Authorities in Fayetteville, NC. the city where the Trump fan sucker punched the protestor, said they are considering charging Trump with inciting a riot. Investigators in North Carolina are considering charging Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump with inciting a riot after a protester at one of his rallies was sucker-punched by a supporter, according to a report from WRAL. The report appeared under a web headline, "Latest: Cumberland authorities weigh charging Trump following rally violence." John McGraw, 78, was arrested for assault by the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office. When McGraw told media that he "might have to kill" the protester, he was charged with communicating threats. Now, Trump could reportedly get hit with a charge of his own, apparently for remarks he's made at rallies, the station reported. Trump had told supporters in Iowa that they should "knock the crap out of" anyone who tried to throw a tomato at him and that he would pay their legal bills if they did so. And at another event, he said he missed the good old days when protesters were removed from rallies on stretchers. http://patch.com/connecticut/waterf...charged-in-rally-sucker-punch-incident-report Fox News is reporting the story also.
What do you think of Soros and Marxists organizing mobs to shut down free speech? These protesters are just Soros' puppets: http://www.teaparty.org/soros-funded-moveon-org-takes-credit-violence-chciago-148626/ Hatred of free speech: [video=youtube;VsdhfyLjvU4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsdhfyLjvU4[/video]
They actually said that they werent considering it anymore but I would love for them to do it. It will show people that if you have free speech other people dont agree with they can find a way to shut you down. It also sends a chilling effect attempting to make Trump supporters afraid to go to their events.
Rubio, Kasich, and Cruz are piling on Trump related to violence. I will likely join my wife tomorrow and vote for Trump even though I planned on voting for Cruz!
Nice quote straight from the putrid maw of the right wing noise machine. Honestly, do you think that www.teaparty.org offers anything but insane conspiracy theories? That being aside, I find it breathtakingly ironic that conservatives spend all their time complaining about George Soros. It's not like Republicans don't enjoy billions upon billions of dollars from donors like the Koch brothers or the oil and gas lobby, or anything like that. Or that the Democrats are the only party with a candidate refusing to take campaign contributions. Incidentally, I fail to see how people protesting is "hatred of free speech". Last I checked, freedom to protest is an integral part of free speech.
Your mind is closed to viewpoints other than your own. Did you check out the CNN video from the site. Is CNN part of the "right wing noise machine"? Do you condemn Soros and all the other billionaires who control the Democratic party? The protesters wanted to shut down the Trump rally. That means they oppose freedom of speech. Which means they are contemptible.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...acks-donald-trump?cmpid=yhoo.headline&ref=yfp Decent article on the subject. I encourage you to read the cases as well
1. Yet, somehow, despite sourcing www.teaparty.org as a reputable site for news, yours isn't. 2.Classic straw man argumentation. No, I never claimed that CNN is part of the right wing noise machine. However, www.teaparty.org clearly is, and the claims made in the article you sourced that, essentially, Soros masterminded the entire protest movement and that "The violent demonstration in Chicago on Friday may represent a precursor to the sort of activity the organization will engage in as it tries to “shut down” its political enemies and elect either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders" is clearly nonsense mobilized as conservative propaganda. I don't buy into the conspiracy theory that Soros and his organization somehow created the entire protest movement or even played a large role. Maybe people of color are just tired of being consistently demonized by Trump and/or physically and verbally assaulted at his rallies. Which brings me to another point: It's clear that neo-fascist Trump supporters are the main reason for all the violence. After all, they've consistently demonstrated over the last couple of months that they can't accept someone protesting at their rallies and almost immediately jump to physical violence. 3. The claim that "Soros and Marxists [are] organizing mobs to shut down free speech" is a clear example of a conservative talking point produced by the right wing noise machine. On closer analysis, the statement makes no sense. How and why would Marxists ever work with Soros, a bourgeois billionaire and thus a clear class enemy, which the main goal of Marxism is to overthrow? There really aren't many Marxists or even socialists in America, so how could they organize mass protests? Of course, claims such as those, like all good propaganda, aren't really supposed to make sense. They're just supposed to frighten and terrorize people into unthinking action. 4. Yes. By the way, billionaires don't control the Democratic party entirely, as evidenced by the rise of Sanders. Additionally, Republicans are controlled by billionaires much more directly than Democrats are. In fact, one is currently leading the Republican field. Like all billionaires, he has no real morals or beliefs (which is why he is also a political donor that has contributed to both parties), just a soulless unrelenting desire to make more and more money at the expense of others. Which is why I suspect a Trump presidency would end in impeachment and criminal prosecution, much like Berlusconi's did. 5.Ridiculous logic. Freedom of speech clearly includes the freedom to oppose events,people, and ideas. The protesters don't like Trump or his ideas, or that he is holding a rally in their city. So they go out and protest. Which is the literal definition of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Freedom of speech also can involve civil disobedience; namely, doing something illegal with the expectation of getting arrested, in order to protest. Some analogies will suffice: Tea Partyers wanted to shut down the Obama presidency (and tried, through various methods, including the "birther" movement). That means they oppose freedom of speech. Which means they are contemptible. Fox news wants to shut down Black Lives Matter, labeling them as a terrorist group, and thus suggesting that they are criminal and thus have no right to protest.That means Fox opposes freedom of speech. Which means Fox is contemptible. Trump wants to arrest have protesters who oppose him arrested (he even said he'd like to punch them in the face).That means Trump opposes freedom of speech. Which means Trump is contemptible. In other words, politics is about claiming the other side has no right to speak and/or trying to de-legitimize their speech. Get used to it.
1. This does nothing to refute any of the points I made. I never made any claim that protesters had the legal right to interrupt Trump at the actual rally. Clearly, though, they have the right to show up, protest, and be arrested/escorted out. This is civil disobedience, which is, in my opinion, and integral part of free speech. Moreover, protesters clearly have the right to protest outside Trump rallies.This was what the majority of those protesters was doing. 2. Since you haven't clearly stated how you thought the article refuted what I said, I can only assume you are suggesting that my statement that "I fail to see how people protesting is "hatred of free speech". Last I checked, freedom to protest is an integral part of free speech." is false because they lack the legal right to protest as they are protesting. As I discussed above, this is easily refuted by the fact that civil disobedience is a form of political speech and, in my opinion, and expression of free speech that, while not explicitly legally protected, is implicitly protected (police don't shoot people who are practicing civil disobedience, for example, and they are generally only detained for a day or two). But in my other post I explained why this ideology about "hating free speech" is just nonsense, that, when applied to both parties, is clearly revealed to be a conservative talking point: "Ridiculous logic. Freedom of speech clearly includes the freedom to oppose events,people, and ideas. The protesters don't like Trump or his ideas, or that he is holding a rally in their city. So they go out and protest. Which is the literal definition of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Freedom of speech also can involve civil disobedience; namely, doing something illegal with the expectation of getting arrested, in order to protest. Some analogies will suffice: Tea Partyers wanted to shut down the Obama presidency (and tried, through various methods, including the "birther" movement). That means they oppose freedom of speech. Which means they are contemptible. Fox news wants to shut down Black Lives Matter, labeling them as a terrorist group, and thus suggesting that they are criminal and thus have no right to protest.That means Fox opposes freedom of speech. Which means Fox is contemptible. Trump wants to arrest have protesters who oppose him arrested (he even said he'd like to punch them in the face).That means Trump opposes freedom of speech. Which means Trump is contemptible. In other words, politics is about claiming the other side has no right to speak and/or trying to de-legitimize their speech. Get used to it."
