Who holds the blame for the events in Chicago?

[Lyin' Steve]

Arch, remember BLM disrupting Bernie's event?
These protesters are violent and they have their own agenda. They are against the Law and Order.

TRUMP's supporters are peaceful. At least the overwhelming majority of them.

I don't know anything about a particular black man or a journalist. I saw a guy punching a protester at one of TRUMP's rallies, which I condemn, of course. But that has nothing to do with TRUMP or his supporters.

Did Bernie incite a riot when they showed up? No.

No, a number of Trump supporters aren't peaceful. This is just simply wrong.

Research the black man and the journalist then. Also, you saw a supporter punch a protester at one of Trump's rallies, but it has nothing to do with Trump or his supporters? What?

Trump didn't incite a riot.  He had his organizers state clearly that there was to be no violence, and iirc there was a please for calm and peace on loop after the event had closed while people were still milling around and Bernie Sanders supporters were starting fights.

This was at an event with tens of thousands of supporters and thousands of protesters.  The Seattle Bernie event was in Westlake Square, which holds a few hundred people and always has heavy police presence since it's a hot spot for protests and riots during the day and muggings, homelessness and drug-related crime at night.

[Ljube]

Arch, remember BLM disrupting Bernie's event?
These protesters are violent and they have their own agenda. They are against the Law and Order.

TRUMP's supporters are peaceful. At least the overwhelming majority of them.

I don't know anything about a particular black man or a journalist. I saw a guy punching a protester at one of TRUMP's rallies, which I condemn, of course. But that has nothing to do with TRUMP or his supporters.

Did Bernie incite a riot when they showed up? No.

No, a number of Trump supporters aren't peaceful. This is just simply wrong.

Research the black man and the journalist then. Also, you saw a supporter punch a protester at one of Trump's rallies, but it has nothing to do with Trump or his supporters? What?

I researched the journalist and there is no evidence for her accusations. I don't know how to research about the black man. Can you tell me what happened? It could be the clip I saw of one of TRUMP's supporters punching a protester.

I agree that a number of TRUMP's supporters aren't peaceful, but the vast majority is. So, we shouldn't condemn them all and TRUMP because there are a couple of rotten apples in their midst.
TRUMP calls for tolerance at every one of his rallies, even love of others. So, I don't see how he could be responsible for what has been happening at his rallies.

[Dr. Arch]

Arch, remember BLM disrupting Bernie's event?
These protesters are violent and they have their own agenda. They are against the Law and Order.

TRUMP's supporters are peaceful. At least the overwhelming majority of them.

I don't know anything about a particular black man or a journalist. I saw a guy punching a protester at one of TRUMP's rallies, which I condemn, of course. But that has nothing to do with TRUMP or his supporters.

Did Bernie incite a riot when they showed up? No.

No, a number of Trump supporters aren't peaceful. This is just simply wrong.

Research the black man and the journalist then. Also, you saw a supporter punch a protester at one of Trump's rallies, but it has nothing to do with Trump or his supporters? What?

Trump didn't incite a riot.  He had his organizers state clearly that there was to be no violence, and iirc there was a please for calm and peace on loop after the event had closed while people were still milling around and Bernie Sanders supporters were starting fights.

This was at an event with tens of thousands of supporters and thousands of protesters.  The Seattle Bernie event was in Westlake Square, which holds a few hundred people and always has heavy police presence since it's a hot spot for protests and riots during the day and muggings, homelessness and drug-related crime at night.

No, Trump did not incite a riot, but please read my previous statements on his stance on previous violent acts at his events by supporters.

Are you implying that those couple of women would've incited a riot if it weren't a heavily secured area? I highly doubt it.

[Dr. Arch]

Arch, remember BLM disrupting Bernie's event?
These protesters are violent and they have their own agenda. They are against the Law and Order.

TRUMP's supporters are peaceful. At least the overwhelming majority of them.

I don't know anything about a particular black man or a journalist. I saw a guy punching a protester at one of TRUMP's rallies, which I condemn, of course. But that has nothing to do with TRUMP or his supporters.

Did Bernie incite a riot when they showed up? No.

No, a number of Trump supporters aren't peaceful. This is just simply wrong.

Research the black man and the journalist then. Also, you saw a supporter punch a protester at one of Trump's rallies, but it has nothing to do with Trump or his supporters? What?

I researched the journalist and there is no evidence for her accusations. I don't know how to research about the black man. Can you tell me what happened? It could be the clip I saw of one of TRUMP's supporters punching a protester.

