I'm pretty genuinely confused by what you mean here. Rahm is criticized from the left in ways that align pretty well with Sanders campaign.

His joke is that Sanders America would be bankrupt ala Chicago.

 

I'm on only a phone today but Jenks, I'm talking about how Nixon used EOP to force fib surveillance on enemies, IRS auditing on enemies and more. Kind of like how today Trump is making the standard that his violent white supremacist supporters will not face consequences for violent actions.

That makes sense.

Trump repeating some 4chan nonsense about the guy who tried rushing him yesterday being a part of ISIS was special

Trump repeating some 4chan nonsense about the guy who tried rushing him yesterday being a part of ISIS was special

 

/pol loves them some Trump. If you go read Reddit's politics subreddit, the Trump supporters are coming out in full force too.

/pol loves them some Trump. If you go read Reddit's politics subreddit, the Trump supporters are coming out in full force too.

Meme Magic is real.

Trump doubling down on the "ISIS" protester and on paying the legal fees of his supporters who beat up protesters

 

Trump Facebook shares every post that says, "watch what happens next"

Highly recommend voting for Foxx tomorrow in the states attorney race.

Highly recommend voting for Foxx tomorrow in the states attorney race.

TV tells me shes sketchy

I know your joking, but races like states attorney are always going to be hard to project future performance on. But I would like to see Cook County vote out Alvarez, and I like Foxx's stated agenda.

Chait makes the better argument against not "shutting down" campaign rally's here:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/...-democracy.html

 

I don't think the protestors intended to shut it down as much as voice their opposition, but it is certain that around the country, for activists that was not seen as a negative outcome of the protest.

 

Important line here:

The perception that Trump poses a threat to democracy legitimizes undemocratic responses — if you believe you are faced with the rise of an American Mussolini, why let liberal norms hold you back?

 

This is important in the article. I now truly believe Trump is dangerous in a way unprecedented in modern politics. If that is the case, political etiquette seems small compared to the bigger issue.

 

But the point with the article is that no matter what he's killed a part of American democracy's stability for the last 100 or so years. Considering some of the 19th century shenanigans, not going to include that for optimal political climate.

Chait makes the better argument against not "shutting down" campaign rally's here:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/...-democracy.html

 

I don't think the protestors intended to shut it down as much as voice their opposition, but it is certain that around the country, for activists that was not seen as a negative outcome of the protest.

 

Important line here:

The perception that Trump poses a threat to democracy legitimizes undemocratic responses — if you believe you are faced with the rise of an American Mussolini, why let liberal norms hold you back?

 

This is important in the article. I now truly believe Trump is dangerous in a way unprecedented in modern politics. If that is the case, political etiquette seems small compared to the bigger issue.

 

But the point with the article is that no matter what he's killed a part of American democracy's stability for the last 100 or so years. Considering some of the 19th century shenanigans, not going to include that for optimal political climate.

Chait makes the better argument against not "shutting down" campaign rally's here:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/...-democracy.html

 

I don't think the protestors intended to shut it down as much as voice their opposition, but it is certain that around the country, for activists that was not seen as a negative outcome of the protest.

 

Important line here:

 

 

This is important in the article. I now truly believe Trump is dangerous in a way unprecedented in modern politics. If that is the case, political etiquette seems small compared to the bigger issue.

 

But the point with the article is that no matter what he's killed a part of American democracy's stability for the last 100 or so years. Considering some of the 19th century shenanigans, not going to include that for optimal political climate.

 

I said this on facebook the other day, but it seems applicable here. I get the idea that protest is a legal and rationale response to what is going on here, but there seems to be a crossing of a line at some point.

 

While I despise Donald Trump and everything about his campaign, I can't help but think if roles were reversed we would be talking about things like suppression and intimidation of voters.

 

 

I said this on facebook the other day, but it seems applicable here. I get the idea that protest is a legal and rationale response to what is going on here, but there seems to be a crossing of a line at some point.

 

While I despise Donald Trump and everything about his campaign, I can't help but think if roles were reversed we would be talking about things like suppression and intimidation of voters.

 

Well, we did see the 2010 town halls.

 

I would say that there is a reason you don't see the same level of activity against Cruz. But my bigger concern is 2020, where this may happen again and the next person will be considered "as bad as trump" due to policy, where what is making Trump so awful now is his wielding of his base like an army and undercutting populations as problems that need to be removed.

 

 

Well, we did see the 2010 town halls.

 

I would say that there is a reason you don't see the same level of activity against Cruz. But my bigger concern is 2020, where this may happen again and the next person will be considered "as bad as trump" due to policy, where what is making Trump so awful now is his wielding of his base like an army and undercutting populations as problems that need to be removed.

 

e.g. the snake parable he loves to tell

Well, we did see the 2010 town halls.

