This individual spoke of killing...so it's as easy for him as powdering a baby's behind. Obviously you caught that part, so my mission is complete.

In some instances Blacks ate a lot of corn.  They still do.  Grits are a corn product.

But the term 'cracker' connotes the bounty-hunters who chased down blacks under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.  Later it came to connote their families and such. Ironically, some of those bounty-hunters were black themselves, which must have caused some confusion come round up time.  Lol. A lot of cowboys were blacks, and certainly cowboys would, and did qualify as crackers.

I can close my eyes and see blacks being called crackers.  It's probably not common to use the word that way, as southerners probably have some more choice words for blacks.  My wife's family, who are white, came from New Orleans and when we visited them I found they used the term nigger quite freely and openly.

But if you're looking to tie the meaning of cracker to whites, that ain't necessarily the case.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So in what context did you use the word Quill? Were you referring to non-white people when you mentioned "crackers"?

In some instances Blacks ate a lot of corn.  They still do.  Grits are a corn product.

But the term 'cracker' connotes the bounty-hunters who chased down blacks under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.  Later it came to connote their families and such.  Ironically, some of those bounty-hunters were black themselves, which must have caused some confusion come round up time.  Lol. A lot of cowboys were blacks, and certainly cowboys would, and did qualify as crackers.

I can close my eyes and see blacks being called crackers.  It's probably not common to use the word that way, as southerners probably have some more choice words for blacks.  My wife's family, who are white, came from New Orleans and when we visited them I found they used the term nigger quite freely and openly.

But if you're looking to tie the meaning of cracker to whites, that ain't necessarily the case.

You wouldn't use it to describe a black person - come off it. You use it to describe white people, and not a good way.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:If they are going with the intent to disrupt others rights to freely gather and freely speak then they are doing so against the constitutional rights of everyone!


They are not above the rules just because they personally don't like what some others may be PERFECTLY LEGALLY meeting up and talking about!!!


This self righteous belief of some that they are above the law and can trample over the rights and freedoms of other law abiding people, just because they don't like it, is an affront to the principles of the rights and freedoms of everyone... and exactly how fascist dictatorships start...!


What is trump saying that is so bad...!?


He wants to strengthen the already existing border line with mexico and enforce the already existing laws on preventing illegal immigration, drug trafficking and people smuggling from there...?

He wants to try to protect usa citizens by trying to prevent dangerous Muslim terrorists from entering the USA and killing them...?


If he wasn't saying what huge numbers of USA people wanted then he wouldn't be so popular!!!


And if you are going to insult trump and his popular ideas and beliefs... then you are also insulting the huge numbers of normal everyday American people who support him!!!


Are you really saying that such a large section of American people are evil and are hitlerite Nazis. ..!?

A lot of valid points there Tommy.

Thank you Raggs...!


What happened to the old adage... "I may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it!"...!?


Some people today seem to want to disagree and fight to stop you saying it... just because THEY don't personally like it...!!!


Fascist dictatorships are made from the latter school of thought... aren't they...!?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:If they are going with the intent to disrupt others rights to freely gather and freely speak then they are doing so against the constitutional rights of everyone!


They are not above the rules just because they personally don't like what some others may be PERFECTLY LEGALLY meeting up and talking about!!!


This self righteous belief of some that they are above the law and can trample over the rights and freedoms of other law abiding people, just because they don't like it, is an affront to the principles of the rights and freedoms of everyone... and exactly how fascist dictatorships start...!


What is trump saying that is so bad...!?


He wants to strengthen the already existing border line with mexico and enforce the already existing laws on preventing illegal immigration, drug trafficking and people smuggling from there...?

He wants to try to protect usa citizens by trying to prevent dangerous Muslim terrorists from entering the USA and killing them...?


If he wasn't saying what huge numbers of USA people wanted then he wouldn't be so popular!!!


