The text of the article, unlike the headline, puts the events in what I think is the right order:
Donald Trump hastily postponed his Friday night rally in Chicago because of “growing safety concerns” created by thousands of protesters inside and outside of an arena at the University of Illinois. The decision immediately sparked nasty verbal and physical fights between protesters and Trump supporters who had been eager to see him that night.The protesters created a scene of massive disorder, forcing Trump to stay away, and the Trump supporters experienced a great affront. They'd come out to see their guy, gone through all the procedures and the waiting, witnessed the protests, and then heard that these protesters had crushed their opportunity to listen to a speech and show him their support.
A crowd of more than 9,000 learned of the cancelation at about 6:35 p.m. Central Time, more than half an hour after Trump was scheduled to take the stage. The thousands of protesters immediately burst into cheers and began chanting: "We stopped Trump! We stopped Trump!" Many of Trump's supporters, who had waited hours to see him, seemed stunned and a few tried a chant of their own, without much luck: "USA! USA!" As the two sides reacted to the news, skirmishes broke out in the crowd and spilled out of the arena into a mass protest outside.I'm surprised it wasn't an all-out riot. The Trump supporters were massively disappointed, needed to get out of a crowded arena, and they were surrounded by the people who'd caused the disappointment, people who'd now taken to taunting them, chanting. But there were only "skirmishes." I'd say the Trump supporters showed amazing restraint.
"It sent a message that Chicago is a very liberal city and it will always be a liberal city because it does not promote hate -- it promotes love and it promotes prosperity," said Farris Ahmad, 23, a protester and junior political science major at the College of DuPage. He was cut off by a group of police sparring with a Trump supporter who had ripped away a cloth sign being held by a protester, sparking a profanity-filled tussle.I guess WaPo highlighted Ahmad's shaky lesson in the meaning of "liberal" because of the vivid contrast between his fuzzy-headed proclamation and the police getting after a Trump supporter who could be portrayed as out of control. One guy grabbed a sign. Through the veil of WaPo journalism, I'm seeing surprisingly tame Trumpers.
WaPo tells us that the Chicago police and the University of Illinois police say they didn't participate in the decision to cancel but doesn't provide information about the role of the Secret Service.
After the rally was canceled, demonstrators on the streets could be heard shouting "Bernie! Bernie" as well as "16 shots," a reference to the number of times a white Chicago police officer fired at Laquan McDonald, a black 17-year-old killed in 2014. Large protests erupted in Chicago after video footage of McDonald's death was released last November.How connected were the protesters to the Bernie Sanders campaign and to Black Lives Matter? These organizations should be pressed to take a position: Do they condone protests aimed at shutting down rallies or do they condemn them? If Trump had something like this happening in his name he would be pressured to denounce, condemn, deplore, and disown — over and over.
Posts
245 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 245 of 245Trump is ending the status quo. I understand that is disruptive. The last eight years have been disruptive for others. Politics is disruptive. American politics is disruptive, but peaceful. Why don't the left understand this?
I find American legalistic obsessions interesting. Whether or not something is legal seems to matter more than common sense or due regard for human nature. Or, often, that the legal status of something ends the argument.
There is a whole universe outside of law, of course, and there is no way to bring the universe within the law.
Free speech us an interesting point here. There is a constitutional guarantee vis a vis the government, but this certainly isn't an end to it. Obviously free speech is considered a sufficiently important value that it deserves such protection. However, it is self-evident that this is not sufficient to preserve the actual exercise of free speech, and that there are legal ways to impede free speech, such as through the ineffective or negligent enforcement of laws to preserve public order.
Or consider the effect of de facto monopolies, such as Twitter or Facebook (there are ongoing campaigns to shut down conservatives in these). Legal is one thing, real is something else.
@Amanda, Freder,
"By definition, only the government can deny you your first amendment rights. A non-government actor preventing the speech of another is not violating anyone's First Amendment rights"
Freder, thanks for making that legal distinction.
So, all those times in the South when mobs set upon Civil Rights activists, if there were no cops involved, no one's civil rights were being violated.
That's good to know. Have you two ever thought about opening up your own on-line University of Revisionist History?
"This was not a peace march. It was a riot."
No. It was a criminal conspiracy to deny the civil rights of Trump and everyone who came to the rally to hear what he had to say.
