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:
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.”
I beg to differ a little bit.
Our enemies have set the standards; we should therefore judge Trump’s comments by those standards.
If Trump being meeeeeaaaaaaan is enough to provoke these assaults and disruptions and they’re excusable because of that, then Trump commenting that these sacks of fecal matter would be carried out on a stretcher is excusable because of the profanity and the screaming directed at him.
After all, what did they expect would happen?
Another great one Laz...
excellent description
bkmk