It's Official: Donald Trump is an Asshole

[Martin Eden Mercury]

If I tried, I could not care less what Donald Trump says as a private citizen; but Donald Trump, the candidate, is not speaking as a private citizen. Donald Trump is speaking as a public, political figure, and it is because of this fact, that I insist we all hold him to a higher standard. What at first glance appears to be a troubling dilemma: citizen's competing rights of free speech and assembly -- is not. It is an opportunity. It is an opportunity of choice. We can choose to give in to our own base instincts and passions -- to our own irrational fears, and anger; or we can choose to appeal to the “better angels of our nature.” Therefore this written piece.

It sickens me to think some people who I know, who I may love, who I respect, and even admire -- give Donald Trump a pass, on refusing to condemn physical violence at political events. What kind of mind refuses to condemn physical violence at political events? What kind of political candidate thinks this is a wise way to lead? What kind of followers believe, physical violence is the answer?

My liberal principles, compel me to defend Donald Trump’s right to be a public jerk. I suffer no illusions: it is not my intent, to attempt to change anybody’s mind, about wanting to vote for or against a particular candidate. Just as I have a right to protest with speech, by calling a presidential candidate a jerk; Donald Trump, as well as anyone else for that matter -- has every right to be a jerk. We all have a right to do this without the fear of being arrested and thrown in jail -- or worse; the protesters inside of Trump rallies, have a right to be jerks, without fear of being being arrested and thrown in jail -- or worse. “What could this worse be” you ask? Being punched, beaten, and kicked for the simple act of protesting; or being, or calling somebody a jerk.

American tradition and law is that everyone has a right to speak -- even and especially, if their speech is ugly, distasteful, and offensive. And believe me, It is not only the manner and style of Trump's speaking that personally offends me so much, it is often the content of his speech. I find much of what Donald Trump says as a political candidate, to be ugly, distasteful, and offensive.

I know the venues are hosting public events, and some of the protesters are legitimately using this as an argument to be allowed to protest inside. This sort of public protest is an American tradition. Yet, any protest that attempts to shout down speech, should be anathema to our sense of right and wrong -- just as hateful, bigoted speech is. Two wrongs do not make a right. If you disagree with me here, you will find yourself on my side when the day comes -- and it surely will -- when it is you who are the one being denied the right to speak freely -- and to be heard. It is a truism that -- what goes around, comes around.

The protests outside of Trump’s rallies and events have started getting out of hand. There is no justifiable enough argument for these protests to be viewed as legitimate, political protests, simply because they have not become as violent as those inside. It is American tradition and law, that everyone has a right to travel freely to and from a political event. The road blocking stunts are not designed to send a political message to the general public, they are designed to target a specific group of citizens. Nothing Donald Trump, or any of his supporters has said or done, can justify interfering with the right of people to travel freely. And again -- if you disagree with me here, when it is you who are being denied the right to travel freely, you will find yourself on my side here.

For myself, I have great faith in the American system of government. I know I could get arrested for peacefully protesting (peaceful protesters are not usually arrested), and I know I would be released on bond, or get bailed out of jail. I could go through this without ever losing my faith in the American system of government. I know I have a right to have the justice system hear my grievance. I believe given a fair hearing, that I would ultimately win. I believe I would win because, unlike many nations, we are still a nation of laws, and not of men. What feeds this belief, is things like the record on free speech and assembly (as well as the 4th amendment), of people like the recently deceased, Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia was a man who many people viewed as a radical right winger. For the most part, I agree. But no man is truly one-dimensional. We are all complex individuals, worthy of respect, and I can respect a man or a woman without having to respect all of their words or actions.

When a lawyer argued to uphold a Texas law against flag burning, before the Supreme Court; he argued that we must protect “this nation’s cherished property,” Scalia replied “I never thought that the flag I owned is your flag.” Justice Scalia’s record on freedom of speech and assembly, and on 4th amendment guarantees, feeds my faith in the American system of Justice, and it gives me inspiration. There were times when Justice Scalia words and decisions gave me heartburn and headaches, but I believe in taking the good with the not so good. I viewed Justice Scalia as an opponent, and not as an enemy. I’m a liberal. Being a liberal dictates I could not do otherwise.

