Another deplorable at Trump event in Asheville punched out a 69 year old woman

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The only deplorable people are those that instigate by protesting at rallies. Nobody wants them there, and they are doing no good and deserve to be brutally attacked. This man was fighting the good fight.

Protest of the government is very much a part of the American way of life.

How would you like to have had the Tea Party types roughed up in 2010?

I don't like the American way of life. That needs to be changed.

And greatly. The far right needs to be destroyed and quickly.

You are the far right minus religiosity.

??
I am a part of the Christian Left

[Dr. Arch]

The only deplorable people are those that instigate by protesting at rallies. Nobody wants them there, and they are doing no good and deserve to be brutally attacked. This man was fighting the good fight.

Protest of the government is very much a part of the American way of life.

How would you like to have had the Tea Party types roughed up in 2010?

I don't like the American way of life. That needs to be changed.

And greatly. The far right needs to be destroyed and quickly.

You are the far right minus religiosity.

??
I am a part of the Christian Left

No way if you're supporting Trump. He's the very antithesis of a Christian.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The only deplorable people are those that instigate by protesting at rallies. Nobody wants them there, and they are doing no good and deserve to be brutally attacked. This man was fighting the good fight.

Protest of the government is very much a part of the American way of life.

How would you like to have had the Tea Party types roughed up in 2010?

I don't like the American way of life. That needs to be changed.

And greatly. The far right needs to be destroyed and quickly.

You are the far right minus religiosity.

??
I am a part of the Christian Left

No way if you're supporting Trump. He's the very antithesis of a Christian.

The Christian Left does not judge others based on their religious views.

[Dr. Arch]

The only deplorable people are those that instigate by protesting at rallies. Nobody wants them there, and they are doing no good and deserve to be brutally attacked. This man was fighting the good fight.

Protest of the government is very much a part of the American way of life.

How would you like to have had the Tea Party types roughed up in 2010?

I don't like the American way of life. That needs to be changed.

And greatly. The far right needs to be destroyed and quickly.

You are the far right minus religiosity.

??
I am a part of the Christian Left

No way if you're supporting Trump. He's the very antithesis of a Christian.

The Christian Left does not judge others based on their religious views.

What did Trump say about Muslims again? Hmm...

[pppolitics]

Somebody should make this into an ad and overlay it with Trump's voice: "I'd like to punch him in the face.", "Knock the crap out of him", and "In the old days, they would be carried out on stretchers."

[DrScholl]

It's okay, he's clearly a good, hard working person /sarc. Trump supporters are violent and unstable. Hillary was right when she called half of them deplorable.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Hillary was wrong....not half of them....ALL OF THEM are deplorables

[PresidentSamTilden]

I don't like the American way of life. That needs to be changed.

And greatly. The far right needs to be destroyed and quickly.

Could you elaborate on that? What do you think needs to be changed? I think we need to change as well in a lot of ways.

One more question. You support Trump but say that the far right needs to be destroyed. Do you not consider him to be far right?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I don't like the American way of life. That needs to be changed.

And greatly. The far right needs to be destroyed and quickly.

Could you elaborate on that? What do you think needs to be changed? I think we need to change as well in a lot of ways.

One more question. You support Trump but say that the far right needs to be destroyed. Do you not consider him to be far right?

Trump is exceptionally moderate unlike the buffoons he ran against.

I'm not sure where to begin with the the first statement because I can't get into every cause I believe in here, but in the context of this thread, it was from a 'muh freedom' perspective, but I also believe it both in terms of morality (especially aiding thy neighbor) and racial harmonization to name a couple of the most pressing (and long-lasting!) issues we face. Most of "The American Way" is an embarrassment, and that was the point of the statement, but obviously I literally wants to change hundreds of things that are horribly wrong. Obama's done the best he can for now, but the far right Congress is holding us form being even greater. Defeating them needs to be the first goal.

[ag]

I don't like the American way of life. That needs to be changed.

And greatly. The far right needs to be destroyed and quickly.

