Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[DaveP]

What would you guess the results could be? I haven't given it much thought to be honest.

Neither have I until today.
I would guess that he would concentrate on internal US social policy issues and let the world deal with its own problems.

That might result in giving China a free rein in the China sea and over Taiwan. He might also leave South Korea to fend for itself.

He may not announce such a policy, but instead give an impression that he would not intervene, pretty much like what happened in 1982 with the British in the Falklands.  A perceived withdrawal  of American support could trigger several conflicts around the globe.

I would guess that he would be very outspoken on human rights but not willing to back that up with force unless mandated by the UN.  The Korean war was well led by the US, the Bosnian war was less well led and resulted in several massacres as a result.  I have little faith in the UN to get anything done unless it has very strong support from the West.

I don't have any firm thoughts about this, it is just logic really about what happens when resistance against anything is reduced.
Truman and "eternal vigilance" come to mind, as does "good men doing nothing".

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

When I started my thread on "2016", I said IS would become the main issue, which it is starting to be.  I noticed that Obama has finally said it is his top priority ( I think he is late to the game myself). 

Saying it is his top priority while doing the wave with Castro in a baseball stadium in Cuba, seems a contradiction.

Isn't that a bit of a low blow though? Seems to me similar to complaints about Bush golfing while there's a hurricane wreaking havoc. Can't one safely assume that the POTUS is capable of delegating work according to priorities and "do more than one thing at a time"?

actually a cheap shot but I am not very happy about Cuba either.

I do not expect him to literally engage ISIL man to man, but we could be more engaged with European leaders to mount a more effective response to Paris and Brussels. It seems there were numerous gaps in their anti-terrorism procedures.

(Yes, I know he didn't literally play golf that time, but he "prioritized" other things.... though there's always "Now watch this drive.", speaking of terrorism)

President Obama has tried to frame terror attacks as a symptom of modern times that we must learn to live with. There is a difference between just containing ISIL and defeating them..

Isn't that somewhat true though? I think it's true to the extent that we can never be 100% safe from potential attacks. But I don't recall Obama even implying that a group like ISIS is something we have to live with. ISIS is a bit different than your average organization engaging in terrorism.

You can never prevent all crazy people from shooting or blowing up innocent people, but ISIL is a self-described "nation" at war with almost every other religion, nation, whatever. They just blew up a bunch of Christians to celebrate easter.

This is more than an honest disagreement between different governments. They are a rouge nation, with territory and infrastructure at self-declared war with pretty much everybody else in the world. They can be degraded and defeated a lot faster than they are now, while I note a slight turn on the ground over there.

  The reason they have been allowed to exist for this long seems (my speculation) a matter of political convenience.  Campaign promises that ignore the long term consequences of allowing this group to metastasize. 

In argentina Obama said and I need to quote this

[W]e defeat them in part by saying, you are not strong; you are weak.  We send a message to those who might be inspired by them to say, you are not going to change our values of liberty and openness and the respect of all people.

Then he criticized Cruz at that same press conference in Argentina.

I don't know what he said about Cruz, but the irony in the above is that the US government/state perpetually tries to keep secrets, the opposite of "openness", as well as push the limits of what it does with regards to spying on its population and punishing people without due process. Obama seems about as guilty of that as his predecessors.

not to pile on but reportedly there are record number of FOI requests where they failed to find the requested government documents.

When it comes to providing government records the public is asking to see, the Obama administration is having a hard time finding them. In the final figures released during Obama’s presidency, the U.S. government set a record last year for the number of times federal employees told disappointed citizens, journalists and others that despite searching they couldn’t find a single page of files requested under the Freedom of Information Act. In more than one in six cases, or 129,825 times, government searchers said they came up empty-handed, according to a new Associated Press analysis.

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-03-18/us-govt-sets-record-for-failures-to-find-files-when-asked

From what I gather, Sanders is a non-interventionist.  That is fine if you can put up with the results when others like the Russians do the job for you.

What would you guess the results could be? I haven't given it much thought to be honest.

