Trump-Chicago Rally Called Off-Chaos

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/12/donald-trump-rally-called-off-in-chicago-amid-protests-violence-and-chaos

Look like the wheel have come off.

Rent a mob was out in strength

Stormee wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/12/donald-trump-rally-called-off-in-chicago-amid-protests-violence-and-chaos

Look like the wheel have come off.

Rent a mob was out in strength

Typical response to a demagogue. I think we can safely refer to them as Trump's 'brown shirts'.

Stormee wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/12/donald-trump-rally-called-off-in-chicago-amid-protests-violence-and-chaos

Look like the wheel have come off.

Rent a mob was out in strength

odd how when the left come out to protest free speech goes out the window. It's not only their speech that is free, something that on the left on both sides of the pond have difficulty grasping.

this from twitter:
This vulgarity from Trump supporters is disgusting. I heard one say "Go to hell" at a black chap that was smashing his windshield.

The Devil, You Know wrote:this from twitter:
This vulgarity from Trump supporters is disgusting. I heard one say "Go to hell" at a black chap that was smashing his windshield.

Fake! Americans don't call people "chap."

I don't think that's very fair really. Trump has a right to be heard, and the way to protest is to vote against him.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think that's very fair really. Trump has a right to be heard, and the way to protest is to vote against him.

It was Trump's call to cancel the event (though he's saying his campaign staff consulted with the Chicago Police, the police say they were not involved).

And as Rachel Maddow points out in this clip, the concept of protesting a candidate (which happens to all major candidates) has taken an ugly turn with Trump specifically because of how he's decided to handle protesters:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:this from twitter:
This vulgarity from Trump supporters is disgusting. I heard one say "Go to hell" at a black chap that was smashing his windshield.

Fake! Americans don't call people "chap."

I added the chap, so maybe not a fake american after all

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think that's very fair really. Trump has a right to be heard, and the way to protest is to vote against him.

It was Trump's call to cancel the event (though he's saying his campaign staff consulted with the Chicago Police, the police say they were not involved).

And as Rachel Maddow points out in this clip, the concept of protesting a candidate (which happens to all major candidates) has taken an ugly turn with Trump specifically because of how he's decided to handle protesters:

it seems that there are certain sections of society that seem to resort to violence as a means of protest.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think that's very fair really. Trump has a right to be heard, and the way to protest is to vote against him.

So, too, do the protesters have a right to be heard.

True, Trump has a right to run, and the voters have a right to vote against him. But that's another matter.

Raggamuffin wrote:it seems that there are certain sections of society that seem to resort to violence as a means of protest.

Not just a matter of protest, but as a matter of public policy.  The whole Iraq war was a resort to unnecessary violence.  Closer to home, Trump seems to like violence himself. How many reporters have his brown shirts roughed up...especially the women and Mexicans?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think that's very fair really. Trump has a right to be heard, and the way to protest is to vote against him.

It was Trump's call to cancel the event (though he's saying his campaign staff consulted with the Chicago Police, the police say they were not involved).

And as Rachel Maddow points out in this clip, the concept of protesting a candidate (which happens to all major candidates) has taken an ugly turn with Trump specifically because of how he's decided to handle protesters:

it seems that there are certain sections of society that seem to resort to violence as a means of protest.

First of all, those black people in your photo aren't doing anything violent.

Second of all, have you not heard that Trump has spoken about the need to beat the crap out of protesters at his rallies for several months now?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think that's very fair really. Trump has a right to be heard, and the way to protest is to vote against him.

So, too, do the protesters have a right to be heard.

True, Trump has a right to run, and the voters have a right to vote against him.  But that's another matter.

They shouldn't be protesting to the extent of disrupting rallies so that Trump is not really free to speak. If they do that, it might actually be counter-productive as some people might feel that they're trying to interfere with the democratic process and support Trump.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, too, do the protesters have a right to be heard.

True, Trump has a right to run, and the voters have a right to vote against him.  But that's another matter.

They shouldn't be protesting to the extent of disrupting rallies so that Trump is not really free to speak. If they do that, it might actually be counter-productive as some people might feel that they're trying to interfere with the democratic process and support Trump.

No one is preventing him from speaking. In fact, the only hands-on restraint I've seen throughout are from Trump brown shirts or supporters in the audience. Remember, as Marcuse said, violence always comes from the RW. Marcuse, H., Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory. It is was true with Hitler, and we see it return with Bush and Cheney.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, too, do the protesters have a right to be heard.

True, Trump has a right to run, and the voters have a right to vote against him.  But that's another matter.

They shouldn't be protesting to the extent of disrupting rallies so that Trump is not really free to speak. If they do that, it might actually be counter-productive as some people might feel that they're trying to interfere with the democratic process and support Trump.