Could you elaborate on that? What do you think needs to be changed? I think we need to change as well in a lot of ways.

One more question. You support Trump but say that the far right needs to be destroyed. Do you not consider him to be far right?

Trump is exceptionally moderate unlike the buffoons he ran against.

I'm not sure where to begin with the the first statement because I can't get into every cause I believe in here, but in the context of this thread, it was from a 'muh freedom' perspective, but I also believe it both in terms of morality (especially aiding thy neighbor) and racial harmonization to name a couple of the most pressing (and long-lasting!) issues we face. Most of "The American Way" is an embarrassment, and that was the point of the statement, but obviously I literally wants to change hundreds of things that are horribly wrong. Obama's done the best he can for now, but the far right Congress is holding us form being even greater. Defeating them needs to be the first goal.

So, to sum up, for these reasons you advocate fundamental immorality, racial hatred, civil war and mass murder. And you call all those things "moderation". Got it.

Ah, and, I see, you are doing this all under the Italian flag. Fits.

[ag]

I am a part of the Christian Left

This, possibly, could have been a reasonable characterization before the March on Rome.

[Cassius]

I feel, had God had another plan for him, Trump could've been a great early Renaissance Pope.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The only deplorable people are those that instigate by protesting at rallies. Nobody wants them there, and they are doing no good and deserve to be brutally attacked. This man was fighting the good fight.

Protest of the government is very much a part of the American way of life.

How would you like to have had the Tea Party types roughed up in 2010?

Protest of the government is very much a part of the American way of life.  Disrupting events sponsored by folks you disagree with is not.  This is DONALD TRUMP'S rally.  He's paying for it.  There is a reasonable expectation that his supporters will get to listen to Donald Trump.  If folks think Trump is a scumbag, by all means, hold your own rally.  Get a permit and protest outside.  If it's legal, protest within eyesight and earshot of those going into the rally.  There is a difference.

The guy that hit the lady violated the law.  He should be arrested, and he should have to face criminal charges.  But these are not "innocent victims"; they came to a Trump rally to deliberately disrupt the proceedings.  If this happened in Florida, the perpetrator would have mitigating circumstances, in that  "The victim was an initiator, willing participant, aggressor, or provoker of the incident."   That's not my opinion; that's Florida Law; it's not a defense, but it IS a basis for a downward departure at time of criminal sentencings.

I HAVE been to political rallies.  I saw Jimmy Carter in 1976 and I've been at many smaller events, and folks who wished to demonstrate were either "keeping it outside" or getting arrested if they came inside and disturbed the event.  Free speech also means that you don't get to hijack a forum someone else paid for.

[SteveRogers]

The only deplorable people are those that instigate by protesting at rallies. Nobody wants them there, and they are doing no good and deserve to be brutally attacked. This man was fighting the good fight.

Protest of the government is very much a part of the American way of life.

How would you like to have had the Tea Party types roughed up in 2010?

Protest of the government is very much a part of the American way of life.  Disrupting events sponsored by folks you disagree with is not.  This is DONALD TRUMP'S rally.  He's paying for it.  There is a reasonable expectation that his supporters will get to listen to Donald Trump.  If folks think Trump is a scumbag, by all means, hold your own rally.  Get a permit and protest outside.  If it's legal, protest within eyesight and earshot of those going into the rally.  There is a difference.

The guy that hit the lady violated the law.  He should be arrested, and he should have to face criminal charges.  But these are not "innocent victims"; they came to a Trump rally to deliberately disrupt the proceedings.  If this happened in Florida, the perpetrator would have mitigating circumstances, in that  "The victim was an initiator, willing participant, aggressor, or provoker of the incident."   That's not my opinion; that's Florida Law; it's not a defense, but it IS a basis for a downward departure at time of criminal sentencings.

I HAVE been to political rallies.  I saw Jimmy Carter in 1976 and I've been at many smaller events, and folks who wished to demonstrate were either "keeping it outside" or getting arrested if they came inside and disturbed the event.  Free speech also means that you don't get to hijack a forum someone else paid for.

