My Theory On Violence At Trump Rallies

[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)

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.

That's a lie.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

Agree. His intelligence is the cunning, manipulative, toxic variety. Obvious.

 

[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)

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.

Obama isn't 70.

 

[Pogo]

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.

It's your idea. What else could it be?

 

[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.

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.

 

[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)

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.

" Trump's support comes from emotion, not logic..." Agree.

 

[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.

That's a lie.

No it isn't. It is a logical conclusion.

 

[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.

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!

All right, you wanna go there, we'll go there.

"These past few months have been a horrific bloodbath, as many famous and once-respected conservatives have gutted their credibility for a chance to latch themselves to Trump like barnacles on the Titanic. Some of these ideological hustlers may have, at one point, truly believed in the principles of which they’ve so handsomely profited, but when the principles finally jeopardized the profits, they did not hesitate to choose the latter over the former.

The capitulation that many conservative and Christian leaders have shown towards Trump goes well beyond what the liberal media shows towards Obama. I’ve never in my life seen anything like this, and I suspect I’d have to take a flight to North Korea to witness an equal level of unthinking deference. But at least Kim Jong Un’s subjects submit under the threat of death and imprisonment. Our “leaders” have subjugated themselves to the American Kim Jong Un simply for the publicity and the ratings and the chance to be friends with a billionaire celebrity.

Sean Hannity - Hannity relentlessly fawns over Trump and refuses to challenge him on any of his myriad lies and inconsistencies. Trump has even used Hannity’s show as a platform to praise Planned Parenthood and repeat false, progressive claims that “abortion is a small part of what they do.” Hannity did not challenge him on those assertions. He does not challenge him on anything.

Meanwhile, as Trump receives no criticism from Hannity no matter how many times he mocks the disabled, brags about his adultery, smears his opponents, spews vulgarities, etc., Hannity has not held back in criticizing Trump’s Republican opponents for their “stunning” and “beyond the pale” critiques of Trump.

Ann Coulter - She released a book about immigration right around the time Trump came onto the scene and started calling Mexicans rapists. She decided to use the Trump phenomenon as the greatest book promotion vehicle in history, campaigning for him and claiming the reality TV character is a sign that “God hasn’t given up on us yet.”

Funny that Coulter mentioned God considering she’s become a social liberal in recent months, frequently lashing out at ”pathetic” “p*ssy” pro-lifers who fail to worship her new idol. Trump could perform abortions in the White House, she says. Trump can do whatever he wants. Speaking of God, I wonder if Coulter thinks God approves when she rants about the “f**king Jews” (anti-Semitism appears to be a prerequisite for admittance into the Trump fan club) and explicitly calls for violence against Trump protesters. To say Coulter has gone off the rails would be a monumental understatement. Indeed, one wonders if she was ever on them to begin with.

Sarah Palin - Palin is a carnival barker who used the Tea Party to stay relevant long past her expiration date, and then betrayed it when the spotlight drifted in Trump’s direction. Palin helped get Ted Cruz elected back when she was pretending to be a grassroots activist. But her activism was revealed to be as phony as her “middle-class hockey mom” shtick when she stabbed Cruz in the back and slandered her old friend at Trump’s behest.

Fox News - All the other dull, blathering Trump sycophants on Fox News, like Andrea Tantaros and Eric Bolling andKimberly Guilfoyle and other various Trump shills who’ve now taken to declaring that “principles don’t matter.“ The Fox morning show team hands airtime to Trump whenever he demands it, and they sit in admiration listening to him blabber on like infatuated school boys pretending to be interested in what the pretty girl in class is saying. But they’re of course not as bad as Joe Scarborough over on MSNBC, who was recently caught on camera taking instructions from Trump about what questions he can ask.

Trump and his groupies complain that Fox is “unfair” to him, but those of us who haven’t had our brains cooked by Trump fever recognize that, with the exceptions of Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier, Greg Gutfeld and a few others, the entire network slobbers over him like a cheerleader fainting when the varsity quarterback asks her to the prom.

Ben Carson - A man embraced by millions because he supposedly stood for Christian virtue, civility, moral courage, and the Constitution — until he endorsed the one guy who defies all of those principles more aggressively than probably any Republican presidential candidate in history. But at least Carson is honest. This week headmitted that before he endorsed Trump, he was promised a position in the administration.

Jeff Sessions - He overlooked Trump’s enormous, terrific, gold-plated downside and endorsed him solely because of his pledges to build a wall, even though Trump himself has admitted his immigration plan is “flexible.”

Matt Drudge - Trump’s very own Pravda. Matt Drudge has explored every avenue to demean and degrade Trump’s opponents, even if it means repeatedly mocking Cruz’s Christian faith. As Coulter has become pro-choice for Trump, Matt Drudge has become anti-Christian.

