Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
did you read this article? it is all based on him saying he might pay the legal fees, furthermore his statement of attack is if you see someone going to throw a tomato at you, so i repeat did you read the article?
IronWarLeg wrote: Here is another, with video of him saying it for easy convenience.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for the record, that took literally 5 seconds, googling the following: "trump says he will pay legal fees".
I remember an age old adage in regards to making this reply: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
this goes back to the other link, so this is your whole arguments for how Trump said to attack protesters? your evidence fu is weak, and love how you made that last added statement since you obviously realized your evidence was weak.
I go by facts, did trump supporters attack Protesters in San Jose? no, did those protesters attack Supporters just trying to get in and out of the rally? yes.
From the article:
"At a rally on the day of the Iowa caucuses this year, Donald Trump told the audience that he'd been warned about protesters with tomatoes in the audience.
"So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise.""
I didn't realize that the goal post was to be moved to only be in regards to the protesters in San Jose. This isn't weak evidence, this is a direct quote from the Donald's mouth inciting violence against any possible trouble makers in his audience, and in the same breath offering to cover any legal fees. The following quote: " I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise" doesn't sound like might to me, but what do I know?
so if you see someone ready to throw something at you will you just sit there and allow them too? you will do nothing? the point is he didn't say to attack innocent protesters, he said to knock out someone ready to assault someone, big freaking difference, unlike the protesters who will attack you if you just support someone. furthermore I do not condone that lone individual who attacked a protester at Trump's rally by hitting him, but on the other hand big differance between lone person and mobs of people.
furthermore the above incident with the tomatoes comes back to defend themselves. Trump did not say if you see a protester attack them, eh said if you see them about to throw a tomato.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/06 16:57:13
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Jihadin wrote: Trump is not a politician so I doubt he would condemned the violence during protests. Since the perception of the protestors are Dem supporters it works in his favor. If you think about it. I have not seen any ads promoting Trump for POTUS yet.
That's right. Trump has endorsed violence at his rallies.
Yet Trump supporters aren't committing the amount and level of violence that anti Trump protestors (regardless of their political affiliation). So it seems that Trump's endorsement of violence isn't leading to violence while people's disdain for Trump is directly leading to criminal acts of violence.
Trump's endorsement of violence and/or self defense do absolutely nothing to mitigate the unjustifiable acts of violence being commited by anti Trump protestors.
Prestor Jon wrote:Yet Trump supporters aren't committing the amount and level of violence that anti Trump protestors (regardless of their political affiliation). So it seems that Trump's endorsement of violence isn't leading to violence while people's disdain for Trump is directly leading to criminal acts of violence.
Trump's endorsement of violence and/or self defense do absolutely nothing to mitigate the unjustifiable acts of violence being commited by anti Trump protestors.
Agreed. Trump supporters generally don't show up to Sanders' rallies and make complete fools of themselves (why on earth would they?). Sanders supporters do show up to Trump rallies and make complete fools of themselves.
People will criticize Trump's "calls for violence."
I tell you what:
If someone acted like a Sanders supporter in your home, you might just commit the kinds of "violence" that Trump seems to be in favor of (forcible removal).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/06 17:18:07
Prestor Jon wrote:Yet Trump supporters aren't committing the amount and level of violence that anti Trump protestors (regardless of their political affiliation). So it seems that Trump's endorsement of violence isn't leading to violence while people's disdain for Trump is directly leading to criminal acts of violence.
Trump's endorsement of violence and/or self defense do absolutely nothing to mitigate the unjustifiable acts of violence being commited by anti Trump protestors.
Agreed. Trump supporters generally don't show up to Sanders' rallies and make complete fools of themselves (why on earth would they?). Sanders supporters do show up to Trump rallies and make complete fools of themselves.
People will criticize Trump's "calls for violence."
I tell you what:
If someone acted like a Sanders supporter in your home, you might just commit the kinds of "violence" that Trump seems to be in favor of (forcible removal).
I don't think every Sanders Supporter commits acts of violence...
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
Tactical_Spam wrote:I don't think every Sanders Supporter commits acts of violence...
No. It would be absolutely silly to think that.
