Trump breaks the ice with Congress

Washington Examiner ^ | 3/15/16 | Susan Ferrechio

[huldah1776]

The icy relationship between Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump and Republican leaders in Congress may be starting to thaw.

Both House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Tuesday discussed having positive phone conversations with Trump after weeks of refusing to even mention the business mogul by name.

In both cases, Trump picked up the phone first.

"Donald Trump called this morning and we had a good conversation," McConnell told reporters Tuesday. "I appreciated his call."

[InterceptPoint]

Sore Cruzerman is a curable disease. Take the Trump tonic. :-)
++++
LOL. Amazingly, life goes on.

I can live with Trump if he is elected. But I’m assuming that everything he is telling us he is going to do will never happen. That includes his goofy idea that Mexico will pay for the wall and if the Chinese don’t play “fair” we will start collecting taxes from Apple and Walmart shoppers - that is how tariffs are actually paid.

The Freepers, many independents and more than a few Dems just love Trump. I’m afraid disappointment is in all their futures. They may get a good President. But they may not. And, for sure, it will not be the President Trump they envision.

[Magnum44]

I readily concede that Donald Trump has handled protesters better than Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Uh, not that I care to get into a squabble with you, but...protesters???...no, more like hooligans. And yes he has handled them well, all things considered, though I am sure there was a missing sarc tag from your post.

[nathanbedford]

Having due respect for the intelligence of the reader, I do not use sarcasm tags but if I did one would certainly have been in order at the foot of that reply.

In finding a difference between hooligans and protesters I think you are referring to those inside a venue as opposed to those outside of a venue with the former to be labeled "hooligans" who are to be denied the same rights to protest or engage in argumentative political speech as those "protesters" outside the arena. If I recall correctly, there was a negative reaction on Free Republic when this law was proposed as a potentially fascist weapon in the hands of the state.

It seems to me to be a utility in ensuring that the speaker has a chance to speak and even that the audience has a chance to hear. The question is, can the forces that control the venue suppress audience reaction they don't like while favoring audience reaction they do like? Can they shut down boos but encourage cheers? Once they permit the latter must they also permit the former? In other words, because a political candidate controls a venue does that alone imply the power to control all speech? If a speaker reacts with approval to one shout out from the crowd, may he then call on security to remove a heckler? What if the heckler does not leave his seat? What if he does leave his seat, does he become a hooligan?

Not all the hooligans or protesters behaved equally but here is a litany of some of Donald Trump's reactions collected from to left-wing sources but the source is not the issue, rather whether Trump actually uttered the words:

1.Trump, who encourages his supporters to surround and shout down protesters with chants of “USA,” has openly pined for “the old days,” when, he says, noisy demonstrators would be carried out of a political rally on stretchers.

2.“I’d like to punch him in the face,” he told a Las Vegas casino rally crowd last month when one protester was ejected.

3.As protesters have been led away by police or security, Trump has said he wishes he could punch them in the face, or that in the old days protesters went out on a stretcher, or that someone should "knock the crap out of them" and that he would pay legal fees for someone who did. http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470375065/a-campaign-on-the-brink-donald-trump-and-the-intersection-of-outrage-and-violenc and

4. "The audience hit back and that's what we need a little bit more of."

5."Part of the problem ... is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore."

6. the candidate bemoaned the fact that there were no longer "consequences" to protesting and insisted the "country has to toughen up."

7.“You know, part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore, right?"

8."In the good old days this doesn't happen because they used to treat them very, very rough."

9.“They used to treat them very, very rough, and when they protested once, they would not do it again so easily,” he said, before lamenting "we've become weak."

10."Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it."

11."If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously." He again promised to pay for any legal fees associated with an assault.

12.After a Black Lives Matter activist was kicked, punched and, he said, called the N-word at a campaign event in Birmingham, Alabama, in November, Trump expressed his approval. "Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing,"

13."I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will." http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#tjGh.egBFiqY

We are after all judging the qualities of a man who wants to become the most powerful man in the world and we are entitled to ask ourselves, could he have handled these situations better? Instead of inciting violence as he did, could he have converted the situation into an opportunity to edify the audience and by extension the whole nation on the meaning of the First Amendment? Can we judge Trump because he took the low road? Can we condemn Trump for encouraging the mob, for inciting violence?

Of course we can.

Indeed, we can even observe that Donald Trump inciting tens of thousands against one individual whether defined as protester hooligan, is guilty of inciting the mob, playing to its worst instincts, to falling short of the standards we require of the President of the United States of America. We can judge him unworthy of the office.

[Gene Eric]

>> Parenthetically, I have also said that I will support Trump once he gets the nomination

Yes you have, and when it was less of a certainty. Kudos to that.

You certainly deserve the latitude to vent, but no doubt anticipate the friction you invite on the subject of Trump. Reminds me of the kid that kicked the cat ;)

[Magnum44]

I wasn’t referring to hooligans as indoor vs outdoor protestors. I was referring to them as violent or criminal vs non-violent. What happened last weekend and what has been threatened in the future is violence by punks and thugs. In your long criticism of Trumps verbal comment (sticks and stones may break my bones...) I am surprised you don’t mention the physical transgressions of the left vs the first amendment protected speech from the candidate. Sounds very PC and I think Trump is correct in that people shouldn’t be so thin skinned.

[nathanbedford]

As you might well be aware, I have been arguing against defining rights according to the subjective reaction of the alleged victim. We see the baleful results of this approach on our college campuses in which the rights of free speech have been sacrificed on the altar of feelings.

If my rights of free speech are dependent on the benign reaction of the listener, I have no right of free speech. That is why I have also argued in this forum that we must be very careful about promiscuous use of zotting because it is a threat to free speech and in the end damaging to our conservative philosophy. If we cannot protect what we believe from the Philistines, is not worthy of protection.

Which brings us to the matter of offending Trump supporters. I feel that I render fair comment fairly and that ends my responsibility. I am not a psychiatrist, or a grievance counselor, I am an advocate for a political point of view and I am here to persuade. If those who encounter the persuasion are distressed, they should argue about the truth of the comment or the manner of making it. But of all people on earth, Donald Trump is among the least worthy of solicitude.

One last point, it is interesting how many private mail messages I receive from people who are opposed to Donald Trump who do not go public on these threads with their views. Evidently they are intimidated and that is a very unfortunate as well as a dangerous tendency. Anecdotal for sure but evidence of the power of subjective intimidation.

Thanks for the kind words.

[Gene Eric]

Like I said, your voice is important. But I can’t speak to those attempting to quell your opinion. There’s pressure from both sides of the Cruz/Trump divide attempting to shape our commentary. It’s tiresome.

And while it’s ‘just’ the primaries, we’re battling a value divide we’ve never experienced. For now, I suggest plotting points of discussion beyond the outcome of the primaries. Inevitably, we’ll be there together against the Left.