Donald Trump dresses like a SLUT!

Thanks Laz, good post!

Sorry Laz. You are shifting the blame from Trump's encouragement of violence at his rallies. It's not your 3 points on immigration and muslims that the other republicans are referring to.

Trump is even talking about paying the legal fees of his supporter who blind-sided the protester, which encourages more of the same.

If you can explain how Trump isn't responsible for his rhetoric in this video, I'll take you more seriously (if you can ever be taken seriously).

Donald Trump Says He Doesn't Condone Violence. Footage Says Otherwise.

Your the Man Laz great post!

Now it seems that I had NOT misinterpreted you.

There is a huge difference between trolling and exposing facts that are not being accepted by others on a thread.

But I do understand why many Trump supporters feel they can use tactics that used to be the domain of leftists and propagandists only. Trump himself has shown them that others are now allowed to do that, IF they are supporting him.

Also, BLM protesters do not deal with facts.

It’s much more like this bro... I’ve learned a very long time ago that when I and someone else have political differences, there’s not much point in arguing. I won’t convince them, and they won’t convince me. Nuances and personal perceptions of events will always triumph, on both sides.

I don’t bother arguing with liberals. No point. I just yell EFF YOU and move on, with them. With people who are closer to my political stances, but have different candidates — I won’t argue with them either. I won’t yell EFF YOU with those folk because they are closer to my stance, no point in truly alienating one of those. I might play with them a little, as I did with you, but in most cases, when the candidate is voted upon, we will likely realign. (There is one Freeper who has been so evil in his declarations, that I will not ever realign with him, but that is a very severe exception).

My main contribution to the debate is to write and post editorials. I might refuse, in most cases, to get involved in arguments... .for the reasons I posted above.

There’s a slight change in my usual, this particular time, for I was unaware of Trump’s rather aggressive comments. Those need to be addressed in a coming rewrite that will appear on this thread. I also need to correct several grammar and sentence-construction issues. So, for the fellow Gondring, who called me on it privately and politely, he made a small difference. The other fellow, DrewsDad (certainly aligned with DrewsMom), started out okay then got rude. I ain’t screwin with him for that alone, but there is also the fact that he and Mom are extreme TDS’ers. No point in engaging them whatsoever.

To your point about the use of ‘but’, in standard grammar, you are correct. In politics, however, ‘but’ is often used to use the first clause as a deceitful cover for advancing the true message in the second clause. It’s something I’ve observed in politics for decades and certainly is not particular to Cruz. Most everyone does it. Yes, even Trump.

I’m co-pinging Gondring for a tip-of-the-hat for his polite engagement and to inform him that his approach made a difference in the rewrite of this editorial, and I’m pinging DrewsDad because I mentioned him. In the latter ping, I’m not terribly interested in engaging with him, and will likely ignore his comments. Not much point, with that one.

Sorry Laz, you aren't exactly known for your serious posts (but I suppose they may occur now and then). I actually used to click on some of your posts for your humor(in a good way).

My wife is actually drewsmom who registered, but either never posted or posted before the FR data was lost. I have no association with DrewsMum other than some FR poster once alerting me on a Hurricane Ike thread that she was pregnant.

As far as your post condemning Cruz, I guess we'll have to disagree as you said. It's not his obligation to apologize for Trump. If you want him to call out the leftists protesters, he did on Sunday's Meet the Press:

Well, let's be clear. Listen, the protesters have no right to engage in violence. They have no right to threaten violence. And these protesters, whether it's Black Lives Matter or Bernie Sanders protesters who are coming in just trying to shout down any speaker, that's not free speech. The First Amendment gives you a right to speak, but it doesn't give you a right to silence others. So the protesters are behaving abusively and wrong. But, at the end of the day in any campaign, responsibility starts at the top. And it is not beneficial when you have a presidential candidate like Donald Trump telling his supporters, "Punch that guy in the face."

Meet the Press - March 13, 2016

Time you became able to translate Harvard lawyer speak. It means “the violent protests are Trump’s fault”. That’s the message Felito is sending. The SS Cruz is slipping below the waves and he is desperately bailing water. In a few weeks Luz will be back in the Senate reading Green Eggs and Ham and voting for TPP.

Thanks for the ping. Some rabid Cruz defenders, even with clear evidence that he stepped in it. Sigh

You are the 337^th Satisfied Customer!™

You are the 338^th Satisfied Customer!™

You are the 339^th Satisfied Customer!™

Fair enough.

I'll just add that I don't like Cruz condemning the protesters immediately followed by justifying their violence.

Trump needs to tone that s*** down. Still, Cruz doesn't need to offer justification for violence, either directly or by implication.

And I don't care how forceful or light that implication or justification is. It just didn't need to happen.

It's why Cruz lost a bunch of people here and in the wild, and even a few endorsers.

I have given the article a rewrite, based on Gondring's private contribution to me. I need to chastise Trump for his one over-the-line comment.

The balance of the comments do not meet the criteria of over-the-line. I found a nice summary of all his quotes related to violence, here.

One consistent behavior of the left is that they create a crisis, then offer to solve it, all the while blaming the victim.

So it goes with Donald Trump and his rallies. The group #BlackLiesMatter has stormed his rallies, fighting with his supporters in Chicago, and disrupting other events, and even had a lone wolf Thomas Dimassimo rush Trump on his podium. Thank the Good Lord the Secret Service was prepared and protected him quickly with their bodies, for who knows how this might have otherwise played out.

In response, the Propaganda Ministry (formerly and inaccurately known as the American News Media) blamed Trump for the attacks on him. This is the political equivalent of blaming the rape victim. They are claiming that Donald Trump caused the attacks with 'divisive and inflammatory' rhetoric.