Perhaps if people had got together and protested Hitler rallies and stopped him speaking, we might not have had the horrors of WWII.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They shouldn't be protesting to the extent of disrupting rallies so that Trump is not really free to speak. If they do that, it might actually be counter-productive as some people might feel that they're trying to interfere with the democratic process and support Trump.

Perhaps if people had got together and protested Hitler rallies and stopped him speaking, we might not have had the horrors of WWII.

Or he might have got even more support ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


Perhaps if people had got together and protested Hitler rallies and stopped him speaking, we might not have had the horrors of WWII.

Or he might have got even more support ...

How could he have got 'more' support?

'all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing'

and in the case of Germany, a whole load of good men did nothing.

I'm very glad to see people appear to have learned from that and are trying to stop the evil (because it is evil) of Trump flourishing.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Or he might have got even more support ...

How could he have got 'more' support?

Like I said, if people think that others are interfering with the process of democracy, they might start to support the person who's being prevented from speaking.

Or they might be pointed to the evil he is recommending.  So, should we have not fought Hitler, in case more people agreed with him?

Perhaps we should not speak out against murderers in case more people become murderers?

sassy wrote:'all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing'

and in the case of Germany, a whole load of good men did nothing.

I'm very glad to see people appear to have learned from that and are trying to stop the evil (because it is evil) of Trump flourishing.

All they need to do is vote against him. It wouldn't be like Germany where Hitler didn't get an absolute majority. If Trump gets the Republican nomination, he won't get to be President without an absolute majority.

It's exactly the same as Germany.  Hitler won because he built supporters that intimidated those that were against him.  Have you seen what Trump supporters are doing, and what Trump is doing, saying he wants to punch people etc.   It is exactly the same as Hitler. 

You have a moral duty to stand up and be counted against people like him.

sassy wrote:It's exactly the same as Germany.  Hitler won because he built supporters that intimidated those that were against him.  Have you seen what Trump supporters are doing, and what Trump is doing, saying he wants to punch people etc.   It is exactly the same as Hitler. 

You have a moral duty to stand up and be counted against people like him.

He didn't get an absolute majority though - he only got a simple one in Parliament, and he had to persuade the President to make him Chancellor. Trump needs an absolute majority to become President.

And?  Does that mean that people should not stand up and say he is evil.  What difference does that make?  Are people not suposed to say how evil the KKK is because they can't get elected?

sassy wrote:Perhaps we should not speak out against murderers in case more people become murderers?

Or speak out and act against Pakistani Muslim gangs of child rapists...?

Raggamuffin wrote:Like I said, if people think that others are interfering with the process of democracy, they might start to support the person who's being prevented from speaking.

Part of the process of democracy is protesting, and opposing by demonstration what people find unacceptable and offensive.  Seems to me the system is working fine, save a few criminals who actually resort to marshal violence.  But they are going to be criminals anywhere, so get them to prison or otherwise shut away.  Then carry on with democracy.

Raggamuffin wrote:All they need to do is vote against him. It wouldn't be like Germany where Hitler didn't get an absolute majority. If Trump gets the Republican nomination, he won't get to be President without an absolute majority.

Voting is encouraged as well.  Demonstrating, protesting and voting are all a part of democratic processes, as they involve the people.  That's what it is all about. Do them all.

Well look, if we had an election here, and some Tory voters disrupted a Labour election meeting, I bet there would be a load of complaints about how unfair that was.

You really have never been to a political meeting have you lol

Raggamuffin wrote:Well look, if we had an election here, and some Tory voters disrupted a Labour election meeting, I bet there would be a load of complaints about how unfair that was.

Only by the uninformed. Participatory democracy is to be encouraged. You like the neat package of totalitarianism, where there are rulers and police to tell the people to get in line and stay orderly.

That's not democracy. Democracy is sometimes, perforce, unruly...that's what it is all about.

sassy wrote:You really have never been to a political meeting have you lol

Not a Labour one, no.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Well look, if we had an election here, and some Tory voters disrupted a Labour election meeting, I bet there would be a load of complaints about how unfair that was.

Only by the uninformed.  Participatory democracy is to be encouraged.  You like the neat package of totalitarianism, where there are rulers and police to tell the people to get in line and stay orderly.

That's not democracy.  Democracy is sometimes, perforce, unruly...that's what it is all about.

It's not totalitarianism, it's common courtesy. Protest via the ballot box like normal people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Only by the uninformed.  Participatory democracy is to be encouraged.  You like the neat package of totalitarianism, where there are rulers and police to tell the people to get in line and stay orderly.

