>Rakeem Jones

He probably deserved to get punched

>>27815

For what, being black?

>>27816
For acting like a dick. The only reason people act like this at these events is because they're (usually) sure they'll just be escorted out and told to leave. This time he got what he asked for.

Holy shit.
Welp atleast guys like him will be dead in a few years.

>>27811
>insideedition
Here is a big sage for you mister.

>>27815
He may have deserved it for disrupting the rally and antagonizing the crowd to the point of them lashing out, but according to the law he was attacked unprovoked and that needs to be condemned. You can't just attack people for disagreeing with you, even if they're being obnoxious.

>>27817

So if someone disrupts or protests a political event but otherwise does nothing violent or physical, they deserve to be attacked - or killed, as that Trump supporter suggests - over an act of nonviolent demonstration?

>>27811
You're gonna have to run this by me again OP, seems like justice to me

>>27834

A nonviolent (though obnoxious) protestor - Jones - was being led out of a Trump rally by police. While on his way out, Jones received a punch to the face from someone in the crowd - McGraw - who was not defending either himself or others from a violent act. McGraw later told Inside Edition reporters that he enjoyed hitting Jones - and when asked why he punched Jones, McGraw implied that he did because Jones wasn't "acting like an American". McGraw also suggested that he and other Trump supporters might kill Jones "the next time we see him" because they "don't know who [Jones] is" and "don't know if he's ISIS". Police arrested McGraw today for assault (well after video of the assault was posted online).

>>27818
Lol
/pol/ has plenty of young idiots to take his place

>>27831
Well yeah cuz what if he was in ISIS? We don't know if he's not, so might as well kill him just to be safe

>>27836

>Metallica - Sad But True.jpg

>>27837

>someone peacefully protests a political rally
>GOTTA KILL 'EM IN CASE THEY'RE A TERRORIST

Christ, Trump is going to destroy this country.

>>27811
I sure do love the amount of amateur clickbaiting in the subjects of /news/ threads.

typical dumb white trash who dont understand rule of law

>>27821
Big bump for OP & the source that was used.

>>27811
>>27811
John McGraw's (the assaulter/batterer) own words at 6:48

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHfgTzivl48

>>27839
he's going to destroy it and build it from the ground up. He will make America great again.

Just an old coot with a little too much anger in his heart.
He seems the type to sit on his porch with a shotgun to keep the youngin's away.

>>27837
>>27839
Why you gotta feed the bait

>>27811
>Talk shit.
>Get hit.

ABLOO ABLOO,DAS RAYCIS,LOOK AT MY SKIN COLOR AND RELIGION OF PEACE,I AM IMMUNE FUCK YOU A-,
*gets knocked the fuck out by based patriot*

What is the problem?

Nobody likes mudslimes.
Whites-no
Blacks-no
Asians-fuck no
Hispanics-no
Natives-GET OUT REEEE
Christians-no
Conservatives-no
Most democrats-no
Atheists-no

Insanity is a defense against conviction for crimes, and this guy seems rather insane. Just means he has to go to the funny farm for treatment.

>>27894
wasn't bait so much as quoting the actual reason the guy gave for punching the protester.

>>27885

No, he's not. He will destroy this country and laugh all the way to the bank because he is a charlatan and a con man who is fooling you into thinking he's some grand political mastermind when he's actually a racist twatwaffle.

>>27901

So if someone is acting obnoxious and they're not a straight white cisgendered Christian male, someone else has a legal justification to assault (and possibly kill) them?

>>27906

>insanity

No, he's not. He knew exactly what he was doing, he showed no remorse for his actions, and he said he'd do it again. That's not insanity - that's being an asshole.

Oh, right. I keep forgetting, 4chan thinks assholes are heroes who should be placed on pedastals next to God and Roosh V.

>>27923
Bait

>>27929
>bait calling another post bate
gr8 b8 m8. I r8 8/8

>>27932
If calling a bait post bait, isn't your post also bait?

>>27811
nah

>>27935
baitception

>>27929

There isn't any way to know what is and isn't bait on this site, given that there's just as many "ironic" racists as there are real racists around here, so every post has to be taken seriously.

>>27938
You can usually tell pretty easily if they're serious or not.

But replying to multiple posts in one post is a clear indicator of bait.

>>27939

>You can usually tell pretty easily if they're serious or not.

