majorspark;1817212 wrote:True but at a any large political rally radicals are going to be present. When agitators are seeking a confrontation in these large gatherings the propensity to find violence is likely especially when instructed to instigate it.
Perhaps in most cases. I do distinctly remember two such cases at Paul rallies in '12, and in neither case were those who actually disrupted the entire rally (more than just a shirt or saying something among people present) physically assaulted.
It seems odd that it should be so easy. In fairness, Trump himself seemed to, on at least a couple occasions, approve of it. Of course, that doesn't mean the majority of his supporters would act on it, but it WOULD make the location a somewhat friendly environment for it. For example, if you not only review some of the violence, but the subsequent cheering on of the violence, it's a little disturbing.
majorspark;1817212 wrote:What is being propagated in the video is the DNC and the Hillary campaign are orchestrating these confrontations via surrogates giving them plausible deniability. That is the issue. History is rife with this type of political activity. In this case it can be witnessed with our own eyes. It is inexcusable.
I completely agree.
majorspark;1817212 wrote:There is no doubt Trump's rhetoric fuels the narrative. He could diffuse some of this with a little political discernment. We all know political correctness is out of hand. Trump lacks the temperance to convey this balance to his followers. What we lack is a leader that can effectively educate rather than bait their followers.
In him, we would lack any real sort of peace-maker. He seems to fuel it. That's more than just a personality flaw. That has the possibility of tangible results. Unsettling ones, at that.
sleeper;1817233 wrote:This debate is retarded.
I am ready for our first female president.
I agree on the first point.
As for the second, I give negative two fucks about the gender of the president. I care more that they're competent, trustworthy, and agreeable on just a couple issues.
These two chuckleheads are 0/3.
ernest_t_bass;1817237 wrote:I hate listening to her talk about "the wealthy." She IS the wealthy
She is "the wealthy," and she's funded by "the wealthy." Tell me whose interests she cares about.
isadore;1817262 wrote:gosh a ruddies he went off the rails on that question about accepting the election results
Hate to agree with the Democrat version of QO, but this.