Donald Trump

Donald Trump's Rivals Completely Let Him Off the Hook on Violence Surrounding His Campaign

GOP frontrunner says violence at his rallies is because of anger over trade deals, female reporter "made up" story about being manhandled by campaign manager.

|

Well into the second half of last night's

A little bit more violence.
Flickr/Gage Skidmore

CNN-televised Republican Presidential Debate in Miami, moderator Jake Tapper finally got around to confronting frontrunner Donald Trump about the issue that led most national nightly news broadcasts last night: the recent spasms of violence that have occurred at his campaign events, including the sucker-punch thrown by 78-year-old John McGraw to the face of a 26-year-old protester being ejected from the event. 

McGraw, who was arrested and charged with assault and battery yesterday, told Inside Edition that punching the protester "felt good" and "The next time we see him, we might have to kill him. We don't know who he is. He might be with a terrorist organization."

Referring to this incident, Tapper asked Trump, "Do you believe that you've done anything to create a tone where this kind of violence would be encouraged?" Trump replied that he hoped he hadn't done anything to encourage violence and doesn't condone it, but that there's an "anger that's unbelievable" in this country over "bad trade deals" and "higher taxes." 

When confronted with a run-down of recent quotes where Trump literally encourages violence against protesters at his rallies, going so far as to "promise" to pay for the legal fees of any of his supporters who "knock the crap" out of dissenters, Trump replied

We have some protesters who are bad dudes, they have done bad things. They are swinging, they are really dangerous and they get in there and they start hitting people. And we had a couple big, strong, powerful guys doing damage to people, not only the loudness, the loudness I don't mind. But doing serious damage. And if they've got to be taken out, to be honest, I mean, we have to run something.

At this point, Tapper or one of Trump's opponents on the stage could have jumped in and pointed out that there is not a single documented case of violence attributed to a protester at a Trump event. Instead, Tapper allowed Trump to trail off into a spiel about how police are "taking tremendous abuse in this country and they do a phenomenal job." 

When asked about the images of violence potentially harming the GOP's chances in the general election, Sen. Ted Cruz (Tx.) ignored the question entirely and gave a short answer implying President Obama thinks he's "above the law" and "behaves like an emperor." Gov. John Kasich (Ohio) said he worries "about the violence at the rally," then segued into a rehearsed talking point about Americans being insecure about the economy.

The last contender given an opportunity to call out Trump's rhetoric as an inciting factor in the recent violence, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fl.), said "I'm concerned about violence in general in this society," then proceeded into an anecdote about how his grandfather watched the 1969 moon landing and said "Americans can do anything."

Following the debate, Trump told NBC's Katy Tur that the sucker-punching McGraw was a "passionate person" and the incident was "just one of those things."

CNN's Dylan Byers addressed a different but related elephant in the spin room, the accusation levied against Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski that he forcibly yanked Breitbart News reporter Michelle Fields after Trump's post-primary press conference Tuesday night.

Even though an audio recording backs up Fields' (and the Washington Post's Ben Terris') description of the incident, and Fields has shared a photo of her bruised forearm on Twitter, Trump said point blank that he believes she "made the story up." The Trump campaign is sticking to this story, with Lewandowski taking his case to Twitter in a series of tweets where he repeatedly referred to Fields as an "attention seeker."

It should be noted that Lewandowski reportedly admitted to Breitbart reporter Matt Boyle that he did indeed grab Fields, which he tried to explain away by saying he mistook Boyle's colleague for "an adversarial member of the mainstream media" rather than an employee for the single most pro-Trump news site in the country. Perhaps this is why Lewandowski is letting others, like Trump himself, flat-out deny the incident took place, while Lewandowski can stick to smearing Fields as an "attention seeker."

When Tapper failed to follow-up on his initial question about violence at Trump rallies with a query about the Lewandowski/Fields incident, he let Trump tap-dance his way out of any responsibility for inciting violence and for creating a campaign culture where his most senior staffer would find it appropriate to trigger a physical altercation with a female reporter if she worked for an "adversarial" media outlet.

Trump's opponents, who have railed against his "incivility" and "bullying" for months, completely let him off the hook at last night's debate when presented with the opportunity to explain how the Trump movement goes far beyond just nasty rhetoric, but is instead now manifesting itself violentlyoften with pointed racial connotations

At a press conference this morning, Trump referred to a past event where he said he'd like to punch a protester. He described an incident taking place in the stands, that has not been reported anywhere, of a single protester who he says "was swinging. He was hitting people. And the audience hit back. And that's what we need. A little bit more of."

If last night is any indication of how Trump's rivals and the media plan on holding Trump accountable for how his words influence the actions of his supporters, it's a fair bet to say that "a little bit more" violence is what we'll see. 

One wonders if John McGraw will reach out to Trump for help with his legal bills. After all, the senior citizen who assaulted another man for "not acting like an American" is facing some serious charges, and Trump did promise to defend his punchy supporters in court

(UPDATE: Moments after I published this post, Breitbart's Joel B. Pollak released a report stating that the organization believes the incident did take place but that Terris likely misidentified the man who grabbed Fields. Pollak writes that the likely culprit was a man standing next to Lewandowski who bears a physical resemblence to him. Also moments ago, Independent Journal reported that Fields filed charges against Lewandowski.)

NEXT: If You Think You're Rich Today, Just Wait Until Tomorrow: Instapundit on Progress

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…..dentified/

    Should probably also mention that Breitbart has funding from Robert Mercer who is a Cruz donor.

    1. If it wasn’t Lewandowski, why is the Trump campaign trying to smear Michelle Fields rather than saying “this was unfortunate and unacceptable, but Mr. Lewandowski was not involved?”

