Defending the right to walk while a Trump supporter
Anarchist, leftist and Reconquista thugs are a common enemy
The video below points out the dilemma of this political season.
The anarchist, leftist and Reconquista street thugs who attack Trump supporters are a common enemy, and will just as easily turn on ANY Republican or conservative. Trump is just their excuse to riot du jour.
It is completely consistent to be against Trump getting the nomination AND to defend the right of Trump supporters to peaceably assemble and express their views.
It’s the exception to the rule that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Christopher Conway may have been the bravest man in Burlingame Friday morning.
Dressed in suit and wearing a red baseball cap with the words “Make America Great Again”, Conway walked through a large group of Donald Trump protesters outside the California GOP Convention. As you might image, the protesters weren’t happy to see him.
Within minutes, fists were flying as the crowd pushed and pulled at Conway. Undeterred, he continued his march down Bayshore Highway toward the Hyatt Regency.
“This is my hometown, this is Burlingame,” he said to reporters, while trying to catching his breath. “And I ain’t scared of nobody. Not now, not ever.”
Seconds later, a protester pulled off his red baseball cap and threw it into the air.
Hundreds of people gathered outside the Hyatt Friday morning to protest Trump, who was scheduled to be the lunchtime speaker at the convention. The protesters tried to get into the building several times, but police were able to stop them.
#NeverHillary, or our country will continue to devolve into this frightening abyss of near anarchyhttps://t.co/mtHxhOtXyV
— Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) April 30, 2016
The leftist fascists who attacked a Trump rally – a Republican rally! – are one reason why I'm not #NeverTrump.
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) April 29, 2016
Language Warning
David French at National Review, no Trump supporter, writes, Dear Mainstream Media, Don’t You Dare Whitewash Anti-Trump Violence:
Last night, anti-Trump protesters rioted in Costa Mesa, California. Yes, rioted. That’s what you call it when “demonstrations” turn into this:
From earlier, when protesters were trying to flip the police car pic.twitter.com/6tY3dzMOgx
— Jim Dalrymple II (@Dalrymple) April 29, 2016
Or this:
Trump supporter got hurt. pic.twitter.com/W7t1WDQOGM
— Matt Pearce ? (@mattdpearce) April 29, 2016
…. Clearly the media sympathizes with these Mexican flag-waving crowds in much the same way that it sympathized with the rioters at Ferguson and Baltimore. But when you excuse political violence, you tend to get more of it. We know leftist radicals aren’t shy about taking so-called “direct action” to intimidate opponents. We also know that at least some Trump supporters are spoiling for a fight. Trump himself has been spoiling for a fight. We risk the worst political violence in a generation. Am I wrong to believe that some in the media are thrilled at the prospect — so long as the Left is leading the charge?
I don’t go so far as John Hinderaker in thinking such street thuggery means Trump beats Hillary:
I think Donald Trump likely will defeat Hillary Clinton, simply because she is such a terrible candidate. But if the current trend toward anti-Trump riots and violence continues, Trump could win going away.
Last night in Orange County, Trump addressed a crowd of thousands. Anti-Trump demonstrators, some waving Mexican flags, attacked policemen and bystanders….
The rioters “appeared to be mostly Latinos in their late teens and 20s.” Seventeen were arrested….
We are seeing more and more of this kind of thing. Leaving downtown Minneapolis tonight, I bumped into a friend who was steaming because he was delayed by anti-Trump protesters who blocked traffic. Is there something in the Constitution about a right to close down streets and bridges, and delay others who are lawfully going about their business? I must have been absent that day.
Most people really, really don’t like violent protesters. They especially don’t like rioters who wave foreign flags. If there is anything that could guarantee Donald Trump’s election as president, this is it.
What a political year.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well, at least the agenda of the left is being made manifest. Pure and naked political greed for power and domination!
I’ve pointed out that Ferguson and its spawn will cause a reaction in the electorate this year. The American people SUPPORT good laws and good law enforcement. This is nowhere MORE true than in minority neighborhoods, as calls to the police reflect.
Hinderaker is right. The natural reaction to lawlessness could be an over-reaction to a different kind of lawlessness in the form of a repressive regime. It’s happened before in the U.S.
48 years ago a wise law professor told me that Americans ultimately will voluntarily relinquish their rights to a right-wing despot, in reaction to the left going too far.
America flirted with that during the Nixon years. Fortunately, we had people of integrity who would and did say, NO! to Nixon’s more outrageous abuses…or attempted abuses…of power.
Those days are gone, as we’ve seen in the Obamic Decline. The safeties are off, integrity is rare, and power is openly and without consequence abused.