And if you are going to insult trump and his popular ideas and beliefs... then you are also insulting the huge numbers of normal everyday American people who support him!!!


Are you really saying that such a large section of American people are evil and are hitlerite Nazis. ..!?

There you go again...hung up on rules.  Relax and enjoy life.  You don't have to be, or have a dictator every step of the way.

Rules are for when it's necessary and useful.  The idea of rules goes against the grain of all-power-to-the-people...the spirit of democracy.  Relax...rules for the sake of rules are a waste of time.

Trump is saying some outrageous things.  He needs to be told, and that's what is happening.  Later, when he is turned into a fool at the voting booth, he can mull over what the people told him and how he was wrong.

Rules are for everyone... not just to be ignored when it is against those who you personally don't agree with!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A lot of valid points there Tommy.

Thank you Raggs...!


What happened to the old adage... "I may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it!"...!?


Some people today seem to want to disagree and fight to stop you saying it... just because THEY don't personally like it...!!!


Fascist dictatorships are made from the latter school of thought... aren't they...!?

Yes. I find it a bit weird that Trump has a lot of support, but he's been pretty upfront about his opinions, so people can't say that he's taken anyone in. If people are voting for him, they must like what he's saying.

Brits are soooo proper.  You guys like to queue, too, doncha?  'Stay in line/'  'Mind the gap'.  Rules are the British way, I suppose.

Us?  We were born under a different sky.  We like to streeeeetch, and even to fart in bed.  Lol.

Same with our democracy.  We like to get down, boy!  Lol.  Seriously, we have a First Amendment, with freedom of speech, association, thought, and religion, which includes the right to assemble and redress the government.  You Brits don't have that, and suffer under laws that make free speech criminal in nature.  Likewise...perhaps y'all are used to more restrictions on assembly.

Anyway, we're talking about America over here, and Donald Trump rallies.  This the way we do it, like it or not.  It works rather well.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:If they are going with the intent to disrupt others rights to freely gather and freely speak then they are doing so against the constitutional rights of everyone!


They are not above the rules just because they personally don't like what some others may be PERFECTLY LEGALLY meeting up and talking about!!!


This self righteous belief of some that they are above the law and can trample over the rights and freedoms of other law abiding people, just because they don't like it, is an affront to the principles of the rights and freedoms of everyone... and exactly how fascist dictatorships start...!


What is trump saying that is so bad...!?


He wants to strengthen the already existing border line with mexico and enforce the already existing laws on preventing illegal immigration, drug trafficking and people smuggling from there...?

He wants to try to protect usa citizens by trying to prevent dangerous Muslim terrorists from entering the USA and killing them...?


If he wasn't saying what huge numbers of USA people wanted then he wouldn't be so popular!!!


And if you are going to insult trump and his popular ideas and beliefs... then you are also insulting the huge numbers of normal everyday American people who support him!!!


Are you really saying that such a large section of American people are evil and are hitlerite Nazis. ..!?

There you go again...hung up on rules.  Relax and enjoy life.  You don't have to be, or have a dictator every step of the way.

Rules are for when it's necessary and useful.  The idea of rules goes against the grain of all-power-to-the-people...the spirit of democracy.  Relax...rules for the sake of rules are a waste of time.

Trump is saying some outrageous things.  He needs to be told, and that's what is happening.  Later, when he is turned into a fool at the voting booth, he can mull over what the people told him and how he was wrong.

Hung up on rules...!?

Dictator...!?

Rules are only for when it is necessary and useful...!?


The rules for democratic process go against the grain of democracy...!?


If, as you say, and as YOU think, trump is saying some outrageous things and needs to be told... then the place for that IS at the ballot box by you not voting for him!!!


But just because YOU don't like what he says... YOU don't have the right to shut him up and stop him saying it or to stop others from hearing it and making up their own minds!!!


Who are you to stop others talking or listening or to tell others what they are allowed to think...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:If, as you say, and as YOU think, trump is saying some outrageous things and needs to be told... then the place for that IS at the ballot box by you not voting for him!!!