The people who actually bother leaving their homes (to protest, to attend rallies, or anything of the sort) are likely in the slim minority of total "supporters" for any given politician.
When I say "sanders supporters," I'm specifically referring to the subset who show up to Trump rallies and act like uneducated, uncivilized, unenculturated thugs.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/06 17:23:08
Prestor Jon wrote:Yet Trump supporters aren't committing the amount and level of violence that anti Trump protestors (regardless of their political affiliation). So it seems that Trump's endorsement of violence isn't leading to violence while people's disdain for Trump is directly leading to criminal acts of violence.
Trump's endorsement of violence and/or self defense do absolutely nothing to mitigate the unjustifiable acts of violence being commited by anti Trump protestors.
Agreed. Trump supporters generally don't show up to Sanders' rallies and make complete fools of themselves (why on earth would they?). Sanders supporters do show up to Trump rallies and make complete fools of themselves.
People will criticize Trump's "calls for violence."
I tell you what:
If someone acted like a Sanders supporter in your home, you might just commit the kinds of "violence" that Trump seems to be in favor of (forcible removal).
I don't think every Sanders Supporter commits acts of violence...
I don't either, in fact wouldn't be surprised if it is just a handful of them doing it, but even Sanders has stressed he does not need supporters who do that so even he realizes some of his supporters might be involved and he is condemning them for doing such, as it goes I never said anything about Sanders promoting violence or even condoning it. same with Clinton and yet it does happen, if I had to blame a force I'm more likely to blame the Mexican Government, since the bulk of protesters burning the flag and such are also waving Mexican flags and waving signs California belongs to Mexico and such. Trump is a threat to illegals since he wants to get them out and if elected president he can do that by having ICE to enforce our current immigration laws.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Can someone get me a source or Venn diagram of "Protesters who are violent vs. Bernie/Hillary supporters"? I've seen a lot of people lumping them in together and I'd be interested to see the breakdown of how many people are actually supporters versus just general protesters mad at Trump.
jreilly89 wrote: Can someone get me a source or Venn diagram of "Protesters who are violent vs. Bernie/Hillary supporters"? I've seen a lot of people lumping them in together and I'd be interested to see the breakdown of how many people are actually supporters versus just general protesters mad at Trump.
sorry but reporters too busy reporting the assaults to get actual numbers of who is supporting who, which is why I say not all protesters support Sanders or Hillary or both, but they do exist, just not the whole group, if I had to lean towards one group being the majority my money is on the country of Mexico, since the ones waving the Mexican Flag and burning the American flag and saying California belongs to Mexico are firmly in that camp and at the majority of the issues.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
jreilly89 wrote: Can someone get me a source or Venn diagram of "Protesters who are violent vs. Bernie/Hillary supporters"? I've seen a lot of people lumping them in together and I'd be interested to see the breakdown of how many people are actually supporters versus just general protesters mad at Trump.
That would be irrelevant and impossible to collect anyway but you were just trying to use sarcasm to make a point.
It doesn't matter. Using criminal violence to try to suppress political opinions is unjustifiable. Instead of trying to deflect and distract from that core societal value we should all condemn such actions and then move on. Trump can say whatever he wants deal with any legal or political consequences his speech creates for him. Nothing he says makes it ok for people to attack other people just because those people express a desire to vote for Trump. That is simply using violence to intimidate and suppress political speech in the form of supporting a candidate. That's never ok.
Jihadin wrote: Trump is not a politician so I doubt he would condemned the violence during protests. Since the perception of the protestors are Dem supporters it works in his favor. If you think about it. I have not seen any ads promoting Trump for POTUS yet.
That's right. Trump has endorsed violence at his rallies.
he has endorsed Supporters to defend themselves.
No, he endorsed any of his supporters beating up any protesters in his rallies, whether they were violent or not.
really where does he say that?
Kilkrazy wrote: That's right. He even said he would pay their legal costs.
he would pay the legal fees of those defending themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for the record, that took literally 5 seconds, googling the following: "trump says he will pay legal fees".