Re: Cruz... I really hope he comes out with a better statement today.
buwaya puti: It seems that the lesson of prudence with respect to "poking the bear" (Trump, for instance), has not yet been learned. It's not likely to sink in this year, as the other side or sides can't help themselves.
Which is just one reason that things are going to get much more horrible.
They've been getting away with it for so long, and without consequence, that they've become confident that they can escape a mauling forever, whatever extremes of thuggish hypocrisy they get up to.
And you are correct, they can't help themselves; years of appeasement by their targets has only emboldened them.
"virgil xenophon said...
All you defenders of the lefty "protesters" should traipse on over to Drudge..."
Quoting Corey Lewandowski; "I'll pass."
First and foremost, it's because I'm not in any way, shape or form a "defend[er of] the lefty 'protesters'." I don't need to be sold, on the depredations of BLM or MoveOn.
Second, I used to like Drudge, when it wasn't a shameless full-time propaganda arm of the Trump Campaign. Now not so much.
And you'd never have learned about Corey Lewandowski's quote from reading Drudge. Drudge avoided the story.
Why does Trump encourage his rally goers to act violently toward the protestors in the rally? Does Trump not think that the protestors have civil rights? Free speech rights? Why does Trump want to "open up" libel laws? Does he not respect free speech of others?
Amanda, how is your relationship with your father today?
"Amanda said...
Why does Trump encourage his rally goers to act violently toward the protestors in the rally? Does Trump not think that the protestors have civil rights? Free speech rights? Why does Trump want to "open up" libel laws? Does he not respect free speech of others?
3/12/16, 11:57 AM"
They have a first amendment right to protest -- outside the venue.
Inside the hall, shouting to disrupt the rally and prevent the speakers from talking to the crowd that came to hear them speak -- that is not "protest". That is not free speech -- it's an attempt to forcibly silence others.
Shame on you.
Amanda, see above re free speech.
If the law won't protect it, by enforcing public order in this case, then it either disappears or one also is obliged to depart from the law. This is why the initiation of such disruptive tactics is so dangerous. There is no alternative but to assume the laws are null, the moment they are effective.
This is why BOTH the Marcos dictatorship and the anti-Marcos movement avoided these tactics.
I know you won't engage of course.
@Amanda,
Why does Trump encourage his rally goers to act violently toward the protestors in the rally? Does Trump not think that the protestors have civil rights?
Stop being so obtuse! We've covered this over the past few days. No, free speech does not cover going into someone else's meetings and starting to scream at them. That's what the Trump "protests" have been. No anti-Trump protester has been assaulted on the way to the 7-11 for a loaf of bread. No anti-Trump protester has been assaulted while peacefully waving a placard outside a Trump rally. You know this. Stop the dissimulation.
As for violent rhetoric: you mean like "..get up all in their faces", "punch back twice as hard" & "don't bring a knife to gun fight". That sort of rhetoric? Oh wait, that's Obama. Nevermind.....
Amanda said...
Why does Trump encourage his rally goers to act violently toward the protestors in the rally? Does Trump not think that the protestors have civil rights? Free speech rights? Why does Trump want to "open up" libel laws? Does he not respect free speech of others?
3/12/16, 11:57 AM
You do realize how ridiculous your comments are? Just invert the situation and Hillary and Sanders get the same treatment by organized right wing agitators (are there any? has anyone seen such groups?) attempting to intimidate the rally goers and then get back to us on how cool you are with that.
I'm simply restating the obvious. Trump set the tone by encouraging violence. Trump set the tone of his campaign with his xenophobia, misogyny and bigotry. He is reaping the whirlwind.
And by the way, the other candidates' commentaries on this whole sorry mess doesn't leave me with a warm & fuzzy for the future of the 1st amendment.
Shame on Kasich & Cruz! Do these assholes think they'll be spared this if they become the nominee? These people turned the Republican governor of the most liberal state in the union into a stormtrooper, remember?
Hillary's response was actually the best so far. As for Bernie, I expected better. But, he knows, these are his own Red Guards, and he must not offend them
"“He made me feel bad so I had to burn down his house” is the essence of fascism." Glenn Reynolds
Chicago has one of highest murder rates in the civilized world. Most of these murders are committed by young black men against young black men, with an occasional stray bullet snuffing out a young woman. It's inner city is quite simply a cesspool.