I'd rather not speculate beyond the hypothetical, (he actually does what he says he would do). Hopefully any intelligent leader put in that position of authority will respond to the facts he is presented with at the time, responsibly.

JR

 

[DaveP]

Yes, but was it really "their" problems or rather what people perceive to be their problems? I'm not intimately familiar with the more recent UK history, but I don't think conservatives addressed issues like the unfair tax code, social services, health care, education etc. actually in favour of working people, did they? My guess surely would be they used tough-on-crime, anti-drugs, anti-foreigner, anti-freeloader etc. tactics...

I have always been a floating voter, that is to say, I voted for the party who appeared to have the best leader/policy to deal with the country's problems at the time.  From that standpoint I would say that the conservatives under Mrs Thatcher did what had to be done, but in a very uncompassionate way that resulted in a lot of social division, that exists to this day in Scotland.  The conservatives have always tried to get the country to live within its means which is a really difficult task for a country addicted to borrowing.

The Labour party has always said that it wanted "To invest in the future", which was a euphemism for borrowing money to deliver a higher standard of living that was not earned on the world stage, I think only Germany actually manages to do this (correct me if I'm wrong) at least they did until they took on the immigrant burden.  Any way, between the two parties we have heaped a mountain of debt on our children and grandchildren.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

What would you guess the results could be? I haven't given it much thought to be honest.

Neither have I until today.
I would guess that he would concentrate on internal US social policy issues and let the world deal with its own problems.

That might result in giving China a free rein in the China sea and over Taiwan. He might also leave South Korea to fend for itself.

He may not announce such a policy, but instead give an impression that he would not intervene, pretty much like what happened in 1982 with the British in the Falklands.  A perceived withdrawal  of American support could trigger several conflicts around the globe.

I would guess that he would be very outspoken on human rights but not willing to back that up with force unless mandated by the UN.  The Korean war was well led by the US, the Bosnian war was less well led and resulted in several massacres as a result.  I have little faith in the UN to get anything done unless it has very strong support from the West.

I don't have any firm thoughts about this, it is just logic really about what happens when resistance against anything is reduced.
Truman and "eternal vigilance" come to mind, as does "good men doing nothing".

DaveP

Actually, I was referring to Putin, but your reply is nevertheless interesting. Five years ago I wouldn't have worried about China, but with their recent shenanigans in their region in international waters there probably is reason for concern. I for one would prefer it if the US asserted its interests in that region at the expense of the middle east. A lot of this is obviously "for show" though.

 

[mattiasNYC]

actually a cheap shot but I am not very happy about Cuba either.

Cuba has been a stain on the US' foreign policy record for decades. There hasn't been a single good reason to maintain an embargo and treat that nation the way the US has. It's just been awful. The sooner relations can be normalized the better.

I do not expect him to literally engage ISIL man to man, but we could be more engaged with European leaders to mount a more effective response to Paris and Brussels. It seems there were numerous gaps in their anti-terrorism procedures.

From what I've read, Americans in the intelligence community don't like the way Europeans deal with things. So from an American perspective the ball's in Europe's court, so to speak. And quite frankly I don't know what else could have been done by the US.

You can never prevent all crazy people from shooting or blowing up innocent people, but ISIL is a self-described "nation" at war with almost every other religion, nation, whatever. They just blew up a bunch of Christians to celebrate easter.

This is more than an honest disagreement between different governments. They are a rouge nation, with territory and infrastructure at self-declared war with pretty much everybody else in the world. They can be degraded and defeated a lot faster than they are now, while I note a slight turn on the ground over there.

  The reason they have been allowed to exist for this long seems (my speculation) a matter of political convenience.  Campaign promises that ignore the long term consequences of allowing this group to metastasize. 

I think I agree with all of the above. I guess I just didn't see a context for what you wrote regarding Obama's "live with it". Seemed to me that such a statement surely would have referred to actual sub-national terror acts.

not to pile on but reportedly there are record number of FOI requests where they failed to find the requested government documents.

