My Theory On Violence At Trump Rallies

[S.J.]

Trump's got all you limp wristed lefties scared shitless. This is getting more entertaining by the day.

 

[ninja007]

That theory is rock solid and perfectly sensible. And one indication you're on the right track is the immediate trolling by a poster coming to defend milady's (Rump's) honor -- he's emotionally invested, which is the hallmark of a personality cult. We're seeing a lot of that.

It occurred to me when the Chicago event was cancelled, when it was noted that contrary to Rump's stooge stage announcement, the police/security people had no conversations warning about security issues, had no anticipated problems with crowd control, and when the sudden cancellation announcement was made, had equally sudden challenges managing the egress of ten thousand unsatiated people out into the streets all at once, that that decision to cut them loose as such was probably made to set up conditions for a riot --- after which he could sit back and blame .... MoveOn, CNN, the police, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, whoever is not Numero Uno.

Just thought I'd go ahead and write the longest sentence ever there...

In the event, the riot didn't happen and the local security handled the sudden egress without major incident, so it became a meme tool for instigating yet another division point with the idea that "leftists (or Sanders, or whoever) are taking away our First Amendment rights". A theme he's been bellowing from the pulpit ever since.

Which is ironic considering his own numerous attack on First Amendment principles, such as "opening up" libel laws to crush dissent. So either way, he still gets to play "victim".

Rump runs on pure emotion, and no intellect. He does know how to manipulate those, to the point where he can continually contradict himself, yet his unquestioning drones are so drunk on the emotion that they can't see it. Or more correctly --- refuse to.

I have to disagree on one thing: Trump runs on quite a bit of intellect, of a certain cunning, manipulative, toxic variety. Like I said, I don't think anyone would argue the man's abilities in the area of marketing and hype. But yeah, he definitely runs on a lack of intellect being applied by those listening to him, supporters and protesters alike.

Cunning, yes very much. Cynical manipulation, absolutely, like few others could touch. But I mean intellect in the content of his rhetoric, not in how he makes his manipulation plans.

Intellect in the sense of being sly or cunning. Not the kind of intellect we want in a world leader.

Especially in an incurable narcissist whose entire lifespan of 70 years has been obsessing on attracting attention to himself.

That particular part seems elusive to his minions. I don't understand why, it could not possibly be more obvious.

His supporters: these are the people who are easily led. People who believe what they want to believe rather than looking straight at the truth, rather than using logic and circumspection to think for themselves and face reality. They are the people who are addicted to reality shows. They are the people who love programs like Jerry Springer. They are the lowest common denominator. They are the masses who cheer on dictators.

EXACTLY, DEMOCRATS.

 

[hunarcy]

That theory is rock solid and perfectly sensible. And one indication you're on the right track is the immediate trolling by a poster coming to defend milady's (Rump's) honor -- he's emotionally invested, which is the hallmark of a personality cult. We're seeing a lot of that.

It occurred to me when the Chicago event was cancelled, when it was noted that contrary to Rump's stooge stage announcement, the police/security people had no conversations warning about security issues, had no anticipated problems with crowd control, and when the sudden cancellation announcement was made, had equally sudden challenges managing the egress of ten thousand unsatiated people out into the streets all at once, that that decision to cut them loose as such was probably made to set up conditions for a riot --- after which he could sit back and blame .... MoveOn, CNN, the police, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, whoever is not Numero Uno.

Just thought I'd go ahead and write the longest sentence ever there...

In the event, the riot didn't happen and the local security handled the sudden egress without major incident, so it became a meme tool for instigating yet another division point with the idea that "leftists (or Sanders, or whoever) are taking away our First Amendment rights". A theme he's been bellowing from the pulpit ever since.

Which is ironic considering his own numerous attack on First Amendment principles, such as "opening up" libel laws to crush dissent. So either way, he still gets to play "victim".

Rump runs on pure emotion, and no intellect. He does know how to manipulate those, to the point where he can continually contradict himself, yet his unquestioning drones are so drunk on the emotion that they can't see it. Or more correctly --- refuse to.