      1. Because she’s a whorenalist. Duh.

        1. Don’t be ridiculous, nicole. The Trump campaign certainly wouldn’t act abusively toward a journalist just because she has blood coming out of her…wherever.

        2. She obviously slept her way to the top. It’s the only explanation.

      2. Well, if it wasn’t Mr. Lewandowski then wouldn’t the Trump campaign rightly feel that Ms. Fields was trying to smear them?

        1. some,

          Good luck gaming that alternative universe. Meanwhile, here where video isn’t conclusive, but highly suggestive of Lew standing next to her when she suddenly jerks around, and shortly thereafter gets a picture of small, finger bruises on one of her Arms. Given that, defensive comments to protect your guy are called for, if you feel loyal to your subordinate and want to protect that subordinate from accusations you feel are wrong, you’d speak out.

          If Lew is guilty, he should be sent back to warming the bench and no longer be a tentative part of the Campaign Proxies who speak out to the press for Trump.

      3. this whole thing is representative of trumps campaign thus far; he says something and not hours later denies that what he just said and was digitally recorded is bullshit made up by his opponents.

      4. His spokeswoman already said that on a talking head show.

        1. Katrina Pierson? Was that before or after she appeared on Fox saying it was 100% made up?

          1. Probably the same time. If Briebart is correct and it wasn’t Lewandowski who did it, if she blames him even though he wasn’t the one who did it (that is if briebart is correct) then yes, it was 100% made up.

            1. To clarify, the accusation against Lewandowski is 100% made up if it really wasn’t Lewandowski.

    2. After I been earnin $8768 this-past/five weeks and-a little over, $10k lass-month. it’s realy my favourite work I have ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $87… p/h. I follow
      this website,
      =============== http://www.PathCash30.com

  2. Question – is it your legal theory that Trump’s words directly instigated this violence by his supporters?

    If so, does it rise beyond the level of protected speech?

    If so, petition for his arrest.

    If not, sorry.

    1. Does Trump advocate bad things?

      If so, should he be elected President?

    2. Uh, where in this post does Anthony argue that Trump be charged with incitement? Or where does it even suggest that he is legally liable? Where does he even mention the law at all?

    3. You’re going to defend a literal fascist with a technicality? Cruz fired his communication director for lying. Trump makes excuses for his campaign director assaulting.

  3. Missed opportunity all around.

    Trump could have tried to cool down his supporters (and he should, if only to stop the damage to his brand). The others could have challenged him for not doing so.

    1. I’m not sure cooling down his supporters is what he’s going for here.

    2. When your opponent is shooting themselves in the foot, you don’t interfere. I suspect that all the prep teams told their candidates not to publicly pile onto Trump on this issue. Trump will damage himself and if the other candidates stay out of the mud, they won’t get dirty.

      1. Lets see, some libertarians clamor for open borders, some some immigrants that come through our porous borders kill people, so libertarians are responsible for the murder of innocents by violent immigrants.

  4. Not taking responsibility for what you’ve spawned is presidential.

    1. I blame Bush. Also the French.

      1. Freedom Fries!

  5. But Trump was acting Presidential last night, showing us his cerebral and thoughtful and rational side – which has convinced me I was wrong to think he’s a con-man. I know a con-man when I see one and I’m completely confident Trump doesn’t act a thing like a con-man. Yessiree, totally not a con-man. 100% confident.

  6. In order to protect himself against these violent protestors, Trump will start hiring a special security team. They will all have a standard-issue uniform with a shirt, in a tasteful shade of brown, to wear to rallies. It’ll be really classy.

    1. Made by Hugo Boss?

      1. It’s gonna be great, you’re gonna love it. And since every Muslim is a potential terrorist, they are all gonna have to wear a green crescent whenever they are out in public. You know, just so people can keep an eye on them.

        1. We need some new flags too.

    2. How tall will their boots be?

      1. The same height blood splashes.

    3. UPS drivers are not so easily bought.

      1. Aren’t they all unionized? It doesn’t get easier than that.

  7. And the Eagles of Death Metal were let off the hook for letting people shoot up their gig in Paris

    1. After they obviously incited it! I mean, ‘death’ is even in their name!

  8. “The Trump campaign is sticking to this story, with Lewandowski taking his case to Twitter in a series of tweets where he repeatedly referred to Fields as an “attention seeker.””

    If she didn’t want to get assaulted, she shouldn’t have worn such short sleeves

  9. Related:

    The Wiener’s Circle: Chicago Hot Dog Stand Offers 3-Inch Hot Dogs Called ‘Trump Footlongs’

    “At The Wiener’s Circle, we’re going to do our part to make [Trump] feel at home,” Brendan Kelly of Wiener’s Circle said. Trump is holding a rally at the UIC Pavilion in Chicago Friday.

    Chicago brewery renames their Donald Trump beer ‘Chinga Tu Pelo’ (‘Fuck your hair’)

    A Latino-owned brewery in the Chicago area is renaming leftover beer they produced for Donald Trump, after he called Mexican immigrants “rapists” and drug dealers.

  10. Following the debate, Trump told NBC’s Katy Tur that the sucker-punching McGraw was a “passionate person” and the incident was “just one of those things.”

    “I mean, hey, c’mon, what’s a little assault, anyway?”

  11. Guys, I want to take a moment to apologize to John.

    He and I had a huge argument about the nature of fascism. Specifically, he argued that to be fascist, a movement had to have a violent component; that the members of the movement had to be committing acts of violence with impunity against their opponents to create a culture of intimidation. I scoffed at the idea, holding that fascism need not inherently involve that sort of violence. I argued that it was a political/economic response to perceived threates to society characterized by conscripting both the state and business to oppose those threats.

