Chicago, Trump’s Incitements, and Cruz’s Response

National review ^ | 3/13/16 | Andrew McCarthy

[ConservingFreedom]

CRUZ: Well, let’s be clear. First of all, the protesters were in the wrong. When you come up and — and you use violence, you engage in violence, you threaten violence, and when you try to shut — shut down and shout down speech, that — that’s not what the First Amendment allows. The First Amendment gives every one of us the right to speak, but not to disrupt others.

See - right there he's blaming Trump! Um ... wait ...

[Arthur McGowan]

If McCarthy insists on blaming Trump for the attacks by the Soros-funded leftist jackals, then McCarthy has caved in. The pressure to do so must be intense, since he is published primarily at National Review, which has sold out completely to the NWO, Cheap Labor Express, GOPe, etc.

[Arthur McGowan]

The fundamental lie is that the Soros-funded brownshirts were INCITED AT ALL by anybody—other than Soros.

They are attacking Trump because he is the front-runner, AND he is the only candidate talking about frustrating the Soros/Muslim Brotherhood/Cheap Labor Express agenda.

Anything Trump has said about punching people, etc., is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The Soros thugs were not at home baking cookies when they got OFFENDED by Trump.

[Arthur McGowan]

And the rest of the quote, the part you suppressed?

[norwaypinesavage]

"McCarthy has caved in."

That's simply delusional.

[Arthur McGowan]

He’s attacking the only candidate who is promising to do something about the Muslim invasion.

[Arthur McGowan]

He’s attacking the only candidate who is promising to do something about the Muslim invasion. And McCarthy, OF ALL PEOPLE, knows that Muslim terror IS NOT A RESPONSE TO THE WORDS OR DEEDS of Westerners, Christians, Jews, etc.

McCarthy is corrupt.

[ConservingFreedom]

CRUZ: Well, let’s be clear. First of all, the protesters were in the wrong. When you come up and — and you use violence, you engage in violence, you threaten violence, and when you try to shut — shut down and shout down speech, that — that’s not what the First Amendment allows. The First Amendment gives every one of us the right to speak, but not to disrupt others.

See - right there he's blaming Trump! Um ... wait ...

And the rest of the quote,

The part I cited suffices to disprove the Cruz-blames-Trump low-information meme.

the part you suppressed?

"Suppressed"? LMAO! The rest of the quote is a link-click away.

[gbscott1954]

Well, let's take a little stroll down Trump lane.

He has said he wanted to punch a protester in the face.

He lamented the “good old day” when protesters were carried out on stretchers.

He said his people could “beat the s.... out of some” of the protesters and he would pay the legal expenses.

As recently as yesterday Trump said he would probably pay the legal expenses of the man who cold cocked a guy who was being removed from a rally.

Trump also said, while a couple of protesters were being removed, “Don't get too rough. If you do I will pay your legal expenses.

Let's get real here. These guys are scums and lowlifes. We know that. But when you inflame people and brag about what you are going to do to them you shouldn't be surprised if you get violence. You poke hornets and you are going to get a response.

It is plain naive to believe that Trump had nothing to do with bringing about the events we saw this weekend.

[nathanbedford]

1.Trump, who encourages his supporters to surround and shout down protesters with chants of “USA,” has openly pined for “the old days,” when, he says, noisy demonstrators would be carried out of a political rally on stretchers.

2.“I’d like to punch him in the face,” he told a Las Vegas casino rally crowd last month when one protester was ejected.

3.As protesters have been led away by police or security, Trump has said he wishes he could punch them in the face, or that in the old days protesters went out on a stretcher, or that someone should “knock the crap out of them” and that he would pay legal fees for someone who did.
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470375065/a-campaign-on-the-brink-donald-trump-and-the-intersection-of-outrage-and-violenc and

4. “The audience hit back and that’s what we need a little bit more of.”

5.”Part of the problem ... is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore.”

6. the candidate bemoaned the fact that there were no longer “consequences” to protesting and insisted the “country has to toughen up.”

7.“You know, part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore, right?”

8.”In the good old days this doesn’t happen because they used to treat them very, very rough.”

9.“They used to treat them very, very rough, and when they protested once, they would not do it again so easily,” he said, before lamenting “we’ve become weak.”

10.”Try not to hurt him. If you do, I’ll defend you in court, don’t worry about it.”