Meh...or in protests. It's all part of the process.

Tommy Monk wrote:But just because YOU don't like what he says... YOU don't have the right to shut him up and stop him saying it or to stop others from hearing it and making up their own minds!!!

Nobody has shut him up. He was in Cleveland today saying the same outrageous things. But...he's getting the message.

Tommy Monk wrote:Who are you to stop others talking or listening or to tell others what they are allowed to think...!?

Nobody's stopping anything. As I say, he was in Cleveland today, flapping away.

What is prohibited is physical violence, such as was demonstrated by the Trump supporters in North Carolina. Violence begets violence and then there is mob rule.

But that's for Trump to live with. People (voters) know where that sort of thing is coming from, and it's just creating a bad rap for the RW, and the Republicans specifically.

Original Quill wrote:Brits are soooo proper.  You guys like to queue, too, doncha?  'Stay in line/'  'Mind the gap'.  Rules are the British way, I suppose.

Us?  We were born under a different sky.  We like to streeeeetch, and even to fart in bed.  Lol.

Same with our democracy.  We like to get down, boy!  Lol.  Seriously, we have a First Amendment, with freedom of speech, association, thought, and religion, which includes the right to assemble and redress the government.  You Brits don't have that, and suffer under laws that make free speech criminal in nature.  Likewise...perhaps y'all are used to more restrictions on assembly.

Anyway, we're talking about America over here, and Donald Trump rallies.  This the way we do it, like it or not.  It works rather well.

No... we don't 'like' to queue and it's not a rule of law or constitution either... we do it because we like the fairness and equality of it, the civilised peacefulness of it, the resulting positive social interaction aspect of it with the courtesy/mutual respect shown to each other while doing it... and of course we like the the simple practicality and efficiency of it too...!


And we have plenty of laws on freedom of speech/assembly etc...

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-11-right-protest-and-freedom-association


And this is also within the law...


Article 11 is a qualified right and as such the right to protest and the freedom of association may be limited so long as the limitation:

is prescribed by law;
is necessary and proportionate;

and pursues a legitimate aim, namely:

the interests of national security or public safety;
the prevention of disorder or crime;
the protection of health or morals;
or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others

The Magna Carta

The Magna Carta was written in 1215 and signed into law by King John I of England. This important charter was the first legal document that limited the power of the monarchy and ensured that kings and queens would be bound by the law. Although the Magna Carta did not guarantee freedom of speech, it began a tradition of civil rights in Britain that laid the foundation for the first Bill of Rights, which would be passed more than 400 years later.

British Bill of Rights

The British Bill of Rights was written in 1689 and granted freedom of speech in Parliament. This was the first instance in history that any form of freedom of speech was codified into law. The British Bill of Rights granted wide-sweeping freedoms to British citizens and was extremely influential throughout the Western world. It was an inspiration for both the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the United States Constitution.

http://classroom.synonym.com/did-freedom-speech-start-13646.html

Tommy Monk wrote:the civilised peacefulness of it, the resulting positive social interaction aspect of it with the courtesy/mutual respect shown to each other while doing it...

Sounds like a British tea party to me.  Lol.

I’m fuckin’ with you tommy.  When I say the British like rules, I mean very much what you outline above…a kind of spirit of order and regular procedures.

We don’t seem to have that instinct, exactly.  Rather, we have a political system that keeps all that in order for us.  It’s a two tier system, which seems to be the major stumbling for Brits to understand.  

On the top tier, we have the rules of the Constitution…a document meaning, how we are ‘constituted’.  These are relatively permanent structural components of our political society, that can only be changed by an amendment process that generally takes 10- or 15-years or longer.  Constitutional provisions are more-or-less written in stone.  They are, for example, freedom of speech, assembly, press, religion, or due process of law, equal protection of law, in addition to the three branches of government and what they do.  