 

I would say that there is a reason you don't see the same level of activity against Cruz. But my bigger concern is 2020, where this may happen again and the next person will be considered "as bad as trump" due to policy, where what is making Trump so awful now is his wielding of his base like an army and undercutting populations as problems that need to be removed.

 

The problem is that once this becomes acceptable behavior, it will be easily justifiable because "it was OK when it happened to Trump, why isn't it OK now"? In the meme generation of politics, as soon as something happens, half of the internet starts searching historical memory banks to find something to be able to justify their behavior by. It was OK when it happened to Bush... It was OK when it happened to Obama... It was OK when Clinton did it... It was OK when Reagan did it.

 

I hate that part of politics today. It is unprincipled, and lacks common decency.

 

If you can justify shutting down a Trump even because of the vile crap he spews, it is just as easy for his camp to justify shutting down an event on the other side, and it legitimizes the actions of intimidation, threats, and suppression because of the use of justification of the actions.

It's all so horrible.

 

What I think is the benefit of something like Trumps rally in Chicago is for all his followers to actually see the people they are blaming for all of their problems. No hiding behind your community, if you are going to blame other groups for all of your problems you damn well better know who you are talking about.

The problem is that once this becomes acceptable behavior, it will be easily justifiable because "it was OK when it happened to Trump, why isn't it OK now"? In the meme generation of politics, as soon as something happens, half of the internet starts searching historical memory banks to find something to be able to justify their behavior by. It was OK when it happened to Bush... It was OK when it happened to Obama... It was OK when Clinton did it... It was OK when Reagan did it.

 

I hate that part of politics today. It is unprincipled, and lacks common decency.

 

If you can justify shutting down a Trump even because of the vile crap he spews, it is just as easy for his camp to justify shutting down an event on the other side, and it legitimizes the actions of intimidation, threats, and suppression because of the use of justification of the actions.

 

I think we are on the same page though.

 

On the other hand, I legitimately don't believe they were trying for that specific outcome. And I do believe they had a right to be concerned for their safety bringing that event to campus.

 

Police did a hell of a job, and the students did as well. These things bring a lot of people attracted to the chaos. Kudos to both for acknowledging and trying to control it.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...-protest-213728

It's all so horrible.

 

What I think is the benefit of something like Trumps rally in Chicago is for all his followers to actually see the people they are blaming for all of their problems. No hiding behind your community, if you are going to blame other groups for all of your problems you damn well better know who you are talking about.

I think his supporters need quite a bit of education on what they are getting behind. By and large the group is made up of uneducated, lower income people. Thats not exactly who are benefitting from Trump getting elected.

His joke is that Sanders America would be bankrupt ala Chicago.

 

I'm on only a phone today but Jenks, I'm talking about how Nixon used EOP to force fib surveillance on enemies, IRS auditing on enemies and more. Kind of like how today Trump is making the standard that his violent white supremacist supporters will not face consequences for violent actions.

 

Sure, but in terms of the country and policies that affect everyday Americans, there's not much he can do. Remember, you're the one telling me the President can't act unilaterally without Congress or even the SC stepping in.

 

The guy's a terrible person and an even worse candidate, but I'm just not terrified of him royally screwing things up. I just don't think that's possible in our system.

Undermining the legitimacy of the Presidency, whatever the hell he will do with foreign policy (likely embarrassing us in every turn) and controlling the functions of the government are all things that can royally screw up the united states.

 

Sure, but in terms of the country and policies that affect everyday Americans, there's not much he can do. Remember, you're the one telling me the President can't act unilaterally without Congress or even the SC stepping in.

 

The guy's a terrible person and an even worse candidate, but I'm just not terrified of him royally screwing things up. I just don't think that's possible in our system.

Well we all know there are ways around the checks and balances but Congress can halt literally anything from getting done.

What is the behavior that you're (ss2k5 and bmags) concerned would become acceptable?

Sure, but in terms of the country and policies that affect everyday Americans, there's not much he can do. Remember, you're the one telling me the President can't act unilaterally without Congress or even the SC stepping in.

 

The guy's a terrible person and an even worse candidate, but I'm just not terrified of him royally screwing things up. I just don't think that's possible in our system.

 

The executive branch has considerable independent power domestically. Think about the staffing of numerous federal agencies.

 

I think his supporters need quite a bit of education on what they are getting behind. By and large the group is made up of uneducated, lower income people. Thats not exactly who are benefitting from Trump getting elected.

Throw aside your hate for him for a second. He's been very anti-NAFTA and anti-TPP through out it all. That's been the loudest part of his campaign outside of the wall. Whether anything could be done about them remains to be seen, but theoretically the uneducated and lower income people should be the ones benefitting from it.