My Theory On Violence At Trump Rallies

[Cecilie1200]

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)

 

[Zander]

Cecille 1200 's photo....

 

[Cecilie1200]

We can debate back and forth about Trump's alleged business acumen, but I don't think anyone would argue his skill in one area: marketing and hype. He has so far played the media like a Stradivarius, and through them, the people who watch the media. I firmly believe that Trump gauged his "violent" remarks with the deliberate intention of, at the very least, generating large, rowdy protests. And it doesn't take a media genius to realize that many of those protesters would be from the most unstable segments of society, the ones we've all seen on the news rioting and causing all manner of disruption. It also doesn't take a psychology major to realize how easy it would be to prime Trump's supporters to react badly to those protesters. Et voila! More media furor to suck all the air out of the room for everyone else.

And the cherry on top? Not only does his campaign continue to get millions of dollars in free advertising via every media outlet in the country, but he ALSO gets to play the embattled, abused martyr being besieged by the savages at the gates, AND cement his rabid followers together through the age-old solidarity of the persecuted minority. Perhaps even gain more followers, because the only thing Americans love more than an underdog is to BE the underdog. And then he just gets to sit back and laugh at how stupid and behind the curve everyone is while they're frantically trying to defend him against any hint that he should take responsibility for what happens at his own rallies.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Cecille 1200 's photo....

All she's saying is that he's played you like a fiddle.

 

[Zander]

Cecille 1200 's photo....

All she's saying is that he's played you like a fiddle.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Your bus awaits!

 

[Pogo]

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)

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.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Cecille 1200 's photo....

All she's saying is that he's played you like a fiddle.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Your bus awaits!

That's the Donald Drumpf supporter bus. Here's an example of an idiot supporter.

 

[Vigilante]

[SNIP] RUSH....

This is not a protest, and it's not Trump people. And if you want to say, "Well, Trump's causing it," you're wrong. This was my whole point on Friday. The enemy is not Trump. The enemy is not Cruz. The enemy is not Kasich. The enemy is not any Republican. The enemy is the left, the Democrat Party, the American left. They are the most destructive force in this country today. And they are doing whatever they can to create havoc and discomfort, and they want the reaction to be you blaming Trump, or you blaming whoever the Republican happens to be.

They want you blaming Trump for it. "If Trump weren't doing what he's doing, this wouldn't be happening." That's what you are supposed to conclude, and then you're to conclude, "Trump should stop. Trump should get out. Trump's a menace. Trump's this and that." It isn't Trump doing this. It is not Trump's people doing this. It is not Trump supporters. These are people that are gonna vote for Hillary Clinton doing this. Or Crazy Bernie or whoever ends up with the Democrat nomination. These are criminal leftists.

These are not protests.

These are provocations and riots in waiting.

Shutting down a highway as they did is not lawful. It's not a protest. It's not dissent. It is criminality, and it needs to be dealt with as such. These are private events. Protests do not have the right to enter and disrupt them. In no other circumstance would this be tolerated. You can come up with any number of analogies in addition to the Planned Parenthood, but that is probably a good one 'cause do you know how many people would tolerate something like that? Zilch. Even on our side, zilch, zero, nada.

That's why even at the Republican convention, Democrat convention, you don't see this. The protestors are kept away from the arena, away from the venue. They are kept outside. They are not permitted in. They are private events for that specific reason. The hall has been rented and leased by the candidate. He has total control of the usage. Of course within the boundaries of the law. But it struck me. I mean, these are good people that I played golf with. They're fine, and they're up to speed. But it's like everybody else: They react to what they see in the media.

We're never gonna get around that. I don't care how many Fox Newses there are or talk radio, there's always gonna be a Drive-By Media. We're never going to get around the fact that they are supportive of the Democrat Party and everybody else that supports it. They are tolerant. They encourage all of this -- and not only do they encourage it, they follow along and make it look like the victims of these things are actually the perpetrators. So the people I was talking to after golf, you should have seen their faces when I told them what I just told you.

Their eyes lit up. "Yeah, yeah. Okay. That makes sense." They don't hear that anywhere in the media that they consume. And so they... I guarantee you that there are a whole lots of people -- pro-Trump, anti-Trump, you name it, but especially anti-Trump people -- who are eagerly glomming onto this as just another reason to criticize Trump. "Yeah, look what he's causing." I guarantee you, this goes on before Trump.

