Donald Trump

The Chicago Trump Rally and 'Safe Spaces' for Democracy

Within the left's own framework of speech and language and violence, protesters have been invading Trumpkins' safe spaces for months.

|

@paulgottinger/Twitter

The Donald Trump campaign had a rally planned at the University of Illinois in Chicago on Friday, but canceled it after thousands of demonstrators, supporters, and, presumably, gawkers showed up, with protesters and supporters reportedly clashing with each other.

"I didn't want to see people get hurt," said Trump, who has previously encouraged his supporters to engage in pre-emptive violence against protesters who were, say, carrying tomatoes around. "I decided to postpone the rally."

The protesters were largely affiliated or organized by a variety of left-wing groups.  Many Bernie Sanders supporters took credit for the street action, saying dozens of organizations were involved.

While there were reports of clashes between protesters and Donald Trump supporters (with dueling chants of "Commies!" and "Nazis!" prompting the Internet to ask, "Can't they both be right?"). The Chicago police deny advising Trump to cancel the rally, saying they had the manpower to handle the situation.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who has recently faced months of protests of his own, over police brutality and corruption, took the opportunity to praise the work of police.

"I want to thank the men and women of the Chicago Police Department for their hard work tonight in unexpected circumstances," the mayor said in a statement last night, "and their continued commitment to protecting people's First Amendment rights."

Protesters did not articulate a specific message for their protest, except that it was against Trump's perceived racism and "policies." As a candidate who has never held political office before, he doesn't technically have policies, just policy proposals.

For his part, Trump attributed the sentiment at the protest to economic conditions in the country, particularly in urban areas.

"We have a very divided country," Trump told CNN's Don Lemon. "A lot of people are upset because they haven't had a salary increase for 12 years."

He rejected the idea that his rallies—which have been host to acts of violence against protesters as well as reporters—contributed to the conflict, saying they were events full of "great love" interrupted by unruly protesters. He said he hoped his "tone is not that of causing violence" and that his only aim is to create an atmosphere of making America great again.

At a previous rally, Trump famously offered to pay the legal fees of any supporter who got into a fight with a protester, encouraging them to throw a punch if they saw someone carrying a tomato.

On Twitter, Trump claimed protesters' actions were contrary to his freedom of speech.

"The organized group of people, many of them thugs, who shut down our First Amendment rights in Chicago, have totally energized America!" Trump tweeted.

The part about protesters being "organized" is a reference to the contention by some Trump supporters that the highly organized nature of the protest meant it wasn't just about protesters' free expression. Of course, spending money to organize a protest doesn't diminish it as an act of free expression, but that idea is consistent with Trump (and much of the left's) assertion that money associated with speech in the political process does somehow diminish that expression's status as protected free speech.

What makes a protest an act that violates the First Amendment rights of others? The use of violence to shut down speech. If protesters attack Trump supporters, that's wrong, just as it's wrong for Trump supporters to attack protesters.

Protesters in Chicago yelled at supporters, calling them Nazi punks, and starting chants of "Fuck Trump." Language is not violence. Yet, again, much of the left has argued, especially recently and on college campuses, that it is. What is a rally venue but a safe space? Within the left's own framework of speech and language and violence, protesters have been invading Trumpkins' safe spaces for months. Social justice protesters have used violence over "triggering" speech with disturbing regularity.

The two groups deserve each other, and if they weren't shitting on our culture of rights in the process, it might even be entertaining. Silencing speech is not free expression, even, and especially, if the speech is unwelcome.

As John Stuart Mill wrote, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

This isn't theoretical—it has real world consequences. Dangerous ideas that are not engaged with, but rather shouted down and censored, gain unwarranted currency, making them even more dangerous.

Trump is right that Friday night's events in Chicago may have "energized" his supporters. Maybe they'll even start showing up at Sanders rallies, offering more real-world lessons in free speech and how subjective many of those who practice it can be when they disagree.

NEXT: Leading California Anti-Pot Activist Says Marijuana Causes 'Almost All' Mass Murders

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. The second-to-last paragraph is spot-on.

    “Free speech for me but not for thee” should be our national motto.

    1. For some it’s hate speech for me and not for thee.Besides,their wrong,Trump is a populist,not a nazi..Still a dangerous fuck though..Of course there socialist protesting him..Please tell me I’m wrong.

    2. The Slovaks voted an honest-to-goodness fascist party with open Hitler supporters to Parliament in their elections last week, and the media and their fellow-travelers don’t get how constantly censoring non-lovers of immigration helped lead to this.

      1. The driver for the European hoi polloi’s embrace of the Right is the Left’s open borders policy. The subsequent censorship may not have helped, but come on.

        How unsurprising that America’s own open borders aficionados try to pin the blame on something other than their pet policy.

        1. At least America’s open biorder people can point to out history of allowing immigration.

          No such history exists in Europe.

          1. True, but what a lot of people don’t seem to grasp is that circumstances can change, and what was a good idea in the past may not be a good idea right now.

            1. In the past it was implemented in a different way and with regards to cultures very different from the ones in question now.

              1. That, plus we have a broke welfare state and multi-culti dogma.

          2. Cute story, if untrue. European nations generally didn’t have border controls until the 20th century, while the US government was already restricting immigration in the 19th. Not to mention the massive number of immigrants in Europe before the current troubles began.

            1. Nations didn’t have order controls. But tell me…what were those walls around cities controlling?

              1. Armies. Bandits. Vikings. Tatar raiders. Take your pick.

    3. “Free speech for me but not for thee” should be our national motto.

      No, it’s the motto of the Progressive Theocracy.

      Tarring all Americans with that brush is simply inaccurate. Tarring the Right with that brush is inaccurate as well.

      The Left is attacking free speech every day. I can’t recall the Right doing it in recent memory. Kicking out protesters from a space you’ve booked is not violating their free speech rights – it is asserting yours.

    4. 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

    5. 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. Of course, spending money to organize a protest doesn’t diminish it as an act of free expression, but that idea is consistent with Trump (and much of the left’s) assertion that money associated with speech in the political process does somehow diminish that expression’s status as protected free speech.

    A protest is supposed to be an expression of popular opinion. Spending money to produce a protest does diminish its significance as a protest. (I don’t use “organize” because it’s clear that money was spent on far more than communication of where to show up)

    The real problem is moneyed interests being able to hide their involvement in these sockpuppet protests. I understand that anonymity is necessary for some legitimately good speech, but it is far more often abused. Our system currently has no answer for that abuse. Pretending this isn’t a problem isn’t going to help.

    1. I think the concept of “legitimately good speech” flies in the face of everything Mill was referencing in the embedded quote.

      1. There is no speech rights for “moneyed interests” dontchaknow!

      2. You’re wrong. Mill’s opposition to silencing anybody does not mean he thought all speech was good, any more than a libertarian opponent of the drug war must think drug use is good.

        1. Correct, bunnyman.

        2. He wouldn’t have had to like the speech in order to reject the label “legitimately good speech.”

          In your drug war example, you can disapprove of someone’s drug use and still understand that the label “legitimately good drug” is inherently useless, especially in the realm of recreational drugs, with their reputed levels of comparative harm.

          1. I didn’t say only speech that I like is legitimately good. Presenting facts, or giving one’s honest opinion, always qualifies. However, if speech contains falsehoods or feigned opinion, all right to anonymity should vanish.

            1. This would require some god-like deity to watch over all speech and to pull back the curtain every time someone said something that “contains falsehoods or feigned opinion”. This is impossible.

  3. Trump is right that Friday night’s events in Chicago may have “energized” his supporters. Maybe they’ll even start showing up at Sanders rallies, offering more real-world lessons in free speech and how subjective many of those who practice it can be when they disagree.

    Like most attempts by the right to beat the left at its own game, this won’t work. Conservatives have jobs to go to, usually jobs that don’t give them paid time off for union (read: fake protest) activities.

    1. Conservatives have jobs to go to,…

      If that was actually the case, Trump wouldn’t have an audience, would he?

      … usually jobs that don’t give them paid time off for union (read: fake protest) activities.”

      Assumes facts not in evidence. How do you know the protesters don’t have jobs? How do you know they don’t work nights? How do you know they didn’t take vacation time?

      1. What perrcentage of the population of Chicago were they?

      2. It’s well-known that many protests include union workers paid to protest, or people paid to protest by unions or leftist organizations.

        1. It’s well-known that many protests include union workers paid to protest, or people paid to protest by unions or leftist organizations.

          Cite?

          1. Quite a few people here have reported that when unions protest a business using non-union labor, the protesters often turn out to be non-union and paid minimum wage.

            1. Hired protesters with the Black Lives Matter movement have started a #CutTheCheck hashtag

              A perusal of that hashtag makes pretty clear it started as a catchphrase from a rap track by someone named “Kese”

              And you can see how it was being used by people colloquially to express angst at a generic “black disenfranchisement”. i.e. “don’t get used! = get paid”

              = “its time to get ours”. Which lead to a variety of references to “Reparations” from some people.

              And it went on to apply to ‘less-recognized’ actors and athletes and just suggesting that they deserve to “Get Paid” because they’re bad-ass..

              IOW – its just a catchphrase on Black Twitter with a range of uses.

              Then in late February see all these right-wing media people popping in and yapping about ‘paid protestors’.

              There’s hardly any mention of ‘protests’ at all before they showed up. The hashtag was floating around for 2 months before someone connected it to some idea of “paid protesting”

              Which maybe it *was* used for….eventually…. but certainly not “”Hired protesters with the Black Lives Matter movement have started a #CutTheCheck hashtag “”

              its hysterial, overly-credible shit like this that makes the Right Wing media look extra-special retarded once a month.

              1. Hashtag or not, many BLM protestors do get paid for protesting. 1, 2.

                1. No doubt they do! and there’s plenty of actual proof of that…. elsewhere.

                  its just the shallowness of the RW media that latches instantly onto “black shit they don’t understand” (#cutthecheck) and tries to make conspiratorial claims about it.

                  Its stupid shit like that that undermines any credibility on the “real stuff”.

                  1. What level of proof would you accept, GILMORE?

                    1. What level of proof would you accept, GILMORE?

                      You clearly missed the point.