In the UK you have no such working document.  Oh yes, you have your Magna Carta and Bill or Rights of England, or the  Declaration of Arbroath of Scotland, but these are not working documents as is our Constitution.  Rather, they are kinda spiritual documents.

On the second tier, we have laws…which are the policies that are made by legislatures, interpreted and sometimes ameliorated by courts, and sometimes framed by executive orders.  The UK has laws framed by your Parliament, but there is no written constitution.  As I say, the British constitution is covered by a fierce code of conduct, which governs what is proper and orderly.

We do have inviolable rules of order, but they are constitutional provisions.  They are written down.  They are comparable to your code of conduct, but they exist in reality, not in spirituality.  Speech, religion, due process of law, equality and so forth, are all provisions written down in a document.

Politics in the US generally deal with policy issues: legislation.  Obamacare, a war bill, immigration, the Patriot Act…these are all pieces of legislation.  Politicians generally talk about what they will do, meaning what policies will they pursue and what laws they will write.

Trump, like your Brit, has very little understanding of the two tiers of rules in the US.  As a consequence, he goes on in very sloppy fashion, talking about what he will do…with no regard for what is a legislative possibility, and what is a constitutional transgression.  As a result, it’s either complete bullshit, or he’s actually planning on structural changes in our country that are unacceptable to the majority.  And if he does do them, without going through the amendment process, then he’s planning on a complete coup of the USA.  When I say that is unacceptable, I mean that is flat out un-American.  That’s why he rouses so much ire.

And then of course there’s all the insults.  All women are menstruating bitches, all Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, all disabled people are lazy freeloaders, anyone who became a POW during war is a loser…and so on, and on.

So in the minds of so many, Trump is either un-American or he is planning a coup.  So what happens?  Duh…there are beaucoup demonstrations at every one of his rallies.  Those demonstrations are well within the scope of proper redress/free speech under the First Amendment.  But Trump people start these episodes of violence, which are outside the scope of proper order under the Constitution.  That divide is what he doesn’t understand, and apparently the Brits don’t grasp as well. What the demonstrators are doing is perfectly proper in the US; what Trump and his followers do in response, is not.

So now you think trump should have to be following some 'rules'...!?

While you previously dismissed the need for any rules...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:The Magna Carta

The Magna Carta was written in 1215 and signed into law by King John I of England. This important charter was the first legal document that limited the power of the monarchy and ensured that kings and queens would be bound by the law. Although the Magna Carta did not guarantee freedom of speech, it began a tradition of civil rights in Britain that laid the foundation for the first Bill of Rights, which would be passed more than 400 years later.

British Bill of Rights

The British Bill of Rights was written in 1689 and granted freedom of speech in Parliament. This was the first instance in history that any form of freedom of speech was codified into law. The British Bill of Rights granted wide-sweeping freedoms to British citizens and was extremely influential throughout the Western world. It was an inspiration for both the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the United States Constitution.

http://classroom.synonym.com/did-freedom-speech-start-13646.html

Er....
The British Bill of Rights  ?

we don`t have
A British Bill of Rights do we


so whats this about

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/suncolumnists/6864901/We-ask-why-British-Bill-of-Rights-still-not-in-sight.html

Tommy Monk wrote:So now you think trump should have to be following some 'rules'...!?

While you previously dismissed the need for any rules...!?

Like I said, there are two tiers of rules.  The higher one--the Constitution--is inviolable.  Trump is fixing to violate the Constitution.  He's openly saying so.  Exclude Muslims?  What about freedom of religion?  Export Mexicans?  What about equal protection of the laws?  Women, blacks and the disabled?  He's threatening to walk all over constitutional rights every which way.  And indeed, he's already doing so with his brown shirt bully boys.  

Remember, demonstrations and speech are lawful and acceptable; physical violence southern style is not.

Protect usa citizens and deport illegal immigrants... nothing wrong with that! !!