    I’m now seeing John’s point. It seems that it’s impossible for a fascist movement to not involve violence and intimidation as it seeks to seize and then consolidate power. The movement will face all sorts of opposition, including opposition by individuals or small businessmen who are either part of the enemy, or just don’t like the changes the movement plans, and the easiest way to deal with such decentralized opposition is to beat a few so that the rest are afraid to speak.

    And I think the sparks of violence at Trump rallies mark that phenomenon. Trump *is* a fascist, and the comparative lack of violence in his early days wasn’t evidence that violence is not inherent in fascism; but rather just the fact that the movement he was developing didn’t see violence as necessary at that point in time.

    So John, I think you might be right about violence being inherent to facism.

    1. Violence is inherent to the state, so of course it’s inherent to any totalitarian system.

      1. Of course state violence is inherent to fascism; but I argued mob violence need not be.

      1. I’m not negging John! I am sincerely conceding that he had a point.

        1. Negging John is Cytotoxic’s game. You’re stepping on his cold, pre-teen toes.

          1. You’re stepping on his cold, pre-teen toes.

            Of which he has eleven. Not five on one, six on the other like you’d think, either – it’s seven and four.

            1. Well which foot has seven and which has four? Because you know, it matters.

              1. Well, given his hatred for the left …

              2. The right foot has more toes, of course.

    2. We’re not quite at Beer Hall Putsch levels, never mind Kristallnacht. I said a while ago that Trump isn’t a fascist because he has no brownshirts and I still think that’s the case. I’m always wary of the media building a narrative. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to say that this movement isn’t at least proto-fascist at its edges.

      1. Meh. Donald Trump isn’t Hitler. He’s not even Mussolini.

        He’s your drunk neighbor

      2. This movement is similar to those anti-racism protests at colleges.

        1. Actually, I would say the Trump movement is not nearly as violent as those riots were.

      3. Let’s keep it technical. Hitler = Nazi Socialism = brown shirts = Kristallnacht. Mussolini = Fascism (which he invented) = black shirts.

        Soooo, technically, since we were talking fascists you meant black shirts, right?

        /winks.

    3. Exactly. Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

    4. All is forgiven after you take this shower…

    5. Sooo, help me out here. From my crappy college education, fascism is a form of government that incorporates a nationalistic focus and corporatist economy. A fasces is a bundle of sticks. The whole break a stick then hold 5 and try to break them together, yada, yada. 1930s Germany was more socialist than fascist (National Socialist Workers Party, as in Nationalism with some Socialism) but 1930s Italy was fascist. The melding of large business and government. Violence is not a unique component of the term. As said above violence is inherent in any government.

      Trump “could”, by the above, be fairly judged a fascist. He is in favor or corporatism and strong nationalistic populism. Violence is just always along for the ride.

      1. Look up the night of long knives to find out what Hitler really thought of socialist movement.

        1. Hitler killed or drove out all of his critics, regardless of where on the ideological spectrum they were coming from.

  12. OK, Trump isn’t Pappy O’Daniel, he’s another 1930s political figure…Huey Long of Louisiana.

    He wants to be a “kingfish” in a populist-authoritarian sort of way.

    The difference is that Long was a Louisiana leftist and Trump is a New York leftist.

    1. I have been thinking that as well.

  13. I’m glad Fields pressed charges.

    It is also not a surprise that the vaunted news media can’t easily identify members of the Trump campaign.

  14. Can Breitbart please change its name? Andrew Breitbart’s site bore no resemblance to the pool of shit it’s become since he died.

    1. Whatever, “Juvenile Cuckster.”

    2. John Nolte is a complete moron and has turned the site into a fever swamp.

      BTW, why is Fields working there? She has a job at Fox News and used to work for Reason. You’d think she’d be working for a slightly more respectable site.

    3. Breitbart used to be anti-Prohibitionist. The new crew – not so much.

      Scientific Anecdote

    4. I thought it was now called Trumpbart.

    5. 100% agreed. That site used to be an excellent source for exposing BS in the media and from both Democrats and Republicans. Didn’t take much time at all for that site to go downhill after Breitbart’s death. I can’t even stand the comments anymore with the mob mentality over there whenever someone dares to say anything negative about Trump.

      1. After his death, or his assassination? ^_-

  15. “It should be noted that Lewandowski reportedly admitted to Breitbart reporter Matt Boyle that he did indeed grab Fields, which he tried to explain away by saying he mistook Boyle’s colleague for “an adversarial member of the mainstream media” rather than an employee for the single most pro-Trump news site in the country.”

    LOL, ‘it’s okay, I thought I was attacking one of our adversaries!’

    If the Trumpistas aren’t fascists, at least they have the lingo down.

  16. No matter who wins the general election I think the most appropriate political cartoon for the next day would be Uncle Sam sitting at his breakfast table with a 1000-yard stare while holding a full cup of cold coffee.

    1. Will there be a label that indicates “1000-yard stare”?

      1. More difficult will be the cold cup of coffee.

      2. It depends – is it a Henry Payne cartoon?

      3. Of course. Also labels for “cold coffee”, “Uncle Sam”, “breakfast table” and “existential crisis”.

  17. Also moments ago, Independent Journal reported that Fields filed charges against Lewandowski.

    But why didn’t she do that immediately, huh? And why didn’t her boyfriend beat the guy up? It’s fake!

  18. The update certainly changes things. It appears that it wasn’t Lewandowski who grabbed the reporter, but a security guy.

    And, it looks like it was a bit of scrum, and he was clearing the way for Trump. He probably got rougher than he needed to, but this isn’t the campaign manager going out of his way to beat up a reporter.

    I suspect that there is still video that hasn’t been released. There may be something that gives us a better look. But based on what I see, I’m thinking this falls into the rough and tumble of covering a Presidential campaign. There will be crowds, there will be security, people will get jostled and bumped and shoved. Maybe more video will give us a better look.