                      I wasn’t disputing that there were/are paid protestors. ACORN and Unions have done that for years and its a known tactic in urban machine politics.

                      I was pointing out that “#CutTheCheck” hashtag wasn’t actually ‘created’ by BLM protesters, or even *had anything to do with them* for months and months before some journalists decided to make claims about it.

                      I also pointed out how that type of stupid baseless claim – trying to connect some “random black shit they don’t understand” with a theorized conspiracy by BLM protesters – is exactly what makes Right Wing media people look like complete fucking morons. There’s plenty of REAL evidence for their point, but they have to go that one extra yard latching onto invented evidence and it ruins their credibility.

                    2. Cut the check? It ought to be shredded.

        2. Or public sector union workers paid by taxpayers to protest, as per the terms of their CBAs.

  4. You got your chocolate in my peanut butter!

    You got your peanut butter in my chocolate!

    Two great tastes that taste great together.

    Racist Peanut Butter Cups.

    1. #chocolatecandiesmatter

    2. Chocolate is brown, and peanut butter was invented by an African American, so this is probably some sort of appropriation.

  5. Trump!

    Because you KNOW he is lying

    1. Hahaha, xd

  6. damn you liberals for making kind of want to vote for trump after seeing this and stumbling across tim wise facebook page yesterday…they really cant help themselves

    also now want a gun and to burn more fossil fuels

    1. I get paid to burn Gaia raping coal, and I shoot guns for fun. My car is a fire-breathing turbo-charged rich mix burning straight pipe Prog hunter.

      The fact that it makes these hugbox carpenters cry motivates me every god damn day. It actually makes it impossible to hate my job, or any moment of the day.

      StealHappiness bitches!

    2. #shutthemdown
      Anti-Trump protestors had the high ground and gave it away.
      Congratulations?

    3. Who is Tim Wise and how is he different from Ray Wise?

      1. He’s a professional “anti-racist” who really is not a fan of white people, despite being one himself

        1. He also lives in an all-white neighborhood.

  7. If this happened at a public university, don’t people have a right to show up and call other people assholes? I get that bullying people out of speaking freely is a violation of their rights, but how was Trump bullied out of speaking at this rally? Because protesters were using mean words? It doesn’t make sense.

      1. No, I didn’t. There were a few isolated fist fights and shoving spats, but most of that happened after Trump canceled, not before. Sporting events get rowdier than this. Nothing was preventing Trump from giving the rally.

        1. Yes, you did. Corpse fucker.

    1. It’s a political rally,to me it means all can voice their opinion.Unless you need a Trump tattoo to get in.Yeah,I said ithat want to fight about it? Though it is in reverse.

      1. “It’s a political rally,to me it means all can voice their opinion.” No, Adans smith, it doesn’t. You can voice your opinion in the adjacent public space, but not in the private space within. That belongs to the people that hired the hall. As Reagan famously said, they are “paying for this microphone”, and can legitimately silence any contrary voice. Their actions must be proportional to the protest; offensive voice never justifies offensive violence.

    2. Words are not bullying. Bullying requires physical force. I reject the premise that words constitute force.

      1. “Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!”

        1. I wave my private parts at your aunties.

          1. “I fart in your direction!”

        2. Yo, easy with the insults. Some of the commenters here are hamsters.

          1. Hamsters are originally from Syria. That’s appropriation.

      2. Shouting down someone is a form of force.

        1. How loud does your voice have to get before it’s force? 80 db, 100 db, The Who, Cincinatti db?

          Also, with two large groups shouting back and forth at each other, who exactly is doing the shouting down? The ones who get hoarse and give up first? Or the ones whose feelings get hurt and march off to their safe space?

          Finally, how is this opposition to vigorous debate any different from the false SJW narrative?

          This is “our space,” and you’re not welcome here! Can I get some black\redneck muscle over here?

        2. Shouting down someone is a form of force.

          I really hope you are being sarcastic with that statement.

      3. Threats of physical force can be bullying. “Give me your lunch money, or I kick your ass” is pretty classic bullying. Otherwise I agree, Francisco.

        1. Threats of physical force can be bullying.

          Agreed.

      4. Careful, Frank, Hihnsanity might cut and paste his dictionary definitions again with randomly bolded phrases if you’re going to persist in that kind of talk.

    3. So, if tens of thousands of Trump supporters showed up at a Bernie rally (inside the place where Bernie is speaking) and started yelling at Bernie supporters and causing such a commotion that he couldn’t finish, then you would be ok with that? I may not like what Sanders says, but I will vigorously defend his right to do so and be clearly heard by his supporters. That is the difference between most conservatives and radical far-left liberals, who only want their opinions to be heard. Those espousing “tolerance” as one of their primary political platforms predictably and hypocritically turn out to be the least tolerant of all.

      1. No one has the right to be “clearly heard.”

        They have the right to speak.

        That’s why it’s called Free Speech and not Forced Hearing.

        1. “Forced hearing”
          This is retarded. Are you seriously saying that protesters who went out of their way to show up and disrupt a Trump rally were somehow being forced to listen to him so they had a right to ruin it for those who showed up because they wanted to listed to what Trump had to say?

          1. Yeah, it’s pretty hilarious that he’s arguing the protestors were forced to walk into the rally and listen to Trump speak.

    4. If this happened at a public university, don’t people have a right to show up and call other people assholes?

      Apparently it’s too much to hope for that this stupid little meme wouldn’t find traction at Reason.

      “Without private property, there is no private life.”
      – Robert Heinlein

      otherwise known as
      “A am paying for this microphone”
      – Ronald Reagan

      When you’ve booked a hall to give a speech, those who show up and disrupt it are guilty of infringing on your property rights and thereby your free speech rights.

      This also applies on a university, as *it* has property rights which it delegates to it’s students when it allows them to reserve a space.

      1. But Trump never spoke, so he couldn’t have been disrupted in the first place. So if protesters reserved a space inside the venue, and they hadn’t yet disrupted the event because the event never even started, then everyone had a right to be there regardless of their political persuasion or how loudly they were screaming.

        1. No one had a right to be there (inside the rally) except the people who rented the venue under the terms they rented it. People on public property had a right to be there and to say whatever the fuck they wanted, but the rally was not likely cancelled due to the mob outside but rather the assholes inside who’s stated objective was to have such a large presence that security would be unable to eject them all.

        2. Not only are you a corpse fucker, you are a dishonest little shit. The protestors didn’t reserve the space, Trump did. Trump couldn’t speak because the socialist mob caused so much trouble he was prevented from speaking. I’m sure you would be okay with a right wing group shutting down a Bernie rally in the same manner.

  8. By their lights “both” sides are, of course, right. Supporters of Bernie and The Don share the basic premise that the initiation of force is right, good, socially desirable. Excellent article with a strong finish.

  9. Going to a protest and getting into fist fights with fascists and nazis is a going to a safe space?! Sounds like what communists were doing at Nazi rallies in 1930 when Leftists were battling Hitler. That’s bad?

    1. It gave Hitler a political boost. Was that bad?

      1. A little bit of A a little bit of B…you know

      2. Poor political strategy? Maybe. Culpability? No that lies with Hitler and his supporters. We’re communists brave to go to safe spaces and get their asses kicked by racists and anti-Semites? Certainly.

        1. Communists as in national socialists or international socialists?
          Anti-Semites like the Soviets?

          1. How many international socialists were Jews? You call people stupid, but then indulge in the callous, lazy, and dishonest fallacy that Nazis were an appendage of communism. Dummy, tens of millions of dead Soviets belie that idea. You’re the moron, moron.

            1. Nobody thinks Nazis were an “appendage” of communism. It’s more like they were cousins or even siblings who hated each other.

              1. “Communists as in national socialists or international socialists?”

              2. “Of course you’re not. There wasn’t much fundamental differences between the SA and the Spartacists.”

            2. Funny, once I posted some quotes from Himmler, Eichmann, Goebbels, Goring and Hitler where they proclaimed themselves socialists and the laughable defense that was thrown up was “Just because they said they were socialists doesnt mean they actually were socialists!”

              I see. They weren’t ‘real’ socialists.

        2. Both sides are acting like idiots. Can we agree to that? Let’s not pretend either side has some kind of moral high ground. This is just tribal warfare between two primitive tribes.

        3. Didn’t Hitler and Stalin have an alliance? How brave was that?

        4. ” We’re communists brave to go to safe spaces and get their asses kicked by racists and anti-Semites? Certainly.”

          The technical term is “tard fight”.

    2. If anti-Trump people went to a Trump speech to get in fist fights and shut the speech down, then it’s the anti-Trump people who are behaving like Brownshirts.

      1. Were the communists brave to murder millions of their political enemies in the 20th Century?

        1. No. And they did it with the government, which makes it both worse and different.

          If private pro-Trump individuals organized to disrupt anti-Trump protesters, that wouldn’t involve the government violating people’s rights to speech and assembly.

          If private pro-Trump individuals used organized violence to disrupt anti-Trump protesters, then I’d think the government would have a duty to arrest and prosecute them for it.

          If I were on the jury, I’d consider evidence that they were defending their rights against an organized attempt to violate their rights to free speech and assembly.

          If private pro-Trump individuals used organized violence to disrupt anti-Trump protesters, that were there for the intended purpose of violating the rights of Trump supporters, then I’m not sure that would be entirely unethical.

      2. It’s just a little surreal to complain about Donald Trump having his 1st amendment rights violated since he is by far the most over exposed person in the world right now. You can hear that windbag 24/7 if you wish. As for trump supporters– I heard lots of their views on cnn. I’m not entirely unsympathetic.

        1. Trump’s supporters have freedom of speech and assembly, too. The protesters didn’t only violate Trump’s rights. They also violated the rights of his supporters.

          People you don’t like have rights even if you don’t like them.

        2. Of course you’re not. There wasn’t much fundamental differences between the SA and the Spartacists. As long as there are camps, right, comrade?

        3. I think it’s time for your shower. Just step inside?..

          1. Hey, that’s my line!

          2. A free shower! That’s very generous.

        4. It’s just a little surreal to complain about Donald Trump having his 1st amendment rights violated since he is by far the most over exposed person in the world right now.

