Massive ongoing protest in Chicago makes Trump "postpone" his event

Status
Not open for further replies.
SFpwyU4.jpg

During the Mark Duggan riots in London I was taking photos for 8 hours straight, after the 6th I stopped photographing as started to converse with the locals. Why are you here, what for etc, etc...

Right after I saw people throwing bricks at a bus filled with people heading home from a commute with a woman holding her baby in her arms fucking screaming and frightened, someone told me it was because "the government and what they do" and even though I agreed on a moral and emotional level, I asked him to divulge - and he simply couldn't. I asked him why they were destroying fucking brick lane and it was the most convenient I suppose in relation to the House of Parliament or Buckingham Palace.

And it was the most depressing moment of my life because I shared the ire of all those around me, yet felt completely disarmed because the vast majority of those I had spoken to couldn't even articulate the manner in which they had been objectified, cheated or hurt by those elected to hold their interests at heart. Now here we are after Tory rule and the NHS is on the verge of being sold piecemeal, after years of constructing the narrative of the service being untenable, the most homeless since 2010 and a near complete dismantling of anything resembling welfare for those hard done by.

People still tell us it's our fault you know.
 
It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?

Nope, you're supposed to dislike him for being a white supremacist and fascist.
 
It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?

I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.
No, pushing back against hate is not the same thing as spewing hate. Stop this "both sides" bullshit.
 
It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?

I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.
There is a difference between the People coming together to protest and preserve their liberties and lives and a Hitlerite demagogue inciting hatred and violence to facilitate the rise of fascism.
 
I am okay with laws that prohibit forms of protests that are likely to erupt in violence or destruction of property.

This is a very ridiculous statements. your the kind of person who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom.
 
It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?

I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.
Protestors calling racists as they really are, racist and some choice words, is not the same as a racist calling a black person the n-word or a hispanic a wetback and such. They are not equivalent. Trump has emboldened these fools. That's why there was a protest against him and his rally.
 
It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?

I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.
We're done with racism.

No one but old prudes are against vulgar language. What people are against is hate speech that influences or supports oppressive ideology. We're against people being assaulted for just showing up while black.
 
It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?

I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.

Look up the meaning of false equivalency and then do some critical thinking about what you just posted.
 
It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?

I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.

It's pretty nasty the stuff being shown on Fox News right now. Protestors bullying Trump supporters, not letting them talk, yelling cuss words, walking by with signs that say fuck Trump on them, and protestors throwing first punches. I'm sure that Trump supporters probably did some of the same to the protestors, but all I'm seeing is the protestors being antagonists on Fox.
 
It's pretty nasty the stuff being shown on Fox News right now. Protestors bullying Trump supporters, not letting them talk, yelling cuss words, walking by with signs that say fuck Trump on them, and protestors throwing first punches. I'm sure that Trump supporters probably did some of the same to the protestors, but all I'm seeing is the protestors being antagonists on Fox.


The only nasty stuff I"m seeing fox news is the shit coming out of megyn kelly and ben carson's mouths.
 
Breaking shit in protest is probably the most American thing you can do. Chicago, you're the real MVP ::mjcry

But for real, this is exactly what you expect to happen when Drumpf incites violences and openly wishes for harm to come against his protestors. He clearly encourages his supporters to act in violence towards minorities using coded language. If you can't see who is at fault, open your fucking eyes.
 
It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?

I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.

Is this real life?
 
You do realize this "moral justification" you speak of comes after protesters have already been assaulted by trump supporters.

It seems like you just glossed over my previous response.

I am sorry I did not have time to reply to your previous post. However on rereading it, I am not sure I understood it either -- the onus is on Trump supporters because googling should show he's not a candidate worth supporting? Sorry I am on the phone so I don't have the full post in front of me.

Yes, protestors have been attacked at Trump rallies, which is incorrigible to say the least. And I believe was effective in winning over moderates who do not want to see their country explode in president endorsed violence against minorities.

But to my knowledge, those protestors followed the rules we have developed as a society regarding protest (perhaps not?). Once protestors are attacking the ones they protest, it is no longer peaceful freedom of speech. Part of that is giving physical space to individuals who share an opposing viewpoint -- enough space to minimize the risks of violence.