I agree that a number of TRUMP's supporters aren't peaceful, but the vast majority is. So, we shouldn't condemn them all and TRUMP because there are a couple of rotten apples in their midst.
TRUMP calls for tolerance at every one of his rallies, even love of others. So, I don't see how he could be responsible for what has been happening at his rallies.

Might be the same case: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/03/10/3758520/trump-protester-punched-in-face/

If you acknowledge that a number of Trump supporters aren't peaceful, then you should qualify your statements so that your claim reflects this reality, rather than making sweeping generalizations painting all of his supporters, including these violent supporters whose existence you acknowledge, as, essentially, peaceful. Doing that only demonstrates your tacit support of/apologism for their actions.

Regarding the how you don't see Trump as responsible, see my previous statements. If after that you can't see it still, then it is difficult to have you see it, and we'll have to agree to strongly disagree.

[Oakvale]

So to be clear:

1. Trump's rhetoric attracts some people who might be prone to start sh!t

2. Hundred of protesters show up to start sh!t

3. Sh!t starts

Verdict: Trump's fault.

[Dr. Arch]

So to be clear:

1. Trump's rhetoric attracts some people who might be prone to start sh!t

2. Hundred of protesters show up to start sh!t

3. Sh!t starts

Verdict: Trump's fault.

1. Trump's rhetoric attacks people at a deep-rooted personal level with racial and authoritarian undertones. People, in general, might be prone to start sh!t. Trump does not condemn the escalating violence some of his protesters had been demonstrating.

2. Hundreds of protesters finally show up all at once because of his remarks, which are inflammatory, and his inaction to condemn wrongful actions mostly in part of his supporters. Both Trump's supporters and the protesters want to start sh!t for different reasons.

3. Sh!t starts


Verdict: Trump is at fault through indirect agency and tacit approval.

There, fixed.

[Shadows]

So to be clear:

1. Trump's rhetoric attracts some people who might be prone to start sh!t

2. Hundred of protesters show up to start sh!t

3. Sh!t starts

Verdict: Trump's fault.

I don't blame Trump's supporters - To be honest everyone deserves to hear from their candidate.

But Trump has burned too many bridges - It is not just 1 guy being punched - In many rallies someone is getting abused or hit - And then his violent rhetoric.

It has got to a point where people can't take it anymore!

Trump could end all this with an apology & toning down his violent & hateful comments! And thankfully the protesters did not resort to huge violence otherwise there would have been big problems!

[Ljube]

Arch, please. The protesters are inherently violent people. Otherwise, why would they go to a rally of a politician they don't support and stir trouble? I don't go to Hillary's rallies to shout against here. Peaceful people normally don't do that.

Now, the other politicians should have immediately condemned all protesters. If that had happened, the protesters would have stopped showing up. The reason they didn't condemn the protesters is because they wanted to stump the TRUMP and at the same time pander to those violent BLM protesters.


Yes, that's the clip I saw of a TRUMP supporter punching a protester.


TRUMP calls for tolerance and love at every one of his rallies. Does anyone else call for that? Does Hillary, who says that her worst enemy is the Republican Party? Does Bernie, who hates the wealthy? I don't see what more TRUMP can do. Please tell me what you expect him to do.

[Ljube]

Trump could end all this with an apology & toning down his violent & hateful comments! And thankfully the protesters did not resort to huge violence otherwise there would have been big problems!

Now, that's pure evil. You are trying to shove the political correctness CRAP down TRUMP's throat. It's not his fault that his rhetoric sounds offending to the protesters. It's his right to speak.

It's the fault of the protesters that they act violently in protest of TRUMP's rhetoric.

[TJ in Oregon]

Lol well Trump's been asking for this for months. There's no excuse for rioting still. But when your whole persona is built on pitting one group of people against another, sometimes it actually happens. If only both sides could lose.

[Shadows]

Trump could end all this with an apology & toning down his violent & hateful comments! And thankfully the protesters did not resort to huge violence otherwise there would have been big problems!

Now, that's pure evil. You are trying to shove the political correctness CRAP down TRUMP's throat. It's not his fault that his rhetoric sounds offending to the protesters. It's his right to speak.

It's the fault of the protesters that they act violently in protest of TRUMP's rhetoric.

Trump has been using violence - both in words & actions - beating up peaceful protesters & using violent, hateful language for which he would be in serious trouble in any other country.

I have sympathy for the supporters who came to see their candidate & will continue to have - They deserve to hear their candidate speak. And no1 deserves this madness & chaos.