    1. However, the update also says that Fields filed charges against Lewandowski. If there is evidence one way or the other, then it will presumably come up in court.

    2. The video stuff is not conclusive. Lewandowski easily could have reached over and grabbed her.

      1. Yeah, I know. A lot can happen in a scrum like that. And he did say he had grabbed her. But you have a security guy who looks pretty similar on her side of Trump who is moving people out of the way.

        Given the scene in that hallway, I’m leaning toward tempest in a teapot, amped up because TRUMP!

        1. Also because Lewandowski confessed to it, and Trump’s supporters think she had it coming.

          1. Also because there have been no similar acts of violence at any other campaigns, whereas there have been several at Trump campaigns.

            And Trump has basically been goading his supporters on, all while feeding into their pathetic victim complexes.

            It’s laughable hearing Trump supporters get so worked up about progressives given that the only people better at playing the victim than progs are the Trumpen Proletariat.

            1. They’re SJWs in elephant drag.

              1. You know, I think that’s actually a pretty accurate description. Some of it could be deliberate attempts to use the SJW’s tactics to their own advantage.

                1. I think for some very tiny percentage of them it may be deliberate, but let’s be real, the vast majority of these people are just losers with hurt feelz.

                  1. Totally agree.

            2. Also because there have been no similar acts of violence at any other campaigns,

              Well, none reported on, anyway. And I would bet that reporters are more likely to cause trouble for Trump than any other candidate, especially Bernie and Hillary.

              I’m feeling a dearth of facts on this incident. Here’s hoping we get good video. If no, Lewandowski’s “confession” probably carries the day.

              Keep in mind, though, that getting jostled in a crowd isn’t assault. Otherwise, every time a candidate moves through crowd, there are multiple assaults. I think this comes down to the reasonableness of what was done in context. If the reporter is telling the truth, it probably wasn’t reasonable.

          2. BUT BERTBART GET CRUZ $$! SHE NO WANT GRATE AMRICA!

  19. Anybody remember back when Trump first started he announced he had a simple, sure-fire plan to defeat ISIS and people challenged him to explain this simple, sure-fire plan? His response was to say it would be stupid to say what this secret plan is because then the enemy would know what the plan is. Was “bomb the shit out of ’em and take their oil” the entirety of his great plan? Has anybody asked Donald lately if he still has this simple sure-fire plan to defeat ISIS and if the unthinkable happens and Donald isn’t elected President is he going to share it with the right people or is he just going to say to hell with it, I ain’t helping anybody beat ISIS even if it can be done so easily? Same with a lot of his plans that people claimed were only half-baked ideas and not really plans – hey, he ain’t putting his great plans out there in public for free where everybody can just grab ’em and take credit for ’em – is he going to pass on his great plans to the President if it isn’t him or is he just going to let America continue stumbling along not being great?

    1. Nixon had a secret plan. Some of us lived through it.

      1. So did Lyndon Johnson and he became president as a result.

    2. I’ve heard this actual argument earnestly made by an erstwhile Trump supporter. I was dumbfounded.

      1. You should listen to some Bernie supporters.

    3. In general, since they’re like the Mafia, the way to beat them is the way the Mafia was beaten in several countries: by removing their assets. Once they no longer have the $, their own people will destroy them. Of course in a country like Syria, removing their assets will require a degree of violence, but not as much as may be thought.

  20. What’s sad is that this isn’t the first, or second, post I’ve seen like this. Do you really want a President who promotes such hate and discrimination? Someone who blatantly is ok with law breaking? Someone who makes vague statements but has NO plan on how to do it? I’m terrified and you should be too. I cannot believe what I’m witnessing in our country right now.

    From a relative’s facebook.

    I’ll let ya’ll guess who this person does support.

      1. No, this is a Hillary supporter through and through.

      2. I’m guessing Hillary supporter too.

    1. Someone who makes vague statements but has NO plan on how to do it?

      Reminds me of 2008….

      1. That was completely different, and if you think otherwise it’s racism, straight up.

    2. Unfair question. This could apply to any of the remaining candidates.

      1. True, but the “blatantly is ok with law-breaking” line made me immediately assume this hypocrite is a Hillary supporter.

    3. Thank God we’ve never had a President like that yet!

  21. I agree that Trump should be calming people down, but this is hardly the brownshirts, folks. With all the links in this piece you’d think there were dozens of incidents, but lots of these are duplicates. One involves someone who got into a skuffle with a Secret Service agent, which is hard to blame on Trump.

    As for tarran’s opinion that this is fascism, I don’t think so. Fascism was organized, aggressive violence. It was the SA going out and fighting Communist in the streets, beating up Jews, destroying shops, etc. It was not a few individuals getting too rough with protestors at their rallies. And at least one of those videos showed the protestor throwing punches. The violence may be uncalled for, but it seems scattered, minor (considering the size and number of Trump rallies), and “defensive” (in the sense that it is not Trump supporters going out and looking for trouble).

    But, hey, no time for nuance! I suppose we are doomed to hear name-calling like this until the election, and for the next four years after Trump is elected. The protests against him will become increasingly shrill and violent, and his supporters will respond in kind. Charges of “fascism” will fly back and forth. Oh joy.

    1. I’m not sure how saying basically everything that’s happened/will happen is “defensive” and “respond[ing] in kind” on the part of the Trump campaign and its proponents reflects nuance.

      1. When gangs of Trump people wearing “Make America Great Again” caps start roaming the streets starting fights with illegals, Muslims, and political opponents, the comparison with brownshirts will be more fair. But brownshirts don’t have the reputation they do because a few of them were too rough on people trying to disrupt SA rallies.

        1. But now you’re going full-hog against nuance, holding up a false dichotomy.

          1. I’m not saying that Trump is being nuanced. I’m calling for nuance here, instead of all the pearl-clutching about how a few incidents like this “prove Trump is a fascist!1!!”