You're still missing the point though. Every person who has ever run for office in this country has had to deal with protestors at their rallies. Your guy's supporters are the only ones who think a physical assault is the correct way to remove a disruptive individual. Why is that?

[Badger]

The only deplorable people are those that instigate by protesting at rallies. Nobody wants them there, and they are doing no good and deserve to be brutally attacked. This man was fighting the good fight.

Protest of the government is very much a part of the American way of life.

How would you like to have had the Tea Party types roughed up in 2010?

Protest of the government is very much a part of the American way of life.  Disrupting events sponsored by folks you disagree with is not.  This is DONALD TRUMP'S rally.  He's paying for it.  There is a reasonable expectation that his supporters will get to listen to Donald Trump.  If folks think Trump is a scumbag, by all means, hold your own rally.  Get a permit and protest outside.  If it's legal, protest within eyesight and earshot of those going into the rally.  There is a difference.

The guy that hit the lady violated the law.  He should be arrested, and he should have to face criminal charges.  But these are not "innocent victims"; they came to a Trump rally to deliberately disrupt the proceedings.  If this happened in Florida, the perpetrator would have mitigating circumstances, in that  "The victim was an initiator, willing participant, aggressor, or provoker of the incident."   That's not my opinion; that's Florida Law; it's not a defense, but it IS a basis for a downward departure at time of criminal sentencings.

I HAVE been to political rallies.  I saw Jimmy Carter in 1976 and I've been at many smaller events, and folks who wished to demonstrate were either "keeping it outside" or getting arrested if they came inside and disturbed the event.  Free speech also means that you don't get to hijack a forum someone else paid for.

Remember when Carter told the crowd what a great leader of the free world he'd be, and then proved his suitability by emphatically urging the crowd to assault those hecklers and offering to pay legal fees for doing so? Good times, good times.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

You're still missing the point though. Every person who has ever run for office in this country has had to deal with protestors at their rallies. Your guy's supporters are the only ones who think a physical assault is the correct way to remove a disruptive individual. Why is that?

Because it is so Trump'ish to fight back by using opponents' own "language". Wheather it is criminal media, criminal establishment och criminal protesters.

If you [protesters/media] started the game, don't complain about the rules afterwards.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

You're still missing the point though. Every person who has ever run for office in this country has had to deal with protestors at their rallies. Your guy's supporters are the only ones who think a physical assault is the correct way to remove a disruptive individual. Why is that?

Because it is so Trump'ish to fight back by using opponents' own "language". Wheather it is criminal media, criminal establishment och criminal protesters.

If you [protesters/media] started the game, don't complain about the rules afterwards.

So go ahead. Show me/others protestors physically assaulting others.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

You're still missing the point though. Every person who has ever run for office in this country has had to deal with protestors at their rallies. Your guy's supporters are the only ones who think a physical assault is the correct way to remove a disruptive individual. Why is that?

Because it is so Trump'ish to fight back by using opponents' own "language". Wheather it is criminal media, criminal establishment och criminal protesters.

If you [protesters/media] started the game, don't complain about the rules afterwards.

So go ahead. Show me/others protestors physically assaulting others.

If you do something illegal (especially provocation on purpose), don't complain when something illegal will be done to you

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

You're still missing the point though. Every person who has ever run for office in this country has had to deal with protestors at their rallies. Your guy's supporters are the only ones who think a physical assault is the correct way to remove a disruptive individual. Why is that?

Because it is so Trump'ish to fight back by using opponents' own "language". Wheather it is criminal media, criminal establishment och criminal protesters.

If you [protesters/media] started the game, don't complain about the rules afterwards.

So go ahead. Show me/others protestors physically assaulting others.

If you do something illegal (especially provocation on purpose), don't complain when something illegal will be done to you

Guess we should start shooting jaywalkers then...

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Guess we should start shooting jaywalkers then...