          ZOMG###SO RIGHT IT’S LIKE PPL WITH LOTS OF MUNNEY SHOULDN’T BE TO COPLAYN ABOUT HAVI NG THERE PROPERTY RITES VIUHLAYTUD BECUZ THEY GOT LOTS AMIRITE BRAH U KNO I AM

    3. Trump is more like Franco than Hitler.

      1. More like Mussolini, I think. Compare an old newsreel of Il Duce on his balcony with El Trumpo at his podium. Same smirk, same glower.

    4. Maybe I can get a socialist lampshade after Trump gets elected? They sure sound like an oven-worthy bunch to me!

      1. I thought socialists preferred to be called progressives these days. Has Bernie gotten them back to their roots?

        It’s so hard to keep up with the rebranding of the Left. Once people figure out the new brand is the same as the old, they have to rebrand again.

  10. “What makes a protest an act that violates the First Amendment rights of others? The use of violence to shut down speech. If protesters attack Trump supporters, that’s wrong, just as it’s wrong for Trump supporters to attack protesters.”

    By your own link, the Sanders people meant to shut down the rally–violence or no violence.

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how…..ly-chicago

    A “protest” meant to shut down a speech violates the First Amendment rights of others–regardless of whether it’s violent.

    And whether the government should step in, whether it should be legal for Trump supporters to react with violence, and whether it’s ethical for Trump supporters to react with violence–those are three different questions.

    It may be unreasonable to expect Trump supporters to react to protesters with more speech–when the protesters organized to shut their speech down.

    1. A “protest” meant to shut down a speech violates the First Amendment rights of others–regardless of whether it’s violent.

      No. It doesn’t.

      You may do as you wish, provided you do not infringe upon the rights of others. The speaker has the right to talk. He has no right to be heard. Same with the counter protester.

      Shouting over someone isn’t a violation of 1A. Physical force is a different matter.

      1. Shutting down someone’s speech violates their rights.

        If they’d done it by denying them a permit, it would violate their rights.

        If they’d done it by pulling the fire alarms, it would be the same.

        And I’m not sure an organized attempt to get a heckler’s veto doesn’t amount to violating someone’s free speech either.

        1. How about releasing a few cages full of mice into the crowd? Worked for the Nazis at the screening of “All Quiet on the Western Front”.

          1. Like I keep saying, sometimes, you can be ethically compelled to punch a Nazi in the face. It doesn’t necessarily mean it should be legal to do so. A just government protects the rights of Nazis, too.

            But I’m not the government. Sometimes, ethics might compel me to violate someone’s rights.

            It’s like the old conundrums about whether people should be allowed to willingly sell themselves into slavery, or, more to the point with the Nazis, the conundrum about whether democracies should be allowed to vote themselves out of existence.

            In fact, because the government may be compelled to do immoral things–like protect the right of Nazis to march past the homes of Auschwitz survivors–I can be morally compelled to do illegal things . . . things that should be illegal. . . . like punching a Nazi in the face.

      2. That’s nonsense. That’s no different than duct taping the speaker. Am I allowed to blast noise across your property line at 150dBA? That’s not physical force (actually by definition it is so I win on the technicality from thw start).

        1. Public vs private.

          If you want your message to be heard, rent a private venue. Allow entry to said venue based upon the agreement that you will not disrupt the proceedings. If someone breaks that contract, have them escorted out or arrested for trespass.

          If the protest takes place in the commons, your right to speak doesn’t Trump (pun fully intended) mine. At that point you can fuck right off and die in a fire.

          This ain’t rocket surgery.

          1. You’ve really abused the whole ‘no right to be heard’ line which really means no one else is obligated to give you a platform against their will. You don’t have a right to newspaper space (not counting one you own yourself) for your crackpot opinions. It’s not the same as saying that people who show up to an event, even one in ‘public space’ (rented out in this scenario, so your point is really moot) to shout down and disrupt a speaker. Let’s be more frank – enough of those counter-protesters were there to egg things on and willing to engage in violence.

            More over, I don’t see these sort of points coming from you when it comes to the left wing protesters on college campuses. You mock and condemn them right along with the rest of us.

            1. You mind rewriting that in english?

              Read it three times and can’t find your point.

              If it’s private you can ask them to leave. If it’s not private, you have no such right and their right to non violently protest you is just as valid as your right to talk.

              More over, I don’t see these sort of points coming from you when it comes to the left wing protesters on college campuses. You mock and condemn them right along with the rest of us.

              What? What does mocking protestors have to do with their right to protest?

              1. You don’t just mock them. Hence my use of the word ‘condemn.’ Which you quite clearly do.

                Maybe you can rephrase by what you mean as private. Because it is a ‘public’ venue, but it is rented out. It is open to the public, but that doesn’t give carte blanche to cause interruptions inside of it that prevent the event from taking place. So, you say if its a private event. Your own distinction is far more muddled than you seem to think.

                1. blockquoteYou don’t just mock them. Hence my use of the word ‘condemn.’ Which you quite clearly do.

                  So what? You realize one may completely despise another and still defend their right to speak, right?

                  Maybe you can rephrase by what you mean as private.

                  If it’s rented…it’s private.

                  So, you say if its a private event. Your own distinction is far more muddled than you seem to think.

                  You do realize this entire discussion is about Ken’s statement, right? He said:

                  A “protest” meant to shut down a speech violates the First Amendment rights of others–regardless of whether it’s violent.

                  (as I said below)
                  A citizen cannot violate another citizen’s 1A rights using speech.

                  First, 1A is a government prohibition.??Meaning it bars the government from restricting speech. NOT the citizenry.

                  Second, in order for a citizen to stop another citizen from talking would require force and that would be assault.??Two people exercising their right to talk at the same time isn’t a 1A violation.

                  If the function is on private property, you can have the counter protestors removed as trespassers. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with 1A. It is a matter of property rights.

                  In a public forum, Trump can talk all the live long day, but he has no right to be heard. I can stand right next to him and scream at the top of my lungs, preventing him from being heard and I’ve committed no infraction.

                  1. Wait, so you don’t view the government as having any obligation to protect the free speech rights of its citizens (which is not the same as guaranteeing a platform)? As in, you are saying that this negative right exists, but that the government has no right to protect it unless it involves direct physical force?

                    More over, there is no distinction made in your post about for protesters protesting someone else and a speaking engagement. So are we to take it that people who shout down speakers at a public speaking event on a public university campus are acting completely within their rights? Or does the administration at the university have the right to place restrictions that allow invited guests to speak? It’s a public event on public property conducted by an instrument of the state. Are they obligated to allow protesters to silence an invited guest? You think that is what the founding fathers intended with the First Amendment, if we are to speak strictly of the law?

                    In terms of public vs private, perhaps you can just simplify this and answer whether you think this Trump event brings ‘property rights’ into play or not? Because really that’s what this boils down to. You can say it’s just a response to Ken. But I haven’t seen in this comment section where you have in fact called these protesters out for any sort of violation of the rights of others. So are you condoning the behavior or not?

                    1. Wait, so you don’t view the government as having any obligation to protect the free speech rights of its citizens (which is not the same as guaranteeing a platform)? As in, you are saying that this negative right exists, but that the government has no right to protect it unless it involves direct physical force?

                      Protect it from whom? Both speaker and protester have the same right. Who would you arrest for exercising it?

                      So are we to take it that people who shout down speakers at a public speaking event on a public university campus are acting completely within their rights?

                      Public universities administer to the property as though they own it (rightly or wrongly). If the speaker rents the space, they get to use it IAW the contract.

                      But I haven’t seen in this comment section where you have in fact called these protesters out for any sort of violation of the rights of others.

                      Your right. I haven’t made a single comment as to the legitimacy of these particular protesters, as it’s completely irrelevant to Ken’s statement. It’s not a 1A issue. 1A is a restriction placed upon government, not the citizenry.

                      Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech

                      This is a property rights issue.

                    2. Protect it from whom? Both speaker and protester have the same right. Who would you arrest for exercising it?

                      Hence the argument that one is not in fact exercising free speech, but merely looking to take it away from another. Like how someone can not blast loud sounds from their property that obviously travel beyond their property. Someone who goes into an event purely with the goal of disrupting it is an issue. This isn’t a case of dual protesters going at it and shouting at one another. It’s an event being disrupted by one group that claims to be protesters, but have crossed the.

                      Public universities administer to the property as though they own it (rightly or wrongly). If the speaker rents the space, they get to use it IAW the contract.

                      How do you mean by rent it? As in, they give permission, which is often the case? Or invited someone? I don’t think the point I raised is satisfactorily answered here as you use the word rent again. The space is merely assigned, but the one doing the assigning is still a public entity.

                    3. You say ‘rightly or wrongly,’ which suggests you may disagree with how public universities behave in this matter. Which seems like an odd sidestep from the larger issue. You argue there is no first amendment issue to Ken, but there are laws on the books against unruly protests, as well. So, rightly or wrongly, there are laws being broken by these protesters. Why get pragmatic and acknowledge reality with public universities, and ignore the other point?

                      Your right. I haven’t made a single comment as to the legitimacy of these particular protesters, as it’s completely irrelevant to Ken’s statement. It’s not a 1A issue. 1A is a restriction placed upon government, not the citizenry.

                      Why couldn’t you answer it anyway? What is your thought of these specific protesters? It’s pretty simple and, at least in my view, relevant to the argument you are making.

                    4. You say ‘rightly or wrongly,’ which suggests you may disagree with how public universities behave in this matter.

                      I say rightly or wrongly because I believe this issue is the very reason there should be no public schools.

                      Let’s say I’m a student in a public school. I want to stand on my desk, in the middle of class, and give an dissertation on the evils of government censorship….

                      Such an action is clearly disruptive. It detracts from the purpose of the meeting, which is education. One might say that the school has the power to force me to stop. BUT…in order to do so (or to make a rule that I may not) the school, which is government, must violate the First Amendment to do so.