Tommy Monk wrote:Protect usa citizens and deport illegal immigrants... nothing wrong with that! !!

Most of the people on Trump's target list are citizens, or otherwise here legally.

Tommy Monk wrote:Protect usa citizens and deport illegal immigrants... nothing wrong with that! !!

Except it's not a political theory. It's not a framework for government. It's only a form of destruction you are advocating.

Here's a candidate willing to throw out the entire system of law and order, only to produce mayhem supposedly to "protect" and "deport". It's a contradiction at its very core: how can you protect anything without law and order??

Tommy, you are not thinking things through. You want to break the Constitution in order to beat a direct path to what you want. But you forget, once you wear that path your adversary can use it too. You want to ignore the Constitution and deport Mexicans. But once you establish the precedent that the Constitution is worthless, then your adversary can use that to, say, give citizenship to 20-million more Mexicans...or, heaven forbid, maybe Muslims. After all, keep in mind you were the one who said the Constitution is worthless.

I'm not advocating anything... bit you certainly are waffling and flip flopping about again...!

sassy wrote:

Cass wrote:Apologist for southern racism? Yeah ok.

Pretend to be an American? Hmmm guess the birth certificate and passport are wrong then. Oh well.


Adios.

He's got to be kidding!

You are not, and would never be an apologist for racism from anywhere, and NOT AMERICAN.  Quill you really have lost it!

No idea. Cant be bothered anymore but thanks for your nice words. X

Cass wrote:

sassy wrote:


He's got to be kidding!

You are not, and would never be an apologist for racism from anywhere, and NOT AMERICAN.  Quill you really have lost it!

No idea. Cant be bothered anymore but thanks for your nice words. X

You are so welcome, it's only the truth.

Apparently Trump is now saying he's going to pay the legal fees for the man who threw the punch!

Pantomime politics... quickly descending into complete farce...


Knee jerk/dog whistle type waffle and propaganda is rife... that is why I'm not really interested in the charade... and why I previously asked if any candidates actually had any real policies...

And why you were told in no uncertain terms that they had, but you were too bone idle to find out about them.

Not at all... I was trying to highlight the fact that the whole 'debate' had been turned into a farcical charade of epic pantomime proportions and was trying to get people here to realise it and to try to get things a little bit more 'back on topic'...!


But maybe you are a little bit too thick to realise that...!?

It was on topic Tommy.  I had done that by talking about Trump paying the legal fees for the man who did the punching.

It is on pantomime... not on topic of actual policies...

sassy wrote:Apparently Trump is now saying he's going to pay the legal fees for the man who threw the punch!

Yes, Trump has said that before.  That is why I suggest he is the one who is paying people to show up and make trouble.  He openly says he will pay for the fines...an open statement of value for violence, innit?

Dean's claim that someone is paying opposing demonstrators, is unsubstantiated and lacks a source or a premise.

Tommy Monk wrote:Pantomime politics... quickly descending into complete farce...


Knee jerk/dog whistle type waffle and propaganda is rife...that is why I'm not really interested in the charade... and why I previously asked if any candidates actually had any real policies...

You sure invest a lot of words in the discussion.  I suspect you care more than you are willing to admit.  In fact, I think you care enough that you floated an idea, which then backfired on you (see my post above).  Hence, the claimed indifference.

I would be interested in the actual policies and the political discourse... not interested in the pantomime and charade that it seems to have lowered to...

Tommy Monk wrote:I would be interested in the actual policies and the political discourse... not interested in the pantomime and charade that it seems to have lowered to...

Fair enough. What does that mean...actual? I suspect that qualifier hides a lot of political theory in it, eh? Also, pantomime and charade.

You apparently have a dichotomy in mind between what is, in your view, legitimate and what is not legitimate, and you need to share that with us.

