Who started it? The origins of the violent rhetoric we've seen during the GOP primary season

[TemplarKormac]

It is quite clear that there is enormous amounts of hatred coming from both sides of the aisle this year, given that it is an election year, that is to be expected. Except this has proven to be a unique year in the history of American politics. As a result people have been flinging hateful, and in some cases, violent rhetoric at each other or at Donald Trump in specific. Please understand, that I recognize the same things have happened to Democratic candidates and president, but my sole focus is what we have been seeing over the past few days happen to Trump.

It wasn't really until late October of last year that the political world started taking Donald Trump seriously. People started asking, why doesn't Trump button his jacket when he makes his appearances? It wasn't until, according to his former senior advisor and confidante, Roger Stone, in an interview with conservative talk show host Larry Elder, that he revealed why. Trump never buttoned his jacket because he was always wearing a bulletproof vest.

Trump had until then not worn a bulletproof vest. But that same month, drug kingpin El Chapo placed a $100 million bounty on his head. Wearing a bulletproof vest became standard procedure from then on for Trump in his campaign stops. It was also around that time that Trump began receiving protection from the Secret Service. Less than a month later, in December, Trump proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigration into the United States. That proposal drew a torrent of death threats against him on Twitter. Though the death threats had been going on since September, the volume and severity of the threats seemed to increase afterwards.

It wasn't until February that Trump made the first of a series of incendiary remarks at a Las Vegas campaign rally where he said he would have liked "to punch that guy (a protester) in the face." And it wasn't until last week that the manifestation of Trump's rhetoric drew one 70 year old man to elbow an anti-Trump demonstrator in the face at Trump's Fayetteville, N.C. campaign rally.

A few more examples of violent rhetoric in the past:

This past Saturday in Chicago, Illinois, students from the University of Illinois at Chicago, along with Bernie Sanders supporters, spurred on by MoveOn.org, instigated a violent protest outside of UIC pavilion which caused Donald Trump to cancel his rally there. On November 6, 2012, there were numerous death threats made against Mitt Romney on Twitter as he made his final campaign push before the polls closed.

On June 13, 2008, at a campaign rally in Philadelphia, then Democratic Nominee Barack Obama encouraged his voters, "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

Throughout the Presidency of George W. Bush, it was common to see people comparing him to Hitler or in cases holding up signs like this, or this.On April 14,1992, former President Ronald Reagan was attacked on stage as he accepted an award from the National Association of Broadcasters, in Las Vegas.

Now, in this case, where did the majority of the violent rhetoric come from? Where has it originated? Leftists, who consistently preach of tolerance, yet resort to violence and death threats in attempts to silence their political opposition. In the examples I listed, there too, leftists were the culprits. Violent rhetoric is wrong no matter who it comes from, but leftists should own up to the fact they started it, this time.

 

[Agit8r]

It's just a bit easier for people to "go there" when it involves a candidate without any obvious redeeming value.

 

[BluesLegend]

Illegals started it and we'll finish it!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has revealed that 124 illegal immigrant criminals released from jail by the Obama administration since 2010 have been subsequently charged with 138 murders.

In 2014, ICE released 30,558 criminal aliens who had been convicted of 92,347 crimes. Only 3 percent have been deported. That's going to change under president Trump bank on it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's just a bit easier for people to "go there" when it involves a candidate without any obvious redeeming value.

Please elaborate.

 

[Agit8r]

It's just a bit easier for people to "go there" when it involves a candidate without any obvious redeeming value.

Please elaborate.

Let's take Mitt Romney for instance. For all of his bad qualities, he seemed to be a polite fellow who had raised X number of seemingly well adjusted sons, stood by his wife through her health problems, had been a reasonably decent governor--in a word, he had a modicum of merit as a public servant, and as a Citizen.

The same cannot be said for AT LEAST one of the GOP candidates this time around.