But Trump has to take a share of the blame - If when Hitler was dealt with, there were causalities, would it be blamed on the guys who did it or Hitler too.

Trump has reached that position now - He is like a modern less violent Hitler now! I condemn any violence & but Trump is the CAUSE for all this!

[ZuWo]

Which group started the attacks? That's the most pressing question.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

haha this forum

If any of you bothered to conduct basic research, you'd realize that this catastrophe of a rally was inevitable: Trump was holding a rally at a university, which is to say that he was implicitly being subsidized by student tuition dollars, a point noted by faculty members of the University of Illinois-Chicago. Apparently, controversy had been building for quite some time before this rally took place for entirely understandable reasons, especially among students, who had every right to be mad that a literal fascist was invading their campus against the wishes of nearly the entire student body and faculty.

It's hard to say that students were "disrupting" an event that took place on their campus, where more than a few of them live. If anything, Trump was disrupting their college, which is largely non-white, by being a magnet for Stormfronters and white supremacists. I, for one, would be very angry if I had to deal with a bunch of deranged, asinine white supremacists on my college campus who were not students. I'd protest their presence and call them names, all of which is legal and "above the board". So would you!

Then, there's fact that Trump supporters have a penchant for violence. Do you know what isn't violent in the slightest? Tearing a Trump banner or a Trump poster. Do you want is violent? Sucker-punching a protester or "throwing debris" at a protester or getting in a brawl with a protester. Most violent acts at Trump rallies have been perpetrated by attendees. Naturally, this has been overlooked because most protesters thus far have been young Black or Latino men, who are clearly bloodthirsty thugs seeking violence.

Who I blame for the events in Chicago:
1. UIC administrators, who should be suspended as soon as possible for allowing this happen. These people are morons.
2. Donald Trump supporters, who are truly bottom of the barrel human beings who get off on beating people up.
3. Donald Trump, who uses events like these for PR purposes.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Which group started the attacks? That's the most pressing question.

It's hard to say but it appears that Trump supporters started the attacks. The eyewitness reports and bad video footage is very unreliable but based on past history at Trump events, where clearly peaceful protesters have had to be protected for their own safety, it's pretty clear which side is violent and which side is not. To be clear, this does not exactly justify disrupting rallies, particularly those held at stadiums, but there's a big distinction between disrupting a rally by chanting and bashing people's heads in or punching people.

That last, of course, was said at the same Fayetteville rally where John McGraw sucker-punched Rakeem Jones — the action that Donald Trump later claimed to "not condone."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11202540/trump-violent

[TJ in Oregon]

haha this forum

If any of you bothered to conduct basic research, you'd realize that this catastrophe of a rally was inevitable: Trump was holding a rally at a university, which is to say that he was implicitly being subsidized by student tuition dollars, a point noted by faculty members of the University of Illinois-Chicago. Apparently, controversy had been building for quite some time before this rally took place for entirely understandable reasons, especially among students, who had every right to be mad that a literal fascist was invading their campus against the wishes of nearly the entire student body and faculty.

It's hard to say that students were "disrupting" an event that took place on their campus, where more than a few of them live. If anything, Trump was disrupting their college, which is largely non-white, by being a magnet for Stormfronters and white supremacists. I, for one, would be very angry if I had to deal with a bunch of deranged, asinine white supremacists on my college campus who were not students. I'd protest their presence and call them names, all of which is legal and "above the board". So would you!

Then, there's fact that Trump supporters have a penchant for violence. Do you know what isn't violent in the slightest? Tearing a Trump banner or a Trump poster. Do you want is violent? Sucker-punching a protester or "throwing debris" at a protester or getting in a brawl with a protester. Most violent acts at Trump rallies have been perpetrated by attendees. Naturally, this has been overlooked because most protesters thus far have been young Black or Latino men, who are clearly bloodthirsty thugs seeking violence.

Who I blame for the events in Chicago:
1. UIC administrators, who should be suspended as soon as possible for allowing this happen. These people are morons.
2. Donald Trump supporters, who are truly bottom of the barrel human beings who get off on beating people up.
3. Donald Trump, who uses events like these for PR purposes.

Does the university regularly allow usage of its facilities to political candidates for rallies? Or is it only acceptable to do so for "approved" political candidates?

[President Johnson]

Protesters. They can demostrate against TRUMP, but they should do it outside. Let the Donald make his speech!