                      The answer to this dilemma has been to treat the school as if it was private property, which in actuality is not the case. The correct answer is that since they cannot maintain the order required to provide an education without violating the wording of 1A, that public schooling is not within the purview of the government.

                      As to your question…I have answered it. If Trump has leased/rented/contracted/was granted permission by the owner to use that property for his speech, he has the right to place conditions on the people he invites to use it. IOW you can come listen to me, provided you are not disruptive.

                      So, again, it’s a property rights issue, not a 1A issue.

      3. ‘Shouting over someone isn’t a violation of 1A.’
        You have the right to speak but not the right to be heard.
        Land of the free, home of the brave isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

        1. There’s also the question of trespassing, Skippy’s quiet enjoyment, etc.

          We’re not talking about public property, necessarily. We’re not just talking about free speech rights in terms of government.

          We’re also talking about private property–or property Trump rented.

          1. I believe he did pay to rent out that space. In which case those protestors were most certainly violating his rights.

            1. Whatever it was he paid, he was robbed.

        2. denying people the right to be heard is a denial of the right to speak.

      4. The speaker has the right to talk. He has no right to be heard.

        Bullshit. If that were true, the First Amendment would not prevent the government from making it illegal to read newspapers, listen to radio stations, or visit websites if they criticize the government.

        Freedom of speech requires non-interference with a willing audience’s ability to hear the speech.

        1. Bullshit.

          Really?

          So I have a right to be heard? I can stand on the steps of city hall, preach about the end of the world and the evils of eating peas, and I can force someone to listen to me?

          And if you get up on the steps with me and yell louder than me about circumcising aborted penisis, and my audience moves over to your part of the steps, you’ve inhibited my freedom of speech because you stole my audience?

          My right to speech is more important than yours, why? Cuz I was there first?

          Counter protests are every bit as valid as the protests themselves. No one’s rights are violated when someone stands against you (provided no force is used). You can stand their and scream at each other all day.

          1. I can force someone to listen to me?

            No, which is why I referred to a “willing audience”. The people assembled at the Trump rally wanted to hear Trump speak. If anybody is trying to force people to listen to them it’s the leftist disruptors.

            my audience moves over to your part of the steps, you’ve inhibited my freedom of speech because you stole my audience?

            See above. An audience that chooses to listen to someone else is no longer your audience. Again, this is not what happened at the Trump rally.

            The odd thing about your position is that it would allow the State to shut down pretty much any speech it didn’t like without technically violating the First Amendment. Just pay some private citizens to get on stage with anyone criticizing the govt and shout them down.

            1. You clearly don’t understand my position.

              I am responding to Ken’s ridiculous statement:

              A “protest” meant to shut down a speech violates the First Amendment rights of others–regardless of whether it’s violent.

              A citizen cannot violate another citizen’s 1A rights using speech.

              First, 1A is a government prohibition.??Meaning it bars the government from restricting speech. NOT the citizenry.

              Second, in order for a citizen to stop another citizen from talking would require force and that would be assault.??Two people exercising their right to talk at the same time isn’t a 1A violation.

              If the function is on private property, you can have the counter protestors removed as trespassers. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with 1A. It is a matter of property rights.

              In a public forum, Trump can talk all the live long day, but he has no right to be heard. I can stand right next to him and scream at the top of my lungs, preventing him from being heard and I’ve committed no infraction as we both have an equivalent right to speak.

      5. Shouting over someone isn’t a violation of 1A.

        It is if I’ve rented the hall. It’s really pathetic that the concept of private property needs to be explained at Reason.

        “I am paying for this microphone”
        – Ronald Reagan

        “Without private property, there is no private life.”
        – Robert Heinlein

        1. It is a violation of property rights, not 1A.

          1A applies only to the government.

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          1. If we’re going to pick nits, then I’m gonna say that our right to free speech doesn’t only exist because of the Constitution.

            Donald Trump and his fans would have a right to free speech even if the First Amendment had never been written.

            They have a right to say what they want on their own property (or the property they rented), but they also have a right to say what they want, too.

            Yes, I have free speech rights, and they can be violated by other private individuals. Whether it’s proper to cite the First Amendment in defense of my free speech rights against intrusion by private individuals is beside the point, isn’t it?

            1. If we’re going to pick nits, then I’m gonna say that our right to free speech doesn’t only exist because of the Constitution.

              I fully agree and never claimed otherwise. 1A doesn’t grant a right. It specifically restricts the government from infringing upon it.

              Yes, I have free speech rights, and they can be violated by other private individuals.

              Yes, they can violate your right to speak. In order to do so, they would need to assault you. IOW, they would need to use force or a threat of force to do it. But them exercising their right to free speech doesn’t infringe upon yours. In a public common, you may speak and they may speak. Even at the same time. Even if their sole purpose is to drown you out.

              IF, you are speaking on private property, you may ask them to be quiet or leave. If they persist, that’s trespass, not a 1A violation.

              I’ll remind you of what you said:

              A “protest” meant to shut down a speech violates the First Amendment rights of others–regardless of whether it’s violent.

              1. ‘Yes, [private individuals] can violate your right to speak. In order to do so, they would need to assault you.”

                This is absurd. The government doesn’t need to assault you to violate your free speech rights, and private individuals don’t either.

                Private individuals could simply disrupt your speech by screaming, etc. during the speech–which is what these protesters have been doing.

                As evidenced by their tweets before the event and their bragging after the event, these protesters have been going to these events for the express purpose of shutting them down–to depriving Trump and his supporters of their right to free speech.

                You’ve got bigger issues than just whether it’s right to refer to free speech as “First Amendment rights”.

                1. Private individuals could simply disrupt your speech by screaming, etc. during the speech–which is what these protesters have been doing.

                  In a public venue:

                  1. Those private individuals have just as much right to scream as you do to speechify.
                  2. How is their screaming preventing you from continuing with your speech? You can still continue to talk. (You may not be heard, but you have no right to be heard. You only have the right to speak.)

                  In such a situation, NO ONE is violating anyone else’s rights as both sides are exercising the exact same right. They have just as much right to shout you down as you have to pontificate.

                  If they physically force you to stop talking, that’s assault, and an entirely different matter. And the only way they can do that is through violence or threat of violence. Words are not force.

                  Disrupting a speech in a public venue is NOT, as you claim, a violation of 1A. Private individuals cannot violate 1A as the restriction doesn’t apply to them. It only applies to government.

                  In a public venue, there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional, illegal or immoral about a protest designed to drown out another event.

  11. So let me get this straight, Ed. I guess you are walking back your defense of protest as free speech itself which you articulated here.

    https://reason.com/blog/2015/05…..ly-in-phoe

    I note back then you didn’t qualify it, although we all agree the line would have to be drawn at violence.

    So let me ask you. 250 men, many armed, protesting in front of a mosque before service…is that a threat to free speech? Is the space in front of a religious center a protected zone? Do you think any practitioners of the faith elected not to exercise their rights and to hear words of their choosing when armed men are shouting at them in front of mosque?

    You defended it.

    1. In fact, your defense of it was that it was fee speech.

    2. ” can’t claim to understand the motivation of people who would come to protest outside any kind of religious center during religious services, but I don’t have to understand it to understand that these protests, the counter-protests, the indignation on Twitter, and even the agitation to ban hate speech, are all what makes free speech, and freedom in America so awesome. Ritzheimer admits his protest, which he hopes remains peaceful, is “stupid.” So is stomping on the American flag, he says, but it doesn’t hurt anyone either. And if you can’t be stupid while not hurting anyone violating the rights of others*, how free are you?

      https://reason.com/blog/2015/05…..ly-in-phoe

      Your characterization of Krayewski’s post is ludicrous.

      I guess Ed can tell the difference between protests that are meant to violate other people’s rights and protests that don’t do that.

      Why can’t you?

      1. He is not very smart?

        He is mendacious in furtherance of the Prog cause?

        Both?

        1. More the former, but both.

      2. I understand it perfectly. Thanks for putting up his quote that protest is free speech.

        1. You still can’t tell the difference between an organized attempt to violate someone’s rights and a protest that isn’t meant to violate anyone’s rights and doesn’t do so?

          . . . even after having the difference rubbed in your face?

          Let’s see if I can explain this:

          Krayewski is against violating people’s rights.

          He doesn’t have a problem with protests that don’t violate people’s rights–even if they’re stupid protests.

          Is any of this getting through?

          You think because he’s in favor of people’s right to protest without violating other people’s rights, he should be in favor of protests that violate other people’s rights, too?

          Wow, your thinking is even lazier than Shrike’s!

          1. “Is any of this getting through?”

            Ken, there is no way that shitbag would ever admit he was wrong. He’s been busted at least as often as turd, and his response is to stick his fingers in his ears and scream I CAN’T HEAR YOU!

          2. What he is in favor of is being entirely selective of when protest is righteous, and whose rights get violated. Maybe he would like to explain how any Muslims rights were violated if they feared going into that Mosque. Maybe they should just have carried on. Trump certainly carries on with other protests. And I do note he never qualified his support for protest as speech before, even when it caused disruptions, but now when it comes from the left he has qualifications.

            1. Jackand Ace|3.13.16 @ 1:04PM|#
              “What he is in favor of is being entirely selective of when protest is righteous….” (and more lies)

              Ken, you can forget EVER getting a good faith argument from this shitbag. It simply does not have either the integrity or the intelligence to do so.

              1. It’s fun to rub his face in it every once in a while. It would be nice to have somebody from the left around here who wasn’t so completely incoherent.

                Most of us respected Hitchens. We disagreed with him on pretty much everything, but there’s no reason why people on the left have to be ridiculous.

                I just think that they’re not accustomed to being challenged, and so they haven’t developed their think bone.

                1. ^^^This! And they’re not accustomed to being challenged because they can just shout down their opponents.

      3. By the way, let’s quote Ed again, from an article about a town that attempted to ban disruptions in their meetings, and Ed’s disdain for that.

        https://reason.com/blog/2013/03…..ut-not-app

        “It’s not exactly free speech if only the kind that supports government action is allowed is it?”

        So let’s paraphrase here. It’s not exactly free speech if the only kind that supports Trumps ideas is allowed, is it?