That's not democracy.  Democracy is sometimes, perforce, unruly...that's what it is all about.

It's not totalitarianism, it's common courtesy. Protest via the ballot box like normal people.

You mean stand by and let evil flourish!  Yep, you'd be one of the people who would have let Hitler do that.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not totalitarianism, it's common courtesy. Protest via the ballot box like normal people.

You mean stand by and let evil flourish!  Yep, you'd be one of the people who would have let Hitler do that.

Because I think that people should voice their opinion re an electoral candidate via the ballot box? That's quite a leap ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Only by the uninformed.  Participatory democracy is to be encouraged.  You like the neat package of totalitarianism, where there are rulers and police to tell the people to get in line and stay orderly.

That's not democracy.  Democracy is sometimes, perforce, unruly...that's what it is all about.

It's not totalitarianism, it's common courtesy. Protest via the ballot box like normal people.

It is in the root sense of the word.  It's like a clean house, with those plastic covers on the furniture.  Totally kept, but anti-people in every sense.  Completely uncomfortable (you don't use plastic covers, do you?)  Lol.

The totalitarian system is well-swept and totally clean.  But in absolute order, one must not think outside the box.  We in a democracy like thinking outside the box.  It's more creative, and better for mankind.  More answers...more possibilities.

In the case of Trump, think of it as more possibility to demonstrate his demagoguery.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not totalitarianism, it's common courtesy. Protest via the ballot box like normal people.

It is in the root sense of the word.  It's like a clean house, with those plastic covers on the furniture.  Totally kept, but anti-people in every sense.  Completely uncomfortable (you don't use plastic covers, do you?)  Lol.

The totalitarian system is well-swept and totally clean.  But in absolute order, one must not think outside the box.  We in a democracy like thinking outside the box.  It's more creative, and better for mankind.  More answers...more possibilities.

That's a non-post - ie, you're saying nothing of value, you're just waffling.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It is in the root sense of the word.  It's like a clean house, with those plastic covers on the furniture.  Totally kept, but anti-people in every sense.  Completely uncomfortable (you don't use plastic covers, do you?)  Lol.

The totalitarian system is well-swept and totally clean.  But in absolute order, one must not think outside the box.  We in a democracy like thinking outside the box.  It's more creative, and better for mankind.  More answers...more possibilities.

That's a non-post - ie, you're saying nothing of value, you're just waffling.

So you say...

But you are on the other side.  Of course you are going to say that.  It's a non sequitur.

Think in the abstract...you'll get it.  Little boxes and sheep followers are not good for any organization.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's a non-post - ie, you're saying nothing of value, you're just waffling.

So you say...

But you are on the other side.  Of course you are going to say that.  It's a non sequitur.

Think in the abstract...you'll get it.  Little boxes are not good for any organization.

It won't make a difference - I still say that if people don't like a candidate for a particular party, they are free to vote against them. Trying to force the candidate to shut up is counter-productive, anti-democracy, and rude.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


You mean stand by and let evil flourish!  Yep, you'd be one of the people who would have let Hitler do that.

Because I think that people should voice their opinion re an electoral candidate via the ballot box? That's quite a leap ...

No, because Trump is saying the same things and doing the same things as Hitler, and his supporters are exactly the same as those that supported Hitler.

World leaders compare Donald Trump to Hitler

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/77766494/world-leaders-compare-donald-trump-to-hitler

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So you say...

But you are on the other side.  Of course you are going to say that.  It's a non sequitur.

Think in the abstract...you'll get it.  Little boxes are not good for any organization.

It won't make a difference - I still say that if people don't like a candidate for a particular party, they are free to vote against them. Trying to force the candidate to shut up is counter-productive, anti-democracy, and rude.

They are free to vote for him, or against.

Demonstrating is just something else. It's not in lieu of, but in addition to voting. I like democracy, just not the angry violence of the right-wing. But then, that's precisely why I'm not RW.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So you say...

But you are on the other side.  Of course you are going to say that.  It's a non sequitur.

Think in the abstract...you'll get it.  Little boxes are not good for any organization.

It won't make a difference - I still say that if people don't like a candidate for a particular party, they are free to vote against them. Trying to force the candidate to shut up is counter-productive, anti-democracy, and rude.

Not fighting evil is morally wrong and trumps your reasons any day of the week.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It won't make a difference - I still say that if people don't like a candidate for a particular party, they are free to vote against them. Trying to force the candidate to shut up is counter-productive, anti-democracy, and rude.

Not fighting evil is morally wrong and trumps your reasons any day of the week.

In your opinion ...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Like I said, if people think that others are interfering with the process of democracy, they might start to support the person who's being prevented from speaking.