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

haha this forum

If any of you bothered to conduct basic research, you'd realize that this catastrophe of a rally was inevitable: Trump was holding a rally at a university, which is to say that he was implicitly being subsidized by student tuition dollars, a point noted by faculty members of the University of Illinois-Chicago. Apparently, controversy had been building for quite some time before this rally took place for entirely understandable reasons, especially among students, who had every right to be mad that a literal fascist was invading their campus against the wishes of nearly the entire student body and faculty.

It's hard to say that students were "disrupting" an event that took place on their campus, where more than a few of them live. If anything, Trump was disrupting their college, which is largely non-white, by being a magnet for Stormfronters and white supremacists. I, for one, would be very angry if I had to deal with a bunch of deranged, asinine white supremacists on my college campus who were not students. I'd protest their presence and call them names, all of which is legal and "above the board". So would you!

Then, there's fact that Trump supporters have a penchant for violence. Do you know what isn't violent in the slightest? Tearing a Trump banner or a Trump poster. Do you want is violent? Sucker-punching a protester or "throwing debris" at a protester or getting in a brawl with a protester. Most violent acts at Trump rallies have been perpetrated by attendees. Naturally, this has been overlooked because most protesters thus far have been young Black or Latino men, who are clearly bloodthirsty thugs seeking violence.

Who I blame for the events in Chicago:
1. UIC administrators, who should be suspended as soon as possible for allowing this happen. These people are morons.
2. Donald Trump supporters, who are truly bottom of the barrel human beings who get off on beating people up.
3. Donald Trump, who uses events like these for PR purposes.

Does the university regularly allow usage of its facilities to political candidates for rallies? Or is it only acceptable to do so for "approved" political candidates?

In this particular case, I'm not sure, but the UIC would likely run into legal difficulties if it refused to allow Trump to use its space if it, in the past, allowed other candidates to host rallies. That said, I think political candidates should have the good sense and decency to not hold rallies in locations where they're obviously unwelcome/despised.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/09/trump-rallies-raise-safety-concerns-college-campuses

This article does a decent-enough job of highlighting the valid concerns of faculty. All in all, I think there could have been clever/legals ways that the administration could have prevented this event from taking place, to the benefit of both Trump supporters and students.

[TJ in Oregon]

In this particular case, I'm not sure, but the UIC would likely run into legal difficulties if it refused to allow Trump to use its space if it, in the past, allowed other candidates to host rallies. That said, I think political candidates should have the good sense and decency to not hold rallies in locations where they're obviously unwelcome/despised.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/09/trump-rallies-raise-safety-concerns-college-campuses

This article does a decent-enough job of highlighting the valid concerns of faculty. All in all, I think there could have been clever/legals ways that the administration could have prevented this event from taking place, to the benefit of both Trump supporters and students.

Your article states that “It has been our standard practice for decades to rent available space on campus to any political candidate when requested”. So there's the answer to that question.

As for the rest of it, clearly the concerns about violence were valid ones, but I do have a bone to pick with Professor Brier, in that if a group of students attends a rally to protest inside the venue, it is entirely reasonable for the security to eject them. It's hard to imagine the security for any event not doing so. To expect otherwise is absurd.

Also there is a much wider line between actual violence and having people say nasty things than is presented here. Every student has the right to be safe. Safety does not mean a right not to have people say mean things.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's all the fault of this guy.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

In this particular case, I'm not sure, but the UIC would likely run into legal difficulties if it refused to allow Trump to use its space if it, in the past, allowed other candidates to host rallies. That said, I think political candidates should have the good sense and decency to not hold rallies in locations where they're obviously unwelcome/despised.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/09/trump-rallies-raise-safety-concerns-college-campuses

This article does a decent-enough job of highlighting the valid concerns of faculty. All in all, I think there could have been clever/legals ways that the administration could have prevented this event from taking place, to the benefit of both Trump supporters and students.

Your article states that “It has been our standard practice for decades to rent available space on campus to any political candidate when requested”. So there's the answer to that question.

As for the rest of it, clearly the concerns about violence were valid ones, but I do have a bone to pick with Professor Brier, in that if a group of students attends a rally to protest inside the venue, it is entirely reasonable for the security to eject them. It's hard to imagine the security for any event not doing so. To expect otherwise is absurd.

Also there is a much wider line between actual violence and having people say nasty things than is presented here. Every student has the right to be safe. Safety does not mean a right not to have people say mean things.