If a T-rump is POTUS, THAT will be amplified and expanded, and many who pretend “conservative” values will be openly cheering it on.
“and many who pretend “conservative” values ”
That would be all you #nevertrumpers.
Kurt is usually more insightful than that. Being against those so-called protesters and being #NeverTrump are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the have a lot of in common. Both Trump and the rioters are same side of the coin, the one that is incapable of civic engagement with those you disagree with.
Trump supporters, as annoying as they can be online, have never to my knowledge used violence and thuggery to prevent citizens from attending other political candidates’ rallies.
Give them time.
Are YOU giving them time, or are you just assuming you know what they would do?
I guess since Amy is reasonable person, I owe her more of a response.
And the response is that Trump is the only candidate that encouraged violence. The protesters, as disruptive and thuggish as they are sometimes, are doing it out of their own extremism. Trump, on the other hand, encourages it. Asking to “knock the crap out of him” or saying “part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore” or lamenting that “they used to treat them very very rough” (and don’t anymore) is what Trump says and does.
That’s why they are both sides of same coin. Candidates are not always responsible for things their supporters do or say. They have no control over that. But they do have control over what they themselves say. And the only candidate that keeps encouraging conflict, the only one that says that those type of clashes make his events more exciting and add to the flavor is Trump
“Says and does”, eh?
“Says” is free speech, whether you like it or not.
“Does” would be another matter. So has Trump physically assailed any of his political opponents yet?
Does it come to that that our standards of candidates are such that they must personally assault people before we condemn them?
And the answer is no, he has not, but not for a lack of trying. He is surrounded by security. Does not “I’d like to punch him in the face” or complaining that people are taken out unharmed instead of “carried out on a stretcher” not establish for you that he is the same violent type of thug as protesters?
“Both Trump and the rioters are same side of the coin”
Now that was just stupid.
Ah, yes, a Trumpie-level argument. Do I need to explain any more why Trump supporters are the same type of people as the ones protesting, or did this eloquent reply make it clear?
Are you capable of understanding that the Trump supporters have consistently been attacked, and then blamed for being violent?
I am not at all fond of the sock puppets that have taken residence here, but that is not the same as what has been happening at public rallies.
Re-read what you wrote. You did mess up the cliche.
There has been violent incidents on both sides. Read some lefty sides, they have a bunch reported from Trump people; same as righty sides have a bunch reported from anti-Trump people.
If you mean “two sides of the same coin”, I messed it up on purpose. They are not really two sides.
I get it, you hate Trump. I don’t hate him but I’m not a supporter either. The difference is, I don’t respond to him with immature hysteria. The Trump haters on the left and right and just like 3 year old children who have been denied a cookie.
Amen.
#NeverThugs
It’s getting to the point that ANY protest that involves any of the Soros-funded, anti-America and American values, pro-leftist violent types, male and female (and we see this in anti-WTO, -nuclear, and -capitalist gatherings for decades) will be seen as it appears–thugs in action.
Just as 1968 handed the law and order Nixon the White House, the left is prepared to hand Republicans all three branches as well, rather than just the White House. Of course, I’d rather have a Constitutional conservative rather than a DJT (RMN) running the Administrative State.
Exactly.
It was in the context of students at our supposedly prestigious university chasing away Hubert Humphrey, who had come to the campus to give a policy speech, that the wise law professor made his prediction to me that I mention in my comment that is, for now, third from the top of this thread.
In summary, violent hate filled rioters are demanding Trump “stop the hate”.
What I found somewhat uplifting was reading the milquetoast liberal coverage of the riots in the LA Times followed by the overwhelming (95+ %) condemnation of the “protesters” in the comments section. Attacking the cops, burning the Stars and Stripes, waving Mexican flags, and beating up peaceful Trump supporters is not winning these Aholes any friends.
This is partly why Trump matters so much.
He exposes the stark fallacy of tolerant progressives that get closer and closer to bringing 1984.
He also put the world on notice the salad days of American largess are over and will come at a cost of support.
He is the only one who understands that using a 1945 construct to world affairs, which is based on the cold war and globalism, is outdated and unworkable and must change.
These are messages that people relate to because it is how they feel, and know that it represents reality.
And even with the media and others trying to tear him down in a fashion virtually unprecedented, one can hope that voters will finally tire and reject the boilerplate of “racism” and identity politics that poisons America and is used by “high info” sorts to divide and manipulate the populace.
“He is the only one who understands that using a 1945 construct to world affairs, which is based on the cold war and globalism, is outdated and unworkable and must change.”
Huh.
So the last several decades of U.S. foreign policy was all “1945” thinking…???