Just because Trump supporters attacked protestors at previous events does not make it justified to then attack back. It only lowers protestors to their level of engaging in violence for personal beliefs, which I believe is unnecessary to do under our current society. If a bully attacks me one day, it is no longer self defense to come another day and pre-emptively engage in violence. We might feel on an emotional level that the bully got his just desserts, but when there are other recourses of action available, I do not believe the violence is morally justified.
 
It's pretty nasty the stuff being shown on Fox News right now. Protestors bullying Trump supporters, not letting them talk, yelling cuss words, walking by with signs that say fuck Trump on them, and protestors throwing first punches. I'm sure that Trump supporters probably did some of the same to the protestors, but all I'm seeing is the protestors being antagonists on Fox.

Wonder what you thought of the man knocking the shit out of a black man in the face at a rally. But you're so appalled things got a little testy at this rally.

Trump has been leading up to this.
 
It's pretty nasty the stuff being shown on Fox News right now. Protestors bullying Trump supporters, not letting them talk, yelling cuss words, walking by with signs that say fuck Trump on them, and protestors throwing first punches. I'm sure that Trump supporters probably did some of the same to the protestors, but all I'm seeing is the protestors being antagonists on Fox.
Well what do you expect from the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda?
 
Besides the little back n forth with certain posters....kinda worth noting that the GOP and Trump are pinning all their outreach effort to one single thing: jobs.

Slave had jobs - very "safe (no layoffs)" jobs. It ain't about the jobs, no amount of damage control will make it about the jobs..... their audience will eat it up obviously.
 
It's pretty nasty the stuff being shown on Fox News right now. Protestors bullying Trump supporters, not letting them talk, yelling cuss words, walking by with signs that say fuck Trump on them, and protestors throwing first punches. I'm sure that Trump supporters probably did some of the same to the protestors, but all I'm seeing is the protestors being antagonists on Fox.
Some people find food. Other people loot. That's the world we live in..
 
This is a very ridiculous statements. your the kind of person who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom.
These Trump protests are effective because it isn't the protesters sucker punching people on camera. If that situation reverses then I'm not sure that they'll be effective at calling the moderates to action.
 
I am sorry I did not have time to reply to your previous post. However on rereading it, I am not sure I understood it either -- the onus is on Trump supporters because googling should show he's not a candidate worth supporting? Sorry I am on the phone so I don't have the full post in front of me.

Yes, protestors have been attacked at Trump rallies, which is incorrigible to say the least. And I believe was effective in winning over moderates who do not want to see their country explode in president endorsed violence against minorities.

But to my knowledge, those protestors followed the rules we have developed as a society regarding protest (perhaps not?). Once protestors are attacking the ones they protest, it is no longer peaceful freedom of speech. Part of that is giving physical space to individuals who share an opposing viewpoint -- enough space to minimize the risks of violence.

Just because Trump supporters attacked protestors at previous events does not make it justified to then attack back. It only lowers protestors to their level of engaging in violence for personal beliefs, which I believe is unnecessary to do under our current society. If a bully attacks me one day, it is no longer self defense to come another day and pre-emptively engage in violence. We might feel on an emotional level that the bully got his just desserts, but when there are other recourses of action available, I do not believe the violence is morally justified.

..... I don't think you have any grasp of history?
 
Wonder what you thought of the man knocking the shit out of a black man in the face at a rally. But you're so appalled things got a little testy at this rally.

Trump has been leading up to this.

That was also wrong. Just because one person does something doesn't mean violence should be taken out on others who share nothing in common other than supporting a person for president.
 
What's the goal of these protestors? Of course this is just going to make people vote more for Trump and stir up his supporters more as they see him being denied to talk to people that want to hear him.
 
I am sorry I did not have time to reply to your previous post. However on rereading it, I am not sure I understood it either -- the onus is on Trump supporters because googling should show he's not a candidate worth supporting? Sorry I am on the phone so I don't have the full post in front of me.

Yes, protestors have been attacked at Trump rallies, which is incorrigible to say the least. And I believe was effective in winning over moderates who do not want to see their country explode in president endorsed violence against minorities.