No, you can't. You really can't. 4chan has become so overrun by trolls trying to outtroll each other and people hiding behind the excuses of "I was only joking" or "I'm just trying to be a devil's advocate" that it is impossible to tell the difference between a troll and someone who actually believes somone should be attacked (or killed) if they protest a Trump rally.

>rekt by a 78 year old

Embarrassing.

If a corporation is a person, then the space around me is part of my person. Trump constantly enters my private property and disrupts my peace. I am within my legal rights to tell a homeless man that he should punch Trump in the face and offer to pay his legal fees if he does so? Or should I just outright offer him $50?

If he does it, I can just say "oh, it's not me" because that defense has worked over and over again in regard to people who offered money to the mentally ill in order to commit a crime on their behalf.

>>27880
Jon McGraw is Trump's Joe the Plumber!

I hope Trump pays his legal fees like he promised. "I promise, I promise!"

>>27811

I'm relatively new to /news/ but I noticed from the replies in this thread that it's become an outpost for Reddit tier garbage. Nice try, not going to work.

If you think 'durrr hurr trolls are only supporting Trump' then you're truly delusional.

And this OP is over exaggerating shit to an extreme.

>>27956
I don't think they're trolls. I know they're real. They're fucking retards, but real nonetheless.

It's just wishful thinking that Trump supporters wouldn't really be the type of person who thinks killing a black guy is okay because "well maybe he's in ISIS"
They aren't trolls, just that fucking stupid

>punched to the ground

It's a crazy, 80-year-old man. The kid didn't even get knocked over, just pushed off balance and then hurried out of there by the cops before a brawl started.

Why does this event supposedly reflect on Trump or the average Trump voter? No one said Rubio was violent after this wacko got manhandled by an audience member.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOfl0CmEcuA

>>27976
Because that isn't the first or only time something similar has happened.

How it is portrayed in the media
>BLM burns down a city because some gang banger was shot by a cop for acting stupid
Look at all of these peaceful protesters protesting peacefully about police abuse. That loving young boy did nothing wrong
>One guy punches someone at a Trump rally
OH MY GOD LOOK AT ALL OF THESE EVIL RACIST NAZI FASCISTS!!! THEY ARE SO EVIL, RACIST AND WHITE!!!

>>27976

>Why does this event supposedly reflect on Trump or the average Trump voter?

Because this shit is only happening at Trump rallies and Trump is actively encouraging his supporters to commit acts of violence against protestors. Just today, he said "there used to be consequences" for protesting.

>>27985

>BLM burns down a city because some gang banger was shot by a cop for acting stupid

[citation needed]

>>27945
The punch did nothing to him you fool

>>27988

Take a punch to the face and see if does "nothing" to you.

Lol, as opposed to the hundreds of twitter youngsters proclaiming their intent to kill him? I get this board is full of refugees that aren't welcome in /pol/ but let's be real here

>>27994

Unlike those Twitter youngsters, McGraw actually physically assaulted that protestor before later saying he might kill said protestor.

>>27996
And?

>>28000

It means there's a good goddamn reason to think he'd actually do it, unlike the aformentioned Twitter youngsters who hide behind a facade of edginess and ultramasculinity.

>>27901
>Talk shit.
>Get hit.
Nice nigger mentality there.

>>27994
>>27996
>>28001
>twitter youths
>edgy
>ultramasculine
are people now trying to use these as derogatory terms?
"twitter youths" sounds so much like "niggers" to me.

>>27986
>Because this shit is only happening at Trump rallies and Trump is actively encouraging his supporters to commit acts of violence against protestors. Just today, he said "there used to be consequences" for protesting.
It's almost as if... maybe they should stop going to Trump rallies and trying to shut him up? Or are these protesters *trying* to make victims of themselves?

>>28011
Allowing the opposition to gather at their own rally oppressive. The existence of dissenting opinion is oppressive.
Start agreeing with strong, independent, well-adjusted, sobbing mobs who know what's best for you and are willing to scream and disrupt until you agree; if you don't, it's oppressive.

>>28011

>maybe they should stop going to Trump rallies and trying to shut him up?

Do they not have a right to protest Trump to his face? Did the Supreme Court decide that the face-to-face protest of a political figure is now unprotected speech?

>>28014
They have a right to protest in public spaces.

>>28016

Did the Supreme Court make it illegal for protestors to enter a political rally and stage a protest within said rally?

>>27901

>shlomo pls

I wonder who is behind this post.

>>28017
>the Supreme Court make it illegal
lolwut the Supreme Court doesn't make law. You must be 18 years old to browse this website.
>protestors to enter a political rally
>protestors
You must be 18 years old to browse this website.