        1. Jackand Ace|3.13.16 @ 12:24PM|#
          ‘So let’s *LIE* here. It’s not exactly free speech if the only kind that supports Trumps ideas is allowed, is it?’

          Thanks, shitbag; it’s all clear now.

        2. Excellent example of ad hominem, Jack-hand. You really do excel in that area.

          (Krayewski was wrong in that column anyway; the town banned all booing, including booing speakers against govt action)

    3. Is the space in front of a religious center a protected zone?

      To some extent, yes. The protesters had a right of assembly and free speech, but they didn’t have a right to prevent entrance to or egress from the mosque.

      Did they? I had not heard.

  12. Lowlife scum in the JournoList are now rooting for someone to get killed at one of these things.

    1. Wishes, regrets

    2. Preferably a black child, with an AR-15.

    3. That’s some hard hitting journalism without a comment section

    4. I don’t think he’s rooting for someone to get killed, he’s just warning that somebody will.

      I’d give it 3 progs on the hysteria scale.

    5. What we have seen over the last two weeks isn’t just an escalation of chaos and low level violence but a progressive normalization of unacceptable behavior – more racist verbal attacks, more violence. This is in turn clearly attracting more people who want trouble – on both sides. If you’re an angry racist who wants to act out on his anger, can you imagine any better place to go than a Trump rally? If you hate Trump, his supporters and all he stands for and want to get physical about it, where best to go?

      Remarkable, its almost like their partisan blinders are coming off for a second and they’re starting to grasp reality

      let’s go back to the incident with Dimassimo, who appears to be a left wing activist affiliated with Black Lives Matter and similar groups. This is not only totally unacceptable behavior, it is also totally unhinged behavior. When you try to rush the stage when a presidential candidate with Secret Service protection is speaking, you are literally taking your life in your hands. This is the kind of crazy thinking, which even if Dimassimo didn’t intend to hurt Trump, leads to very bad outcomes. And this is from the anti-Trump side!

      1. By the time they actually realize what they have wrought**, it will be too late for them to stop it.

        * Responsibility rests firmly with the individuals choosing to act violently, but the blame for the motivation for the current anger and rhetoric is widespread. And I like the word “wrought”.

  13. I feel like we already had this thread. Someone get Hihnston Churchill in here.

    “Oh, blood puke! Good song title! Someone write that – oh, wait, we already wrote that. Good song, though.”

    1. It is because of bullies like you that I am writing the Koch brothers in order to request that they ban all comments from this site.

      1. +1 (laughing)

  14. “Dangerous ideas that are not engaged with, but rather shouted down and censored, gain unwarranted currency, making them even more dangerous.” This is completely wrong. You can shout down and censor speech. That is not the problem. The problem is when the *government* does it. And puts people in jail like they do in Europe and in Muslim countries. And oh – coincidentally it even says this in the Constitution. As long as the protests are non-violent there is no problem and we have a proud history of that in this country (MLK). I almost cannot believe what I am reading here.

    1. You can shout down and censor speech.

      I would agree that there should not be a legal prohibition of shouting speech down, absent other factors such as trespassing, or other use of force. But I vehemently deny that shouting someone down is acceptable. Let me go further, if your goal is to silence your opposition, then you are in the wrong, no matter what their message is.

      And something that has long annoyed me is a confusion between 1A and free speech. The 1st amendment recognizes, it does not create, a fundamental right: freedom of expression. It only prohibits governmental interference with that right because it is part of a document written to limit government, not private individuals. To assert that because the first amendment does not forbid private attempts to silence opponents, such attempts are moral is simply nonsensical.

      People who organize a mob to shout down their opponents are opponents of liberty.

      1. ^^^This x 1000

    2. No, you freaking thugs.

      You do not get to shout down someone in a hall that they have rented.

      “Without private property, there is no private life.”
      – Robert Heinlein

      “I am paying for this microphone”
      – Ronald Reagan

  15. Dangerous ideas that are not engaged with, but rather shouted down and censored, gain unwarranted currency, making them even more dangerous.

    Serious question(s): What are examples of a “dangerous idea”?

    1. Typically the Nazi ‘dangerous idea’ is that the Aryan race is superior due to ‘survival of the fittest’. It is a simple Darwinian notion (and a misconception) that was used to justify all sorts of injustice and violence. It was dangerous, but mostly because it gained ascendancy through violent bullying and then it was too late. It’s great that Trump is being challenged early on. This is a very good sign and positive development even if the protesters are Commies. It’s the Commies vs the Nazis and they will cancel each other out, creating a ‘safe space’ for the rebirth of Libertarian values – the long awaited ‘Libertarian Moment’. It’s a beautiful thing.

      1. Drugs, no even once.

        1. Well, drugs that improve spelling might get a pass.

    2. How ’bout the idea that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11?

      “Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

      WASHINGTON (AP) ? Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists’ strike against this country.
      Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it’s likely Saddam was involved.”

      —-September 6, 2003 (Some six months after we invaded Iraq)

      http://usatoday30.usatoday.com…..iraq_x.htm

      1. To say that something is “likely”, and to state it as a fact, are two different things.

        1. Um . . . you wanna spin it that way, go ahead.

          Our belief may have had something to do with the anthrax attack, the Bush Administration waving around photos of mobile WMD labs that turned out to be bogus, and Bush himself talking about Saddam Hussein’s ties with Al Qaeda in his State of the Union Address.

          Not exactly going out on a limb with that observation.

          Regardless, point is, that was a mighty dangerous belief. That dangerous belief cost us trillions of dollars, thousands of American casualties, not to mention the suffering of Iraqi civilians, and the problems are still compounding.

    3. Dangerous idea = no one needs 23 types of deodorant?
      Dangerous idea = Marxism? (Admittedly, that’s a lot of dangerous ideas, but you get the point).

      I mean, I guess you can say that it’s not the ideas that are dangerous, but the actions. And I agree action is the Rubicon. But ideas get you there – action doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

  16. On a serious note (that most certainly won’t be covered here), if this isn’t using one’s office to benefit a family member, I don’t know what is.

    But it’s probably just a coincidence, right progressives?

    1. FTA: It was recently revealed through Hillary’s emails that during her first year as Secretary of State she insisted that Laureate Education be included in the guest list for an education policy dinner hosted at the U.S. Department of State.

      And

      Several months later, former President Bill Clinton became an honorary chancellor of Laureate International Universities, which turned out to be incredibly lucrative. He was paid a cool $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 for his role with the for-profit college.

      1. For-profit colleges? They’re history’s greatest monster!

        1. They weren’t so bad when they were forking over $225k for her speech in 2014.

          Oppo research is gonna have a field day that I can’t imagine the MSM covering up. Trump or Cruz will absolutely destroy her. If the FBI doesn’t do so first.

          1. I worked for that company in 2008 at their Amsterdam office. There was plenty of highly questionable stuff going on there. People in the “admissions” department would forge diplomas to gain entry into programs for example.

          2. This certainly seems like it might negate any attacks over Trump University.

    2. How many more Trump speeches will MoveOn have to shut down before you racists realize that Hillary is the mother of Jesus and St. Bernie is the Christ child?

      1. This is influence peddling on a grand scale. What did Slick Willie have to do with the for-profit school system prior to his wife demanding this group be included in a government policy session at State?* Is it merely a coincidence he gets a $15M gig there less than a year later?

        *What business of the State Department is higher education in America? Do we not have a DoE?

        1. I’d bet my right arm that there were follow up personal emails between her and Laureate International after that dinner. Probably about yoga routines and poses like the “my hand in your back pocket” pose she’s got mastered.

          There’s no justice if she’s not indicted for a range of her crimes.

          1. I really think the FBI is closing in on her. There’s a good chance she won’t even make it to the election.

            1. I think Bill is preparing for it as well.

              He was recently being questioned about some of the issues with the Clinton Family Slush Fund.

              He answered , ” Hey, I just work here. I have no control over those type decisions”.

              Bill will drop Hillary like a rock as soon as she has finished being useful to him and especially so if she begins to become a danger.

            2. Which doesn’t matter, because Loretta Lynch will never file charges against her, let alone get an indictment. A Democrat political apparatchik is always better off facing the wrath of the FBI rank and file than the wrath of the Clintons.

              Beyond that, most Democrats I know would still vote for her even if she were convicted and in jail.

  17. I’m actually looking forward to more protests?

    http://blog.jim.com/war/the-ca…..e-streets/

  18. Protesters in Chicago yelled at supporters, calling them Nazi punks, and starting chants of “Fuck Trump.”

    Were they singing this?

  19. I can’t help but shake the feeling that this is going to get ugly. You’ve got two groups of people who hate each other, who respond to perceived slights on an almost entirely emotional level, and who are convinced that that the other side poses a tangible threat to the country.

    But hey, at least it’s rankling the feathers of SJW, so it’s totally worth it, amirite?

    1. Maybe they’ll all kill each other and the sane people can take over?

      1. Historically, when that happens, it usually requires a nasty period during which sanity is burned and beaten back into people.

    2. Cosmos vs Yokels?

    3. *shrugs*

      Politics always begins and ends with dead bodies. They’re the coin of the realm. I’m not sure why that would surprise anyone.

    4. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
      – Thomas Jefferson

  20. MSNBC Tells the Tale of How Bernie Supporters ‘Shut Down’ a Trump Rally

    The narration is subtle, as evidenced by photo captions =

    – Escalating aggression marks Trump’s rally rhetoric
    – Chicago anti-Trump protester: Safety was first concern
    – At Trump rallies, people of all ages and creeds, even some outside the continent, have continued to make their voices heard.

    All the conflict is the product of “Angry” Trump people, who themselves blame all violence on “Thugs” (wink, nudge, wink)

    They do make an interesting point which is probably born more of hope than sober-analysis =

    “If the candidate doesn’t win the Democratic presidential nomination, the anti-Trump showing in Chicago foreshadows a possible future avenue for his movement in the general election, in which Trump is the most likely Republican nominee.”

  21. 2016 is already more of a shitshow than 2016. Ffs, I hate the Bern as much as I hate the Donald, but you dont see me “protesting” their right to free speech, no matter how wrong or dangerous it may be.

