Who is responsible for Trump rally riots?

Thing1 said:
I don't think the fear about Trump is irrational, at all. He's a volatile, unpredictable person. He's quick to blame and draw conclusions (see: Egyptian airline), thin-skinned and won't even rule out using nukes in Europe. A lot of his rhetoric is already alienating many of our allies, and if he follows through will effectively dismantle many of those alliances - which are vital to our security.

So, I think people are completely spot on to be afraid of a Trump Presidency. It's like electing a petulant child.
Click to expand...
did you read this thread? http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?68772-Hillary-s-Libya-The-Second-Time-as-Farce
Whether Trump would be a great leader on the international stage is impossible to say because it always is before that person is in that leadership position. That's the inconvenient truth of foreign policy, which, with notable exceptions, is more often about situational reactions than about planning in the great, ahem, laboratories of the State Department.

We do know, however, how Hillary Clinton would perform. We have already seen it. And not just in the emails or the opera bouffe of the Russian reset or the backing of Islamists like Erdogan and Morsi or the horrifying mess of Syria or the even more horrifying, non-existent Iran deal, but, most of all, in Libya. That was her baby.
Click to expand...
If Clinton wasn't such a known screw up/interventionist you argument would hold water in absentia of her actions as Sec of State.
Without a doubt these are 2 very flawed candidates - but "rhetoric alienating our allies" changes if he's POTUS.
Nations organize along realpolitik, not rhetoric.

I agree Trump shoots from the hip. That's a known factor.
But for all of Hillary's so called "qualifications" as Commander in chief she has Libya/Syria,and Iraq/Egypt as her known baggage.
Those are expressed failures in leadership roles. Sanders questions her "judgement" and I do too.
So who do you go to for POTUS depends more then on her shrill characterizations.
Trump is promising realignment .is that good or bad? some of both.
 
Seahawk said:
Not that you're saying this, but attacking his supporters is not going to change Trump. It is only going to make his followers all the more ardent.

Some of the fear is rational, but most of it is overboard nuttiness. I think Obama is more thin skinned than Trump or at least equal. No one said he would nuke a country over an insult.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think anyone should be attacked. I saw that lady get egged, and felt terrible for her & pissed at whoever did it. There is no place for that, anywhere.

And I'm sure it galvanizes Trump's supporters, but they're all in anyway. It's who is going to get those 15 million votes in the middle. O'Reilly had brought up the "Vietnam factor" in all of this, which I agree with. Basically, that the more of these confrontations the country sees on TV, the more they're going to associate it w/ Trump and think, "Do I really want to see this again & again for the next 4 years?" And that might even be the intent behind some of this.

Personally, I don't know what Trump is capable of. I have no idea. He's a narcissist, and volatile as hell. I wouldn't put using nukes past him at all. More than anything, though, I'd be afraid of him instigating an attack on the U.S. w/ his style, like trying to stare down a country like China in a trade standoff. He has none of the subtlety and nuance that you need for diplomacy and negotiations.
 
anatta said:
did you read this thread? http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?68772-Hillary-s-Libya-The-Second-Time-as-Farce

If Clinton wasn't such a known screw up/interventionist you argument would hold water in absentia of her actions as Sec of State.
Without a doubt these are 2 very flawed candidates - but "rhetoric alienating our allies" changes if he's POTUS.
Nations organize along realpolitik, not rhetoric.

I agree Trump shoots from the hip. That's a known factor.
But for all of Hillary's so called "qualifications" as Commander in chief she has Libya/Syria,and Iraq as her known baggage.
Those are expressed failures in leadership roles. Sanders questions her "judgement" and I do too.
So who do you go to for POTUS depends more then on her shrill characterizations.
Trump is promising realignment .is that good or bad? some of both.
Click to expand...

The left feared Reagan and said some of the same things about him. It's partisan rubbish.

Now, will Trump be the best thing since sliced bread foreign policy wise? Probably not, but I wouldn't be surprised if he overcomes most expectations.

Hillary? We've already lived through her disasters.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
The left feared Reagan and said some of the same things about him. It's partisan rubbish.