I remember an age old adage in regards to making this reply: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
I'd say something about it being easier to just shoot the horse, but then there is the other saying about beating them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So after multiple pages of repeating "Trump and Hillary supporters are committing violence" and offering zero proof, it seems like it would be best to ignore the people making unsubstantiated arguments and get the thread back on some sort of topic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/06 18:03:48
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Traditio wrote: Funny; I don't recall Trump supporters rioting and attacking people at Sanders' rallies.
Neither have Clinton or Sanders endorsed supporters committing violence at Trumpo rallies. In fact there isn't actually any indication that the people protesting at Trumpo rallies actually are Clinton or Sanders supporters, rather than simply anti-Trumpo people.
OTOH Trumpo actually is on record as endorsing violence against protestors at his rallies.
I think it's pretty well established that the majority of veterans organization didn't see any of the money he raised until after the news questioned if the money was actually given to them, and Trump is criticizing the news for criticizing him for something he didn't do until after they criticized him.
jreilly89 wrote: Can someone get me a source or Venn diagram of "Protesters who are violent vs. Bernie/Hillary supporters"? I've seen a lot of people lumping them in together and I'd be interested to see the breakdown of how many people are actually supporters versus just general protesters mad at Trump.
That would be irrelevant and impossible to collect anyway but you were just trying to use sarcasm to make a point.
It doesn't matter. Using criminal violence to try to suppress political opinions is unjustifiable. Instead of trying to deflect and distract from that core societal value we should all condemn such actions and then move on. Trump can say whatever he wants deal with any legal or political consequences his speech creates for him. Nothing he says makes it ok for people to attack other people just because those people express a desire to vote for Trump. That is simply using violence to intimidate and suppress political speech in the form of supporting a candidate. That's never ok.
Or if you stop jumping to conclusions, it wasn't sarcasm, I was genuinely curious because Trump supporters kept lashing out that Bernie and Hillary are sending protest squads to their rallies. But sure, pretend I wasn't actually interested in legitimate proof.
I think it's pretty well established that the majority of veterans organization didn't see any of the money he raised until after the news questioned if the money was actually given to them, and Trump is criticizing the news for criticizing him for something he didn't do until after they criticized him.
Not to mention Trump fired veterans because they had to serve their military duty. It's amazing that people think that Trump is pro-soldier.
To paraphrase the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies of the Profumo Scandal, "Well they would say that, wouldn't they?"
I don't think there is any proof.
Everyone protesting against Trump isn't necessarily a supporter of Clinton/Sanders. They are just anti-Trump. He's given enough reasons for people to dislike him on his own account. His supporters ought to be pleased.
Clinton/Sanders don't need to organise violent protests. There's enough dirt to start flinging at Trump once the contest begins.
Clinton in particular being a very canny political operator never would organise a violent protest, since she knows it plays against her. That's the best indication it isn't her behind these protests.
Three years after the IRS admitted officials singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny, the tax-collecting agency has released a near-complete list of the organizations targeted.
And it numbers in the hundreds — for the first time showing the extent to which the agency slow-walked applications for tax-exempt status.
The new list shows a total of 426 organizations, far higher than what the Treasury Department’s inspector general believed there to be in May 2013, when he identified 298 groups.
The names span the gamut, covering well-known groups like Tea Party Patriots but also lower-profile local outfits like the Louisiana Campaign for Liberty, Patriots of Charleston, the Asheville Tea Party, Inc. and many more.
The Washington Times first reported on the list, which the IRS filed last month after being prodded by federal judges. The document was produced as part of a class-action lawsuit being led by Tea Party groups.
According to the Times, 60 of the groups' names contained the word “tea,” 33 contained the word “patriot,” eight used the word “Constitution” and 26 others had the word “liberty” in the title.
A lawyer representing NorCal Tea Party Patriots as part of the lawsuit said the list may have increased in number so dramatically since 2013 as the IRS targeted more liberal groups after the investigation began so as to try and soften the perception of bias.
“Based on these changes, which to date remain unexplained, a very real possibility — if not probability — exists that the IRS modified its targeting in light of the investigations, packing its own internal lists of targeted groups to support its preferred narrative, including by adding ideologically diverse groups,” Edward D. Greim told The Times.