Part of the process of democracy is protesting, and opposing by demonstration what people find unacceptable and offensive.  Seems to me the system is working fine, save a few criminals who actually resort to marshal violence.  But they are going to be criminals anywhere, so get them to prison or otherwise shut away.  Then carry on with democracy.

Raggamuffin wrote:All they need to do is vote against him. It wouldn't be like Germany where Hitler didn't get an absolute majority. If Trump gets the Republican nomination, he won't get to be President without an absolute majority.

Voting is encouraged as well.  Demonstrating, protesting and voting are all a part of democratic processes, as they involve the people.  That's what it is all about.  Do them all.

No... the democratic process is supposed to be constructive of a more civilised way of things... where people are allowed to freely voice views and opinions and where the people are allowed to freely listen to all/some/none of it as they choose, and then freely decide and vote for who/what they agree with!!!


The whole idea of elections being 'free and fair' etc, is that it shouldn't include/allow any 'bully boy' hostility in the form of rent-a-mob gangs of one view going out deliberately to attack/disrupt/intimidate/interfere with/shout down or otherwise prevent another perfectly legitimate group from voicing their opinions or being heard!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Part of the process of democracy is protesting, and opposing by demonstration what people find unacceptable and offensive.  Seems to me the system is working fine, save a few criminals who actually resort to marshal violence.  But they are going to be criminals anywhere, so get them to prison or otherwise shut away.  Then carry on with democracy.



Voting is encouraged as well.  Demonstrating, protesting and voting are all a part of democratic processes, as they involve the people.  That's what it is all about.  Do them all.

No... the democratic process is supposed to be constructive of a more civilised way of things... where people are allowed to freely voice views and opinions and where the people are allowed to freely listen to all/some/none of it as they choose, and then freely decide and vote for who/what they agree with!!!

Lol...the idea of an unruly democracy frightens you, I can see.     In America, with some 50-states, we have experimented with all forms of democracy.  It can go from highly restricted to open and wild.  Some of those town meetings in New York or Vermont could be wild.  And, keep in mind that the KKK often acted as a political party...imagine order in that election!!  Lol.

With the First Amendment, America has settled on 'open redress to the government' as a fit and proper means of expressing the peoples' sentiments, if not their will.  Of course, elections are also a means of telling the government what you want.

Tommy Monk wrote:The whole idea of elections being 'free and fair' etc, is that it shouldn't include/allow any 'bully boy' hostility in the form of rent-a-mob gangs of one view going out deliberately to attack/disrupt/intimidate/interfere with/shout down or otherwise prevent another perfectly legitimate group from voicing their opinions or being heard!!!

Meh...a whole lot of adjectives in there that mean nothing.  Maybe you're used to the "pip-pip" British properly-proper formality.  We're a little behind over here.  We like to party down, dude.  

sassy wrote:Perhaps we should not speak out against murderers in case more people become murderers?

you have an absolute right to speak out against anyone. you dont have a right to stop them speaking out as well

The Devil, You Know wrote:

sassy wrote:Perhaps we should not speak out against murderers in case more people become murderers?

you ahve an absolute right to speak out against anyone. you dont have a right to stop them speaking out as well

Yeah, but that's not happening. Trump canceled Chicago because he saw some bad press coming if there was trouble. If America begins to associate his campaign with rowdyism, and sees him instigating all the anger--which he no doubt does--he will be flushed like a bad turd come election day.

Did you see that debate yesterday? Weren't they good little boys? I think Republicans are beginning to recognize that America sees them as a joke. Too late...but they seem to be getting it.

sassy wrote:And?  Does that mean that people should not stand up and say he is evil.  What difference does that make?  Are people not suposed to say how evil the KKK is because they can't get elected?

what do you mean they cant get elected lots of democrats have been elected over the years.

http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics.

it may explain why, despite years of democratic administrations the black fella is still little better off.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It won't make a difference - I still say that if people don't like a candidate for a particular party, they are free to vote against them. Trying to force the candidate to shut up is counter-productive, anti-democracy, and rude.

Not fighting evil is morally wrong and trumps your reasons any day of the week.

I dont recall you being so vocal when assad started slaughtering protestors 5 years ago. Wrong sort of evil?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

sassy wrote:


Not fighting evil is morally wrong and trumps your reasons any day of the week.

I dont recall you being so vocal when assad started slaughtering protestors 5 years ago. Wrong sort of evil?

Then your memory is bloody useless. Ask smelly who sides with Assad. As I have said a million times, there are no good sides in Syria. I dread to think how many times smelly denied Assad has killed more civilians than anyone else there. Now back to the thread. Yep you would have not put your nose above the parapet when hitler was making his speeches. Can't stop free speech you would have whined.