Now, will Trump be the best thing since sliced bread foreign policy wise? Probably not, but I wouldn't be surprised if he overcomes most expectations.

Hillary? We've already lived through her disasters.
Click to expand...

It's not a bad point about Reagan. There was that fear with him. But you have to admit, Trump is a completely different kind of person. I don't think anyone would disagree w/ - at the very least - the characterization of "unpredictable" with Trump.

I had similar fears about Bush, but mainly because I thought he was naive and would be more aggressive to "look tough." And that wasn't unfounded.
 
Thing1 said:
Well, not to re-hash the thread from yesterday, but we haven't really seen this kind of thing for a major Presidential candidate in many, many years.

So, what's the difference? Is it really because the left is "more angry" this time around? Really? More angry than they were w/ Bush?

This isn't ideological. Sorry, but it is Trump dividing us. It's him stoking the flames of ethnic division, religious division, gender division - any characteristic or background that can separate us, Trump hones in on and exacerbates.

What else would you attribute it to? This is just coincidence?
Click to expand...
I attribute much of this to Occupy Wall Street's examples.
Also some of the black rioting ( say in Baltimore) where the mayor of Baltimore let them do so rather then risk confrontation.

Mob behavior cannot be reasoned with - it's strictly control it or lose control, and if you look at the mayor of san Jose
where this happened he is blaming Trump too, instead of having his cops go in when they started walking on cars
and throwing bottles ( albuquerque)..

There is an attempt to understand or justify, or blame Trump's language for criminal acts, and I completely reject any of that.
The '68 convention was different because mayor Daley would not approve any protest routes, and the demonstrators were always illegal.
Here protestors are given their first amendment rights, and become violent anyhow.
 
anatta said:
I attribute much of this to Occupy Wall Street's examples.
Also some of the black rioting ( say in Baltimore) where the mayor of Baltimore let them do so rather then risk confrontation.

Mob behavior cannot be reasoned with - it's strictly control it or lose control, and if you look at the mayor of san Jose
where this happened he is blaming Trump too, instead of having his cops go in when they started walking on cars
and throwing bottles ( albuquerque)..

There is an attempt to understand or justify, or blame Trump's language for criminal acts, and I completely reject any of that.
The '68 convention was different because mayor Daley would not approve any protest routes, and the demonstrators were always illegal.
Here protestors are given their first amendment rights, and become violent anyhow.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue w/ you on that. I understand where you're coming from, and it's a legit POV. I also think it's too coincidental that we just happen to be seeing this kind of thing w/ the most divisive candidate we've seen in decades.

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Everyone wants to ascribe one thing to blame, but it's probably a variety of factors. Honestly, I think a lot of it has to do w/ frustration over how people can support someone like Trump. I know that's what a lot of anti-Trumpers feel - like, who are these people? What is going on? It goes so far beyond the usual ideological differences, or something like "how can you vote for Bush?" It's like a whole new phenomenon, and people who don't support Trump just don't get it.

And that's not an excuse. There is no excuse for what we're seeing. But I think there is more involved than a simple black & white explanation.
 
Thing1 said:
It's not a bad point about Reagan. There was that fear with him. But you have to admit, Trump is a completely different kind of person. I don't think anyone would disagree w/ - at the very least - the characterization of "unpredictable" with Trump.

I had similar fears about Bush, but mainly because I thought he was naive and would be more aggressive to "look tough." And that wasn't unfounded.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, his unpredictability is a serious concern. While I don't think he would go off the handle and start a nuclear war, I can see him saying something utterly offensive to another world leader and seriously harming international relations. As to any actions he might take, I think there is enough "ring" around a president that he can't just act unilaterally and do something extremely crazy. I think there are level headed generals etc who would put a stop to such extremes. Also, call me tinfoil or whatever, but I believe there are few very wealthy and powerful people who control the President and most of our government. After Obama took office I noticed a remarked change in his demeanor and outlook, as if he saw the secret files or realized that others are actually in control. Those people will put a reign on him, I think.
 