But to my knowledge, those protestors followed the rules we have developed as a society regarding protest (perhaps not?). Once protestors are attacking the ones they protest, it is no longer peaceful freedom of speech. Part of that is giving physical space to individuals who share an opposing viewpoint -- enough space to minimize the risks of violence.

Just because Trump supporters attacked protestors at previous events does not make it justified to then attack back. It only lowers protestors to their level of engaging in violence for personal beliefs, which I believe is unnecessary to do under our current society. If a bully attacks me one day, it is no longer self defense to come another day and pre-emptively engage in violence. We might feel on an emotional level that the bully got his just desserts, but when there are other recourses of action available, I do not believe the violence is morally justified.
What violence?

What's the goal of these protestors? Of course this is just going to make people vote more for Trump and stir up his supporters more as they see him being denied to talk to people that want to hear him.
Do you make all of your decisions based on not upsetting assholes?

What would this country be if that was our national behavior?
 
I am sorry I did not have time to reply to your previous post. However on rereading it, I am not sure I understood it either -- the onus is on Trump supporters because googling should show he's not a candidate worth supporting? Sorry I am on the phone so I don't have the full post in front of me.

Yes, protestors have been attacked at Trump rallies, which is incorrigible to say the least. And I believe was effective in winning over moderates who do not want to see their country explode in president endorsed violence against minorities.

But to my knowledge, those protestors followed the rules we have developed as a society regarding protest (perhaps not?). Once protestors are attacking the ones they protest, it is no longer peaceful freedom of speech. Part of that is giving physical space to individuals who share an opposing viewpoint -- enough space to minimize the risks of violence.

Just because Trump supporters attacked protestors at previous events does not make it justified to then attack back. It only lowers protestors to their level of engaging in violence for personal beliefs, which I believe is unnecessary to do under our current society. If a bully attacks me one day, it is no longer self defense to come another day and pre-emptively engage in violence. We might feel on an emotional level that the bully got his just desserts, but when there are other recourses of action available, I do not believe the violence is morally justified.

bloody dialecticians i tell you

Just because I have not protested does not mean I don't have an equal say in what sorts of protest I would like to see in the country.

this needs to be on a t-shirt
 
That was also wrong. Just because one person does something doesn't mean violence should be taken out on others who share nothing in common other than supporting a person for president.

But this is what happens when a candidate outright encourages it. You don't see this at any other rally. Clinton, sanders, Rubio, kasich or even Cruz. Only Trump. You only need to look at his rhetoric and base to understand why he attracts this.
 
That was also wrong. Just because one person does something doesn't mean violence should be taken out on others who share nothing in common other than supporting a person for president.

So what if it happens twice? Three times? Ten times? And the person running the rallies where this violence happens not only condones it, but encourages it?

People should just shrug and say "well, that's just what Trump people do... no reason to get bent out of shape!"
 
Little Marco: "People are being paid to protest"

Some organizers from certain organizations that might perhaps have had a role in organizing this effort did.

He's stating something obvious with the intent to smear the protest as some sort of organized effort by the left and the democrats in an evil plot to incite violence, divide between racial lines etc etc...

Standard fare for Marquito.
 
Look at all this Unmitigated privilege. Maybe one day you'll have something ro fight for and understand order wont be the answer when you've be marginalized and not listened to and or dismissed for your legitimate issues. After a while disruption is what is needed. This goes as far back in American history with the. Boston tea party.
Just because I have not protested does not mean I don't have an equal say in what sorts of protest I would like to see in the country. I have engaged in numerous dialogues in person and online on a variety of channels, because I see that as an effective method of communicating values. I am fine with people who want to stand on a street raising awareness. But yes, I do not support thinly veiled protests that attempt violence for the purpose of raising awareness. Let the opposition's aggression and inequality destroy their own message, do not need to fight back physically or invade personal space.
 
This is a very ridiculous statements. your the kind of person who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom.

isn't this what many hillary supporters say to bernie supporters

wait your turn
 
It's easy to yell at Trump supporters, and call them any name you want in the book. However, aren't the protesters just exhibiting the same actions that they claim Trump supporters act as? Protesters screaming violent words, and signs with vulgar things on them. Aren't we supposed to dislike Trump for being vulgar?