The train is leaving the station, and as it gains speed and momentum, there will come a point, when it will be too late to put the brakes on and stop it. If history serves up any lessons, it is that if and when it becomes too late -- most of us will stand aside, and later pretend we had nothing to do with it. But that would be a lie. We are all of us, responsible. With great freedoms and liberties, come even greater demands of duty and responsibilities. It is every American citizen’s duty to speak out, when all around us we see rising up, radical forces and petty demagogues inflaming the passions of those around us. Fear and anger are powerfully destructive forces when unleashed. When we allow negative forces to be unleashed, we stand in danger of becoming that which we should fear and despise the most: We become the enemy within.

Nothing justifies physical violence at political events. Nothing. And please, please do not try and justify the violence by attempting an equivalence on another side. All but one of the major candidates have condemned all of the violence, at all of the political events. All but one. There is no escaping that simple, plain truth: Donald Trump is an asshole.

 

[Valerie]

"It sickens me to think some people who I know, who I may love, who I respect, and even admire -- give Donald Trump a pass"



yep, it's going to be a crazy summer, clearly dividing the haves and the have-nots...


...brains, that is.

 

[saveliberty]

Violence at political rallies is common in Europe, that gleaming beacon of liberals. Attending a rally as an agitator with an eye to creating violence has become a liberal tool as of late. You own it, you fix it.

 

[TNHarley]

I would rather have him be an honest bigot, than a bigoted liar.

 

[Valerie]

^ good for you... vote hillary

 

[asaratis]

......

I suffer no illusions:

......

Sheee-it!

You suffer from the illusion of adequacy. You should give up your delusional quest to become a respected writer of op-eds and become an accomplished window washer...or a Greeter at Walmart.

 

[Valerie]

Sheee-it!

You suffer from the illusion of adequacy. You should give up your delusional Quest to become a respected writer of op-eds and become an accomplished window washer...or a Greeter at Walmart.

maybe you should give up the delusion that the OP was ever pining for respect from YOU.

 

[saveliberty]

Originally these OPs were suppose to be nonhack threads, but time after time we see ones like this posted. Hard to take this as a serious literary section.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

op-eds belong in serious literary sections?

There are a few other members here, who like you, posses some very odd notions of what constitutes an op-ed. I suggest you seek each other out. It would be truly fascinating to psychologists and social-anthropologists to see what y'all could come u with together. Maybe you could start with redefining definitions of words in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) , before going on to tackle the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Roget's International Thesaurus, the King James Bible, and maybe even the rules at USMESSAGEBOARD.COM?

thank you saveliberty
sincerely yours
Mem

 

[Valerie]

"Attending a rally as an agitator with an eye to creating violence"



non violent protest - attending a rally - is as American as apple pie

sans violence, so-called "agitation" is a perception in the eye of the beholder

trump's rhetoric is agitating public reaction at his rallies

trump's rhetoric is creating and emboldening violence

the one to push and shove and punch is the one who is creating violence

 

[Valerie]

Violence at political rallies is common in Europe, that gleaming beacon of liberals. Attending a rally as an agitator with an eye to creating violence has become a liberal tool as of late. You own it, you fix it.

trump owns it. easy fix is to not strike out violently to non violent protest. simple.

 

[asaratis]

Sheee-it!

You suffer from the illusion of adequacy. You should give up your delusional Quest to become a respected writer of op-eds and become an accomplished window washer...or a Greeter at Walmart.

maybe you should give up the delusion that the OP was ever pining for respect from YOU.

I've not had such a delusion. Had he pined for respect from me, he'd have known better than to show his liberal bias. If you cannot see his self-imposed air of intellectual superiority, I cannot help you.