Regardless of the backstory, a federal judge earlier this year scolded the IRS for allegedly holding up requests for information.
“The lawsuit has progressed as slowly as the underlying applications themselves: at every turn the IRS has resisted the plaintiffs’ requests for information regarding the IRS’s treatment of the plaintiff class, eventually to the open frustration of the district court,” Circuit Court Judge Raymond Kethledge said in a March ruling.
“Among the most serious allegations a federal court can address are that an Executive agency has targeted citizens for mistreatment based on their political views. No citizen—Republican or Democrat, socialist or libertarian—should be targeted or even have to fear being targeted on those grounds,” Kethledge said.
House Republicans ramped up pressure on the IRS in May, introducing a measure to censure IRS Commissioner John Koskinen -- and remove him from office without a pension.
Tea Party Patriots on Monday renewed their call for Koskinen's impeachment.
It's time to #ImpeachKoskinen for failing to comply with a subpoena for evidence. https://t.co/O7Rco8UTZz #TeaParty
— Tea Party Patriots (@TPPatriots) June 6, 2016
I hope Congress impeach/removes Koskinen's ass. Such that, in a Clinton or Trump administration, the next IRS dept Head would refuse to be a political weapon.
It would suck if you were caught up in this when you're group (for example the Austin Tea Party) is really just a group centered around having afternoon tea and discussion of all things Earl Grey...
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Let’s agree that this is not about Bernie or Hillary or who’s side I’m on. Let’s agree that this is about simple facts and the truth. We don’t need to get into who would make the better president or who’s more qualified; who should step down because they’re losing or are in the middle of an email scandal or because you simply don’t like them. Let’s worry more about being lied to – or at the very least misled – by a party that’s supposed to be representing us, the voter. The truth is it’s just a small portion of the population making up the demographic.
In summary: Bernie has won more caucus states, which neither record nor award individual votes.
As examples:
Sanders won 81% of Alaska votes
Sanders win 71% of Oregon votes
No individual (i.e. popular) votes are awarded or counted for him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/06 20:25:40
In summary: Bernie has won more caucus states, which neither record nor award individual votes.
As examples:
Sanders won 81% of Alaska votes
Sanders win 71% of Oregon votes
No individual (i.e. popular) votes are awarded or counted for him.
The argument was made in 2008 that Clinton beat Obama in the popular vote since she won Florida and Michigan and both states had their primaries sanctioned by the DNC for moving up the dates the primaries were held without DNC approval. In the end Obama still won. Given the make up of the DNC I don't think they would give much credence to technical arguments against Clinton if she maintains her 3,000.000 lead in primary votes cast, especially if she wins the states voting on Tuesday.
Let’s agree that this is not about Bernie or Hillary or who’s side I’m on. Let’s agree that this is about simple facts and the truth. We don’t need to get into who would make the better president or who’s more qualified; who should step down because they’re losing or are in the middle of an email scandal or because you simply don’t like them. Let’s worry more about being lied to – or at the very least misled – by a party that’s supposed to be representing us, the voter. The truth is it’s just a small portion of the population making up the demographic.
In summary: Bernie has won more caucus states, which neither record nor award individual votes.
As examples:
Sanders won 81% of Alaska votes
Sanders win 71% of Oregon votes
No individual (i.e. popular) votes are awarded or counted for him.
So according to this article some people vote for some people to vote for some people to be voted for by some people who vote for some people to vote for someone.
Frazzled wrote: It would suck if you were caught up in this when you're group (for example the Austin Tea Party) is really just a group centered around having afternoon tea and discussion of all things Earl Grey...
The Liberty Tea Constitution Patriots Bowling Club really got screwed here.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If we're still doing the whole "this candidate's supporters are worse than that one's!" schtick, Trump was endorsed by the Klan, no?
thats like saying Clinton's mentor was a card carrying KKK member.
but back to your point it has effected his campaign, just like the protesters are affecting Sanders campaign.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/06 22:43:26
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Traditio wrote: Funny; I don't recall Trump supporters rioting and attacking people at Sanders' rallies.
Neither have Clinton or Sanders endorsed supporters committing violence at Trumpo rallies. In fact there isn't actually any indication that the people protesting at Trumpo rallies actually are Clinton or Sanders supporters, rather than simply anti-Trumpo people.