    1. *than 2015.

      My bad.

      1. It was also true in the first version.

  22. Libertarians should be defending people’s rights to non-violently interrupt rallies. Not condemning them as an existential threat to ‘free speech’.

    You might be a redneck racist xenophobe if: people keep interrupting your rallies.

    1. people’s rights to non-violently interrupt rallies

      “libertarians” – not that i’ve ever met any *real ones* – generally have a pretty narrow conception of rights as purely negative.

      There’s no right to ‘interrupt’ other people’s shit. You can speak, sure. but organizing into a mob with the intent of following around political opponents and provoke conflict is way past any notion of people’s individual rights.

      As frankie said – if these events take place in private venues, the people running them have every justification to forcibly throw them the fuck out if they’re trying to disrupt the events. And that’s *what they want* = to get thrown out, and to get it on film. So that the news the following day the news will be a nonstop montage of Diverse Colorful People being manhandled by people in Trump Uniforms.

      I support the protestors rights to speak and I fully encourage them to actually “Speak” at some point. But i have not heard ANY SPEECH at all from the opposition. They seem less interested in any “counter-speech” than they do simply drowning out any possibility of speech.

      If they have a “message” they feel needs to be heard, then i’d like to hear it. Its like the OWS situation all over again. They aren’t protesting for the sake of any specific ‘issue’ or message = they’re protesting simply to engage in a disruptive act. Is disruption “speech”? I suppose. but i’d hope there’s more to it as well.

        1. OMG LOL WTF

          1. It is difficult to counter such a damning, fact filled argument like that, isn’t it?

            We can all learn from Grandmaster dajjal.

            *bows*

      1. FAIL. When have you ever been to an OWS protest?

        1. The ones he’s referring to weren’t real OWS protests.

      2. You’re such a pitiful right-wing troll. There’s a place for you at breitbart.com

        1. Feeling the righteous anger of the proletariat against the landlord class, are we Madame Jiang Qing?

    2. Libertarians should be defending people’s rights to non-violently interrupt rallies.

      Libertarians should be defending the institution of private property, which makes freedom possible. People who invade a rented hall and disrupt the proceedings are violating private property rights.

      “Without private property, there is no private life.”
      – Robert Heinlein

      “I am paying for this microphone”
      – Ronald Reagan

    3. Libertarians should be defending people’s rights to non-violently interrupt protest rallies.

      Fixed. I can object to someone’s opinions, but acting with the intent of not permitting them to express their opinions is not what libertarians should do or promote.

  23. ” It’s the Commies vs the Nazis and they will cancel each other out”

    During Hitlers rise there were protests against the Nazis. By communists. And there were others, industrialists, who made the very same argument you’ve made.

    1. HAHA. Yes and Hitler bragged about how he would beat them down and send them out with bloodied heads. He understood that this was a central tactic to the rise of a political movement, originally pioneered by the Bolsheviks. Furthermore, his meeting bills all said “No Jews allowed”, and “No Sanderistas allowed” would never pass muster. So you are completely wrong in your conclusion, but I love the fact that you are engaging in fact without threats or insults or bullying. Which proves my point – non-violent speech that ‘shuts down’ others’ is not prohibited by the constitution unless implemented by the government – and this in fact is a good litmus test for the True Libertarian?.

      1. Don’t event organizers, much like concert or sporting event organizers, have the right to remove anyone being disruptive at their discretion? So if they asked the people to leave and they refused, they could be forcibly be removed and charged with trespassing.

        Free speech doesn’t permit me screaming “fuck you, Romo” at a Cowboys game. The organizers have a right to ask me to leave and have me arrested if I refuse. Same for people yelling “fuck you, Trump” at an event organized by his campaign.

        1. LOL. What part of ‘non-violent’ do you not understand? Should I say it more slowly? Here you go: N O N V I O L E N T.

          1. What does non-violence have to do with event organizers being able to remove people?

            1. I never said they can’t remove people. I said you are not a True Libertarian? if you claim that these protesters are infringing on Trump’s ‘Constitutional right to free speech’.

              1. I think there is room for a legitimate disagreement over when someone’s rights have been violated.

                1. But I think Frank framed it well up above with regards to public vs private spaces.

              2. No one claiming “constitutional” anything, and pretending that any narrow POV makes someone a “True Libertarian?” is something most often argued by leftist retards around here.

                What they’re doing is not “speech” but disruption of other people’s speech. They can/should be thrown out of other people’s events. if they have some “message” they feel needs to be heard, no one is stopping them from holding their own counter-rallies. But its clear that there is no “counter message” = they’re simply trying to get thrown out so they can use those incidents as their own ginned-up media events.

                They’re certainly free to do that! I don’t think they should be barred from attendance, or threatened with any prior restraint. But pretending that this situation is some kind of conflict of “equivalent rights” being exercised is fucking stupid and willfully obtuse.

              3. They’re infringing on his private property rights, fuckhead.

                1. “They’re infringing on his private property rights, fuckhead.” LOL thanks for demonstrating the kind of Nazi bullying that worked great 100 years ago. Today? Not so much.

                  1. Bullying? With words? But it’s nonviolent. Doesn’t that make it ok in your world, troll?

                    Also, the Nazi Party didn’t even exist 100 years ago. So you might need to open a math book and a history book before you open your pie hole.

                    1. LOL yes, Trump is hoping to nationalize Christie’s ‘cyber bullying’ legislation to shut down the dissent of ‘trolls’ online. It’s the same tactic that the Nazis and Commies used once they were in power, and which still lives in the form of ‘hate speech’ laws that Europe uses to ban opinions that it considers ‘extremist’. Thanks again for demonstrating how they will attempt to shine that old shit for the modern internet-connected world.

                    2. I don’t support Trump. But the enemy of my enemy is certainly not my friend. Especially when they break the law in order to shut down speech.

                      Sorry, but I have principles.

                    3. Bullying is when you do it to him. Protest is when he does it to you. This is central to the left’s definition of tolerance. We somehow let the people who invented the re-education camp have the keys to our educational system. I think this was a bad idea.

                  2. Turd ?

                    Is that you Turd ?

                2. Thank you. Someone around here has a clue. Everyone else, take note.

          2. Go to a sporting event and non-violently scream “FUCK YOU” at the top of your lungs over and over.

            If you don’t abide by the rules the organizers set forth, they should have every right to ask you to leave. If you refuse, you’re trespassing.

            Answer me this: if you’re nonviolently disrupting a church service by yelling “fuck God”, can you not be asked to leave? Or if you’re nonviolently sitting in the lobby of a Planned Parenthood screaming “abortion is murder,” can you not be asked to leave? In both instances, the operator/owner has a right to ask you to leave at their sole discretion. A private Teump rally is no different…violent or nonviolent protest is irrelevant.

            1. HAHAHHA. Of course you can be asked to leave, and you must if asked. So what? As long as both sides act non violently, then no harm no foul. Sorry but you’re going to lose this argument, I can tell you that right now. But persist with your nonsense if you must:

              1. As long as both sides act non violently, then no harm no foul.

                Um, no. As long as all parties act in accordance to the rules of the organizer then no harm no foul. Violence leads to different charges. Trespassing is a crime in and of itself.

                I’m going to enter your house (or cardboard box in your case) and stay against your will. I’ll be sure to do so nonviolently. No harm no foul, right?

                I mean, Jesus Christ. Do private property rights not exist in your retarded-ass world? Do people not have a right to hold an event with their own rules in place for participants and spectators?

                1. The fact that you degenerated to an insult shows you know that you are wrong. Yes, anyone has a right to attend a Trump event. And if you disrupt it non-violently then you can be asked to leave. It is not a crime. No you cannot enter my cardboard box, that is called ‘breaking and entering’ and it’s a crime and you will go to jail because I will press charges and Drumpf isn’t going to bail you out.

                  1. I degenerated into an insult because you’re a fucking retard.

                    And in the scenario I stated above, I entered your cardboard box the same way your beloved protestors entered this event: with consent.

                    Besides, your cardboard box is probably in an alleyway, which is public property.

                    1. “I degenerated into an insult because you’re a fucking retard.” Again, thanks for demonstrating the kind of insults and bullying that worked great for the Nazis and the Bolsheviks. Please, proceed in showing how that helped them rise to power even if such a strategy is ineffective today:

              2. @dajjal

                You have a strange definition of “harm” in “no harm no foul.”

                Let’s go through a few thought experiments.

                If someone comes up to you, and yells right in your ear at the top of their lungs, “FUCK YOU” over and over, is there harm or no harm to you?

                Keep in mind that they have not physically touched you, even though they are less than 2cm from your ear, and they have not made any effort to physically harm you beyond yelling in your ear.

                What if they say “FUCK YOU” over and over in a conversational-level of voice and follow you everywhere you go, staying within 2m of your person at all times?

                Next thought experiment:

                If you are walking somewhere and a person comes up and gets right in front of you, never more than 2cm away from you but never actually touching you, and that person continues to stay in your face, is that harming you or not harming you? No punches are thrown and no words are said. They just stay 2cm away from you at all times. For the sake of making the argument simpler let’s say you are walking in a public space.

                1. Next thought experiment:

                  If someone invents a voice jammer (like a cell phone jammer but one that silences the human voice) and they use this continuously on you, without actually touching you or punching you–they just keep silencing the words that come out of your mouth, is that harm or not harm?

                  Final thought experiment:

                  What if you are about to give a speech and a protestor runs up and takes your microphone away from you without physically attacking you, thus depriving you of amplification to speak to the crowd? Is that harm or not harm? (This is the quote from the protester: “‘I was thinking that I could get up on stage and take his podium away from him and take his mic away from him and send a message to all people out in the country”)

            2. Precisely. Trump rented the venue (as far as I know) and so if people were interrupting the show they could be asked to leave and if they did not leave peacefully, be removed with whatever force necessary to do so.

              1. Agreed! Yay someone gets it. (Though you forgot the part where they get a criminal record which ruins their life.)

                1. They don’t “get” a criminal record. They commit a crime and are tried,by a jury of their peers. They earned it if they willfully violated the private property rights of the venue operator.