My gawd. How history has been corrupted in the minds of some Americans!
I guess this accounts for some T-rumpian support.
Give me a break. Who else made NATO, and our foreign policy approach an issue? The Europeans are hearing. Do you think a treaty made in 1949 should be cast in stone? The Geneva Conventions were updated in 1977 and they are again obsolete.
What was the purpose of NATO anyway?
For your information, when it comes to NATO, the UN and the concept of “universal” norms arising from the ashes of WWII, that results in ceding our agency to intergovernmental international organizations, it IS from 1945. It still IS the paradigm, though the reality in the world is much different than when it was developed.
That is what Trump has raised. It’s time to have policies based on reality, not just ideology. His seems the authentic anti-progressive message, not some theory.
And speaking of ideology, and since you had to include a dig, I’m not anywhere close to being the ideologue as you are here, ad nauseum!
Your comment is informed by an anti-Trump fever that prevents you from any positive acknowledgement. In that way, it reminds of the anti-Israel crowd’s way of discourse.
Well, if you approve of the Code Pinko positions of the lying liar, T=rump, there’s just nothing I can help you with.
He’s lied about virtually everything the U.S. has done in the last two decades, pretending prescience that he’s never, EVER, had.
If that’s cool with you, so be it.
It doesn’t work for me. We still need NATO, as anyone with a working brain will appreciate.
And we don’t need a guy with a slobbering bromance with Putin, either. Or one who thinks “neutrality” between Israel and the jihadists is a swell position.
And I don’t give a good shit what you think my positions “remind you” of. Just for the record. I have no respect for idiots.
Don’t need your help. It’s obvious your knowledge of international law is lacking. Perhaps that’s why you continue to return to the same themes of trashing trump and Trump supporters, and acting as if you have a monopoly on knowledge.
I particularly like the picture Drudge had above his headline:
At the protests a Mexican flag spread out in back, and a kid holding a cardboard sign saying “Make America Mexico Again”.
Why? Was this the first you’d heard of the Reconquista movement…???
How ’bout the New Black Panthers? Ever heard of them?
They’re both tiny, noisy minorities, along the lines of White Separatists and other loopy fringe groups on both edges of the body politic.
Anybody using them…for any purpose…is a demagogue.
No, but certain pictures become iconic. That picture is one of them I suspect.
“Anybody using them…”
– How about our president?!
Well, at least we have that miserable corrupt, backstabbing scummy coward boehner coming out of the shadows to flex his skinny biceps at the bad guys.
I expect that in the years to come we’ll be seeing a lot more of that photo.
Interestingly, America was America before Mexico was Mexico.
This guy who burned donuts in the middle of the Reconquista crowd is my hero: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXpJXKCUiHc
Thanks, Snoper, that video made my day!
The job of the police is to keep the peace. If citizens cannot enter a lawful rally, the blame falls on law enforcement unless civil authorities prevented them from doing their duty.
It does not follow that one cannot be totally and irrevocably against Trump and his supporters while simultaneously maintaining their rights to assemble peacefully and to free speech. It is stupid to believe so and even dumber to say it.
– –
It is also not correct to deal violently with peaceful protesters or to urge others to do so. They have no fewer rights.
Once someone initiates violence, those attacked are entitled to defend themselves and others within the law. See Andrew Branca for details.
Which “peaceful protestors” are you talking about?
http://mashable.com/2016/04/29/trump-violent-protest-orange-county/#ysYNYuM01Eqm
Those peaceful protestors?
When will one of the victims of the progressive fascist brown shirts pull a weapon and defend themselves against these fascists? A glock with 5 33 round mags would make life interesting!
This is starting to remind me of Wisconsin. Agitating the opposition into very public unsavory displays. The left loves their protests and they love their PC media. Can we make them hate their weapons?
It doesn’t matter who the political party is or what their ideology is they have the same rights to peaceful assembly. Both groups present have the same rights but when one group starts to impeded the ability of movement to others then the peaceful assembly is no longer peaceful and becomes civil unrest. It doesn’t matter if that man supports Trump or Odin he can not be harassed or assaulted. It also doesn’t matter if he walks straight through the other group or goes around it is his right as long as he is not breaking any laws. To say well candidate so and so does this and candidate so and so does that has nothing to do with this situation. The fact is a person was assaulted and held captive by an unruly mob. Was the mob for any specific party or candidate? It doesn’t matter they broke the law. If the mob was paid by a specific entity/party/candidate to do this then they have broken the law also.
I don’t even want to get into the generalities being thrown around about candidates supporters mental make up. To write people off as white trash, hicks or rednecks is just as bad as calling other racial groups by their stereotypical names.