>>28014
>Do they not have a right to protest Trump to his face?
Sure, just as you have the right to go up to a Hell's Angels member and call him a faggot. But a right to do something doesn't make it any better of an idea.

We've been hearing stories for months now about protesters being assaulted at Trump rallies, so I'm supposed to feel empathetic when a protester goes to a Trump rally and gets punched? The fuck did he think would happen? Of course he got hit!

Far as I'm concerned, by now any Trump protester is actively trying to get hit.

But you're right, it is their right to go get hit for talking shit.

>>28011

You were probably all for the Patriot Act too.

>>28020

>Sure, just as you have the right to go up to a Hell's Angels member and call him a faggot. But a right to do something doesn't make it any better of an idea.

And I'm not arguing appropriateness. I'm arguing legality.

>We've been hearing stories for months now about protesters being assaulted at Trump rallies, so I'm supposed to feel empathetic when a protester goes to a Trump rally and gets punched? The fuck did he think would happen?

I doubt he thought he would get suckerpunched while being led out by police, then manhandled by the police.

>any Trump protester is actively trying to get hit

So what you're saying is, if someone protests Trump, it is an open invitation to physically assault them - or even kill them, as McGraw suggested he would do - without any other provocation besides "they said mean things about Trump"?

>>28019
Protestors is a valid spelling, if that's what you were going at.

You must know how to use Google to browse this website.

>>28022
>And I'm not arguing appropriateness. I'm arguing legality.
You're the only one that thinks there's an argument about legality. Everyone agrees that assault is not legally sanctioned, hence the oft quoted quip by Trump that he'd pay his supporter's legal fees.

>I doubt he thought he would get suckerpunched while being led out by police, then manhandled by the police.
Pretty sure he went in understanding he may very well get hit at some point, since that reportedly happens at every Trump rally.

>So what you're saying is, if someone protests Trump, it is an open invitation to physically assault them?
I said no such thing. The only way you could seriously think that is through a willful misinterpretation of what I posted.

>>28023
No, no. Not the spelling, anon. jfc

>>28024

>Everyone agrees that assault is not legally sanctioned, hence the oft quoted quip by Trump that he'd pay his supporter's legal fees.

And with that quip - as well as other things he's said about beating up protestors - Trump all but told his followers to assault any protestors who show up at his rallies.

>The only way you could seriously think that is through a willful misinterpretation of what I posted.

You're the one who suggested Trump protestors are actively trying to be assaulted, so I can't see how you don't think their presence is an open invitation to unprovoked physical assault (up to and including McGraw's suggestion of murder).

>>28029
>Trump all but told his followers to assault any protestors who show up at his rallies.
And? That is legal, you know.

>You're the one who suggested Trump protestors are actively trying to be assaulted, so I can't see how you don't think their presence is an open invitation to unprovoked physical assault
To call it an "open invitation" implies I somehow approve of the act, which I do not. Mere words are not an "open invitation" to assault. But when a group of people have made it plain through their actions that mere words will lead to your assault, then yes you would be actively trying to get assaulted if you went.

The reason you "can't see how" I hold that position is either you're willfully misinterpreting my words to imply my approval of violence when I do not, or you are just stupid.

>>28030

>That is legal, you know.

So it's legal for one person to attack another person unprovoked but for the mere act of being present at a political rally?

>To call it an "open invitation" implies I somehow approve of the act, which I do not.

Funny: with all the talk about "talk shit get hit", I thought for sure you approved of people getting hit for talking shit.

>when a group of people have made it plain through their actions that mere words will lead to your assault, then yes you would be actively trying to get assaulted if you went

So if they go, they're asking for it. They should just lie back and take it. They shouldn't complain when it happens to them.

>>28031
>So it's legal for one person to attack another person unprovoked but for the mere act of being present at a political rally?
No, it's legal for Trump to tell his followers everything he has told him. Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

>Funny: with all the talk about "talk shit get hit", I thought for sure you approved of people getting hit for talking shit.
It's a descriptive statement, not a moral judgment. Getting hit for talking shit is in fact something that happens, rather commonly. Whether I approve is irrelevant to its occurrence.

>So if they go, they're asking for it. They should just lie back and take it. They shouldn't complain when it happens to them.
Not at all, in fact I've been insinuating that they specifically go to Trump rallies to complain about getting hit. That getting assaulted, so they can complain about it, is their goal.