Didn't you see this in Ferguson? You saw this against Mitt Romney. You see... Folks, the point is, this is standard operating behavior for these people. It's gonna happen whether Trump's the nominee or not. If Trump were to drop out of the race (just a wild hypothetical; it's gonna continue to happen), they're going to move on to whoever they fear. Whoever they think poses them the greatest threat is who they are going to act on.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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)

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[SNIP] RUSH....

This is not a protest, and it's not Trump people. And if you want to say, "Well, Trump's causing it," you're wrong. This was my whole point on Friday. The enemy is not Trump. The enemy is not Cruz. The enemy is not Kasich. The enemy is not any Republican. The enemy is the left, the Democrat Party, the American left. They are the most destructive force in this country today. And they are doing whatever they can to create havoc and discomfort, and they want the reaction to be you blaming Trump, or you blaming whoever the Republican happens to be.

They want you blaming Trump for it. "If Trump weren't doing what he's doing, this wouldn't be happening." That's what you are supposed to conclude, and then you're to conclude, "Trump should stop. Trump should get out. Trump's a menace. Trump's this and that." It isn't Trump doing this. It is not Trump's people doing this. It is not Trump supporters. These are people that are gonna vote for Hillary Clinton doing this. Or Crazy Bernie or whoever ends up with the Democrat nomination. These are criminal leftists.

These are not protests.

These are provocations and riots in waiting.

Shutting down a highway as they did is not lawful. It's not a protest. It's not dissent. It is criminality, and it needs to be dealt with as such. These are private events. Protests do not have the right to enter and disrupt them. In no other circumstance would this be tolerated. You can come up with any number of analogies in addition to the Planned Parenthood, but that is probably a good one 'cause do you know how many people would tolerate something like that? Zilch. Even on our side, zilch, zero, nada.

That's why even at the Republican convention, Democrat convention, you don't see this. The protestors are kept away from the arena, away from the venue. They are kept outside. They are not permitted in. They are private events for that specific reason. The hall has been rented and leased by the candidate. He has total control of the usage. Of course within the boundaries of the law. But it struck me. I mean, these are good people that I played golf with. They're fine, and they're up to speed. But it's like everybody else: They react to what they see in the media.

We're never gonna get around that. I don't care how many Fox Newses there are or talk radio, there's always gonna be a Drive-By Media. We're never going to get around the fact that they are supportive of the Democrat Party and everybody else that supports it. They are tolerant. They encourage all of this -- and not only do they encourage it, they follow along and make it look like the victims of these things are actually the perpetrators. So the people I was talking to after golf, you should have seen their faces when I told them what I just told you.

Their eyes lit up. "Yeah, yeah. Okay. That makes sense." They don't hear that anywhere in the media that they consume. And so they... I guarantee you that there are a whole lots of people -- pro-Trump, anti-Trump, you name it, but especially anti-Trump people -- who are eagerly glomming onto this as just another reason to criticize Trump. "Yeah, look what he's causing." I guarantee you, this goes on before Trump.

Didn't you see this in Ferguson? You saw this against Mitt Romney. You see... Folks, the point is, this is standard operating behavior for these people. It's gonna happen whether Trump's the nominee or not. If Trump were to drop out of the race (just a wild hypothetical; it's gonna continue to happen), they're going to move on to whoever they fear. Whoever they think poses them the greatest threat is who they are going to act on.

You're citing Rush Limbaugh? Do not even get me started on the supposed "conservative media" in this debacle of an election. I cannot believe the extent they have sold out for ratings.

 

[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)

I don't think Trump has "deliberately" done anything. I think he's riding a wave he doesn't really have much control over.

I know where you're coming from, but logic isn't going to work here. Trump's support comes from emotion, not logic. What he says makes people feel good - or at least he justifies their vindictive feelings, and logical arguments hold little weight against that.

 

[Vigilante]

[SNIP] RUSH....

This is not a protest, and it's not Trump people. And if you want to say, "Well, Trump's causing it," you're wrong. This was my whole point on Friday. The enemy is not Trump. The enemy is not Cruz. The enemy is not Kasich. The enemy is not any Republican. The enemy is the left, the Democrat Party, the American left. They are the most destructive force in this country today. And they are doing whatever they can to create havoc and discomfort, and they want the reaction to be you blaming Trump, or you blaming whoever the Republican happens to be.