If there were any cosmic justice in the world, Trump and his supporters would be rioting against the corrupt violent thugs of Chicago, not the other way around.
Amanda,
@Amanda,
Trump set the tone by encouraging violence. Trump set the tone of his campaign with his xenophobia, misogyny and bigotry. He is reaping the whirlwind.
Okay, Amanda. Trump & his supporters are nasty, bigoted fascists, we get it. Then, don't be surprised when they act like fascists & break some heads. Because that's what fascists do.
And if you truly think that the Republicans are running a true fascist against a Democratic candidate who's facing both a chance of an FBI indictment & a powerful intra-party insurgency from her Left, I really recommend you get yourself an AR-15 & start buying ammo before the rush.
Then Young Hegelian, don't be surprised when non fascist Americans push back.
I wanted to see if The Presumptive Democrat Nominee had condemned the Chicago anti-Trump protests. She had. In a statement that I would criticize for being insufficiently condemnatory. Mrs. Clinton basically just decries all violence, and promptly turns to revisiting the Charleston AME church shooting by Dylann Roof. A weird statement, in my own opinion.
But then, as collected by Twitchy at the link just below, one sees the far-left reaction, in which they wanted their candidate to be much more of an activist fighter. Wow.
http://twitchy.com/2016/03/12/spare-me-hillary-clinton-blasted-from-the-left-for-statement-about-anti-trump-protest/
It ought to be easy to ridicule such extremism, if only the Republican (cough, cough, TRUMP, cough) side could be freer of any responsibility of its own, for incendiary violence-inciting trashtalk.
Freder Frederson will ignore any links to things he doesn't want to be true. The Leftists who comment here are willfully ignorant.
I have given up on this election. The financial ruin that we face - all of us - will not be addressed. The federal government will continue to absorb more resources, deter innovation and make us all poorer.
Good luck to you all.
@Amanda,
Then Young Hegelian, don't be surprised when non fascist Americans push back.
Oh, you mean, like when a bunch of urban commies wanted to shoot it out with a bunch of racist good ol' boys who grew up shooting squirrels out of trees? That was called the Greensboro massacre. And the Klan got away scott free, self defense & all.
The same with Black Panthers. They talked a good gun game, but when it came down to them vs the "pigs", it was always the same team who ended up dead. The Panthers were only good at murdering unarmed victims.
You really don't want to go there, Amanda, because your side will lose, & lose big. It's the Repubs are "bitterly clinging" their guns, remember?
The KKK was another straw clown that suffered a brutal beating by their left-wing counterparts.
The special and peculiar interests are resorting to organized violence in order to secure their capital and positions, and maintain their ability to commit redistributive change to destroy competing interests and establish their monopolies.
Of course Young Hegelian eagerly envisions shoot outs between the warring factions, lol.
After decades of leftist thuggery, excused and protected by "moderate" liberals, it's a wonder that Trumps supporters are not habitually violent.
This is how Dick Nixon won every state but Massachusetts. Violent protests that were embraced by Democrats.
You seem to be confusing the 1972 election with the 1968 election. In 1968, where there was considerable violence, Nixon barely won.
are there any? has anyone seen such groups?
You need to go back and see the tea party protests during the debate over the ACA.
By "barely won" Freder Frederson means
1) more than a million votes out of 70 million cast
2) more than 50% more electoral college votes over the Democrat
And let's not forget the Tea Party protests that had zero violence and cleaned up after itself.
Willfully ignorant dumb ass beclowns himself again...
"But he won't repeal "every word of ObamaCare" when he is President. He doesn't stand a chance of that. Democrats in the Senate will filibuster any statutory change like that."
The Republicans sent just such a bill to Obama's desk a few weeks ago. The thinking is that since the original bill passed by simple majority in reconciliation, repeal will follow the same rule. If Cruz becomes president and Republicans keep a simple majority, watch it happen."
And yes, I too am disappointed by Cruz' blaming Trump for the violence--it is clearly being fomented by "tolerant" progressives.
Althouse: I'm surprised it wasn't an all-out riot.
Yep. Overflow pro-Trump crowd. MoveOn.org, Occupy, Bill Ayres etc. organizing a counter-demonstration. Chicago.
Remarkable restraint. Astonishing no one was killed. City dodged a bullet.
George Soros is Ernst Blofeld and Donald Trump is Lex Luthor and everyone else that the rally was a useful idiot for one or the other. Except the police, who get paid to put up with this shit.
Amanda: Trump perhaps needs to ask himself what happens when he keeps "poking the bear" as Young Hegelian so aptly put it.
No. You need to. You and your fellow leftists are agitating for violence in the streets. You need to listen to the advice a Black Panther gave a recruit when asked "why don't we just go to war against the Whites?"
"Did you see what they did to the Indians?" he responded.
We are a very quiet folk. We will tolerate a lot of bullshit in deference to civility and society. But push us too far and we will kill every last one of you, without remorse.
Keep pushing. You'll get your war. Your race war, your gender war, your class war. Your side doesn't even know how to BZO their weapons.
How can we tell that leftists are lying when they call Trump a fascist? Easy: if he were a real fascist and aspiring dictator, he would be seizing his opportunity with glee, sending even larger groups of even more thuggish people to attack Bernie and Hillary rallies, putting dozens in the hospital and killing two or three. But he hasn't done that, or anything like that, and they know he's unlikely to do so. If the left truly believed he was itching to take the violence to the next level, they would have been afraid to start what they started, for fear he would finish it. Of course, if they keep up the violence, they may push the right into retaliating, but they know that Trumpsters, Cruzers, and GOPes are all very reluctant to sink to their level. That's one reason so many of them despise us.
The playlist for this weekend includes "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Street Fighting Man," with "Can't Always Get What You Want" ending the set (something about going down to the demonstration to get my fair share of abuse)>
When the election results are announced in November, most of us will look back and wonder how in the hell we got here. This is an unforced error on the part of Sanders and Black Lives Matter. They risk making Trump the victim in the minds of not only his supporters but his potential supporters as well. It also sends a signal that Sanders is afraid of facing Trump, otherwise why bother. And lastly Sanders hasn't beaten Hilary, and that is his first order of business. Oh and when are people going to realize throwing dirt at Trump only makes him more popular. This was a stupid play. More evidence that Sanders is too stupid to be President.
Amanda: "Trump perhaps needs to ask himself what happens when he keeps "poking the bear" as Young Hegelian so aptly put it."
Yeah, after he asks himself that, he needs to STFU , otherwise the "poked bears" will commit crimes against him and his adherents, which will be HIS fault.
That's what you're saying.
FU.
Freder Frederson said...
This is how Dick Nixon won every state but Massachusetts. Violent protests that were embraced by Democrats.
You seem to be confusing the 1972 election with the 1968 election. In 1968, where there was considerable violence, Nixon barely won.
***********
But Nixon DID win. You ought to be asking yourself why, after the 1968 election, Nixon won so decisively
in 1972.
@Amanda,
Then Young Hegelian, don't be surprised when non fascist Americans push back.
There is fundamentally no difference between what the left did in Chicago and what Hitlers Brown Shirts did to his political opponents.
Take a look in the mirror, Amanda.You and you're friends are the new fascists.
Wear it proudly.
Meade said...
"Ther are many valid prallels [...]"
There are zero valid parallels between my ability to proofread and yours.
LOLZ.
It takes me longer to type because I suffer from arthritus and nerve damage from carpal tunnel. When I hurry the spelling suffers. That's my excuse and I'm stickin' to it. I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to my own failings so feel free to comment as they reveal themselves.
Meade said...
"Ther are many valid prallels [...]"
There are zero valid parallels between my ability to proofread and yours.
LOLZ.
It takes me longer to type because I suffer from arthritus and nerve damage from carpal tunnel. When I hurry the spelling suffers. That's my excuse and I'm stickin' to it. I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to my own failings so feel free to comment as they reveal themselves.
I almost never comment, but I do read most everything here. I have to say, I was planning on voting for Gary Johnson, but may end up in Trump's camp if what happened this weekend keeps happening.
sunsong said...
"Trump... comments about "rouging up'... protesters..."
By the looks of those protesters, it couldn't hurt to use a little makeup.
@Meade
Elections, by their very nature, are populist. They're a threat to democracy.
Post a Comment