                  You’re one of those idiots that doesn’t believe in personal responsibility, aren’t you?

                  1. They did not commit a crime, and sorry you just failed the True Libertarian? litmus test.

                    1. If it ain’t Mary, its in the family

                    2. Trespassing is no longer a crime?

                    3. Sorry but you lost this argument a long time ago. The only question is when you’ll realize it.

                    4. Trespassing is not a crime?

                    5. Acts like Mary, concludes like cytotoxic…oh God, please tell me they didn’t merge?!

  24. At this point, I’ve concluded there are actually only two ideologies – fascism and communism. Everything else in between is just a matter of degree. Not that philosophically there aren’t distinctions, but in actual implementation they seem to acquire the characteristics of one or the other over time. Usually the fascists are better dressed.

  25. #BerniesNazis They love violent disruption of free political speech. Bernie’s National Socialists.

    1. I think Patriotic Socialist is the preferred nomenclature these days.

      1. So, PAZIs?

  26. Back in the day, when Reason played apologist to the Tea Party, all those town hall meetings that were disrupted, and then eventually stopped, were nothing but casualties to citizens exercising free speech. Remember how speakers were shouted down and not allowed to continue? And then town hall meetings were cancelled? No problem.

    “I have been deeply impressed by the citizen outrage that spilled out into town hall meetings this year. And I remain shocked at the priggish derision of the mainstream media (locked in their urban enclaves) toward those events. This was a moving spectacle of grassroots American democracy in action. Aggrieved voters have a perfect right to shout at their incompetent and irresponsible representatives. American citizens are under no duty whatever to sit in reverent silence to be fed propaganda and half-truths. It is bizarre that liberals who celebrate the unruly demonstrations of our youth would malign or impugn the motivation of today’s protestors with opposing views.”

    Maybe Paglia can tell us how is priggish now.

    1. Principals over principles, jackand.

      1. Indeed.

        1. If either of you two jackasses ever engaged in good faith argument, I’d point out the oh-so-clear difference between your link and this article.
          But the fact that you posted the link says you have no interest in honesty; lefty lies after lefty lies.

    2. A Town Hall meeting is an open forum that is scheduled by the local governments for people to voice their opinions.

      A private function organized by a political candidate should operate the same as a sporting event or concert: attendees not conducting themselves as the organizers wish can be asked to leave. If they refuse, then they are trespassing.

      1. Really? Those running a town hall meeting gave up their rights to free speech? Any public forum is subject to free speech curtailment? Because you know Reason just said that if a speaker is not allowed to continue, free speech is under attack. Government officials have no right to free speech? Please let me know where that limitation exists in the Constitution

        1. Do you understand parliamentary procedure? Have you ever been to a Town Hall meeting and asked to speak? They have rules in place that prohibit the council from disbanding a meeting prior to the meeting being properly “closed”. In many cases where I’ve attended, the council is required to hear every person that wants to be recognized for a pre-determined period of time.

          And I’ve never said people running town hall meetings have to give up anything. But they certainly have to recognize anyone and everyone that asks to be recognized within the procedures set forth. And suspending those rules in order to silence dissent is very much shutting down the right of those people to petition their government for redress of grievances. In fact, it’s all but a textbook definition of it.

          1. I’ll quote Paglia above as to what occurred in those town hall meetings, and it certainly wasn’t parliamentary procedure.

            ” Aggrieved voters have a perfect right to shout at their incompetent and irresponsible representatives. American citizens are under no duty whatever to sit in reverent silence to be fed propaganda and half-truths.”

            And town meetings got cancelled out of fear of violence, just like Trump cancelled his rally. The former I guess was righteous free speech, while the latter was free speech curtailed.

            Brother.

            1. They aren’t under any duty to sit silently and be fed half-truths. And IIRC, the overwhelming majority of them took pains to be addressed within the rules of the council meetings. They did things within the rules established by the “organizers” (cit to councils). The “organizers” (city councils) disregarded those rules when they didn’t like what the citizens were saying and silenced them by illegally closing meetings not in accordance to the procedures established.

              So the glaring differences are that the former are government-run forums designed specifically for people to address public officials? Their,”fear of,violence” was a pretext to stifle dissent when dissent is explicitly protected. Rules for decorum are established and the officials are obligated to respect speakers.

              The latter is a private event where all parties are subject to the rules established by the organizer, who can ask people to be remov d at their sole discretion.

              1. Fair enough. We agree to disagree. Enjoy your Sunday.

                1. You too.

                  1. sloopy: Remember what George Bernard Shaw said about porcine grappling.

                    1. That he’s agin’ it?

                    2. Tu quoque is all Jack-hand knows how to do. For that he needs a tu, so I suggest you deny it to him.

            2. Jackand Ace|3.13.16 @ 2:13PM|#
              “I’ll quote Paglia above as to what occurred in those town hall meetings, and it certainly wasn’t parliamentary procedure.”

              Yeah, you stupid shit, why not quote Shakespeare? Every bit as applicable to your supposed ‘argument’.
              What a fucking ignoramus…

    3. My recollection of the Tea Party rants at town hall meetings were that a “representative” rents a hall to “hear his constituents”, most likely with their money. His constituents come and give him an earful, and he closes down the meeting because the optics don’t serve his interests.

      Not the same thing as Trump renting a hall with his own money to give a speech, and people showing up and disrupting the speech.

  27. Hey ed,

    Re: Timothy dimassimo

    Apparently, he protested militarism, police brutality, undue nationalism, and fascist assholes. Believe me when I say I’m being congratulatory… He’s a great example of libertarianism.

    1. He’ll certainly make a wonderful lampshade one day!

    2. Hope he spends most of life in prison. Socialist violence needs to be stopped

  28. Left wing thugs hate free speech and want to silence all opposition. These thugs provoke violence and then MSM blames Trump. What a joke. Trump will sweep Tuesday as the silent majority that supports Trump will not be silenced by violence of the left.

    1. “I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

      -Barack Obama, to his Brownshirt followers, on September 18, 2008.

  29. I will throw this one out again: You know who else’s political rise was accompanied by escalating violence?

      1. american socialist|3.13.16 @ 1:30PM|#
        “Robert Conquest?”

        You pathetic POS. It must hurt being called on your BS by a guy who was a damn spook.

      2. Oh, and since you do’t like him, please offer ONE quote from him that was proven incorrect.
        And no, if he said the number was 100,000,000 murders based on info at the time and it turned out to be 98,000.000 or 105,000,000, sorry, that doesn’t count.
        But I know full well that a lying lefty POS would give it a shot…

        1. Do you want to hear about all the Cold War dead-Enders who used the violence of the Soviets in the 1930s to justify the trillions of dollars of expenditures on nuclear weapons– and, oh yeah, that war you fought in– in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Better a nuclear fireball than Finland, I say.

          1. american socialist|3.13.16 @ 4:05PM|#
            “Do you want to hear about all the Cold War dead-Enders who used the violence of the Soviets in the 1930s to justify the trillions of dollars of expenditures on nuclear weapons– ”
            Sure, go right ahead; I’ve already read chapter and verse.

            “and, oh yeah, that war you fought in– in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Better a nuclear fireball than Finland, I say.”
            Uh, I was drafted by the government you worship, you slimy piece of shit.
            And your comments regarding Finland befit your general ignorance just fine.

          2. Still waiting for the specifics on how Conquest was wrong. Waiting….

          3. The Soviets were the bad gutys. We needed nuclear weapons to keep them at bay.

            1. “Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1939-1956”
              http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb…..e+,aps,204
              Highly recommended (to those who can read, so commie shitbag isn’t included)
              Dealing with a paranoid thug doesn’t leave a lot of options.

            2. Oh, and if it weren’t for the useful idiot Klaus Fuchs, the Soviets would have been poking around for another 5 or 6 years, killing thousands more ‘camp dust’ in the process.
              So it took a spook to save Stalin from even more murders.

          4. AmSoc do you think that without those expenditures that the violence of the Soviets would have been limited to the 30s ?

            Is there any reason to believe they would have ended the communist, or Bolshevik, quest for world domination, their stated goal ?

            1. His name is American Socialist. What makes you think he wanted the Soviet violence limited in any way?

    1. President Snow?

    2. You staying dry Suthen?

      1. I appreciate all the well wishes, but not to worry. I am not a prepper exactly but I am an old hand at this. I have been through too many floods, hurricanes, ice storms etc.

        I am well stocked with food ( a few hundred cans ), water, gas, etc etc. Also, I keep two half gallon bottles of Vodka stashed away just in case.

        give me a few mins and I will bumble through posting some photos.

        *I went to check the water this morning and while I was standing at the edge of the water a young otter shot out of the water onto the ground right at my feet. He heaved and heaved and then puked up the most awful looking pureed fish looking shit partially on my new boots. Dammit. Then he/she noticed me.

        Any experienced hunters here will know that most animals can’t really see you if you are perfectly still. They won’t become alarmed until they either smell you or see you move. I guess otters can’t smell very well because the little bugger sniffed my pants leg and then examined me veeeeery closely. I must have blinked or something because he danced away and stopped at about 20 feet. I was able to get one shot of the little guy before he got back in the water. I will post it in a bit.

        Cool. I haven’t seen an otter in the wild for a few years and that is the first one I have seen on my property.

        1. I was standing at the edge of the water a young otter shot out of the water onto the ground right at my feet. He heaved and heaved and then puked up the most awful looking pureed fish looking shit partially on my new boots.

          I read this in a David Attenborough accent. I didn’t know they had otters in the Bayou

          1. There is no NA critter that we don’t have. We used to have bison, elk, even moose.

            I have some timberland over in Catahoula parish on Brushy Bayou (pronounced Bursley…go figure) that has a pretty good population of otters. I have seen as many as 9 frolicking together. I love otters but my god do they stink. A skunk has nothing on them.

            1. http://tinypic.com/view.php?pi…..uWtRum4n9A

              I think I did that right.

              Look at the dead center of the image. There is a dark spot on the ground right next to the edge of the water. At eleven o’clock from that dark spot and about three feet behind it directly on the edge of the water is an elongated shape. That is the otter, it’s head on the left.