 

[HappyJoy]

Totally, let's blame El Chappo for Short Fingers not controlling his mouth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's just a bit easier for people to "go there" when it involves a candidate without any obvious redeeming value.

Please elaborate.

Let's take Mitt Romney for instance. For all of his bad qualities, he seemed to be a polite fellow who had raised X number of seemingly well adjusted sons, stood by his wife through her health problems, had been a reasonably decent governor--in a word, he had a modicum of merit as a public servant, and as a Citizen.

The same cannot be said for AT LEAST one of the GOP candidates this time around.

So, are you telling me that Donald Trump deserves having death threats made against him?

 

[Never3ndr]

It's just a bit easier for people to "go there" when it involves a candidate without any obvious redeeming value.

That is disingenuous. Trump actually has several reasons to consider him as viable for candidacy. Perhaps his strongest claim is that he lacks a clear tie to politics and appears to be self-funded. This creates the belief that he can act relatively independently changing what is, unarguably, a government that needs some sort of revision or overhaul. Other than that, he appears much more relatable to common people. He speaks simply, passionately, with a lot of repetition, and doesn't really provide a lot of depth. It is easy to digest and, for many, compelling and relatable. Finally, the guy is a business and media genius. You can point to a lot of his business failings, but, in the business world, there are a lot of risk-taking side projects that are tried and failed...and it's actually great. It is when you DON'T take risks and try new things out that you actually end up failing. He's made a ton of money and, if you actually look at how he handles the media and himself in interviews, debates, and his rallies...it is really wonderous the propaganda machine he works up among his supporters. He literally goes North Korea style on his followers dismissing any media source that speaks ill of him while giving praise to anything that agrees or favorably covers him. He controls the information his supporters digest really admirably and, if you ever want to accrue power, you honestly should take note...its really fucking impressive.

Now, more unbiased (and, of course those biased against him) can easily see how his downsides outweigh his positives to such an absurd extent as to appear that he has no "obvious redeeming value"...but that doesn't necessarily make it true. Also, to be fair, it should be noted that Trump actually looks to have started posturing for the general election. If you have seen the last Republican debate, he actually appears sane during it rather than the absurd cartoon he normally appears as. If Trump continues to act in a more civil matter it may be worthy to re-assess him as a candidate. However, as it stands, he's a dangerous radical and his supporters do appear incapable of performing the most basic of assessments in their candidate of choosing.

 

[Agit8r]

It's just a bit easier for people to "go there" when it involves a candidate without any obvious redeeming value.

Please elaborate.

Let's take Mitt Romney for instance. For all of his bad qualities, he seemed to be a polite fellow who had raised X number of seemingly well adjusted sons, stood by his wife through her health problems, had been a reasonably decent governor--in a word, he had a modicum of merit as a public servant, and as a Citizen.

The same cannot be said for AT LEAST one of the GOP candidates this time around.

So, are you telling me that Donald Trump deserves having death threats made against him?

What he deserves is irrelevant to my point. I'm saying that it is easier for people to get to such a point when the person has established a persona that is devoid of humanity.

 

[Pogo]

It is quite clear that there is enormous amounts of hatred coming from both sides of the aisle this year, given that it is an election year, that is to be expected. Except this has proven to be a unique year in the history of American politics. As a result people have been flinging hateful, and in some cases, violent rhetoric at each other or at Donald Trump in specific. Please understand, that I recognize the same things have happened to Democratic candidates and president, but my sole focus is what we have been seeing over the past few days happen to Trump.

It wasn't really until late October of last year that the political world started taking Donald Trump seriously. People started asking, why doesn't Trump button his jacket when he makes his appearances? According to his former senior advisor and confidante, Roger Stone, in an interview with conservative talk show host Larry Elder, that he revealed why. Trump never buttoned his jacket because he was always wearing a bulletproof vest.