I have to disagree on one thing: Trump runs on quite a bit of intellect, of a certain cunning, manipulative, toxic variety. Like I said, I don't think anyone would argue the man's abilities in the area of marketing and hype. But yeah, he definitely runs on a lack of intellect being applied by those listening to him, supporters and protesters alike.

Cunning, yes very much. Cynical manipulation, absolutely, like few others could touch. But I mean intellect in the content of his rhetoric, not in how he makes his manipulation plans.

Intellect in the sense of being sly or cunning. Not the kind of intellect we want in a world leader.

Especially in an incurable narcissist whose entire lifespan of 70 years has been obsessing on attracting attention to himself.

That particular part seems elusive to his minions. I don't understand why, it could not possibly be more obvious.

His supporters: these are the people who are easily led. People who believe what they want to believe rather than looking straight at the truth, rather than using logic and circumspection to think for themselves and face reality. They are the people who are addicted to reality shows. They are the people who love programs like Jerry Springer. They are the lowest common denominator. They are the masses who cheer on dictators.

But, you support Hillary, so your opinion is less than worthless.

 

[Esmeralda]

I have to disagree on one thing: Trump runs on quite a bit of intellect, of a certain cunning, manipulative, toxic variety. Like I said, I don't think anyone would argue the man's abilities in the area of marketing and hype. But yeah, he definitely runs on a lack of intellect being applied by those listening to him, supporters and protesters alike.

Cunning, yes very much. Cynical manipulation, absolutely, like few others could touch. But I mean intellect in the content of his rhetoric, not in how he makes his manipulation plans.

Intellect in the sense of being sly or cunning. Not the kind of intellect we want in a world leader.

Especially in an incurable narcissist whose entire lifespan of 70 years has been obsessing on attracting attention to himself.

That particular part seems elusive to his minions. I don't understand why, it could not possibly be more obvious.

His supporters: these are the people who are easily led. People who believe what they want to believe rather than looking straight at the truth, rather than using logic and circumspection to think for themselves and face reality. They are the people who are addicted to reality shows. They are the people who love programs like Jerry Springer. They are the lowest common denominator. They are the masses who cheer on dictators.

But, you support Hillary, so your opinion is less than worthless.

But, you support Trump, so your opinion is not only less than worthless, it is something that belongs sent down the sewer with all the other crap, filth and flotsam.

 

[Esmeralda]

I have to disagree on one thing: Trump runs on quite a bit of intellect, of a certain cunning, manipulative, toxic variety. Like I said, I don't think anyone would argue the man's abilities in the area of marketing and hype. But yeah, he definitely runs on a lack of intellect being applied by those listening to him, supporters and protesters alike.

Cunning, yes very much. Cynical manipulation, absolutely, like few others could touch. But I mean intellect in the content of his rhetoric, not in how he makes his manipulation plans.

Intellect in the sense of being sly or cunning. Not the kind of intellect we want in a world leader.

Especially in an incurable narcissist whose entire lifespan of 70 years has been obsessing on attracting attention to himself.

That particular part seems elusive to his minions. I don't understand why, it could not possibly be more obvious.

His supporters: these are the people who are easily led. People who believe what they want to believe rather than looking straight at the truth, rather than using logic and circumspection to think for themselves and face reality. They are the people who are addicted to reality shows. They are the people who love programs like Jerry Springer. They are the lowest common denominator. They are the masses who cheer on dictators.

EXACTLY, DEMOCRATS.

As you know, I was, quite accurately in fact, describing Republicans.

Your little attempt at being clever is a complete fail.

 

[Vigilante]

Cunning, yes very much. Cynical manipulation, absolutely, like few others could touch. But I mean intellect in the content of his rhetoric, not in how he makes his manipulation plans.

Intellect in the sense of being sly or cunning. Not the kind of intellect we want in a world leader.

Especially in an incurable narcissist whose entire lifespan of 70 years has been obsessing on attracting attention to himself.

That particular part seems elusive to his minions. I don't understand why, it could not possibly be more obvious.

His supporters: these are the people who are easily led. People who believe what they want to believe rather than looking straight at the truth, rather than using logic and circumspection to think for themselves and face reality. They are the people who are addicted to reality shows. They are the people who love programs like Jerry Springer. They are the lowest common denominator. They are the masses who cheer on dictators.