Seahawk said:
I agree with you, his unpredictability is a serious concern. While I don't think he would go off the handle and start a nuclear war, I can see him saying something utterly offensive to another world leader and seriously harming international relations. As to any actions he might take, I think there is enough "ring" around a president that he can't just act unilaterally and do something extremely crazy. I think there are level headed generals etc who would put a stop to such extremes. Also, call me tinfoil or whatever, but I believe there are few very wealthy and powerful people who control the President and most of our government. After Obama took office I noticed a remarked change in his demeanor and outlook, as if he saw the secret files or realized that others are actually in control. Those people will put a reign on him, I think.
Click to expand...

Ha! I actually really agree w/ you there. I'm not a conspiracy guy, but I definitely feel like there are conversations that go on that would shock America. And I did see that change in Obama. I think he genuinely went into that Presidency w/ all of the idealism that he was professing.

Then, a couple of years later, we're seeing emails from his staff assuring Big Pharma that their interests were intact and written into Obamacare.
 
Thing1 said:
Well, I don't think anyone should be attacked. I saw that lady get egged, and felt terrible for her & pissed at whoever did it. There is no place for that, anywhere.

And I'm sure it galvanizes Trump's supporters, but they're all in anyway. It's who is going to get those 15 million votes in the middle. O'Reilly had brought up the "Vietnam factor" in all of this, which I agree with. Basically, that the more of these confrontations the country sees on TV, the more they're going to associate it w/ Trump and think, "Do I really want to see this again & again for the next 4 years?" And that might even be the intent behind some of this.

Personally, I don't know what Trump is capable of. I have no idea. He's a narcissist, and volatile as hell. I wouldn't put using nukes past him at all. More than anything, though, I'd be afraid of him instigating an attack on the U.S. w/ his style, like trying to stare down a country like China in a trade standoff. He has none of the subtlety and nuance that you need for diplomacy and negotiations.
Click to expand...

I thanked your post because that is a fair and honest assessment. I disagree on the nukes though. A president, alone, cannot simply push the button. There are checks in place for that.
 
Thing1 said:
Ha! I actually really agree w/ you there. I'm not a conspiracy guy, but I definitely feel like there are conversations that go on that would shock America. And I did see that change in Obama. I think he genuinely went into that Presidency w/ all of the idealism that he was professing.

Then, a couple of years later, we're seeing emails from his staff assuring Big Pharma that their interests were intact and written into Obamacare.
Click to expand...

LOL, I think you're the 3rd person I've talked to about it that saw what I saw. I thought he seriously was going to break the mold on presidents, and then bit by bit he became, pretty much, just like the rest. The enthusiasm just seemed to leech from him. Unless he found out there really are aliens (maybe they are the masters :D) at area 51, I think once he was in, he realized that the President, while not a figure head exactly, has to deal with this group.

I am not alone! :foil:
 
Thing1 said:
Well, not to re-hash the thread from yesterday, but we haven't really seen this kind of thing for a major Presidential candidate in many, many years.

So, what's the difference? Is it really because the left is "more angry" this time around? Really? More angry than they were w/ Bush?

This isn't ideological. Sorry, but it is Trump dividing us. It's him stoking the flames of ethnic division, religious division, gender division - any characteristic or background that can separate us, Trump hones in on and exacerbates.

What else would you attribute it to? This is just coincidence?
Click to expand...

And yet, Trump supporters still aren't acting out the way the anti-Trump people do.
MY - MY.
 
Seahawk said:
The fear the left is stoking about Trump is unprecedented. People are afraid he will nuke countries or become a dictator if elected.

But the truth is, the responsibility lies with those who riot and those who incite riot, no one else.
Click to expand...

That's not what the anti-Trump crowd is afraid of.
What they're afraid of, is Hillary losing, and so they're going to use everything they can in an attempt to justify their fear.
 
Last edited:
Thing1 said:
Well, I don't think anyone should be attacked. I saw that lady get egged, and felt terrible for her & pissed at whoever did it. There is no place for that, anywhere.

And I'm sure it galvanizes Trump's supporters, but they're all in anyway. It's who is going to get those 15 million votes in the middle. O'Reilly had brought up the "Vietnam factor" in all of this, which I agree with. Basically, that the more of these confrontations the country sees on TV, the more they're going to associate it w/ Trump and think, "Do I really want to see this again & again for the next 4 years?" And that might even be the intent behind some of this.