Trump had until then not worn a bulletproof vest. But that same month, drug kingpin El Chapo placed a $100 million bounty on his head. Wearing a bulletproof vest became standard procedure from then on for Trump in his campaign stops. It was also around that time that Trump began receiving protection from the Secret Service. Less than a month later, in December, Trump proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigration into the United States. That proposal drew a torrent of death threats against him on Twitter. Though the death threats had been going on since September, the volume and severity of the threats seemed to increase afterwards.

It wasn't until February that Trump made the first of a series of incendiary remarks at a Las Vegas campaign rally where he said he would have liked "to punch that guy (a protester) in the face." And it wasn't until last week that the manifestation of Trump's rhetoric drew one 70 year old man to elbow an anti-Trump demonstrator in the face at Trump's Fayetteville, N.C. campaign rally.

A few more examples of violent rhetoric in the past:

This past Saturday in Chicago, Illinois, students from the University of Illinois at Chicago, along with Bernie Sanders supporters, spurred on by MoveOn.org, instigated a violent protest outside of UIC pavilion which caused Donald Trump to cancel his rally there. On November 6, 2012, there were numerous death threats made against Mitt Romney on Twitter as he made his final campaign push before the polls closed.

On June 13, 2008, at a campaign rally in Philadelphia, then Democratic Nominee Barack Obama encouraged his voters, "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

Throughout the Presidency of George W. Bush, it was common to see people comparing him to Hitler or in cases holding up signs like this, or this.On April 14,1992, former President Ronald Reagan was attacked on stage as he accepted an award from the National Association of Broadcasters, in Las Vegas.

Now, in this case, where did the majority of the violent rhetoric come from? Where has it originated? Leftists, who consistently preach of tolerance, yet resort to violence and death threats in attempts to silence their political opposition. In the examples I listed, there too, leftists were the culprits. Violent rhetoric is wrong no matter who it comes from, but leftists should own up to the fact they started it, this time.

Dood you are so hopelessly fucking naïve. And a damn liar as well

So you would sell the snake oil that all this --- the bulletproof vest "rapists" -- the Secret Service "pigs" ---- the tweets "blood coming out of her wherever" these tweets pigs losers this various reaction just .... what, comes out of nowhere, no context what so ever.

What in the wide world of fuck is wrong with you? You're all like

​

Pretty goddam desperate attempt to bury your dishonest hack head in the sand.

Now here's what you dishonestly left out.

>> That isn’t the first time. At an October 23 rally in Miami, Trump explained, “See the first group, I was nice. Oh, take your time. The second group, I was pretty nice,” he said. “The third group, I’ll be a little more violent. And the fourth group, I’ll say get the hell out of here!”

A month later it was more of the same: “Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing,” Trump said. “I have a lot of fans, and they were not happy about it. And this was a very obnoxious guy who was a trouble-maker who was looking to make trouble.”

...
Less than a month ago at a rally in Nevada, Trump said about a protester, “I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya.” Trump said from the podium that he would pay for legal fees of people who acted out against the protesters, and he later reiterated the sentiment by saying that he would look into paying the legal fees for McGraw. <<​

At Fayetteville, this is what immediately preceded Quick-Draw's assaullt:

>> At the rally, Trump asked the audience “Can’t we have a little more action than this?” when protesters were causing a disturbance. “See, in the good old days this didn’t use to happen, because they used to treat them very rough,” he said. “We’ve become very weak.” <<​

QuickDraw provided "a little more action".

Now onto the other part.

This past Saturday in Chicago, Illinois, students from the University of Illinois at Chicago, along with Bernie Sanders supporters, spurred on by MoveOn.org, instigated a violent protest outside of UIC pavilion which caused Donald Trump to cancel his rally there

BULLSHIT.

>> A spokesperson for the Chicago Police Department tells ABC7 Eyewitness News the Chicago Police Department did not talk to the Trump campaign or tell them to cancel the event, and that the first police heard was at 6:30 p.m. when they were notified by UIC and Secret Service that the event was canceled.