            1. And I don’t disagree, but you doth protest too much.

              1. Hmm, grammar pedantry: doth is (archaic) third-person singular; second-person plural would just be do.

              2. you doth protest too much.

                I dunno. If you are going to make an historical comparison, the historical facts seem like fair game to me.

                1. I didn’t make the historical comparison, except to dismiss it as incorrect.

                2. AN Historical RC… AN?!?!?!?!

                  You are almost worse than Nikki…AN!?!?!?!?

                  This place was so much better under Postrel

                  1. If pointing out minor errors is pedantry what is it when you point out correct usages that happen to be rare?

    2. You know who else was like Hitler? Stalin and Trotsky.

      You know who else was like Stalin and Trotsky? Hitler.

      Proving for once and for all that Trump is a fascist. Or communist. Depending on your preference.

      Pol Pot and Mao are also suitable substitutes. Far Eastern substitutes.

      1. One can go through the policy positions and supporters of Obama, Clinton, and Sanders and find much stronger connections to Communism than anyone can with Trump and fascism.

        It’s just that I am regularly dismayed at political hyperbole, on all sides, unless done in a joking way. “Fuck off, slaver” doesn’t bother me, but if libertarians always called all opponents “slavers” all the time, it would be dreary and deceptive.

        1. You think it’s a joke when we say, “Fuck off, slaver”?

          1. For you and some other purists, probably not.

            1. I’m not a purist, but I am not joking when I say Fuck off, slaver.
              Trump/Clinton/Bernie campaigns are living proof that the movie Idiocracy was factual prediction.

              1. Perhaps I should clarify. I understand that the “Fuck off” part is not a joke. What I am saying is that the whole phrase is a form of comic exaggeration/hyperbole. Calling anyone a “slaver” because they (e.g.) want to spend some tax money on something you don’t agree with doesn’t mean you really believe they support human bondage, 1850 style. I can call Sanders a “commie” in the same way. I don’t really think he’s equal to Stalin, I’m just making a point.

        2. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

    3. No, no, Trump is obviously Hitler! He is an anti-capitalist, national socialist with a huge cadre of brownshirts! You just don’t get it!

    4. So your argument is that it’s just not organized enough? And here I thought trump was such a great leader.

      He’s literally encouraging this stuff. If he could derive a benefit from better organization he would gladly do it. The man has no moral qualms. He’s a psychopath.

  22. Trump with his pragmatic real-life record is a far more palatable national figure than Ted Cruz, whose unctuous, vainglorious professions of Christian piety don’t pass the smell test

    A Drunk at the Saloon

    1. You left out the best part of that paragraph:

      ” Cruz’s lugubrious, weirdly womanish face, with its prim, tight smile and mawkishly appealing puppy-dog eyebrows, is like a waxen mask, always on the verge of melting.”

      There’s nothing that says Salon and Camille Pagia better than the kind of personal attack that would enrage them if if was pointed at Obama, Clinton or Sanders.

      1. Are they still defending the Wookie?

      2. It’s such a perfect description of him though! Much better than saying he looks like a cheap blow-up doll.

        1. “Cheap blow up doll” has such unfortunate connotations for Cruz.

          A plastic doll some people want to have sex with.

  23. Why can’t there be a party that is basically Republican, but minus the religion, minus the legislating of morality, and that cares about climate change/overpopulation? Could Trump be that guy?

    Words escape me.

    1. This should be a comment to MSimon above…

      1. I don’t care about policy or governing theory.

        I voting based on the LULZ factor.

        It seems to me to be the most rational view of the happenings. (I met Claus Oldenberg once).

        1. How’s that polywell kickstarter going? I’d suggest hugging the unit once it starts making neutrons.

          1. I hug my unit all the time. The result is not normally a burst of neutrons.

            1. So up to 8 bucks and change?

        2. This is the LULZ election. Especially if Hillary gets indicted.

          This.

          1. Cue the Benny Hill music…

    2. Why can’t there be a party that is basically Republican, but minus the religion, minus the legislating of morality, and that cares about climate change/overpopulation?

      There is. Its called the Democrat party (well, for certain values of “legislating morality” anyway).

  24. Lets see if I got this right. Moments, not days or even hours, after this was posted, breibart, not the trump campaign, the organization she works for, came out and have another possibility to what may have actually happened but since the article was posted, and since we hate trump so much that we don’t actually search to see if what happened actually happened and we want this to have happened so we will believe whomever reinforces our hatred, I was not able to get the article removed. Because, after all, I posted it moments before and there’s a tap-tap-no-erasey rule at reason.

    1. Yeah, because a denial on the part of a guy who already confessed is something we should believe over a witness.

      Oh look and here’s video of that witness confronting Lewandowski immediately afterward.

      1. somebody grabbed her and yanked her back judging by her head movement. asking the security guard if he did it is probably against security guard union regulations.

    2. Haha, what? In the same update, he also mentions that Fields is filing charges against Lewandowski. What, Anthony is supposed to scrub the entire article because one guy has a theory that someone else may have been at fault?

      1. The article should have been shelved until such a time as to determine what really may have happened. It was Breibart that came out with the statement: “Breitbart’s Joel B. Pollak released a report stating that the organization believes the incident did take place but that Terris likely misidentified the man who grabbed Fields….” If it were a member of the campaign then of course there would be little credibility but it was the organization that Fields works for that is saying she may have been wrong. At least he posted a disclaimer so I guess that’s something.

          1. I can’t tell which man with short hair and a dark suit that is, what with the bad lighting and the fact that its the back of his head.

            Keep in mind, I have nothing but loathing for Lewandowski and his ilk.