Personally, I don't know what Trump is capable of. I have no idea. He's a narcissist, and volatile as hell. I wouldn't put using nukes past him at all. More than anything, though, I'd be afraid of him instigating an attack on the U.S. w/ his style, like trying to stare down a country like China in a trade standoff. He has none of the subtlety and nuance that you need for diplomacy and negotiations.
Click to expand...

And you don't think that the videos of the anti-Trump / pro-Hillary, showing women being attacked and people being sucker punched, might just be thinking that they may not want to be on the political side of such behavior and decided to vote AGAINST Hillary!
 
Seahawk said:
He is not splitting hairs in that post.
Click to expand...

I disagree; because his post is still making an excuse for the anti-Trump crowd and there are those who feel the same way about Hillary, but they're not acting like the liberal thugs.

Thing1 said:
I'm not saying that Trump is SOLELY responsible. But to go out every day and stoke division? How can anyone ignore his part in this?
Click to expand...

It's like the liberal thugs just aren't responsible for how they REACT towards that which they don't like and / or disagree with.
 
Seahawk said:
I agree with you, his unpredictability is a serious concern. While I don't think he would go off the handle and start a nuclear war, I can see him saying something utterly offensive to another world leader and seriously harming international relations. As to any actions he might take, I think there is enough "ring" around a president that he can't just act unilaterally and do something extremely crazy. I think there are level headed generals etc who would put a stop to such extremes. Also, call me tinfoil or whatever, but I believe there are few very wealthy and powerful people who control the President and most of our government. After Obama took office I noticed a remarked change in his demeanor and outlook, as if he saw the secret files or realized that others are actually in control. Those people will put a reign on him, I think.
Click to expand...

I'm not terribly certain about a lot of things when it comes to Trump, but one thing I'm reasonably sure of his he'll be a different person if does get to the Oval Office. Just about everyone campaigns different in the primary than they do the general; the next step after that is the change after they get elected.

He's already moderated some, granted, by Trump standards lol. If and when he's in the oval orifice I'm confident he'll be a different animal than he is now. There won't be any lying Teds, crooked Hillary or little Marco's in his way. And hell, to hear a president talk to congress like a dog might even be helpful lol. Somebody needs to.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
I'm not terribly certain about a lot of things when it comes to Trump, but one thing I'm reasonably sure of his he'll be a different person if does get to the Oval Office. Just about everyone campaigns different in the primary than they do the general; the next step after that is the change after they get elected.

He's already moderated some, granted, by Trump standards lol. If and when he's in the oval orifice I'm confident he'll be a different animal than he is now. There won't be any lying Teds, crooked Hillary or little Marco's in his way. And hell, to hear a president talk to congress like a dog might even be helpful lol. Somebody needs to.
Click to expand...

I think that's part of his appeal.
The lack of "political talk and pandering".

Can you imagine the look on some lobbyist trying to leverage Trump, him looking at him, and going "FUCK NO". :D
 
Seahawk said:
I agree with you, his unpredictability is a serious concern. While I don't think he would go off the handle and start a nuclear war, I can see him saying something utterly offensive to another world leader and seriously harming international relations. As to any actions he might take, I think there is enough "ring" around a president that he can't just act unilaterally and do something extremely crazy. I think there are level headed generals etc who would put a stop to such extremes. Also, call me tinfoil or whatever, but I believe there are few very wealthy and powerful people who control the President and most of our government. After Obama took office I noticed a remarked change in his demeanor and outlook, as if he saw the secret files or realized that others are actually in control. Those people will put a reign on him, I think.
Click to expand...
They get their moment of clarity..this isn't campaigning anymore; this is governing, and the POTUS is head of government and the nation.
Absent a 'Manchurian Candidate', they act and think for the good of the nation

Yes they have all kinds of institutional advisors, plus dept heads like the CIA and Joint Chiefs .
And the WH has it's own National Security Council that's set up to advocate and filter for the president..

So it's not "Trump's finger on the button" like he does with his tweets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top