This I picked up today from Yahoo News: Breitbart News' Michelle Fields and her editor, Ben Shapiro, have resigned over a dispute with management that the story of her beating by the Trump campaign manger be suppressed.  Michelle Fields is the female reporter for conservative Breitbart News, who was beat up by Donald Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

Yahoo News wrote:Breitbart News reporter Michelle Fields and editor-at-large Ben Shapiro resigned on Sunday due to frustrations with their company's response to an alleged assault on Fields by a top aide to Donald Trump. Fields, who has claimed that she was yanked and bruised by Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, and Shapiro, one of the site's top editors, told BuzzFeed late Sunday night that they would be leaving the company. "Today I informed the management at Breitbart News of my immediate resignation," Fields said. "I do not believe Breitbart News has adequately stood by me during the events of the past week and because of that I believe it is now best for us to part ways."

["Fields recounted in a post for Breitbart how Lewandowski allegedly grabbed her by the arm and yanked her away as she attempted to ask Trump a question after a news conference in Florida. The encounter left finger-shaped bruises on the 28-year-old reporter’s arm. The Post’s Ben Terris, who witnessed the incident, has reported that Lewandowski was the ..."]

Apparently, Breitbart News has issued orders to staffers to 'shut up' about the incident, and stop defending Fields:

Yahoo News wrote:Breitbart senior editor-at-large Joel Pollak ordered staffers in an internal chatroom to stop defending Michelle Fields, the staffer who was allegedly manhandled by Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. ...

This immediately delegitimizes Breitbart as an objective news service. Why is it that conservatives are always trying to substitute authority for truth...even in a news organization, FGS?

Tommy Monk wrote:I would be interested in the actual policies and the political discourse... not interested in the pantomime and charade that it seems to have lowered to...

Then might I suggest you go on the threads that are discussing policies, this one was particularly about the amount of violence Trump and his supporters use.

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:Apparently Trump is now saying he's going to pay the legal fees for the man who threw the punch!

Yes, Trump has said that before.  That is why I suggest he is the one who is paying people to show up and make trouble.  He openly says he will pay for the fines...an open statement of value for violence, innit?

Dean's claim that someone is paying opposing demonstrators, is unsubstantiated and lacks a source or a premise.

For a candidate for President to actually be paying the fines of people who commit violence in his name is scandalous.

Original Quill wrote:This I picked up today from Yahoo News: Breitbart News' Michelle Fields and her editor, Ben Shapiro, have resigned over a dispute with management that the story of her beating by the Trump campaign manger be suppressed.  Michelle Fields is the female reporter for conservative Breitbart News, who was beat up by Donald Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

Yahoo News wrote:Breitbart News reporter Michelle Fields and editor-at-large Ben Shapiro resigned on Sunday due to frustrations with their company's response to an alleged assault on Fields by a top aide to Donald Trump. Fields, who has claimed that she was yanked and bruised by Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, and Shapiro, one of the site's top editors, told BuzzFeed late Sunday night that they would be leaving the company. "Today I informed the management at Breitbart News of my immediate resignation," Fields said. "I do not believe Breitbart News has adequately stood by me during the events of the past week and because of that I believe it is now best for us to part ways."

["Fields recounted in a post for Breitbart how Lewandowski allegedly grabbed her by the arm and yanked her away as she attempted to ask Trump a question after a news conference in Florida. The encounter left finger-shaped bruises on the 28-year-old reporter’s arm. The Post’s Ben Terris, who witnessed the incident, has reported that Lewandowski was the ..."]

Apparently, Breitbart News has issued orders to staffers to 'shut up' about the incident, and stop defending Fields:

Yahoo News wrote:Breitbart senior editor-at-large Joel Pollak ordered staffers in an internal chatroom to stop defending Michelle Fields, the staffer who was allegedly manhandled by Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. ...

This immediately delegitimizes Breitbart as an objective news service.  Why is it that conservatives are always trying to substitute authority for truth...even in a news organization, FGS?

Not allowed to talk about an attack on one of their journalists!   What the hell is going on.