A good op-ed writer can relate well thought out logic and reason to readers without revealing a sense of superiority or a hint of disdain for the readers whether they be of his particular political bent or not. Talking down to people is little more than an attempt to shame them into agreement with your opinion. This is the tool of adolescents and incompetent debaters.

On this board, it is easy to slip into such adolescent banter, partially due to anonymity, free speech and the non-exclusive policies of those that control the board, all of which I appreciate. I do it myself, all too often. A tendency toward competing in cuteness of response is often irresistible...and the misconception that the last post wins tends to perpetuate the tart one-liners.

 

[saveliberty]

Violence at political rallies is common in Europe, that gleaming beacon of liberals. Attending a rally as an agitator with an eye to creating violence has become a liberal tool as of late. You own it, you fix it.

trump owns it. easy fix is to not strike out violently to non violent protest. simple.

No, the left owns it, Trump is just reacting to quell it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I watched Trumpery on a news interview in which he actually said he has never said people should hit each other. He actually said he has never called for violence and that he would never offer to pay the legal bills of a murderer.

Doesn't he know that videos don't go away?

The man is truly delusional and a pathological liar. He lies so much and so often that no one has been able to get an accurate count of his lies.

I believe that he will eventually be another Howard Hughes. His mind will be gone, and he will be using kleenex boxes for shoes and lining up jars of his urine.

Trump’s Week of Errors, Exaggerations and Flat-out Falsehoods
POLITICO Magazine subjected the GOP front-runner to our fact-checking process. This is the result.

We chronicled 4.6 hours of stump speeches and press conferences, from a rally in Concord, N.C., on Monday to a rally on Friday in St. Louis.

The result: more than five dozen statements deemed mischaracterizations, exaggerations, or simply false – the kind of stuff that would have been stripped from one of our stories, or made the whole thing worthy of the spike. It equates to roughly one misstatement every five minutes on average.


Read more: Trump’s Week of Errors, Exaggerations and Flat-out Falsehoods
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Speaking of Trumpery's lies, be sure to watch John Oliver's factual analysis of the idiotic wall.

Can any of his fans dispute Oliver's facts and figures?

 

[Likkmee]

Are the wafflez gluten free ?

 

[barryqwalsh]

Supporters of the US Presidential hopeful have reportedly sent death threats to artist Ilma Gore after she published images of the painting.

She spoke to Shelagh Fogarty about the thinking behind the painting:

Audio

Naked Donald Trump Painting To Go On Show

 

[Judicial review]

Sheee-it!

You suffer from the illusion of adequacy. You should give up your delusional Quest to become a respected writer of op-eds and become an accomplished window washer...or a Greeter at Walmart.

maybe you should give up the delusion that the OP was ever pining for respect from YOU.

I've not had such a delusion. Had he pined for respect from me, he'd have known better than to show his liberal bias. If you cannot see his self-imposed air of intellectual superiority, I cannot help you.

A good op-ed writer can relate well thought out logic and reason to readers without revealing a sense of superiority or a hint of disdain for the readers whether they be of his particular political bent or not. Talking down to people is little more than an attempt to shame them into agreement with your opinion. This is the tool of adolescents and incompetent debaters.

On this board, it is easy to slip into such adolescent banter, partially due to anonymity, free speech and the non-exclusive policies of those that control the board, all of which I appreciate. I do it myself, all too often. A tendency toward competing in cuteness of response is often irresistible...and the misconception that the last post wins tends to perpetuate the tart one-liners.

Please explain for the class how anybody can or could write about a man that doesn't represent the majority but that acts like the majority and that talks down to everybody not named trump that disagrees with him or doesn't do things his way in an unbiased way?

Then let me know.

 

[asaratis]

Sheee-it!

You suffer from the illusion of adequacy. You should give up your delusional Quest to become a respected writer of op-eds and become an accomplished window washer...or a Greeter at Walmart.

maybe you should give up the delusion that the OP was ever pining for respect from YOU.