OTOH Trumpo actually is on record as endorsing violence against protestors at his rallies.
Here is an observation, you may research it a bit, but from all the history I have read it would seem to me that the ONLY way Communists and Socialists can take power is by violence, it is also how they maintain power.
It is less a consideration of the workers and the people than those at the top deciding how to divvy up YOUR stuff. The only way to take is by force or threat of force. Who gets more stuff? The people in power, and they do not share. They expect YOU to share but not them. Wealth redistribution is nothing less than theft with the threat of violence.
Look at history.
Communist and Socialist countries neither produce nor innovate, they are regressive and are a shift back towards feudalism as there is no incentive for people to better themselves by chasing a profitable idea. An idea which would either have to be sanctioned by the state to see development, or would be appropriated by the state after work has been done; because all work is for the state, all profit is for the state, efforts not benefitting the state are discouraged.
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If we're still doing the whole "this candidate's supporters are worse than that one's!" schtick, Trump was endorsed by the Klan, no?
thats like saying Clinton's mentor was a card carrying KKK member.
Well other than the fact tgat Byrd disavowed the KKK, repeatedly apologized, became an adiment supporter of Civil Rights, and was repeatedly praised by tge NAACP. Just read this statement by the group.
But just keep repeating that bs. Remember, it gets truer every time you say it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xraytango wrote: Here is an observation, you may research it a bit, but from all the history I have read it would seem to me that the ONLY way Communists and Socialists can take power is by violence, it is also how they maintain power.
It is less a consideration of the workers and the people than those at the top deciding how to divvy up YOUR stuff. The only way to take is by force or threat of force. Who gets more stuff? The people in power, and they do not share. They expect YOU to share but not them. Wealth redistribution is nothing less than theft with the threat of violence.
Look at history.
Communist and Socialist countries neither produce nor innovate, they are regressive and are a shift back towards feudalism as there is no incentive for people to better themselves by chasing a profitable idea. An idea which would either have to be sanctioned by the state to see development, or would be appropriated by the state after work has been done; because all work is for the state, all profit is for the state, efforts not benefitting the state are discouraged.
Well, I guess if you fundamentally ignore what a socialist is and pretend most of Europe doesn't exist you are technically correct. I wouldn't want reality to get in the way of your delusions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/06 23:18:03
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If we're still doing the whole "this candidate's supporters are worse than that one's!" schtick, Trump was endorsed by the Klan, no?
thats like saying Clinton's mentor was a card carrying KKK member.
Well other than the fact tgat Byrd disavowed the KKK, repeatedly apologized, became an adiment supporter of Civil Rights, and was repeatedly praised by tge NAACP. Just read this statement by the group.
But just keep repeating that bs. Remember, it gets truer every time you say it!
"Sen. Byrd, wasn't just a member of the KKK. He was a Klan leader holding titles of "Kleagle" and "Exalted Cyclops." The senator claimed to have left the organization in 1943, but later wrote a letter to the group's grand wizard, saying, quote, "The Klan is needed today more as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia," end quote.
As recently as 2005, in his memoir, Byrd describes the KKK as a fraternal assembly of, quote, "upstanding people," end quote. He was the only senator to vote against both African-American Supreme Court nominees Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas.
He personally filibustered the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed President Truman's initiative to integrate the Armed Forces. And he said he would never fight, quote, "with a negro by my side. Rather, I should die 1,000 times than to see this beloved land become degraded by race mongrels," end quote.
He once called Martin Luther King a, quote, "self-seeking rabble- rouser" and even told the FBI he could give a speech condemning King on the floor of the Senate, saying it was time that the civil rights leader, quote, "met his waterloo."
He also once said the writers of the Declaration of Independence did not intend for words "all men created equal" to be taken literally."
so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?
Well, I guess if you fundamentally ignore what a socialist is and pretend most of Europe doesn't exist you are technically correct. I wouldn't want reality to get in the way of your delusions.
Hitler was a socialist liberal, is that a socialist?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/06 23:24:05
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
bag!"
~1.5k