You mean there are jaywalkers who do it on purpose to provoke car drivers and who actually want to be hit by car, knowing it will be on tape?

I've never heard of it. Have you?

[Fuzzy Bear]

The only deplorable people are those that instigate by protesting at rallies. Nobody wants them there, and they are doing no good and deserve to be brutally attacked. This man was fighting the good fight.

Protest of the government is very much a part of the American way of life.

How would you like to have had the Tea Party types roughed up in 2010?

Protest of the government is very much a part of the American way of life.  Disrupting events sponsored by folks you disagree with is not.  This is DONALD TRUMP'S rally.  He's paying for it.  There is a reasonable expectation that his supporters will get to listen to Donald Trump.  If folks think Trump is a scumbag, by all means, hold your own rally.  Get a permit and protest outside.  If it's legal, protest within eyesight and earshot of those going into the rally.  There is a difference.

The guy that hit the lady violated the law.  He should be arrested, and he should have to face criminal charges.  But these are not "innocent victims"; they came to a Trump rally to deliberately disrupt the proceedings.  If this happened in Florida, the perpetrator would have mitigating circumstances, in that  "The victim was an initiator, willing participant, aggressor, or provoker of the incident."   That's not my opinion; that's Florida Law; it's not a defense, but it IS a basis for a downward departure at time of criminal sentencings.

I HAVE been to political rallies.  I saw Jimmy Carter in 1976 and I've been at many smaller events, and folks who wished to demonstrate were either "keeping it outside" or getting arrested if they came inside and disturbed the event.  Free speech also means that you don't get to hijack a forum someone else paid for.

Remember when Carter told the crowd what a great leader of the free world he'd be, and then proved his suitability by emphatically urging the crowd to assault those hecklers and offering to pay legal fees for doing so? Good times, good times.

People knew how to behave back then.

People didn't heckle Carter's or Ford's rallies.  Protestors took it outside.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The only deplorable people are those that instigate by protesting at rallies. Nobody wants them there, and they are doing no good and deserve to be brutally attacked. This man was fighting the good fight.

Protest of the government is very much a part of the American way of life.

How would you like to have had the Tea Party types roughed up in 2010?

Protest of the government is very much a part of the American way of life.  Disrupting events sponsored by folks you disagree with is not.  This is DONALD TRUMP'S rally.  He's paying for it.  There is a reasonable expectation that his supporters will get to listen to Donald Trump.  If folks think Trump is a scumbag, by all means, hold your own rally.  Get a permit and protest outside.  If it's legal, protest within eyesight and earshot of those going into the rally.  There is a difference.

The guy that hit the lady violated the law.  He should be arrested, and he should have to face criminal charges.  But these are not "innocent victims"; they came to a Trump rally to deliberately disrupt the proceedings.  If this happened in Florida, the perpetrator would have mitigating circumstances, in that  "The victim was an initiator, willing participant, aggressor, or provoker of the incident."   That's not my opinion; that's Florida Law; it's not a defense, but it IS a basis for a downward departure at time of criminal sentencings.

I HAVE been to political rallies.  I saw Jimmy Carter in 1976 and I've been at many smaller events, and folks who wished to demonstrate were either "keeping it outside" or getting arrested if they came inside and disturbed the event.  Free speech also means that you don't get to hijack a forum someone else paid for.

You're still missing the point though. Every person who has ever run for office in this country has had to deal with protestors at their rallies. Your guy's supporters are the only ones who think a physical assault is the correct way to remove a disruptive individual. Why is that?

One reason is that only Trump seems to have these kinds of hecklers at his rallies.  Straight out of the Saul Alinsky mold, these folks come to Trump rallies following his specified "Rules for Radicals".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The disruption of Trump's rallies is planned, deliberate, Alinskyite tactics.  Those who disrupt Trump's rallies are following Rule 11.

This is not to defend the guy who hit the protestor.  Security had the matter in hand; that guy can now take his legal lumps.  But these protestors are not the kind of innocent victims who were just at the "wrong place at the wrong time".