I've not had such a delusion. Had he pined for respect from me, he'd have known better than to show his liberal bias. If you cannot see his self-imposed air of intellectual superiority, I cannot help you.

A good op-ed writer can relate well thought out logic and reason to readers without revealing a sense of superiority or a hint of disdain for the readers whether they be of his particular political bent or not. Talking down to people is little more than an attempt to shame them into agreement with your opinion. This is the tool of adolescents and incompetent debaters.

On this board, it is easy to slip into such adolescent banter, partially due to anonymity, free speech and the non-exclusive policies of those that control the board, all of which I appreciate. I do it myself, all too often. A tendency toward competing in cuteness of response is often irresistible...and the misconception that the last post wins tends to perpetuate the tart one-liners.

Please explain for the class how anybody can or could write about a man that doesn't represent the majority but that acts like the majority and that talks down to everybody not named trump that disagrees with him or doesn't do things his way in an unbiased way?

Then let me know.

Firstly, your premise is flawed. If you ever find a man that talks down to everybody not named Trump that disagrees with him or doesn't do things his way, let me know.

Secondly, it's quite simple to write an unbiased article about any person or group of people. You simply stick to the truth concerning what they say and what they do rather than paraphrasing what they say, taking it out of context or lying about or misrepresenting what they do (or did). These are the things that should be factually represented.

Thirdly, you keep your naturally biased opinion clearly separated from the reports of what the subject person(s) said or did.

It is the OPINION part of an article that is seldom, if ever, unbiased.

Judicial review, I'm letting you know.

 

[Judicial review]

Sheee-it!

You suffer from the illusion of adequacy. You should give up your delusional Quest to become a respected writer of op-eds and become an accomplished window washer...or a Greeter at Walmart.

maybe you should give up the delusion that the OP was ever pining for respect from YOU.

I've not had such a delusion. Had he pined for respect from me, he'd have known better than to show his liberal bias. If you cannot see his self-imposed air of intellectual superiority, I cannot help you.

A good op-ed writer can relate well thought out logic and reason to readers without revealing a sense of superiority or a hint of disdain for the readers whether they be of his particular political bent or not. Talking down to people is little more than an attempt to shame them into agreement with your opinion. This is the tool of adolescents and incompetent debaters.

On this board, it is easy to slip into such adolescent banter, partially due to anonymity, free speech and the non-exclusive policies of those that control the board, all of which I appreciate. I do it myself, all too often. A tendency toward competing in cuteness of response is often irresistible...and the misconception that the last post wins tends to perpetuate the tart one-liners.

Please explain for the class how anybody can or could write about a man that doesn't represent the majority but that acts like the majority and that talks down to everybody not named trump that disagrees with him or doesn't do things his way in an unbiased way?

Then let me know.

Firstly, your premise is flawed. If you ever find a man that talks down to everybody not named Trump that disagrees with him or doesn't do things his way, let me know.

Secondly, it's quite simple to write an unbiased article about any person or group of people. You simply stick to the truth concerning what they say and what they do rather than paraphrasing what they say, taking it out of context or lying about or misrepresenting what they do (or did). These are the things that should be factually represented.

Thirdly, you keep your naturally biased opinion clearly separated from the reports of what the subject person(s) said or did.

It is the OPINION part of an article that is seldom, if ever, unbiased.

Judicial review, I'm letting you know.

There's 1 critical flaw that you didn't mention here that make your entire premise flawed. Donald Trump is a sociopath. He fits the medical definition.

Sociopaths think only what they say or do is right and they talk down to everybody else.

You talk about the opinion part being where the problem is. Actually no matter what opinion was posted it wouldn't matter because nobody supports a sociopath because you'll find selfishness in every thing he says and does.

This article was about trump. Not something trump said. There's a huge difference. Read the whole oped. What he said was a small part. In fact take everything he's said and cite it and it will all have the word , me, I etc..