Protester Attacked At Trump Rally

[Timsup2nothin]

According to the internet that's Thomas Dimassimo, alleged Bernie Sanders(?) and BLM supporter. Tweeted (@younglionking7) about wanting to punch trump for days before that rally.

His first words after he was released by the police:
"**** you ***** @realDonaldTrump"

Seems like the idiots come in all shapes and forms.

I have a tendency to want to punch people that talk about wanting to punch people myself. Drumpf definitely qualifies. Good on this dude.

 

[El_Machinae]

Violence done by anti-trump supporters. Biting the earlobe of Trump supporter is well and good. But it's not anti-Trump supporters will pretend to be a Trump suppporter and then do this sort of thing.
https://twitter.com/trumpforwin/status/708454273932271616/photo/1

Don't think anyone is condoning this; the best you will see is justifications, and you have to apply the Principle of Charity to those. We've moved somehow into a world where we denigrate the weakest part of someone's message rather than consider the strongest ... but that's both wrong and stupid.

If we put scales to measure, it's clear which candidate is using the most inflammatory languages and which will woo the baser nature of people.

"We should nuke Iran, WE SHOULD NUKE IRAN" from a politician would lead to more anti-Iranian violence. But don't be surprised if it leads to violence from members of other cohorts.

 

[Ryika]

I have a tendency to want to punch people that talk about wanting to punch people myself. Drumpf definitely qualifies. Good on this dude.

Yes, I've realized that a lot in recent years. "Doing X is bad, but I will totally do X against people who I feel deserve it!" The irony is of course that adding a 'but' after the initial statement completely invalidates it.

Moral principles are dead.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, I've realized that a lot in recent years. "Doing X is bad, but I will totally do X against people who I feel deserve it!" The irony is of course that adding a 'but' after the initial statement completely invalidates it.

Moral principles are dead.

Key point you missed being that I never said punching people is bad.

Big Bad Don talks a huuuuuuge game. He wants to see war crimes, people mobbed at his rallies and taken out on stretchers, nuclear war. As he is clearly a proponent of violence I see no justification for maintaining some sort of immunity to it for him. As I have long since come to terms with my own violent nature I would be more than happy to rupture that immunity in person given the opportunity.

 

[Ryika]

Key point you missed being that I never said punching people is bad.

That would make sense if Trump had actually been violent to people before somebody tried to use violence against him, but that's certainly not the case here. He's merely talking and some pseudo-vigilante tried to punch him for that.

If people think Trump is inciting violence then there's laws against that, punching him in the fact will not stop him from inciting violence anyway. So what you're saying it's okay to hit someone first because you dislike what that person has to say. I'm just baffled that you'd openly admit that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That would make sense if Trump had actually been violent to people before somebody tried to use violence against him, but that's certainly not the case here. He's merely talking and some pseudo-vigilante tried to punch him for that.

If people think Trump is inciting violence then there's laws against that, punching him in the fact will not stop him from inciting violence anyway. So what you're saying it's okay to hit someone first because you dislike what that person has to say. I'm just baffled that you'd openly admit that.

I have said many times "sticks and stones will just break bones, but words can leave scars that never heal." People tend to govern their tongues around me, because yes, I believe that if someone tries to incite violence they should succeed and receive it directly, and I let people know it.

I assume from you being "baffled" by this that you are a proponent of the "I should be able to run my mouth without consideration or consequence" school.

 

[Ryika]

Well, we fundamentally disagree then.

Though out of interest I'd like you to answer me a question if you will - after witnessing this situation:


Link to video.

Which of the two would you be okay with physically harming (if any, 'both' is also a possible answer)?

 

[El_Machinae]

There's a second level of scary here. And it's way, way deeper than the first-level scary people will be partisan about.

I think no one disagrees that the puncher is entitled to a good legal defense. I don't even disagree that protesters can be expelled by attendees showing proper restraint in lieu of security being there.

Trump: “I’ve actually instructed my people to look into [paying his legal fees]" (modified headline to be slightly less inflammatory).

Trump *more than once* blames 'the guy was giving the finger' as a provocative factor.

Trump forwards "Giving the finger" as an 'understandable' provocation, and why he's considering paying the legal bills.

The finger. Yeah, that's the deeper level of scary for when he will subsidize violence in his name.

This is right up there with the implication of "don't worry about the legal implications of giving someone a concussion if they are going to throw a tomato".