... n a statement from UIC Police Chief Kevin Booker, he said: "The University of Illinois at Chicago worked with all appropriate agencies to address the security concerns associated with an event of this nature including the Secret Service, Chicago Police Department and Illinois State Police as well as campaign and protest organizers. The vast majority of attendees at today's events exercised their Constitutional rights of free speech and free assembly peacefully. The abrupt announcement of the cancellation of the event created challenges in managing an orderly exit from the Pavilion, which nonetheless, was accomplished with no injuries or arrests." << --- posted for literally the 11th time
​

RUMP cancelled the event --- no one else. No one suggested he cancel it --- he did that on his own. And you'll notice in the last part --- he waited until the 10,000 seat venue was filled, and even a half hour after his own scheduled speech time --- to cancel the event, sending ten thousand people who didn't get what they came for out to the street.

​

--- all of which sure as fuck looks like he was trying to incite a riot which he could then blame on somebody else, as he does with literally everything.

He's playing you for a fool. And you're lining up with your mouth open going "yyyyess... master.... may ... I ... have.... another".

WAKE THE FUCK UP.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's just a bit easier for people to "go there" when it involves a candidate without any obvious redeeming value.

Please elaborate.

Let's take Mitt Romney for instance. For all of his bad qualities, he seemed to be a polite fellow who had raised X number of seemingly well adjusted sons, stood by his wife through her health problems, had been a reasonably decent governor--in a word, he had a modicum of merit as a public servant, and as a Citizen.

The same cannot be said for AT LEAST one of the GOP candidates this time around.

So, are you telling me that Donald Trump deserves having death threats made against him?

What he deserves is irrelevant to my point. I'm saying that it is easier for people to get to such a point when the person has established a persona that is devoid of humanity.

I have too much Daft Punk running through my head to deal with your bulls**t right now. The intent was established, as you said "it's just a bit easier for people to "go there" when it involves a candidate without any obvious redeeming value." That made clear that since Trump, according to you has "no redeeming value" that it somehow makes it easier for, or warrants the threats made against his life.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dood you are so hopelessly fucking naïve. And a damn liar as well

If it weren't for that, I would have been prone to read the rest of your...I wouldn't call it a post... but a temper tantrum.

 

[Pogo]

Dood you are so hopelessly fucking naïve. And a damn liar as well

If it weren't for that, I would have been prone to read the rest of your...I wouldn't call it a post... but a temper tantrum.

So you have no answers. You don't dare read the post because then you'd have to come up with some

Go back to the sand. You've been proven to be a fraud.

 

[Unkotare]

Illegals started it and we'll finish it!

....t.

Huh??? And huh?????

 

[Agit8r]

he appears much more relatable to common people.

To fools perhaps. This billionaire with a hand-washing complex is just a regular Joe, right?

''My entire life, I've watched politicians bragging about how poor they are, how they came from nothing, how poor their parents and grandparents were. And I said to myself, if they can stay so poor for so many generations, maybe this isn't the kind of person we want to be electing to higher office. How smart can they be? They're morons."
-- Donald Trump

Liberties; Trump Shrugged

 

[TemplarKormac]

BULLSHIT.

>> A spokesperson for the Chicago Police Department tells ABC7 Eyewitness News the Chicago Police Department did not talk to the Trump campaign or tell them to cancel the event, and that the first police heard was at 6:30 p.m. when they were notified by UIC and Secret Service that the event was canceled.


... n a statement from UIC Police Chief Kevin Booker, he said: "The University of Illinois at Chicago worked with all appropriate agencies to address the security concerns associated with an event of this nature including the Secret Service, Chicago Police Department and Illinois State Police as well as campaign and protest organizers. The vast majority of attendees at today's events exercised their Constitutional rights of free speech and free assembly peacefully. The abrupt announcement of the cancellation of the event created challenges in managing an orderly exit from the Pavilion, which nonetheless, was accomplished with no injuries or arrests." << --- posted for literally the 11th time
RUMP cancelled the event --- no one else. No one suggested he cancel it --- he did that on his own. And you'll notice in the last part --- he waited until the 10,000 seat venue was filled, and even a half hour after his own scheduled speech time --- to cancel the event, sending ten thousand people who didn't get what they came for out to the street.