But, you support Hillary, so your opinion is less than worthless.

But, you support Trump, so your opinion is not only less than worthless, it is something that belongs sent down the sewer with all the other crap, filth and flotsam.

 

[hunarcy]

Cunning, yes very much. Cynical manipulation, absolutely, like few others could touch. But I mean intellect in the content of his rhetoric, not in how he makes his manipulation plans.

Intellect in the sense of being sly or cunning. Not the kind of intellect we want in a world leader.

Especially in an incurable narcissist whose entire lifespan of 70 years has been obsessing on attracting attention to himself.

That particular part seems elusive to his minions. I don't understand why, it could not possibly be more obvious.

His supporters: these are the people who are easily led. People who believe what they want to believe rather than looking straight at the truth, rather than using logic and circumspection to think for themselves and face reality. They are the people who are addicted to reality shows. They are the people who love programs like Jerry Springer. They are the lowest common denominator. They are the masses who cheer on dictators.

But, you support Hillary, so your opinion is less than worthless.

But, you support Trump, so your opinion is not only less than worthless, it is something that belongs sent down the sewer with all the other crap, filth and flotsam.

LOL! You moron, I'm a Bernie guy. I pity your reflexive "they aren't with me so they gotta be on the right" point of view. Go pound salt.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.

Follow me through this.

We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.

We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?

I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.

And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?

(continued in the next post)

So with all the violence displayed by progressives in the past dont you think it's a stretch to now blame it on Trump?

 

[Esmeralda]

Intellect in the sense of being sly or cunning. Not the kind of intellect we want in a world leader.

Especially in an incurable narcissist whose entire lifespan of 70 years has been obsessing on attracting attention to himself.

That particular part seems elusive to his minions. I don't understand why, it could not possibly be more obvious.

His supporters: these are the people who are easily led. People who believe what they want to believe rather than looking straight at the truth, rather than using logic and circumspection to think for themselves and face reality. They are the people who are addicted to reality shows. They are the people who love programs like Jerry Springer. They are the lowest common denominator. They are the masses who cheer on dictators.

But, you support Hillary, so your opinion is less than worthless.

But, you support Trump, so your opinion is not only less than worthless, it is something that belongs sent down the sewer with all the other crap, filth and flotsam.

LOL! You moron, I'm a Bernie guy. I pity your reflexive "they aren't with me so they gotta be on the right" point of view. Go pound salt.

And if Hillary is the nominee, you are going to vote for Trump?

 

[Esmeralda]

My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.

Follow me through this.

We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.

We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?

I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.

And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?

(continued in the next post)

So with all the violence displayed by progressives in the past dont you think it's a stretch to now blame it on Trump?

What violence? Please site specific valid sources. In which Democratic campaigns in recent history has there been violence at the candidates' campaign events? Which Democratic contenders have called for violent, pugilistic put down of protesters, have called for them being carried out of the facility on stretchers?

 

[S.J.]

My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.

Follow me through this.

We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.

We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?

I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.

And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?

(continued in the next post)

So with all the violence displayed by progressives in the past dont you think it's a stretch to now blame it on Trump?

What violence? Please site specific valid sources. In which Democratic campaigns in recent history has there been violence at the candidates' campaign events? Which Democratic contenders have called for violent, pugilistic put down of protesters, have called for them being carried out of the facility on stretchers?

Post a quote of Trump calling for protesters to be carried out on stretchers.

 

[hunarcy]

Especially in an incurable narcissist whose entire lifespan of 70 years has been obsessing on attracting attention to himself.

That particular part seems elusive to his minions. I don't understand why, it could not possibly be more obvious.

His supporters: these are the people who are easily led. People who believe what they want to believe rather than looking straight at the truth, rather than using logic and circumspection to think for themselves and face reality. They are the people who are addicted to reality shows. They are the people who love programs like Jerry Springer. They are the lowest common denominator. They are the masses who cheer on dictators.

But, you support Hillary, so your opinion is less than worthless.

But, you support Trump, so your opinion is not only less than worthless, it is something that belongs sent down the sewer with all the other crap, filth and flotsam.