Surely then, safety also means the right to be able to respond to mean things without the fear of physical retaliation, no? As I pointed out in an earlier post, the issue is that Trump rallies nearly always attract protesters and, whether or not this is an appropriate response to Trump, the reaction from Trump supporters is often violent. I believe that this was what the faculty member was referring to.

Anyways, this idea that Trump deserves dignity and respect granted towards other candidates is repulsive to me. Legally, this is an upstanding and correct view. All candidates should be granted access to public spaces if any other candidate was granted access. However, from a moral standpoint, this view is inane and this, not the legal merits of granting candidates access to campaign space, is what my posts were referring to. We would not expect universities to host George Wallace rallies without resistance nor would we expect them to host Pat Buchanan rallies without resistance. In fact, most forum members would applaud the disruption of a George Wallace event. When you campaign on a platform that embraces the most base tendencies of humanity and that lauds immorality on a systematic scale, you will receive a base response. You reap what you sew. I have no sympathy for the racists who lost the opportunity to see their bloated orange blimp due to the high-energy actions of college students.

Let it be known: the only political actors who have been able to stump the Trump have been an assorted gaggle of young racial minorities. They did what the Republican Party, with its centuries of accumulated institutional authority and treasure trove of financial support, has failed to do over the past year. If you're a Republican, this should make you feel bad.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Peaceful!

[Shadows]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiA7x1z3uwo

This is Trump's last rally - St. Louis, Missouri - Look @ his words - He is directly inciting violence & there was huge protests then too. Look @ the way he reacts.

"There should be consequences for protests" "Police don't wanna hurt them, it's taking so much time"

"I won't say what's on my mind, I refuse to say"

"If you're a little bit rough, If one policeman touches this guy, the media will go nuts.....Give me a break..."

"In the old days, they didn't come back, I tell you"

This guy is a new version of Hitler!

[TJ in Oregon]

Surely then, safety also means the right to be able to respond to mean things without the fear of physical retaliation, no? As I pointed out in an earlier post, the issue is that Trump rallies nearly always attract protesters and, whether or not this is an appropriate response to Trump, the reaction from Trump supporters is often violent. I believe that this was what the faculty member was referring to.

Fear of physical retaliation could literally mean anything. Yes, there have been occasional scrums at Trump rallies before, but that is still not the normal occurrence. I would say a credible threat of violence aimed at a specific set of individuals would be necessary to ban an event from campus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed you do reap what you sew. I would agree that we should not expect a university to host a George Wallace rally without protesters, but I do think that free speech actually does mean free speech. If the university has a policy of allowing political candidates space for rallies, then they must do so even if that politician is George Wallace. I'd applaud your protest and yet believe you should be ejected for holding it. The very point of having free speech is precisely to allow people to say things that are offensive. For better or for worse, a foundational principle of our country is the ability to publicly advocate an immoral attitude. If we attempted to change that principle, we would be unable to enunciate a broadly agreeable moral framework on which to determine which views are acceptable to say, unless of course such a framework is imposed via fiat. If it were, it would make life pretty intolerable for those in the opposition. I for one would rather die on my feet than live on my knees beneath the yoke of a progressive state that tells me what I am and am not allowed to believe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They haven't stumped him yet and indeed I'm not at all convinced that doing so in the Republican Primary is at all their intention. I am a Republican and lots of things make me feel bad. Such is life.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

huh? I was not advocating for any sort of legislation banning certain candidates from speaking or anything of the sort. I simply believe that it would have been sensible for university administrators to search for means to re-route Trump away from speaking at their campus through various channels. They could have conveniently rented out space to other groups before the primary or asked him politely to consider holding his event elsewhere and coordinated with the private sector to make this happen. None of this, to my knowledge, would have been illegal. It would have been sensible. It certainly would not have invoked the specter of a "progressive state". It would not have been an infringement upon free speech. Any claims to the contrary are ridiculous and display a total ignorance of how speech rights are exercised in practice: they're governed by social norms. Trump violated social norms by attempting to hold a rally at this university. There would have been nothing illegal or immoral to attempt to steer him elsewhere.

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow and the catalyst for this commitment is hardly inspiring, rooted not in any sort of commitment to democracy but rather to ideological purity. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

Anyways, we'll stump the Trump in November and I don't think we need the right's help. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Alcon]

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

You're arguing that there's nothing "noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of" people you think are bad (or dangerous or something?), and then bemoaning that he assumes that "students of the left" are "authoritarians"...?  eh?

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here.  But I'm trying to figure out what substantive point you're making -- your post is more about the associations of what he's saying than the content itself.