​

--- all of which sure as fuck looks like he was trying to incite a riot which he could then blame on somebody else, as he does with literally everything.

He's playing you for a fool. And you're lining up with your mouth open going "yyyyess... master.... may ... I ... have.... another".

I didn't say anything about the police, Pogo. So in your eternal rage, you wound up misquoting me. Show me where I mentioned anything about the Police. I do believe I mentioned that Trump cancelled the event. It's right there in my quote.

Do you liberals read? At all?

 

[Unkotare]

Nobody remembers obama's rhetoric in 2008, or pretty much any democrat's rhetoric since the 60s when obama's bff was assassinating police officers?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Who started it?"

Trump's inflammatory rhetoric of bigotry and hate is clearly the source of the conflict – rhetoric made up of only lies, completely devoid of merit.

Some of those opposed to Trump's bigotry and hate saw fit to express their views at his events, events they had a right to attend; and when their behavior became disruptive their removal from the venue was warranted.

What wasn't warranted, however, were physical attacks on protesters by Trump supporters when protesters were being removed from the events.

 

[Pogo]

Finally, the guy is a business and media genius. You can point to a lot of his business failings, but, in the business world, there are a lot of risk-taking side projects that are tried and failed...and it's actually great. It is when you DON'T take risks and try new things out that you actually end up failing.

Pretty much irrelevant. Number one, it's been figured out that if Rump took all that inheritance from Daddy and simply invested it in the stock market -- and not bothered with hotels, casinos, vodka, steaks, airlines, board games etc etc etc ---- he would have the same amount of money as he does, even with the 2008 crash. In other words he did all that wheeling and dealing for effectively --- nothing.

And second, even if he had been a business "genius", that has nothing to do with governing and actually serves the opposite interest. The purpose of business is to enrich itself using the population as its fuel; the purpose of government is to protect that population. The first exploits; the second champions. They serve two different and opposing masters.

I made this point about Romney four years ago. Still applies. "Business experience" is not an asset for a Presidential candidate. We can stop pretending it is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pretty goddam desperate attempt to bury your dishonest hack head in the sand.

Now here's what you dishonestly left out.

>> That isn’t the first time. At an October 23 rally in Miami, Trump explained, “See the first group, I was nice. Oh, take your time. The second group, I was pretty nice,” he said. “The third group, I’ll be a little more violent. And the fourth group, I’ll say get the hell out of here!”

A month later it was more of the same: “Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing,” Trump said. “I have a lot of fans, and they were not happy about it. And this was a very obnoxious guy who was a trouble-maker who was looking to make trouble.”

...
Less than a month ago at a rally in Nevada, Trump said about a protester, “I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya.” Trump said from the podium that he would pay for legal fees of people who acted out against the protesters, and he later reiterated the sentiment by saying that he would look into paying the legal fees for McGraw. <<
At Fayetteville, this is what immediately preceded Quick-Draw's assaullt:

>> At the rally, Trump asked the audience “Can’t we have a little more action than this?” when protesters were causing a disturbance. “See, in the good old days this didn’t use to happen, because they used to treat them very rough,” he said. “We’ve become very weak.” <<
QuickDraw provided "a little more action".

As for this, and as I can tell, you can't grasp the subtle nuances in the English language, here is what I said:

"It wasn't until February that Trump made the first of a series of incendiary remarks at a Las Vegas campaign rally where he said he would have liked "to punch that guy (a protester) in the face."

What do you think "the first of a series" means, Pogo? As far as "incendiary" goes, I'm referring to the violent remarks. Not anything else.

And a word of advice: lay off the caffeine.