I just don't get it. People are allowed to support their candidate of choice. It's their right as American citizens. But it's just nasty to call any Trump supporter a racist or rapist, or anything that I am seeing on the news. I have my candidate of choice, but you won't see me appearing at other candidate's rally and call their supporters distasteful words.

That's why you judge people on an individual basis.

Are all the protesters being violent?

Arrest those that are.

Screaming vulgar words? They're free to do so.

I don't judge everyone at the trump convention, where the white old guy hit the black protester. Just the violent aggressor.

Once you start painting every group with a broad brush, you're giving in to the propaganda.
 
You should only protest here

Or You should only protest there...

How about you only protest in this chair

Or why not wait to protest at the 2018 county fair?

You should only protest with a permit

Maybe you should protest with better verbiage

You should protest only in this box

Actually you should try protesting with a fox

Have you tried protesting only on the Internet?

Aren't you tired of all this protesting yet?


Stop telling me how to fucking protest Sam I Am...

How about I protest where I stand.
 
This is a very ridiculous statements. your the kind of person who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom.

Yes, I believe in disrupting injustice in a peaceful way and letting an injust opponent be the one to make it disorderly, if they choose to. I do not believe in a "positive peace" that exists solely via ongoing violence, because I believe violence has a way of escalating out of control until one is no longer at peace. I believe there are direct actions which are both more effective and also peaceful in nature. I also do not believe in setting the timetable for another man's freedom -- I am not saying they should not protest. Only that it be done in accordance to rules which have been established to prevent the violence which historically otherwise ensues. If there is injustice, it can be demonstrated without protestors attacking -- and often us demonstrated by protestors being attacked. As a side note, I am surprised you are quoting MLK when it feels your guiding philosophy is more motivated by Malcom X.
 
You should only protest here. Or You should only protest there. How about you only protest in this chair? Or why not wait to protest at the 2018 county fair? You should only protest with a permit. Maybe you should protest with better verbiage. You should protest only in this box. Actually you should try protesting with a fox. Have you tried protesting only on the Internet? Aren't you tired of all this protesting yet? Stop telling me how to fucking protest Sam I Am...How about I protest where I stand.

USE LESS SPACES!
 
isn't this what many hillary supporters say to bernie supporters

wait your turn

This is lame

Yes, I believe in disrupting injustice in a peaceful way and letting an injust opponent be the one to make it disorderly, if they choose to. I do not believe in a "positive peace" that exists solely via ongoing violence, because I believe violence has a way of escalating out of control until one is no longer at peace. I believe there are direct actions which are both more effective and also peaceful in nature. I also do not believe in setting the timetable for another man's freedom -- I am not saying they should not protest. Only that it be done in accordance to rules which have been established to prevent the violence which historically otherwise ensues. If there is injustice, it can be demonstrated without protestors attacking -- and often us demonstrated by protestors being attacked. As a side note, I am surprised you are quoting MLK when it feels your guiding philosophy is more motivated by Malcom X.

Your inability to see this beyond an academic exercise in debate leaves you ill equipped
 
What violence?


Do you make all of your decisions based on not upsetting assholes?

What would this country be if that was our national behavior?

For the first question, I am not sure which refernce to violence you are referring to in my original post, as I used the word in mulitple locations.

For the third question, what would this country be if every difference of opinion was settled via violence?
 
Yes, I believe in disrupting injustice in a peaceful way and letting an injust opponent be the one to make it disorderly, if they choose to. I do not believe in a "positive peace" that exists solely via ongoing violence, because I believe violence has a way of escalating out of control until one is no longer at peace. I believe there are direct actions which are both more effective and also peaceful in nature. I also do not believe in setting the timetable for another man's freedom -- I am not saying they should not protest. Only that it be done in accordance to rules which have been established to prevent the violence which historically otherwise ensues. If there is injustice, it can be demonstrated without protestors attacking -- and often us demonstrated by protestors being attacked. As a side note, I am surprised you are quoting MLK when it feels your guiding philosophy is more motivated by Malcom X.
You're making it obvious you don't know any actual history.

Can you name any time in history an oppressive party changed just by being talked to nicely?

And why do you keep talking about tonight like it was violent? I saw some cops got in some shit, as they always do when they meet protesters anywhere. What else?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom