2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[NobodyHere]

Watching the scene that's happening at the now cancelled Trump rally is making me almost embarrassed that I voted for Bernie.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Watching the scene that's happening at the now cancelled Trump rally is making me almost embarrassed that I voted for Bernie.

I don't think these people realize that this kind of behavior isn't hurting Trump in any way. It's only emboldening his supporters and, if it contines, it actually allows him to paint himself as a sympathetic figure.

Trump could have blown himself all up on his own. He didn't need any help doing that. The GOP move to gang up on him and the latest move by liberal protesters to hijack his appearances is not going to hurt him at all.

[Thomkal]

CNN has been beating the drum all day on violence at Trump rallies, and was almost asking for it to break out at the rally in Chicago.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Meanwhile, in a suburban Chicago appearance, no issues. Shocking.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't think these people realize that this kind of behavior isn't hurting Trump in any way. It's only emboldening his supporters and, if it contines, it actually allows him to paint himself as a sympathetic figure.

Trump could have blown himself all up on his own. He didn't need any help doing that. The GOP move to gang up on him and the latest move by liberal protesters to hijack his appearances is not going to hurt him at all.

Trump winning the nomination is the best thing that could happen to the left. They are guaranteed the Presidency and maybe a shot at winning back the Senate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't think these people realize that this kind of behavior isn't hurting Trump in any way. It's only emboldening his supporters and, if it contines, it actually allows him to paint himself as a sympathetic figure.

So far tonight I've seen at least two anti-Trump social media acquaintances make a shift along those very lines.

And one of those has been so vocally anti-Trump in recen tweeks that they were on the verge of going on "unfollow" or "hide".

But, as I pointed out elsewhere (re: don't think they realize) these aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the cutlery drawer so big picture tactics may not be their strong suit.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Trump winning the nomination is the best thing that could happen to the left. They are guaranteed the Presidency and maybe a shot at winning back the Senate.

You could replace 'Trump' with 'Hillary' in your statement and be just as correct.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You could replace 'Trump' with 'Hillary' in your statement and be just as correct.

Not according to the numbers.

[RainMaker]

Like I don't give a shit who wins, just saying Clinton clobbers Trump but loses to the other candidates running on the Republican side.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Meanwhile, in a suburban Chicago appearance, no issues. Shocking.

What is that supposed to mean?

[Young Drachma]

He never had any intention of showing up to UIC.

[Solecismic]

We're now up to 128 unbound delegates, some of which to be chosen in state processes that don't necessarily reflect voting.

Trump has about 463, Cruz 362, Rubio 155, Kasich 54, others 15. Trump needs 59.4% of the remaining delegates to clinch. Cruz needs 67.2%, but presumably has a much better chance of claiming a big share of the 128 (not only as part of ABT, but because these are largely in states he does well in).

Today is the Washington D.C. Convention. The convention meets and D.C.'s 19 delegates are allocated based on a 15% threshold and a WTA ceiling of 50%.

Since there are presumably less than 19 actual Republican party members in D.C., the ceiling may not be hard to reach. We should have these results by late afternoon. No idea who should be favored. Rubio because he did really well in that part of Virginia?

Then on Tuesday we have Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Northern Marianas and Ohio. The results may tell us whether this will be a contested convention.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Eagle Fan

There should be a license required to vote. Weed out the idiot Trump sheep.

On the few occasions that we've crossed paths on these forums, we've comprehensively disagree just about every time. In this case, I completely agree though and have been in favor of restricting the voting pool for some years now. Not for the same reason you list though: there's plenty of idiot sheep not voting for Trump. I.e., take a look at the studies/polls that have been done on the percentage of American adults who can find their own country/state on a map(or Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) or who know other very basic civics elements. Or take anecdotal examples like my aunt who I loved very much, who insisted shortly after the GOP congressional takeover in the 90s that 'the Republicans have had control of congress for decades'.

Oh, and just in case someone wants to bring up the 'that's unAmerican' argument about everyone voting? Nah. When the Constitution was ratified you basically were a white male landowner or you didn't vote. Took quite a while to add women to the mix.

The final point I want to jump in on here is all the stuff about Trump's support. It would actually be better if they were generally racists or generally uneducated. It's even worse than that. A lot of his supporters aren't in favor of deporting everyone they can get their hands on and they know a lot of what he says just isn't so. They don't care though. They like, in general, his confrontational, bombastic style of leadership. To my mind, it's simply the next step down from the 'hope and change' crowd that was enthusiastic about Obama but couldn't give you one single coherent reason why he was better than, say, Hillary in 2008.

Racism and education can be addressed, though not easily. This is a deeper pathology of our nation in my opinion.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

CNN has been beating the drum all day on violence at Trump rallies, and was almost asking for it to break out at the rally in Chicago.

So...is this how paid-for right-wing activists are supposed to be at Hillary rallies? No wonder the GOP is losing....were simply doing it wrong.

[Ben E Lou]

Question: What *IS* the protocol/etiquette/expectation around who attends a candidate's rally during primary season? Are these events generally considered to be "private," where only the supporters of the candidate speaking are welcome, or are they usually places where undecided voters and/or dissenters are welcomed as long as they are quiet when the candidate is speaking?

In the absence of an answer to that question, my general thoughts are...

1. People quietly holding signs, wearing t-shirts, etc. that are expressing dissent should be left alone.
2. People going further than the above (i.e. attempting to prevent a politician's views from being heard) are in the wrong and I have no problem with private security removing them from an event, forcefully if necessary.

In either case, as much as I disagree with nearly all things Trump, I'm having a hard time coming up with any justification whatsoever for the protesters' actions in Chicago unless I'm really missing something. If Team Trump paid for the venue, then they should be allowed to use it. Am I missing something there?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So...is this how paid-for right-wing activists are supposed to be at Hillary rallies? No wonder the GOP is losing....were simply doing it wrong.

since this is the new norm apparently, I wouldn't be surprised if it breaks out at all rallies now.

[larrymcg421]

When I march with my friends at the gay pride parade in Atlanta, there are plenty of protesters shouting homophobic insults and carrying signs with religious messages about how gay people should die. Somehow my friends and I all manage to avoid resorting to violence against them.

[JPhillips]

I think the protesters should stay outside the events, but the Trump security and supporters don't get a free pass for resorting to violence.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Question: What *IS* the protocol/etiquette/expectation around who attends a candidate's rally during primary season? Are these events generally considered to be "private," where only the supporters of the candidate speaking are welcome, or are they usually places where undecided voters and/or dissenters are welcomed as long as they are quiet when the candidate is speaking?

In the absence of an answer to that question, my general thoughts are...

1. People quietly holding signs, wearing t-shirts, etc. that are expressing dissent should be left alone.
2. People going further than the above (i.e. attempting to prevent a politician's views from being heard) are in the wrong and I have no problem with private security removing them from an event, forcefully if necessary.

In either case, as much as I disagree with nearly all things Trump, I'm having a hard time coming up with any justification whatsoever for the protesters' actions in Chicago unless I'm really missing something. If Team Trump paid for the venue, then they should be allowed to use it. Am I missing something there?

Yeah, I don't know. I wonder what the rules for the venue are in some cases too.

I would liken it to sporting events in some ways - if you go to say, a Redskins game and you have signage that speaks ill of the team, the owner, or the Commissioner/league, they are going to confiscate it and even possibly bounce you. Granted, that's a private enterprise. But this wasn't a stump speech at a government town hall (and it's not a protest of a current gov't representative). If you tried to disrupt a university commencement, or a TED talk, etc. you'd be bounced. Assault isn't kosher, but security ushering out protesters, sure.

[Ben E Lou]

So this seems interesting and relevant:

HR 347 - Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act : snopes.com

A fair bit to dig through and some of it seems still open to legal interpretation, but the general feeling that passes this ol' boy from Georgia's simple thinkin' seems to be...

1. If you disagree, wear a t-shirt, hold up a sign, and if there's a time for it, ask a question that holds the candidate to the fire.

2. If you disagree, don't yell, shout, cuss, fight, or otherwise disrupt the event.

3. If you agree and someone is doing #1, leave them the eff alone.

4. If you agree and someone is doing #2, leave them the eff alone and call security to deal with it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think the protesters should stay outside the events, but the Trump security and supporters don't get a free pass for resorting to violence.

Let's be honest: there really isn't a set of worthless scumbags more deserving of violence.

I hold that crowd in lower regard than (picking random) ISIS, as they're a much greater threat to the nation.

A free pass is what's been given to that trash for too long, and it's probably time that comes to an end. And I think Trump knows that, one of the reasons I'm even more likely to vote for him now.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

So this seems interesting and relevant:

HR 347 - Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act : snopes.com

A fair bit to dig through and some of it seems still open to legal interpretation, but the general feeling that passes this ol' boy from Georgia's simple thinkin' seems to be...

1. If you disagree, wear a t-shirt, hold up a sign, and if there's a time for it, ask a question that holds the candidate to the fire.

2. If you disagree, don't yell, shout, cuss, fight, or otherwise disrupt the event.

3. If you agree and someone is doing #1, leave them the eff alone.

4. If you agree and someone is doing #2, leave them the eff alone and call security to deal with it.

And if that's all the protesters managed to incite, they would stop fairly quickly.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think the protesters should stay outside the events, but the Trump security and supporters don't get a free pass for resorting to violence.

Game on then, I guess. Send your low-level ruffians to GOP rallies, expect the same in return.

At least, I can see it working this way. Seemingly intelligent strategy. If the leftist intellectuals send in paid-for thugs to instigate and the leftist intellectual comes back with..."Oh, but GOP security was really to blame and people buy it...it's a copy-cat world. It shouldn't be like this though. That's fucking dirty as hell.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Game on then, I guess. Send your low-level ruffians to GOP rallies, expect the same in return.

It was a shame when Obama, Clinton, and Sanders encouraged supporters to attack protesters. Or that didn't happen at all and you're making a bullshit false equivalence.

[Solecismic]

Isn't Trump just a reflection of his media coverage? He found that he controlled the news cycle when he said outrageous things.

If we're steady going down the rabbit hole of blaming the victim for the bad behavior, might as well focus on a media climate where behaving badly gets you a satellite truck and non-stop attention.

I've been consistent about my dislike for the Trump phenomenon. But on this issue I'm on his side, because if we don't stand up for the First Amendment - even if we don't like the speech itself - we risk falling into the same abyss people claim we'll fall into with Trump.

Larry, I completely empathize with the anger you and your friends feel during those marches, but if you don't respect the rights of people to express their idiocy, the next group of people with a righteous cause may find their rights to encourage change denied.

And when you attend someone else's event with the intent of shutting it down, you're not expressing free speech, you're only preventing others from speaking.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Larry, I completely empathize with the anger you and your friends feel during those marches, but if you don't respect the rights of people to express their idiocy, the next group of people with a righteous cause may find their rights to encourage change denied.

You totally missed my point here. I do respect their right and unlike Trump or his supporters, we did not support, condone, or commit violence towards the people shouting hateful things at us.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I've been consistent about my dislike for the Trump phenomenon. But on this issue I'm on his side, because if we don't stand up for the First Amendment - even if we don't like the speech itself - we risk falling into the same abyss people claim we'll fall into with Trump.

Well, the First Amendment only protects Trump from government action against his speech. Since that hasn't happened yet, I'm not sure what your point is here.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It was a shame when Obama, Clinton, and Sanders encouraged supporters to attack protesters. Or that didn't happen at all and you're making a bullshit false equivalence.

Well, something *happened* and that's what I'm talking about, I certainly never suggested that Obama, Clinton, or Sanders publicly stated the party strategy or who was responsible. My only interest is if it works. And if it does, I know it means...game on.

[JPhillips]

So if any liberal protester is really under the control of the Dem candidates, does the GOP now have to take responsibility for everything conservative protesters say/do? I thought tarring all Republicans was a bad thing.

Why would Dem candidates be doing this at this point and what would they have to gain? Trump winning is the best option for Hillary or Bernie. Isn't it much more likely that smaller groups and individuals are pissed with Trump and are acting on their own?

[Dutch]

I have no idea what happened or how it started. The end result remains the same. Liberals interrupted a GOP event with violence.

[PilotMan]

Fucking Blackhawks fans.

[JPhillips]

I love how it's turning into Altamont with liberals as the Hell's Angels.

[JPhillips]

Noted leftist agitator Ted Cruz:

[i]n any campaign responsibility starts at the top. Any candidate who is responsible for the culture of the campaign. And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Noted leftist agitator Ted Cruz:

It's really a no-win situation. We all have extremists. The only choice is to not claim responsibility and move on. It reminds me of the Age of Piracy...as long as you don't raise your colors, it's okay-ish.

[RainMaker]

I like how this stuff has been overblown. Words like "violent" and "riot" being thrown around. I was a few blocks from the event and everything seemed pretty tame. I mean some small scuffles broke out and people yelled at each other but that's pretty small time. Probably see more crap going on when bars let out in any college town.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I like how this stuff has been overblown. Words like "violent" and "riot" being thrown around. I was a few blocks from the event and everything seemed pretty tame. I mean some small scuffles broke out and people yelled at each other but that's pretty small time. Probably see more crap going on when bars let out in any college town.

Well, except a Presidential nominee decided to cancel an event...kind of a big win for the opposition. To be fair, even Rubio gained a little from it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Noted leftist agitator Ted Cruz:

All Cruz managed to do with that stupidity is insure that now he can't get a vote from me come November either.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, except a Presidential nominee decided to cancel an event...kind of a big win for the opposition. To be fair, even Rubio gained a little from it.

He was never planning to show up to a college campus on a Friday night in Chicago. This is a huge win for Trump. Dominates another news cycle and plays to his base.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

All Cruz managed to do with that stupidity is insure that now he can't get a vote from me come November either.

I bet there's an emergency campaign meeting now.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You totally missed my point here. I do respect their right and unlike Trump or his supporters, we did not support, condone, or commit violence towards the people shouting hateful things at us.

No, I get your point. You and your friends were angry for good reason, yet your value system ensures that you did not act violently. That helps build civilization.

Well, the First Amendment only protects Trump from government action against his speech. Since that hasn't happened yet, I'm not sure what your point is here.

My point isn't "there oughtta be a law..." My understanding of the First Amendment is solid. My point is more that there is a group of people who believes strongly that Trump should not have the right to hold these events and is willing to use violence to stop them. That seems far worse to me than the offense I feel when Trump starts on one of his over-broad populist rants.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He was never planning to show up to a college campus on a Friday night in Chicago. This is a huge win for Trump. Dominates another news cycle and plays to his base.

I think we've all come to the conclusion that Trump is Teflon. This will rally his base and add a few.

Rubio this morning was killin the press. "I can talk about foreign policy and the economy and just about any position and hardly get a notice...but I slam Trump one time and I get 24/7 coverage." lmao!

[RainMaker]

I don't know if he's teflon, just that he understands that politics is entertainment these days and has nothing to do with the issues. It's a reality show for the masses and he's mastered that game.

[NobodyHere]

Jackass liberals are really making me consider voting for Trump in November.

[NobodyHere]

Agents Rush Stage to Protect Donald Trump at Dayton Rally

And Donald Trump supporters are said to be the violent ones.

[cartman]

Based on Trump's reactions first to El Chapo, then to his reaction to protesters, I have a real hard time putting any faith in his claims of being able to defeat ISIS.

[molson]

If we're going to judge candidates by the tone of their most vocal supporters, trump is only second-worst behind sanders right now IMO. Petty violence is nothing what I'm reading from some of them.

[EagleFan]

Trump is divisive. Trump gets off on the press he gets from this stuff. Trump is a hollow candidate who is only stroking his ego and does not give a damn about any of his supporters, they are just willing pawns in his ego driven attention whoring fantasy.

His "rallies" sure have a lot in common with rallies that took place in Germany in the 30's. Instead of vilifying Jews he is vilifying Muslims and Mexicans. Same basic plan. Find someone to blame and try to get the ignorant masses to rally behind you. Soon they start lashing out at anyone that speaks up against them.

Not too much different then a cult.

He is a cancer.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by molson

If we're going to judge candidates by the tone of their most vocal supporters, trump is only second-worst behind sanders right now IMO. Petty violence is nothing what I'm reading from some of them.

At least Trumpers go out and vote

[Solecismic]

Brief update:

The DC convention took place, with Rubio earning a small plurality over Kasich. Rubio gets 10 of the 19 delegates, Kasich 9.

The Wyoming county convention was today, with 12 of the 26 delegates assigned to delegate districts. Each of the 12 is a separate vote. Those votes went: Cruz 9, Rubio 1, Trump 1, Uncommitted 1. The 14 "at-large" delegates will be assigned at the state convention next month.

Both these contests are essentially forms of closed caucus.

We all know Tuesday is when "stop Trump" has its referendum, mainly in Florida and Ohio. But when you look at the math, it's a process that's designed to be more than difficult for a candidate opposed by the establishment. It's not as much that Crusichbio needs Ohio or Florida to dent Trump's momentum, it's that Trump needs Florida and Ohio just to get on pace to have a decent chance of winning. Today's totals of Rubio 11, Cruz 9, Kasich 9, Trump 1 illustrates the power of the establishment in controlling this process.

Rubio has hinted that if he loses Florida, he will drop out. I think that's fair, especially if Kasich wins Ohio, but even if he doesn't. The way the math works out, the goal being a contested convention, it probably should be a three-way race - especially since there are heavy delegate states remaining where Cruz is particularly weak.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Trump is divisive. Trump gets off on the press he gets from this stuff. Trump is a hollow candidate who is only stroking his ego and does not give a damn about any of his supporters, they are just willing pawns in his ego driven attention whoring fantasy.

His "rallies" sure have a lot in common with rallies that took place in Germany in the 30's. Instead of vilifying Jews he is vilifying Muslims and Mexicans. Same basic plan. Find someone to blame and try to get the ignorant masses to rally behind you. Soon they start lashing out at anyone that speaks up against them.

Not too much different then a cult.

He is a cancer.

This