I haven't said anything about what protesters should do apart from avoid Trump rallies if they're actually concerned about assault.

>>28037

>it's legal for Trump to tell his followers everything he has told him

So you have no problem with Trump inciting violence at his rallies, with him inciting his followers to assault (and possibly kill) protestors?

>Getting hit for talking shit is in fact something that happens, rather commonly. Whether I approve is irrelevant to its occurrence.

You're the one saying people deserve to get hit for talking shit at political rallies, so...

>in fact I've been insinuating that they specifically go to Trump rallies to complain about getting hit

Who the fuck would actively TRY to have violence committed upon them by rabid fans of a fascist demagogue who openly supports such violence?

>>28038
>So you have no problem with Trump inciting violence at his rallies, with him inciting his followers to assault (and possibly kill) protestors?
We were discussing legalities, not appropriateness.

>You're the one saying people deserve to get hit for talking shit at political rallies, so...
That isn't something I've said. In fact, I've stated the exact opposite.

>Who the fuck would actively TRY to have violence committed upon them by rabid fans of a fascist demagogue who openly supports such violence?
The people who actively confront such people during their rally, that's who.

>>28041

>We were discussing legalities

Last I checked, inciting violence is an illegal act.

>That isn't something I've said. In fact, I've stated the exact opposite.

Could've fooled me.

>The people who actively confront such people during their rally, that's who.

They're going there to protest Trump. I doubt they're going there to end up with broken noses, black eyes, and handcuffs around their wrists for having the audacity to be assaulted.

>>27985
>>27986
>>28011
>>28014
>>28020
>>28022
>>28024
>>28029
>>28030
>>28031
>>28037
>>28038
>>28041
Come on guys, there's a war on you know. There's only so much (You) to go around.

>>28042
>Last I checked, inciting violence is an illegal act.
He hasn't actually done that. The implication is there, the words are not.

>Could've fooled me.
That isn't hard. You've got the argumentative capacity of a robocaller.

>They're going there to protest Trump. I doubt they're going there to end up with broken noses, black eyes, and handcuffs around their wrists for having the audacity to be assaulted.
And Trump protesters get punched at Trump rallies. The math is fairly unavoidable.

>>28043
Meh, I'm just having some fun raking an Anon over the coals. Not really in it for the (You)s.

soon he will die.
1 mile 50 cal. to the head.
next rally.

>>28045
That's starting to seem more and more likely by the day.

>>28044

>He hasn't actually done that. The implication is there, the words are not.

He's smart enough to know that direct incitement will get him arrested. But hints and vague suggestions of violence? That makes him a fucking folk hero.

>Trump protesters get punched at Trump rallies

So, again, you're saying they deserve unprovoked violence for the mere act of being present at a Trump rally.

>>28046

Oh please. He'll have the fucking Oathkeepers tagging along to his rallies now. No way they'll let their fucking hero get killed.

>>28047
>He's smart enough to know that direct incitement will get him arrested. But hints and vague suggestions of violence? That makes him a fucking folk hero.
To some it does, that fairly self-evident from the OP story.

>So, again, you're saying they deserve unprovoked violence for the mere act of being present at a Trump rally.
Again, I've never said they "deserve" violence. You are very bad at twisting words.

>>28048
>the fucking Oathkeepers
That ragtag bunch? Kek.

What no one seems to understand is that because he has to rent out stadiums for his rallys these are considered private events and the moment you start stirring things up you get thrown out. It's not overly complicated go picket outside like hundreds of others.

The problem is they want to cause a problem. That is can't be defended.

>>28049

>I've never said they "deserve" violence.

But you're perfectly fine with saying Trump protestors should expect violence to be visited upon them if they go to protest a Trump rally.

Yeah no big difference there.

>>28052

>The problem is they want to cause a problem. That is can't be defended.

Yes, it can: "They're going there to stage a political protest." Boom. Defended. You can argue whether it's the appropriate place for one, sure, but that comes down to whether you believe such protests are effective. And their "want[ing] to cause a problem" isn't a justification for unprovoked, non-defensive violence if the protestors don't actually commit any acts of violence themselves. If they're disruptive, the police can (and likely should) haul them out. The average person doesn't need to get involved by throwing a punch at someone who didn't throw one first.

>>28055
>But you're perfectly fine with saying Trump protestors should expect violence to be visited upon them if they go to protest a Trump rally.
>Yeah no big difference there.
There is a pretty big difference, actually. Just because I don't approve of something doesn't mean I should ignore its reality.