They want you blaming Trump for it. "If Trump weren't doing what he's doing, this wouldn't be happening." That's what you are supposed to conclude, and then you're to conclude, "Trump should stop. Trump should get out. Trump's a menace. Trump's this and that." It isn't Trump doing this. It is not Trump's people doing this. It is not Trump supporters. These are people that are gonna vote for Hillary Clinton doing this. Or Crazy Bernie or whoever ends up with the Democrat nomination. These are criminal leftists.

These are not protests.

These are provocations and riots in waiting.

Shutting down a highway as they did is not lawful. It's not a protest. It's not dissent. It is criminality, and it needs to be dealt with as such. These are private events. Protests do not have the right to enter and disrupt them. In no other circumstance would this be tolerated. You can come up with any number of analogies in addition to the Planned Parenthood, but that is probably a good one 'cause do you know how many people would tolerate something like that? Zilch. Even on our side, zilch, zero, nada.

That's why even at the Republican convention, Democrat convention, you don't see this. The protestors are kept away from the arena, away from the venue. They are kept outside. They are not permitted in. They are private events for that specific reason. The hall has been rented and leased by the candidate. He has total control of the usage. Of course within the boundaries of the law. But it struck me. I mean, these are good people that I played golf with. They're fine, and they're up to speed. But it's like everybody else: They react to what they see in the media.

We're never gonna get around that. I don't care how many Fox Newses there are or talk radio, there's always gonna be a Drive-By Media. We're never going to get around the fact that they are supportive of the Democrat Party and everybody else that supports it. They are tolerant. They encourage all of this -- and not only do they encourage it, they follow along and make it look like the victims of these things are actually the perpetrators. So the people I was talking to after golf, you should have seen their faces when I told them what I just told you.

Their eyes lit up. "Yeah, yeah. Okay. That makes sense." They don't hear that anywhere in the media that they consume. And so they... I guarantee you that there are a whole lots of people -- pro-Trump, anti-Trump, you name it, but especially anti-Trump people -- who are eagerly glomming onto this as just another reason to criticize Trump. "Yeah, look what he's causing." I guarantee you, this goes on before Trump.

Didn't you see this in Ferguson? You saw this against Mitt Romney. You see... Folks, the point is, this is standard operating behavior for these people. It's gonna happen whether Trump's the nominee or not. If Trump were to drop out of the race (just a wild hypothetical; it's gonna continue to happen), they're going to move on to whoever they fear. Whoever they think poses them the greatest threat is who they are going to act on.

You're citing Rush Limbaugh? Do not even get me started on the supposed "conservative media" in this debacle of an election. I cannot believe the extent they have sold out for ratings.

They had the highest ratings BEFORE this.... they don't need to SELL OUT, they just have to report and many give their OPINION, and that is all it is, like YOU, an OPINION!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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)

I don't think Trump has "deliberately" done anything. I think he's riding a wave he doesn't really have much control over.

I know where you're coming from, but logic isn't going to work here. Trump's support comes from emotion, not logic. What he says makes people feel good - or at least he justifies their vindictive feelings, and logical arguments hold little weight against that.

I think you haven't paid attention to Donald Trump's history over the last four or five decades. I would posit that, aside from the money and valuable NY real estate left him by his father, his major contribution of business acumen has been the creation and sale of his outrageous, tacky, neon-and-gold-lame brand. Even he will tell you that a large portion of his alleged wealth and assets is his "brand", his celebrity. He made himself famous and notorious, so that he could make money simply off of having his name plastered on things.

His support comes from emotion, yes, but from OTHER people's emotions, which he manipulates quite logically. He's not really doing anything different that any sleazy salesman, tent revival preacher, or carnival huckster does, except he's doing it on a national level.

 

[S.J.]

You forgot to call him a racist. You're slipping.

 

[Pogo]

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)

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.

 

[Pogo]

You forgot to call him a racist. You're slipping.

That would be emotion.
She's using intellect.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You forgot to call him a racist. You're slipping.

His supporters certainly are. Drumpf doesn't believe most of the garbage that comes out of his mouth.

 

[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)

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.

That he keeps threatening 'riots in the streets' if he is not the convention nominee works to get his gooney people worked up and they will indeed riot ... he puts the idea in their heads.

 

[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)

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.

 

[S.J.]

You forgot to call him a racist. You're slipping.

That would be emotion.
She's using intellect.

Thanks for admitting the racist claim is emotion and not intellect.