11.”If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously.” He again promised to pay for any legal fees associated with an assault.

12.After a Black Lives Matter activist was kicked, punched and, he said, called the N-word at a campaign event in Birmingham, Alabama, in November, Trump expressed his approval.

“Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing,”

13.”I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will.”
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#tjGh.egBFiqY

[papertyger]

Again, I have trouble expressing how truly disappointing I find your posturing on this issue.

In pursuit of validating your point, whether because of ego or conviction, you see only violence in these quotes, and obviously consider that sufficient to prove your point. What has wholly escaped your attention is that in each and every one of the quotes you present there is a common thread: the frustrated desire to be unmolested at a gathering of common cause.

You have adopted the ethos of the left.

Apparently you consider meekly accepting the provocations of those looking to disrupt the only acceptable response to those actions. To that end, you have also adopted the “only purpose of a gun is to kill people” doctrine and/or dogma.

I do not agree.

Furthermore, I say with an absolutely clear conscience nothing you have quoted, along with the spectacularly peaceable nature that characterizes Trump rallies in general, or the heinous social extortion exhibited by the left, can in any way lay responsibility for that extortion at the feet of Donald Trump.

If verbally expressing the desire for a manly defense constitutes an offense, what are you doing on a conservative forum?

[nathanbedford]

Manly defense?

Real courage does not come from exhorting the mob of tens of thousands to attack an individual already at their mercy, nor is the timber of a president to be found there. Donald Trump repeatedly failed the country miserably because he chose the low road. A decent man, a Donald Trump or a Ronald Reagan, would have converted every occasion in which I have quoted for you Trump's bullying to extol the Constitution and encourage the audience in an inspiring discourse on free speech. He would have uplifted the occasion rather than play the Mussolini.

Donald Trump once again corsens America. What will he do as president?

The scary part is that people who should be seasoned conservatives who have been exposed to Free Republic for years are so easily seduced by a pseudo-conservative, anti-constitutional demagogue. Rather than lift their eyes to a kind of man who could be president of the United States, a man who loves and respects the Constitution like Ted Cruz, they wallow in the muck with Donald Trump and they attack the man who points the way to the shining city on the Hill.

A Manly defense inspires the people to hold to constitutional principles, explains why free speech is essential to a democratic republic, relates it all to the Constitution and ennobles and enriches his audience rather than enlisting them as co-felons.

Donald Trump will probably gain the nomination and likely lose the election. Even if he wins the election, we will be facing one such Trump fiasco after another and every one of his supporters will have to work overtime to find somebody else to blame. Yesterday it was Mark Levin, then it was Rush Limbaugh, now it is Ted Cruz. In the end there will be nobody left to blame except the those who were so eagerly seduced by this rank demagogue.

[FourtySeven]

While I agree with your points, you raise some good ones, it would have been just easier if Cruz had condemned the violence outright with no qualifiers. Trying to point out thuggish, boorish behavior to thugs and boors is practically impossible.

If one dares question or call it out, the behavior is equated to “manliness”, your own manhood is questioned, and then victory is claimed much like the familiar chess playing pigeon.

This is if such people believe such behavior is defensible. Such as we are seeing from some Trump supporters. For people who don’t care to defend it at all, the behavior is still justified in such a mind as a means to an end. An evil for the greater good. Which is of course the last recourse of the desperate. The desperate who only wish to control and subvert all opposition. Sound familiar? It should.

Who knows. Maybe the country will be unified after all, under this “new” face of “conservatism”: agree or be punched, kicked, and called a girlie-man. Why not, the left has done it this way for years so “we” should too, right?

[RaceBannon]

I understand, but it is a pattern, trump has many times acted like he is a brash bully

he has zero in his life to back it up except a mouth

I am a Marine vet, former bouncer bodyguard, national tae kwon do competitor
if I went around telling all my friends I was going to punch people in the mouth at tea party rallies, what would be said?

the same standard goes for all men

Trump has zero in his history to ever be able to back it up...me? I am so old and broke down, girls can take me now, everything hurts and nothing works...(sigh)

[MarvinStinson]

Robert Reich:

"Weeks after Trump began his campaign by falsely alleging that Mexican immigrants are 'bringing crime, they're racists' "

Reich should learn the difference between 'immigrants' and illegal aliens.