              Stupid wide angle lens on my iPhone.

              1. I see him. Looking right at you:)

                1. Yep. He was quite intrigued.

            2. *Just south of Alexandria is Bayou Boeuf (buffalo bayou). Apparently the Frogs killed bison there and named the bayou after that.

            3. Heh.

              You otter be careful around wild water critters.

              /juvenile humor itch scratched

            4. Otters will destroy the fish population of a lake and are making a big comeback in Texas.

              1. “BUT THEY SO KEEEEE-YOOOOOT?”
                /watermelon environmentalist

                I confess, i think they’re sooper cute too. but i had all my idealized suburban illusions about the animal kingdom knocked out of me by the age of 15. Nothing ruins how “cute” something is like seeing them nibbling on the intestines of some other dead animal. Or smelling them. Or having them rip into your food supply at camp and shit all over everything.

                1. Yeah, cute things are often gross and annoying

                  But otters hold hands!!

                  http://unrealfacts.com/wp-cont…..-hands.jpg

                2. I once went camping in Red Dirt NF with a girlfriend. The last night we were there I fell asleep in the tent with my arm extended under my pillow and the back of my hand was against the tent wall. I woke up in the night to the sound of snuffling and could feel some animal snout through the fabric of the tent on the back of my hand. I tried to remember if we had left any food out (I had made pork chops w/ french onion soup mix in a cast iron dutch oven over the fire) but was too sleepy to investigate. I figured the critter sniffing my hand was a red wolf. I simply, without much force, smacked the critter’s nose and loudly said “Fuck off!”. I heard it scamper off.

                  The next morning I checked for tracks to confirm my suspicions of it being some sort of canine.

                  There were bear tracks larger than I could cover with my hand all over the camp and the left over pork chops were gone, the dutch oven licked clean as a whistle.

                  Girlfriend was terrified to the point of being irrational. She got in the truck and would not get out. I was a bit unsettled myself. We packed up and went home.

                  1. That was in response to Gilmore’s comment.

                    “Or having them rip into your food supply at camp and shit all over everything.”

                3. Nothing ruins how “cute” something is like seeing them nibbling on the intestines of some other dead animal

                  I was reading about “fire ants” in wikipedia earlier and how one of their natural predators grows inside them until their head falls off and then pupates in the husk of the head. Cute!!

              2. Ya need to introduce that what ets otters, too.

              3. “Otters will destroy the fish population of a lake and are making a big comeback in Texas.”

                Alligators. They are making a comeback in Tx also and they eat otters when they can catch them.

                I understand alligators have been seen in freakin’ Oklahoma.

                Suits me fine.

        2. That is really cool. I’ve never seen an otter in the wild. Glad to hear all is well!

        3. Jesse might be able to hook you up with some otters. 😉

    3. Lord Voltimort

    4. President Roslyn?

    5. Norton Prentiss Otis?

    6. King John?

    7. Alexander Stephens?

    8. Lenin?
      Mao?
      Pol Pot?
      Franco?
      Some Italian dude with a big chin?

    9. Francis Urquhart?

  30. It all comes down to power. They have the power to shut you up, they will use it. Reason does not work against that mindset.

    1. They’ve been trying to pass the “Fairness” Doctrine to shut down conservative radio for a long time.

  31. I thought it was hilarious when the crowd stopped cheering and Trump asked if they were scared because he just threatened that people who disrupt his rallies should be arrested and jailed and no one would hire them. And then he kept asking a guy who was interrupting, “Are you for me?” This is really so funny and will only get more hilarious.

  32. Look at all these dumb frat boy douchebags at trump rallies. Free speech? What would they tell you? football statistics?

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

    1. In what way is ‘frat boy’ an insult?

      1. am soc is starting to sound a little like someone entering tertiary syphilis…

    2. american socialist|3.13.16 @ 1:58PM|#
      “Look at all these dumb frat boy douchebags at trump rallies. Free speech? What would they tell you? football statistics?”

      Gee, look there!
      I guess that proves, uh, that shitbag isn’t smart enough to breathe without reminders? Is dishonest enough to throw up any crap he can find, hoping something sticks on the wall? That he’s both of those and even worse?

  33. As I said in another thread: One lesson I think I’m supposed to learn here is that when Bernie Sanders supporters, MoveOn.org, Black Lives Matter, George Soros, the Tides Foundation, and assorted other groups band together to forcibly shut down a Trump rally, it proves how dangerous Trump is.

    1. If they keep this up their plans are going to backfire on them and they will help get him elected.

      1. Yeee-up.

      2. It’s like Progressives are all secretly on Trump’s payroll.

        Every hysterical lie, every thuggish attack, paves the way to Trump’s victory. He’d be nothing without them.

    1. Note the truck on the shoulder of the road. It has a boat trailer on it and it is backed into the ditch. Just as I got there the family was boating back to their house presumably to try and salvage some things.

  34. Hey Gilmore, Sevo, et. Al.,

    Is holding a sign for Obama at a Donald trump rally infringing on trump supporters’ free speech?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rlnAFgEAsaY

    1. Hey, Shitbag! Any other false equivalences you want to toss around?
      Boy, I’m certainly happy that Jack is the only other pathetic excuse for a human dumb enough to buy your lies.
      Oh, and fuck off.

      1. Probably holding an Obama sign is microaggressing against fascists. Given what I know about micro aggression from you guys these trump supporters need to lighten the hell up.

        1. american socialist|3.13.16 @ 4:01PM|#
          “Probably holding an Obama sign is microaggressing against fascists. Given what I know about micro aggression from you guys these trump supporters need to lighten the hell up.”

          Hey, shitbag! Got any other buzz-words to toss around hoping you won’t be called on bullshit one more time?

    2. Dead thread -fucking now Stalin Jr…..how’s that mortgage doing?

  35. far right party wipes out opposition in German elections after immigration fallout.

    Right wing party in Germany? What could go wrong?

    You take some socialism, throw in some nationalism, and you get… probably Trump.

    I guess he’s just following the shining North Star that is Europe.

    1. I believe I have seen this movie before.

    2. Trump is more Francisco Franco than Hitler or Mussolini.

  36. The nature of what happened in Chicago can be seen by the fact that the leftist agitators actively boated not only of a desire to shut down the rally, but of their success in doing so. That makes them a riotous mob,not a group engaging in “peaceable assembly”. This is what liberal fascists have been doing for years, occasionally even targeting Democrats (especially Black Shakedowns Matter), and it needs to be stopped — with force, if necessary.

    1. Why are you people here? Go away, you fucking slackjawed illiterate.

      1. STFU and VOTE TRUMP

      2. I blame Warty’s aggressive rhetoric for inspiring these yokel-protests

        1. They would absolutely be morally justified in murdering me, that’s all I know.

          1. It actually depends what trimester you’re in.

    2. And it’s all well-funded and completely organized by the endless array of communist front groups controlled by the Soroses, Ayers, and Obamas of the world.

      It’s starting to remind me a lot of the fake anti-war movement of the Bush years. Seas of Astroturf as far as the eye can see.

      1. Really. Why are you here? You would be happier at WorldNetDaily or some equivalent place.

  37. What makes a protest an act that violates the First Amendment rights of others? The use of violence to shut down speech.

    What violates the spirit of the first amendment is the attempt to silence others, the attempt to prevent them from getting out their message.

    I don’t know what actually qualifies in law for violating the first amendment. I would think that any violation of law aimed at silencing someone’s frees speech rights would qualify. This would include trespass and disruption of events. Threats of violence. Pulling fire alarms.

    The two groups deserve each other, and if they weren’t shitting on our culture of rights in the process, it might even be entertaining. Silencing speech is not free expression, even, and especially, if the speech is unwelcome.

    I reject the moral equivalence being made between Trump supporters kicking people out of their rallies, and the fascists who go to Trump rallies with the purpose of disrupting his message.

    In the words of Reagan “I am paying for this microphone”. Private property is our means to have a *free* space to speak *our* message and not be drowned out or disrupted by the messages of others.

    “Without private property, there is no private life.”
    – Robert Heinlein.

  38. Was Trump at a private venue or wasn’t he? If he was at a private venue, then the venue owner should be legally entitled to expel the protestors, and if they threaten to get violent, then they are the ones who are violating the rights of the owner of the venue. If it was a public venue, then the protestors have a right to be there, as it is a public space, and they have as much a right to speak as Trump does.

    That’s what this ultimately comes down to. If it’s a public venue, Trump’s right’s weren’t violated, but if it was a private venue then they were.

  39. Over on the left, articles and editorials are using “blame the victim” reasoning, saying that because Trump spoke about violence, he caused the violence to happen to him.

    This is absolutely no different than the reasoning that “because she wore a short, sexy skirt, she caused the rape to happen to her.”

    Yet most on the left would absolutely condemn blaming the short-skirted woman, unless the attacker is a Muslim refugee, in which case it suits their political agenda to tell the woman to “keep the Muslim refugees at arm’s length.”

    It’s all politics, all the time with the SJWs. Justice is subverted to the agenda.

  40. The more Leftardos disrupt Trump’s speaking engagements, the more non-Leftardos will rally behind him.

  41. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  42. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  43. You’re getting ?197 worth of bonuses for just a fraction of that price. Everything to get you started in learning a proven system for accelerating your exam success. D So if that’s what you want to do, this is the opportunity you’ve been waiting for.Find |Here…

    —- w?w?w.w?o?r?k?p?r?o?s?p?e?c?t?s?.c?o?m

  44. The USA is NOT a democracy……………..

    The USA is a Constitutional Republic…………

    1. The United States *government* is a constitutional republic. The United States is (or at least tries to be) a democracy. Republican in form, Democratic in nature.

  45. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  46. Chicago fire-
    Only a fool would be taken in by Trump’s little drama. He does this after every debate, pulling some trick to make sure he’s the center of attention for the next week. He chose a venue where the opposition would be strong; he cancelled without a concrete threat; he told lies about who was behind the protesters; likely he had agents provocateurs among the demonstrators to make sure that there was violence. Trump is acting more like a facist week by week.

  47. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  48. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.