You're completely divorced from the world if you think otherwise. If ideals trumped reality, ISIS would be defeated simply by a legion of people quoting the Geneva Conventions at them.

>>28059

>Just because I don't approve of something doesn't mean I should ignore its reality.

I guess it also means you don't feel the need to explicitly denounce an act of unprovoked civilian violence committed in the name of a political figure, either.

>>28060
>I guess it also means you don't feel the need to explicitly denounce an act of unprovoked civilian violence committed in the name of a political figure, either.
When a protester goes to a Trump rally knowing full well the violence that will meet their actions, you can hardly call it unprovoked. So no, I typically find the actions of would-be martyrs to be loud enough.

If they weren't willing to be assaulted, they could have not gone. It isn't right, but it hardly pulls at my heart-strings either.

>>28067

>When a protester goes to a Trump rally knowing full well the violence that will meet their actions, you can hardly call it unprovoked.

So, again, you're saying that a Trump protestor deserves to be assaulted for going to a Trump rally.

>>28055
It's not defendable and no court to date has done so to date. Reasons being 1] private event 2]they purposely went there to disturb the peace.

The ones arrested will be charged and proccessed. Will this happen to all? No not enough cops for that to happen.

>>28069
>So, again, you're saying that a Trump protestor deserves to be assaulted for going to a Trump rally.
No, I am not.

Provocation alone does not make an assault just.

>>28070

It is defendable on principle as a political protest. Would you call all protests "indefensible" by the very nature of the fact that they're meant to "disturb the peace"?

>>28071

>Provocation alone does not make an assault just.

Okay, first you're saying Trump protestors deserve to be assaulted for going to a Trump rally, now you're saying they don't. Make up your goddamned mind already, man.

>>28073
>Make up your goddamned mind already, man.
Made it up and stated it clearly and explicitly already. Repeatedly.

I'm sorry you're too daft to understand the distinction between making a moral judgment and recognizing the reality of a situation.

If the assaults were "deserved" it would absolve the attackers from their responsibility to be civil. The fact that protesters not only should know better but very likely do know and seek to be assaulted does not make the attackers' actions in any way justifiable.

>>28074

>The fact that protesters not only should know better but very likely do know and seek to be assaulted does not make the attackers' actions in any way justifiable.

But you are saying that Trump protestors - obnoxious, maybe, but otherwise peaceful protestors nonetheless - deserve to be assaulted because they showed up at a Trump rally, right?

>>28072
I'm speaking from personal court experiences. We got many of these during the last blm big demonstration when Rahm released the tape. Not a single one of the arrested protesters walked away with the 'peaceful protester' defense. tHe same reason applies to those who get hit while performing pranks. You have assumed the responsibility of anthing that occurs because of your actions.

Can't wait to see how many we see next week after reports of cops being hit come in.

>>28078

If someone acts violently, that is no longer speech. Violence is not speech; a retarded first-year law student could tell you that. I'm talking about peaceful protests, no matter how obnoxious the actual protestors get; if there is no violence and there is no overt provocation other than people saying mean things, it is a political protest - and political protests are, by design, meant to disrupt whatever status quo is going on at the time ("disturb the peace"). Do you really believe, then, that all peaceful political protests are indefensible because they're all meant to disturb the peace?

>>28075
No, the assaults are undeserved regardless of the protesters' foreknowledge. Provocations and ill-intent do not absolve an attacker of their civility.

Just because I don't pity Rakeem Jones doesn't mean I applaud John McGraw.

>>28086

>Just because I don't pity Rakeem Jones doesn't mean I applaud John McGraw.

So you don't feel even a sliver of pity or sympathy for the victim of an unprovoked assault committed in support of a political figure who has implicitly condoned violence in his name? (I mean, other than showing up at a political rally to protest the politician leading said rally, of course.)

The rest of us are talking about what's currently happening in Chicago. This 'peaceful' nonsense was addressed in my original post with the reference to the fact that most of his events are considered private due to the venues he uses.

I will say one thing though, the retarded law student would have underdstood that from the getgo.

>>28090
>So you don't feel even a sliver of pity or sympathy for the victim of an unprovoked assault committed in support of a political figure who has implicitly condoned violence in his name?
I might if it were actually unprovoked.

He went there to cause a scene. He got his scene. It was undeserved, but he sought it all the same. About the only thing I feel for the situation is that John McGraw should have also been arrested.

