Trump Rally Canceled for Safety Reasons

[Tsing Tao]

I think it's great that you know how to spell the word and use it in a sentence. I wasn't convinced you could do it after our exchange yesterday when you compared Obama's rhetorical flourish with Trump's explicit suggestions that dissenters be beaten.

So political rallies can only be attended by yes-men? Anyone attending Trump's rally but disagreeing with him is breaking the law? Fascinating.

Aww...I must have upset you significantly if you're resorting to personal attacks right off the mark in the morning. Still butt hurt from yesterday?

I'll try to break this down for you. Private political rallies are, indeed, for "yes-men" as you call it. The key word there is "private". Anyone causing a disruption is on the same footing, legal-wise, as someone storming into a corporate board meeting to protest the company's behavior in the environment (as an example). It is trespassing, clearly, in the eyes of the law.

You can disagree with someone at a rally all you want - though why someone would go to a rally of a political figure they disagree with is beyond me. Maybe that's how you spend your time. Knock yourself out.

But if you take action to disrupt the event - shouting, storming about, whatever, then you can be removed - by force if necessary, by law enforcement or security.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I believe the main body of protesters in Chicago were outside.

And totally within their legal right. Police roped off an area for protest, and protesters gathered, peacefully, and carried out their protest. Totally within 1st amendment rights. It's sneaking into the private event and disrupting it that is the problem.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

These are the same liberals who banned anti-abortion protests on public sidewalks. Somehow they imagine they have the "right" to invade a candidate's rally and disrupt it however, then fight with the cops. But it's all Trump's fault for upsetting them.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

You can disagree with someone at a rally all you want - though why someone would go to a rally of a political figure they disagree with is beyond me. Maybe that's how you spend your time. Knock yourself out.

Then why all the lather about my post:

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...or-safety-reasons.298448/page-11#post-4259355

Try not to read more into my posts than are written. I suppose it balances out because you are reading less into what Trump says than what he actually says. Because you are peripherally defending him in a plausible deniability kind of way. You're quite adept at nibbling at the edges. And here you are, for all intents and purposes, and in the name of flag and country, implicitly defending the candidate of choice of white supremacists. You're really working those edges.

 

[ipatent]

These are the same liberals who banned anti-abortion protests on public sidewalks. Somehow they imagine they have the "right" to invade a candidate's rally and disrupt it however, then fight with the cops. But it's all Trump's fault for upsetting them.

I don't have a lot sympathy for people hurling invective at women waiting for a legal procedure that they are probably deeply conflicted and hurting about in the first place.

That's even worse than breaking up a political rally.

 

[futurecurrents]

At a rally last night.....

 

[Ricter]

These are the same liberals who banned anti-abortion protests on public sidewalks.

No, we opposed protesters blocking access to clinics.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Then why all the lather about my post:

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...or-safety-reasons.298448/page-11#post-4259355

Try not to read more into my posts than are written. I suppose it balances out because you are reading less into what Trump says than what he actually says. Because you are peripherally defending him in a plausible deniability kind of way. You're quite adept at nibbling at the edges. And here you are, for all intents and purposes, and in the name of flag and country, implicitly defending the candidate of choice of white supremacists. You're really working those edges.

Because the discussion was about protesters that disrupt private rallies. No one is talking about people sitting quietly in the rally and disagreeing with the candidate.

Wallet's original comment, where he used the word "trespass" was

How about a real simple solution... If you don't like a candidate stay out of their rallies instead of trespassing and causing a scene.
​

It's the "causing a scene" that's the problem and what is relevant to the discussion.

 

[Tsing Tao]

No, we opposed protesters blocking access to clinics.

Which also should be illegal, much in the same way employees on strike try to stop "line breakers" from going to work. That isn't just a protest, it's an illegal one.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I don't have a lot sympathy for people hurling invective at women waiting for a legal procedure that they are probably deeply conflicted and hurting about in the first place.

That's even worse than breaking up a political rally.

Popular speech doesn't require Constitutional protection. My point is liberal are ok with banning speech in public venues but think disrupting a private event is some sort of constitutional right.