            1. But you love the Trump. Bias, how does it work? Keep on him Nikki, you are the worst in a good way!

          2. That picture doesn’t show enough to come to any conclusion.

  25. When Tapper failed to follow-up on his initial question about violence at Trump rallies with a query about the Lewandowski/Fields incident, he let Trump tap-dance his way out of any responsibility for inciting violence and for creating a campaign culture where his most senior staffer would find it appropriate to trigger a physical altercation with a female reporter if she worked for an “adversarial” media outlet.

    In fact, Trump wasn’t even asked about the Michelle Fields accusation during the debate.

    And I don’t know why anyone thought he’d disavow his own incitements to violence 10 minutes after praising the Chicoms for putting down the fabled Tiananmen Riots.

    1. That was strong, but strong’s not always good, but I’m strong and that’s good.

    2. Saying someone one or some gov’t is strong in how they did or did not do something is not praising what they did. Hitler was strong, stalin was strong, mao was strong, washington was strong, jefferson was strong, eisenhower was strong, nixon was strong, reagan was strong, even ghandi was strong… Which of these men was I praising for what they did, or did not do?

      1. Tell me again what trump’s strengths are. Putin’s a great leader, right?

  26. These same protestors would gladly wrestle us all into the trains, and smile as they line us up against the wall. So fuck em, I’m cheering a little demonstration of force to remind them to act right.

    1. That’s pretty cold-blooded.

      1. True, but rest assured, that is the kind of people that they are. Now, they seem to be coming in contact with the blue-collar Democratic demographic that they claim to support but sneer at.

        I am not a fan of Trump. But he (or any other candidate) has rented his venues to get his message out to people who have voluntarily come to listen to him. He is entitled to the exclusive use of the venue, and the people who are visiting are entitled to listen to him without disruption. The protesters, by infiltrating the venue, infringe on the candidate’s right to speak freely, and on the attendees right to hear speech.

        1. True, but rest assured, that is the kind of people that they are.

          I’ll rest assured that you’re full of shit.

          I am not a fan of Trump. But he (or any other candidate) has rented his venues to get his message out to people who have voluntarily come to listen to him. He is entitled to the exclusive use of the venue, and the people who are visiting are entitled to listen to him without disruption.

          And yet I’m paying for his security, so no.

          1. Here is an example of your kind and gentle leftist protester. Naturally, you will hear nothing about this on the mainstream media.


            Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College President’s Resignation

            Quote:
            Amy Lutz, a program officer at YAF, said the group was able to funnel roughly 100 students into the theater on the CSU-LA campus before protesters surrounded the entrances, preventing anyone from entering or leaving for the duration of Shapiro’s speech.
            Police escorted Shapiro out of the theater at the end of his speech, citing “safety concerns.”

            1. What the fuck do leftists have to do with anything? You think the only people protesting Trump are leftists? Get real.

              1. Who else is?

                And here are some more kind and gentle protesters:

                Protesters disrupt Israeli professor’s lecture at University of Minnesota
                http://www.startribune.com/pro…..340437581/

                1. Well, I for one am planning to.

                  Seriously, go fuck yourself. The BDS movement has fuck all to do with Trump protesters. They’re more likely to support him just like his friends on the alt-right.

          2. It seems that you support the heckler’s veto, long recognized as a violation of the free speech rights of those who are compelled to encounter it. You’re not much of a libertarian if you believe that it is OK to shout people down.

            1. In general, I don’t support the heckler’s veto. But Trump is literally enslaving people to put these rallies on.

              1. Trump is literally enslaving people – LOL. Did you not know that “enslaving” is a trigger? Do you have a safe space handy?

                1. What do I need a safe space for? You’re the one who seems to have a problem with the word.

              2. But Trump is literally enslaving people to put these rallies on.

                And do you have evidence for that?

                1. He has Secret Service protection.

            2. They can be removed peacefully. They can even be prosecuted for trespassing in some cases. But there is NEVER an excuse to assault them.

              1. No, of course they should never be assaulted, but people who go to a rally to stir up shit are sometimes successful.

                Try organizing a peaceful KKK rally in Detroit and see what happens.

                There are little hundreds of thousands of cases of union violence against scabs, usually organized by liberal-supporting Dems, and they get barely any coverage.

                1. Try organizing a peaceful KKK rally in Detroit and see what happens.

                  And is anyone here excusing physical violence against them, dipshit?

                2. But Trump is literally enslaving people to put these rallies on.

                  Oh, horseshit.

                  There are little hundreds of thousands of cases of union violence against scabs,

                  Hell, there’s plenty of cases of union violence at political events.

              2. But there is NEVER an excuse to assault them.

                Sure there is. If I got to a Malcom X rally yelling, “Nigger NIgger Nigger,” I fully expect and deserve an ass whooping. Sure, those assaulting me should be charged with assault (if we lived in a country that had the rule of law). If you really believe that you can exercise a right without having to endure consequences, then you are an childish naive.

                Congratulations this place now sound like feminists and millennials. You want to exercise all these rights but not deal with the consequences.

                1. Sure there is.

                  No, what you gave is an explanation, not an excuse.

                  1. More like a rationalization.

            3. The fuck are you rambling about?

              There was no heckler’s veto in this instance. Trump was not being silenced. He was not even interrupted. The hecklers were told to leave and escorted out, as is probably right. On their way out, some lunatic assaults one of them for being crass. So what are you talking about?

              1. Actually, not true, the guy who was punched had started shouting anti-Trump stuff when Trump was speaking. That is known as a heckler’s veto – when you prevent the people near you from hearing what the candidate has to say.

                Again, I am not a fan of Trump and certainly, the violence should be punished. But let’s not pretend that the guy who was punched was some innocent snowflake.

                1. He was being escorted out, incident was over until Sucker Punch Pete got brave near a subdued protester.

        2. The protesters, by infiltrating the venue, infringe on the candidate’s right to speak freely, and on the attendees right to hear speech.