LOL! You moron, I'm a Bernie guy. I pity your reflexive "they aren't with me so they gotta be on the right" point of view. Go pound salt.

And if Hillary is the nominee, you are going to vote for Trump?

I used to say I'd vote for Trump if Hillary was the nominee to show how opposed I am to her, but Trump's too nuts. So, if Hillary is the nominee, I won't vote. I'm not going to choose between an inauthentic liar and a bombastic lunatic.

 

[S.J.]

His supporters: these are the people who are easily led. People who believe what they want to believe rather than looking straight at the truth, rather than using logic and circumspection to think for themselves and face reality. They are the people who are addicted to reality shows. They are the people who love programs like Jerry Springer. They are the lowest common denominator. They are the masses who cheer on dictators.

But, you support Hillary, so your opinion is less than worthless.

But, you support Trump, so your opinion is not only less than worthless, it is something that belongs sent down the sewer with all the other crap, filth and flotsam.

LOL! You moron, I'm a Bernie guy. I pity your reflexive "they aren't with me so they gotta be on the right" point of view. Go pound salt.

And if Hillary is the nominee, you are going to vote for Trump?

I used to say I'd vote for Trump if Hillary was the nominee to show how opposed I am to her, but Trump's too nuts. So, if Hillary is the nominee, I won't vote. I'm not going to choose between an inauthentic liar and a bombastic lunatic.

Good. Stay home.

 

[Esmeralda]

His supporters: these are the people who are easily led. People who believe what they want to believe rather than looking straight at the truth, rather than using logic and circumspection to think for themselves and face reality. They are the people who are addicted to reality shows. They are the people who love programs like Jerry Springer. They are the lowest common denominator. They are the masses who cheer on dictators.

But, you support Hillary, so your opinion is less than worthless.

But, you support Trump, so your opinion is not only less than worthless, it is something that belongs sent down the sewer with all the other crap, filth and flotsam.

LOL! You moron, I'm a Bernie guy. I pity your reflexive "they aren't with me so they gotta be on the right" point of view. Go pound salt.

And if Hillary is the nominee, you are going to vote for Trump?

I used to say I'd vote for Trump if Hillary was the nominee to show how opposed I am to her, but Trump's too nuts. So, if Hillary is the nominee, I won't vote. I'm not going to choose between an inauthentic liar and a bombastic lunatic.

If you are going to stay home, you might as well vote for Trump.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.

Follow me through this.

We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.

We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?

I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.

And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?

(continued in the next post)

So with all the violence displayed by progressives in the past dont you think it's a stretch to now blame it on Trump?

What violence? Please site specific valid sources. In which Democratic campaigns in recent history has there been violence at the candidates' campaign events? Which Democratic contenders have called for violent, pugilistic put down of protesters, have called for them being carried out of the facility on stretchers?

So why do you want to limit it to campaign rallies?
Progressives are the poster boys when it comes to protester violence.

Here's the first thing that popped up on a Google search.

Protester who advocates peace charged with setting fire at Berkeley QT
Hypocrisy, Liberal, Crime, Violence, Protest, Vandalism

One of the most frequently quoted and photographed Ferguson protesters was charged Saturday with setting fire to a Berkeley convenience store earlier this week. St. Louis County police arrested Joshua Williams, 19, of St. Louis, on Friday after several local media outlets and store surveillance captured images of him trying to set a pile of wood on fire outside the QuikTrip on North Hanley Road early Wednesday... Williams has been quoted as an advocate for peaceful protests.


Man Stabbed At Utah Event Focused On Peace, Nonviolence
Liberal, Violence, Oops, Assault

Authorities say one woman has stabbed a man at a gathering centered on peace and nonviolence in the Uinta National Forest. Wasatch County Sheriff’s deputy Chris Goode says 32-year-old Leilani Novak-Garcia gouged the man twice with a knife at a campsite about 1 a.m. Monday.


Nobel Peace Laureate: "I Would Love To Kill George Bush"...
Hypocrisy, Liberal, Hate, Incitement, Violence, Character

"I have a very hard time with this word 'non-violence', because I don't believe that I am non-violent," said Ms Williams, 64. "Right now, I would love to kill George Bush." Her young audience at the Brisbane City Hall clapped and cheered.