Breitbart - No media company has been more disgraceful, dishonest, and utterly treacherous as Breitbart. There may be some people at Breitbart who’ve maintained their integrity – most of them are resigning in protest – but the company as a whole is such a consistent source of propaganda, slander, deceit, and disinformation that you’d think Joseph Goebbels was running the place.

Breitbart is so pathetic, so ethically vacuous, so outrageously abhorrent in its conduct that it took Trump’s side when Trump’s campaign manager manhandled one of its own female reporters. It doesn’t quite capture it to simply say Breitbart is a propaganda mechanism for Donald Trump. Breitbart is, more aptly, the disembodied conscience of Donald Trump himself. The entire site reads like Trump dictated it word-for-word. To click on Breitbart is to dive into the head of Donald Trump. It’s like walking through that little door in “Being John Malkovich” and into the mind of a demagogic madman.

Jerry Falwell Jr and Robert Jeffress - Both men — along with plenty of other prominent Christian figures — dumped their faith on the side of the road and hitched a ride on the Trump Bandwagon. They now promote Trump in direct defiance of Scripture, which clearly stipulates that anyone who desires to be a leader must be noble, respectable, temperate, and dignified (and probably not someone who brags about his adultery and thinks the nation’s largest abortion provider is “wonderful). To claim Trump belongs in any of these categories is blasphemy.

Remember, these charlatans have mercilessly exiled many “moderate” Republicans into the wilderness for the mildest of heresies. They’ve hung the deadly “RINO” label around conservatives for the slightest offenses. They’ve conducted Salem-style witch trials to expose and execute any conservative accused of committing the most harmless misdemeanors against the cause.

Marco Rubio isn’t sufficiently conservatism on a few issues and they lambaste him; Donald Trump isn’t conservative on any issue and they change conservatism to accommodate him.

If they’d given Donald Trump the same treatment they gave, say, John Boenher, we would not be in this situation. And don’t take this as a defense of ”the establishment.” I’ve been as disgusted by the moderate compromisers in our ranks as anyone, but are the milquetoasts really a greater threat to conservatism than Donald Trump? Are they more progressive? Do they flip flop more often? Are they bigger liars and swindlers? Do they calibrate their own positions according to poll numbers more blatantly than Trump? Are they as vindictive, narcissistic, cruel, and lacking in integrity as Trump? Please. Stop it." - Thanks to Matt Walsh

And Rush Limbaugh. Let's not forget him. Rush treasures his stance of "not picking sides or making endorsements", but even he has declined to go after Trump even to the extent that he did people like John McCain and Lindsay Graham, let alone to the extent that Trump himself deserves. His unwillingness to say anything that might put him in the crosshairs of the Trumpettes is so obvious, it's painful to listen to. And his "to be fair" defenses of Trump almost drip pandering.

Sure, all of these people had ratings, or prestige, or what-have-you, but do you think they didn't do the calculations as to how long that would last if they ran afoul of Trump's rabid cultists? And they sold the fuck out.

 

[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.

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.

That's a lie.

No it isn't. It is a logical conclusion.

My theory now is that he's not threatening so much as issuing suggestions to the puppets he's dancing on his strings.

 

[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)

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.

That's a lie.

No it isn't. It is a logical conclusion.

Based on whose logic, yours?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

I don't think he's a racist. I think he's too much of a narcissist to have any particular feeling toward, or even awareness of, other people beyond a vague disdain for them because they aren't Donald Trump.

Racism would be too much like a guiding principle, however warped it is. Donald Trump doesn't do guiding principles, beyond "What's good for Donald Trump."

 

[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.

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.

His rhetoric isn't intellectual, that's true, but I do think it's an intellectual choice for it not to be, and I think it's an intellectual choice for it to be inflammatory in the right way to spark conflicts.

 

[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.

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.

Exactly!

 

[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.

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.

No, this is intellect in the service of evil, or at the very least, chaos.

 

[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.

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.

That's a lie.

Oh, he didn't say it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Obama isn't 70.

Deflection. Go start your own thread for that bullshit.

 

[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)

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.

That's a lie.

Oh, he didn't say it?

Show me where Trump threatened riots.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Oh, it's not just his supporters who are easily led. He's dancing the protesters from the left around like marionettes, too. They're playing right along with his game plan, and they're too pig-stupid to see it.

 

[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.

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.

That's a lie.

Oh, he didn't say it?

Show me where Trump threatened riots.

“I think you would have riots,” Trump said during an interview with CNN. “If you disenfranchise those people, and you say, ‘Well, I’m sorry, but you’re 100 votes short, even though the next one is 500 votes short,’ I think you would have problems like you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen,” Trump continued.

You can play all the semantic games you like and try to label it something else, but it still amounts to a threat. Or, in this case, marching orders.