          I don’t think the protesters are infringing on the candidates right to speak freely, but I don’t have any sympathy if they get their ass kicked. Like wouldn’t be sypathetic if Jack Lalanne went to a Lindy West Ho-Ho/Twinky eating rally preaching personal responsibility and exercise. Sure you have freedom of speech. But there are consequences.

          /standard rule of law disclaimer (if we had rule of law) that the assault should be competently adjudicated in a legitimate criminal justice system.

          1. Sure you have freedom of speech. But there are consequences.

            And only a fucking thug thinks those consequences involve violence.

            1. Well we don’t live in a dream world where you get to exercise rights without consequences.

              1. No, we live in a world full of thugs. Violence is not the consequence of speech. It’s only the consequence of a shitty morality that says you can initiate violence against someone who hasn’t harmed you.

                1. And yet, Nikki, you have no trouble with importing Muslims, even though their holy book has the direct word of Allah that commands them to initiate violence against Jews, blasphemers, apostates, and gays. Somehow, when I point that out, I am “collectivizing,” even though scores of polls show a vast degree of support for such violence among “ordinary Muslims,” and you say that no Muslim has ever harmed you personally.

                  But a few Trump supporters rough up some protestors, and suddenly Trump = Hitler, and Trump supporters = fascists. Is that not collectivizing to a much greater degree? It’s not like anyone is following The Holy Book of Trump that says “Thou shalt beat up protesters.” And none of these Trump supporters have harmed you personally, so why do you care?

                  1. And I’ll throw in the same idiotic statistical argument I hear about Islamic terrorism: Hey, you’re much more likely to be killed in a shark attack than attacked at a Trump rally, so why all the concern?

                    1. At least you’re predictable with your insanity.

                  2. you have no trouble with importing Muslims

                    Define “importing.”

                    And none of these Trump supporters have harmed you personally, so why do you care?

                    Because I have direct evidence that they have harmed specific other people, or stood by and cheered/condoned such.

                    It’s not collectivizing to say that the actual people responsible for these incidents are responsible for them. And hundreds if not thousands of people saw these incidents occur and did not walk out of the venue, confront Trump, confront the violent supporters, etc.

                    Instead, they turn to the internet to crow about how the violence was justified. Do you think I wouldn’t have a problem with specific Muslims who revel in violent acts?

                    1. By importing I mean allowing legal Muslim immigration, and bringing in Muslim refugees.

                      A far, far greater proportion of Muslims here and around the world have stood by, if not cheered, condoned and actively supported far, far more acts of violence that Trump supporters ever have. Read it and weep. Getting tossed out of a rally is not even in the same league as terror attacks. When Trump supporters start proclaiming their support for deadly violence in anything like those numbers, get back to me.

                    2. Thanks for posting the link. The blindness of the left and some libertarians is amazing. I still think that most Muslims are decent people. But blindly inviting in millions of them is crazy.

    2. Do you suspect the same is true of Trump’s fans?

    3. These same protestors would gladly wrestle us all into the trains

      And you of course have evidence of that.

      1. Well of course not you worst of mammals you.

        Maybe I’m just feeling hungover and militant

        1. You were drinking with John “they might be terrorists” McGraw, I take it?

    4. Ohhhh, I like trains-
      Sheldon Cooper

  27. McGraw, who was arrested and charged with assault and battery yesterday, told Inside Edition that punching the protester “felt good” and “The next time we see him, we might have to kill him. We don’t know who he is. He might be with a terrorist organization.”

    Protestors = probable terrorists (or at the very least terrorist sympathizers). Did we take a time machine back to 2002?

    1. OMG, a mildly deranged member of the public showed up at a political event!

      Obviously the candidate’s fault.

  28. One could only imagine the amount of pants shitting of a hypothetical commentariat if they had the internet in 1968.

    1. Indeed. And don’t forget the “Hard Hat Riot” of 1970.

  29. Downloadmobdroapk blog can make to download Mobdro APK file free and watch movies, TV shows, videos for free.
    http://downloadmobdroapk.com/
    http://downloadmobdroapk.com/m…..-mac-free/

  30. Here you can find one of the very popular movies streaming app for your iPhone, iPad devices. Using Mobdro application you can enjou TV shows, movies and more.
    http://mobdroiphoneipadalternatives.com/
    http://mobdroiphoneipadalterna…..-download/

  31. Watch latest movies, TV shows, News and more on Mobdro application. You can be daily update with latest movies, and News.
    http://mobdroforpcwindows.com
    http://mobdroforpcwindows.com/…..ro-for-pc/

  32. Enjoy world wide movies, videos, TV shows and news on Mobdro TV applicaiton.
    http://mobdropcdownload.com/
    http://mobdropcdownload.com/mo…..ndows-mac/

  33. Jeezus…

    1. You said it man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus.

  34. I’m gonna stick with saying the same things I’ve said every day for the last four days: Trump is not a Nazi, and his supporters are not proto-Brownshirts.

    Painting them as such throws kerosene on Trump’s fire.

    There are lots of excellent reasons to despise Trump. I despise him because of his stance of free trade. I wish we’d focus more on that. No one who is likely to vote for Trump is likely to be dissuaded by anything he or his supporters have done to protesters.

    If you went after him for being married and divorced so many times, went after him for the way he treats women, went after him for being a blowhard for so long–at least you’d be going after him for something he did. When they went after Romney for driving around with his dog strapped to the roof of his car, at least it was something he himself had done.

    I’d so much rather we went after him on the issues. His anti-free trade arguments are shit. That by itself is a deal breaker for me. Why focus on this issue of what happens to provocateurs when they provoke his supporters? Doing so contributes to the perception that average Americans are being besieged by the forces of tolerance. Why play into Trump’s narrative?