Note, also, that the meme circulated last weekend was that Trump is just like Hitler. Yet, who is really acting like the Nazis? It is those in the #BlackLiesMatter movement, and others who would shut down Trump's rallies. In the 1920's and 1930's, the Sturmabteilung (also known as Brownshirts) stormed the rallies of their political opponents with violence and disruption. It turns out that those who falsely accused Trump of Nazism, adopted every single tactic of the Nazis themselves.

Let us momentarily ignore the hideous accusation that "Donald Trump deserved it, for he dresses like a SLUT!” Let us analyze his "divisive and inflammatory" rhetoric. I will start with the most egregious, then work down to the least:

On Feb 23: “Here’s a guy, throwing punches, nasty as hell, screaming at everything else, when we’re talking. The guards are very gentle with him. He’s walking out, like, big high-fives, smiling, laughing, I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya. Look, see, he’s smiling. See, he’s having a good time. You know what I hate? There’s a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches, we’re not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.” ---- Now, to my mind, this is, in part, unacceptable on Donald Trump's part. I agree with the fact that if the protester is swinging, that we should be able to defend ourselves, but Trump needs to knock it off with the proactive-punch talk.
Nov. 22, 2015: Trump responded to an incident in which a protester was roughed up by people at a rally. "Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing," Trump said. "I have a lot of fans, and they were not happy about it. And this was a very obnoxious guy who was a trouble-maker who was looking to make trouble." --- Closer to the edge than I would prefer. Perhaps he needed to back off on the 'should be roughed up' stuff, and instead, talk about the inevitable consequences of disrupting a rally.
On Feb. 1, Security team told Trump that someone in the audience was preparing to throw tomatoes. "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them," he said. "Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees." ---- Frankly, this one is perfectly justified. When someone is preparing to assault a Presidential candidate by any means, the Secret Service is prepared to use deadly force. The fact that he asked the audience to assist the SS in stopping an assault is actually a very valid comment.
There are numerous other examples, at least five, of Trump saying that protesters who commit violence risk a beat-down of their own. I cannot fault any of these.
He wants to build a wall on the border with Mexico. This is not inflammatory, this is sensible. It will stop many repeat-offender Mexican criminals and Muslim terrorists from entering our country, and may even slow the flow of narcotics into America.
He wants to deport illegal aliens. Again, nothing inflammatory here, just a very sensible response to those who wish to flood our country with left-leaning citizens from several foreign countries who undercut American wages.
He wants to surveil the most extreme of American mosques. How is this something an American can possibly object to? Mosques abroad are hotbeds of terror and hatred of Western values. Now they are in our country, and somehow we must ignore them?

I will not disagree, Trump has gone too far in his comments on the first quoted item, and skates way too close to the edge on the second. He really needs to cool it. The third and fourth, I see good justification for his comments. One must meet initiated violence with responding violence. However, even for the first and second items, one can *never* justify physical violence by citing someone elses comments. Never.

And to blame Trump for the violence, when others are initiating it upon him and his supporters (via trespass, infiltration, intentional disruption, and actual violence of their own) is not acceptable at all. This is nothing short of saying that "Trump dresses like a SLUT! He DESERVES his rape."

This is the most base and vile possible argument. People who advance this heinous argument must be called out and publically shamed for their comments. In only the first example, Trump *was* speaking in an objectionable way. America traditionally does not shut down objectionable speech. America traditionally meets such speech with more speech.

I was quite disappointed to see Ted Cruz jump aboard this argument, and it gives me pause per his true allegiances and motivations. He presented the obligatory condemnation of the attackers, and then used the word 'but', and went on to defame Donald Trump. I hold that most of the time that people say "this, BUT that", they deny their first clause, and are actually solely advocating their second clause. Cruz went right to the most base of all possible arguments. He agrees: "Trump deserves his rape! He dresses like a SLUT!"

This argument cannot stand, and we must call out anyone who advocated this "blame the victim" mentality.

I did a rewrite to accomodate Gondring’s private comments to me.

Very good Laz.

I DO agree with the attorney in the article.
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/could-donald-trump-be-held-legally-responsible-for-inciting-violence-at-his-rallies-1.398819

“Curious where the line was drawn in the case of Donald Trump, we spoke by phone with Hermann Walz, a practicing attorney in New York who is an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and who served as a prosecutor in both Queens and Brooklyn.

In Walz’s estimation, Trump is in safe territory. “Short of Donald Trump saying something like, ‘Get that guy and punch him in the face,’ or something like that, I don’t see that he would have any real liability,” Walz said. “Otherwise, he would have to create the atmosphere and give the intention, without actually saying it, that it’s okay to beat these people up here in front of me.” In the latter example, Walz means something like separating out the protesters in one area and then suggesting that the people in that area should be considered possibly violent.

While the former example sounds a lot like his comments about the guy with the tomato, Walz thinks that Trump would have been in the clear had someone been attacked in that instance, too. “I don’t know that Donald Trump is liable for somebody else taking independent action” like knocking out someone holding a tomato. People are still responsible for their own behavior. And if the heckler were in the act of throwing the tomato, Walz thinks that stopping him is defensible regardless of what Trump says. You are likely to be given some leniency if you prevent a crime from happening. This is likely why Trump often frames his support for protester violence in the idea that his supporters are being defensive against violence, not offensive.”

Yessir, cannot disagree. But further along than legal culpability is moral cupability. Trump needs to back off of the harsher rhetoric in 1) and 2) if he wishes to avoid moral culpability.

That said, *no matter* what he said, justification of action of violence against him or his supporters is, as I commented in the original article, the worst type of blame-the-victim crap.

Just for emphasis, could you add me to your ping list again?

LOL hold on