Iraq war protest leads to pepper spray, arrest
Hypocrisy, Liberal, Violence, Protest

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Police used pepper spray on demonstrators protesting the Iraq war in downtown Portland on its fifth anniversary. The demonstrators later hopped a train and headed for a military recruitment center across town.


Monks brawl peace protest - COLOMBO Protesters calling end recent violence Sri Lanka found themsel
Hypocrisy, Violence, Funny, Protest

COLOMBO (Reuters) - Protesters calling for an end to recent violence in Sri Lanka found themselves brawling with hardline Buddhist monks Thursday, after a rally dubbed a "peace protest" turned unexpectedly violent.


Fox Crew Assaulted at Peace Protest
Hypocrisy, Liberal, Hate, Violence, Protest

It looked like the initial hit struck the camera on the bridge of his nose hard enough to draw blood, but I couldn't be sure.


College peace protest turns violent
Hypocrisy, Liberal, Violence, Protest

According to the report, Miriam Levin, who is Jewish, was intimidated and roughed up by protesters when she tried to drive onto the campus of York University in Toronto. The protesters were picketing entrances to the campus and blocking traffic on Wednesday morning.


Anti-violence activists arrested in Irvington
Hypocrisy, Liberal, Violence, Protest

Six people were arrested and one officer used pepper spray as Irvington police tried to break up a peace rally that authorities say turned into a melee.


Peace Protest Turns Violent - Protest News and Comment
Hypocrisy, Liberal, Violence, Protest

Six people were arrested and one officer used Pepper Spray as Irvington Police tried to break up a peace rally that authorities say turned into a melee.

 

[idb]

How did America end up here?!!!!!
What a circus!

 

[Toro]

My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.

I disagree. I don't think he's engineering violence. However, he certainly is encouraging it.

He should be trying to calm people down, but he doesn't. He amps them up.

It's reason #1,672 why doesn't have the temperament and isn't qualified to be President.

And Americans are seeing it.

He's going to get slaughtered.

 

[Geaux4it]

My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.

Follow me through this.

We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.

We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?

I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.

And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?

(continued in the next post)

And just how does Obama differ from Trump?

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

How did America end up here?!!!!!
What a circus!

Ask the idiots who voted for Obama twice

-Geaux

 

[theDoctorisIn]

My theory is not just that Trump incited and encouraged violence. It is that he deliberately engineered it, and that all these outbreaks are exactly what he intended to happen.

Follow me through this.

We know that Donald Trump planned his Presidential campaign well ahead of time to be a media circus, designed to capitalize on his celebrity, cartoonish public persona, and outrageous behavior in order to essentially get the media to fund his advertising for free to get the ratings. And, in fact, that's exactly what he has done, taking advantage of the already toxic levels of division and discontent in the nation and capitalizing on it to gin up attention and enthusiasm among those who feel disenfranchised by setting people at each other's throats.

We've all heard the list of remarks he's made that his detractors say constitute inciting people to violence, although even they seem to treat them as simply egregious gaffes by an intemperate man. But what if they're not? What if Donald Trump deliberately, with malice aforethought, guided the narrative that direction?

I think he was reaching the point of diminishing returns in regards to dominating the conversation with, "Did you hear the crazy thing Trump said THIS time?" Sure, the media continues to report it, but it's just not particularly shocking to anyone any more. Plus, with the field narrowed down to only three candidates (only two of whom are even credible, as far as getting votes), he knew he was going to have to stop participating in debates, because they would no longer be the format of "tons of candidates, no time for depth, everyone fights to get in catchy one-liners" that suits his style so well, and they would go much more into policy and substance, which would put him at a disadvantage.

And coincidentally, conveniently, what happens? The situation escalates, and the media coverage goes from being dominated by Trump's insane remarks to "Look what happened at the Trump rally, OMG!" Does anyone think it was an accident that he just HAPPENED to start moderating the tone of his behavior a bit at the same time that his supporters started slugging protesters in job lots?

(continued in the next post)

And just how does Obama differ from Trump?

-Geaux

I'm fairly certain that any Trumpette could answer that question for you.