    1. Gasp!!!! Not a nazi? You must be one of those uniformed stupid idiots cruz was talking about.

  35. The only one who has made any sense in this election cycle has been Ron Paul. However, I question his endorsement of this son.

  36. “When confronted with a run-down of recent quotes where Trump literally encourages violence against protesters at his rallies, going so far as to “promise” to pay for the legal fees of any of his supporters who “knock the crap” out of dissenters, Trump replied:

    We have some protesters who are bad dudes, they have done bad things. They are swinging, they are really dangerous and they get in there and they start hitting people. And we had a couple big, strong, powerful guys doing damage to people, not only the loudness, the loudness I don’t mind. But doing serious damage. And if they’ve got to be taken out, to be honest, I mean, we have to run something.”

    —-Top of This Thread

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/ news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/10/ the-cnn-miami-republican-debate- transcript-annotated/

    1. You left off the rest of what he said in that quote.

      Here’s the rest of what Trump said:

      “And it’s not me. It’s usually the municipal government, the police because I don’t have guards all over these stadiums. I mean, we fill up stadiums. It’s usually the police — and, by the way, speaking of the police, we should pay our respects to the police because they are taking tremendous abuse in this country and they do a phenomenal job.”

      Sounds to me like he’s promising to pay the legal expenses of cops–not anybody and everybody who knocks “the crap out of dissenters”.

      Honestly, this comes across like blaming Sarah Palin for the shooting of Gabrielle Gifford.

      http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..e-1.149099

  37. This thread is a perrfect example of why I’m voting Trump. For the LULZ.

    1. It is funny to see Republican, conservative, Democratic, leftist, and libertarian heads all explode at the thought of the same candidate.

      1. Rubio will have to leave if he loses Florida.

        If Rubio drops out after losing Florida, I’d expect Cruz to beat Trump in California.

        That’s 546 delegates.

        We may avert this crisis yet.

        1. Then Cruz will become JUST LIKE HITLER.

    2. I understand the burn it down argument.

      If he wins, the progressive SJWs will be thoroughly rebuked, and the Republican establishment will be shattered.

      But America will take a beating, to, and I don’t expect that will improve morale.

      Couldn’t we just put Cruz in the White House and keep the LULZ online and out of the Oval Office?

      Pretty please?

      1. So, in your opinion, for the SJWs to not be rebuked, the Republican establishment left intact, would be a better outcome?

        In that case, the beatings will still continue, you know.

        1. I want to be wrong.

          I want someone to go into the White House and surprise the hell out of me.

          Don’t you want to be wrong, too?

          Don’t you wish we could become freer and more capitalist if only we elected the right people?

        2. Ted Cruz winning the nomination is not a win for the Republican establishment.

      2. But America will take a beating, to, and I don’t expect that will improve morale.

        America is already taking a beating. When you are homeless an, can’t find work (and as a good American, your fucking very identify is based on working and being productive) and have nothing to lose, the protestations of those who do have something lose sound very hollow and shrill.

        Incrementalism isn’t going to save this ship.

        1. The problem isn’t the politicians. It’s the people that support them.

          The more people we manage to persuade, the more libertarian the politics will get.

          Putting Trump in office might give SJWs the impression they’ve been too easy on us.

          1. It’s the people that support them.

            Agreed. But, as you might have noticed, I am very pessimistic about the quality of my fellow human beings. Everything about this epoch is sick. Our institutions are sick, nations are sick, the people are sick, the economy is sick. And I feel the contagion has invaded my once beloved philosophy of libertariansim.

            We’ve had the wonderful gift of logic and reason since at least Plato. And though we are technically savvy, socially, we seem to be only one step out of the swamp.

  38. You think the only people protesting Trump are leftists?

    Hmmm….. Leftists, SJW’s, feminist, the GOP elite, China, the Mexican Government, and smug (likely employed) libertarians.

    Yes, thanks for making the case for Trump.

    1. Hope and Change…

    2. I guess it’s just my white male privilege showing. Or possibly not wanting a choice between two Democrats.

  39. Gotta love that cocktail party invite headline. It cannot simply be a problem of Trump when there is enough tar to go around.

    So my question to the headline author is: Is Hillary one of Trump’s rivals?

  40. So the old white Trumpster elbowed the young black protestor in the face because he’s upset about trade deals and taxes? Riiiiiiigggghhhht.

  41. The heckler’s veto from the tolerant left:

    A Massive Protest Just Completely Shut Down a Trump Rally in Chicago
    http://usuncut.com/news/trump-…..cancelled/

  42. Violence? VIOLENCE??? after what happened in Chicago tonight, you want to blame Trump and his supporters for the acts of single people , rather than an organized moveon.org mob for an organized plan to disrupt a Trump gathering???????

    What a bunch of fuckwits you are.

    1. Socialists? Mob action? Hitler (Nancy Reagan).

      And Trump.

      Because you KNOW he is lying

      ****

      An honest politician – sorta.

      ===

      This is the rule in politics. “Always be sincere whether you mean it or not” H/T Flanders and Swann.

      Trump is obviously insincere. He almost does it well enough to be a Reason commenter.

  43. Keep your loving mummy smiling and happy on this Mother’s Day by delivering attractive presents best available in online shopping store. Send Mother’s Day Flowers to Italy and express your best love and affection.

  44. We hope for change and best days. Hope he will bring good.

    http://www.getpcdownload.com/flow-free-pc/

  45. Thanks For sharing this great article.
    for more information you cn check out these apks blogs:

    moviebox download for android
    moviebox ios

  46. what an amazing post really happy to have this.

  47. Download the latest version of Cartoon HD .APK file. Cartoon HD APK Download Cartoon HD .APK All .APK files found on our site are original and unmodified.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.