It's an outright condoning of illegal levels of violence based on underwhelming provocation.
The finger. Think about what that says about his subconscious, and those he's trying to justify himself to.

 

[civman110]

Leftists who hate free speech showing up at rallies and getting violent.

No one cares.

 

[Bootstoots]

Surely there must be some legal issues with subsidizing people to commit violence on your behalf by paying their legal fees, right? I certainly hope this is the case...

 

[civman110]

Surely there must be some legal issues with subsidizing people to commit violence on your behalf by paying their legal fees, right? I certainly hope this is the case...

It's the Bernie and Clinton supporters who are showing up and trying to stifle free-speech and getting violent.

Jay-Z and other leftists have been paying BLM legal fees for years.

 

[El_Machinae]

Surely you're not okay with "give them a concussion, don't worry, I'll pay your bills"?

No matter how mad you are at BLM, you seriously cannot be 'okay' with such offers?

It's scary. It's scary in such deep ways, it's not even funny.

 

[civman110]

Surely you're not okay with "give them a concussion, don't worry, I'll pay your bills"?

No matter how mad you are at BLM, you seriously cannot be 'okay' with such offers?

It's scary. It's scary in such deep ways, it's not even funny.

I personally do not care what happens to anyone who shows up at a peaceful rally to get disruptive and try to shut it down. If you act like a jerk and put yourself in that kind of a situation it's your own fault if you get punched. You're inciting violence, so don't turn around and try to play the victim. You went to someone else's event to be a jerk.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Which of the two would you be okay with physically harming (if any, 'both' is also a possible answer)?

I'm not interested in harming any of them. At one point the punk on the end is directly told "saying this is an insult" and he makes a point of saying what he has just been informed is an insult. So if he had gotten popped in the face for it I'd have been okay with that, but I'd not offer my services to pop him in the face myself. It was sort of hard to make out what was said, but I think that he was informed that a pop to the face was justified and started twaddling out the same sort of nonsensical "I should be applauded for being intentionally insulting and suffer no consequences" stuff you are peddling.

 

[El_Machinae]

Getting punched =/= deliberately knocked out

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Getting punched =/= deliberately knocked out

Agreed, though if I punch somebody I acknowledge the possibility the fight may not end without someone being seriously hurt, and in fact it probably won't. That's why I always try to make sure things are clearly understood. I see nothing wrong with telling the punk:

This is what you are doing that is rude.

Now that you have been informed, if you keep doing it I have to conclude that your intention is to be rude.

I could respond in kind and be intentionally rude back, but name calling and such is something I think is really pointless, so I probably won't. Intentionally being rude does have consequences though, so I suggest that you stop.

Verbal abuse is abuse, and I am always willing to abuse an abuser and take the consequences.

 

[El_Machinae]

I am also going to forward that being 'rude and disruptive' is quantitatively different from 'using the finger' when it comes to a justification for shutting someone down with punches.

 

[Ryika]

I'm not interested in harming any of them. At one point the punk on the end is directly told "saying this is an insult" and he makes a point of saying what he has just been informed is an insult. So if he had gotten popped in the face for it I'd have been okay with that, but I'd not offer my services to pop him in the face myself. It was sort of hard to make out what was said, but I think that he was informed that a pop to the face was justified and started twaddling out the same sort of nonsensical "I should be applauded for being intentionally insulting and suffer no consequences" stuff you are peddling.

But as I understood it you hate it when people incite violence. The guy is not doing that, he's simply disagreeing and giving his opinion. Not being very polite while doing so, but it's clear that he's not threatening her physically. SHE then threatens him with violence, so should you not be angry at her? And if he bashed her in the face after threatening him with violence, would that then be okay?

What is the rule here? Violence is okay when used against people who(se views) you don't like? If I feel somebody is abusing me I'm allowed to hit them? If somebody is being abused by the standards that you've set it's okay to hit them? I still don't get it.

Verbal abuse is abuse, and I am always willing to abuse an abuser and take the consequences.

So would it be okay to hit the girl @3:55?


Link to video.

 

[Commodore]

As an aside: I like how Caitlyn Jenner was being lauded as a hero of the LGBT movement until she started saying good things about the Republicans. Now, all of a sudden, Jenner is a villain according to those very same people that said she was a hero.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So would it be okay to hit the girl @3:55?

I'd warn her first.