>>27811
Stuff like this makes me sad as an American.
The old guy clearly was influenced by some sort of old timey bigotry. While I don't condone the protestor's actions, I feel that the man's actions, and his justifications are utter shit.
>Not acting like an American
Yeah okay, not sure if you get out much, but there are lots of people in this country, with differing ways of dealing with things.

>>28092

And whether peaceful or violent, the police should be the one to handle protestors - not ordinary civilians. As I said, political protests are, by design, meant to "disturb the peace"; protestors who do that should absolutely be taken out of the building at the bare minimum (whether they deserve arrest depends on whether they commit an act of violence). But their mere presence isn't an act of violence, nor does their presence - or any obnoxious non-violent behavior - justify an unprovoked act of assault.

>>28078
>tHe same reason applies to those who get hit while performing pranks. You have assumed the responsibility of anthing that occurs because of your actions.
wait what?

>>28093

For the record, McGraw was arrested the next day. He should've been arrested on the spot, but the police had a protestor who'd just gotten suckerpunched in the face to worry about taking out of the arena before he provoked more violence upon himself.

>>28096
It's not that black and white. If your prank gets you hit because it pissed someone off that isn't quite your fault, but if your prank gets you hit because they felt threatened and acted in self-defense it is certainly your fault.

Personally I wouldn't say that comparison holds up here.

>>28099

>If your political protest gets you hit because it pissed someone off that isn't quite your fault, but if your political protest gets you hit because they felt threatened and acted in self-defense it is certainly your fault.

>>28097
Good to hear.

I figured the police simply weighed their choices and decided it was more important to remove the problem than linger around, but I am glad they got back around to McGraw.

>>28101

He might've gotten away with it if he hadn't been so stupid as to give an on-camera interview where he threatened to kill someone.

>>28096
During a scare prank, specifically, the pranker assumes all responsibilities for the outcomes of the event. Outcome usually meaning the pranker gets his shit pushed in. These cases come with them trying to get med bills paid and they leave having to pay for all court fees and case being thrown out.
There are exceptions but like when you grab a bat to defend yourself. That wouldn't be a reasonable response to the situation and is execciiivbe.

>>28103
Right? Kek.

Remember folks, talk shit get hit is negroid mentality and you are no better than one if you think this is how civilized adults behave.

>Trump supporters are wannabe-Gestapo

Color me shocked.

>>28346

I legit wonder how long it'll be before Trump supporters pull off their own Kristallnacht.

What a douche

TOO EVERYONE HERE I DO NOT CARE FOR YOUR RACE, CREED, CODE, POLITICAL VIEWS, OR RELIGION. WHAT I CARE ABOUT IS THE SIMPLE FACT THAT YOU PEOPLE ACROSS THE U.S.A AND THE WORLD WOULD SPIT ON THE GRAVES OF OUR FORE FATHERS FIGHTING LIKE THIS AND I FIND THE HUMAN RACE TO BE A DISGRACE TO ITSELF FUCK ALL OF YOU.

>>28346
>>28406
>one Trump supporter punches an agitator in the face
>literally thousands of liberals calling for Trump's death and forcing a Trump rally to be canceled amidst a wave of assassination threats

"B-b-but Trump supporters are the violent ones, g-guys!"

Having a different opinion on something doesn't warrant the kinds of insane shenanigans liberals are getting up to. If it were up to people like you, we would not have the freedoms that we do here in the U.S.A.

>>27976
I think the part where trump has clearly stated on multiple occasions that he wants people to escalate to physical violence,

may be vaguely related to this case of a person suddenly escalating to physical violence at a trump rally.

>>28011
It doesn't matter what they're trying to do by talking or gesturing.

Violence is unacceptable. Even condoning it should make you completely lose faith in him.

Worse; he's literally asking people to commit acts of violence, and the videos are everywhere to prove it.

I don't care which one of your turd candidates get elected, but I can tell you what this looks like from the outside; everyone in the international community can watch those videos of what he's been saying, and those vids make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that anyone who votes from Trump is a brutal piece of shit thug like him.

And you stupid assholes wonder why you get so much flak from more civilized countries.

>>29860
It would be fine if there wasn't consequences for their protest.
Piles of people in Chicago wanted to hear him, and were unable to due to the "peaceful protest"/
Democracy isn't silencing people who you don't agree with, and the Trump supporters are fighting back so that more events don't get cancelled, and Trump doesn't get silenced