I listened to Greenberg, Snowden and Chomsky the other day, and they made some very interesting points regarding this issue. One of them was that the US government essentially went down the path of just classifying documents routinely rather than actually classify important information as top secret. And this has gone on for a long time. I think it's only natural that this just keeps increasing in volume considering that principle.

From what I gather, Sanders is a non-interventionist.  That is fine if you can put up with the results when others like the Russians do the job for you.

What would you guess the results could be? I haven't given it much thought to be honest.

I'd rather not speculate beyond the hypothetical, (he actually does what he says he would do). Hopefully any intelligent leader put in that position of authority will respond to the facts he is presented with at the time, responsibly.

JR

He's a weird one, Putin. It's sometimes hard to tell if he's playing a game for domestic voters, or for international eyes to create a particular image, or if he's actually after some tangible gains. The latter seems somewhat unlikely, as opposed to, say, China.

 

[DaveP]

He's a weird one, Putin. It's sometimes hard to tell if he's playing a game for domestic voters, or for international eyes to create a particular image, or if he's actually after some tangible gains. The latter seems somewhat unlikely, as opposed to, say, China.

I think all of those are true.  He has restored Russian pride for internal consumption, and reminded the world that Russia is still more than capable to act on the world stage.  The Russians want to be taken seriously by the West and probably want to be partners in deciding what happens.  I have noticed that they use the word "partners" a lot even when there are very real differences, they don't do things like that by accident.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

The Labour party has always said that it wanted "To invest in the future", which was a euphemism for borrowing money to deliver a higher standard of living that was not earned on the world stage, I think only Germany actually manages to do this (correct me if I'm wrong) at least they did until they took on the immigrant burden.  Any way, between the two parties we have heaped a mountain of debt on our children and grandchildren.

DaveP

Germany has a longer term plan to absorb the 1M immigrants into their workforce that is aging and incapable of keeping the export machinery running at full tilt. That plan appears to have a few kinks in that unlike typical immigrants who left their homes to improve themselves some fraction of this new crop of refugees are more interested in european style largess or entitlements.

On top of that european companies are reluctant to hire and train unskilled workers who may take that skill somewhere else, and this new bulge of immigrants only have temporary status (something like 3 years) so again companies don't want to invest in training a temporary worker who may have to leave in only a few years.

So more like a concept than a solid plan... but not a bad concept as many western populations are getting older and less productive.  Japan is dealing with this demographic bomb by building robots to do menial tasks for the aging population.

JR 

 

[JohnRoberts]

actually a cheap shot but I am not very happy about Cuba either.

Cuba has been a stain on the US' foreign policy record for decades. There hasn't been a single good reason to maintain an embargo and treat that nation the way the US has. It's just been awful. The sooner relations can be normalized the better.

There are two sides to every adversarial relationship and the rhetoric surrounding this seems to ignore a lot of history and continuing human rights abuses.  From my perspective it seems like Cuba is being thrown a life raft, after first russia ran out of funds to carry them, and more recently Venezuela got crushed by low oil prices.

If we want to open up Cuba, lets at least bargain for some human rights relief for Cuban citizens...  I see lots of quid and not so much pro quo.  I can see where Trump gets his bad deal making screed from.

I do not expect him to literally engage ISIL man to man, but we could be more engaged with European leaders to mount a more effective response to Paris and Brussels. It seems there were numerous gaps in their anti-terrorism procedures.

From what I've read, Americans in the intelligence community don't like the way Europeans deal with things. So from an American perspective the ball's in Europe's court, so to speak. And quite frankly I don't know what else could have been done by the US.

You can never prevent all crazy people from shooting or blowing up innocent people, but ISIL is a self-described "nation" at war with almost every other religion, nation, whatever. They just blew up a bunch of Christians to celebrate easter.

This is more than an honest disagreement between different governments. They are a rouge nation, with territory and infrastructure at self-declared war with pretty much everybody else in the world. They can be degraded and defeated a lot faster than they are now, while I note a slight turn on the ground over there.

  The reason they have been allowed to exist for this long seems (my speculation) a matter of political convenience.  Campaign promises that ignore the long term consequences of allowing this group to metastasize. 

I think I agree with all of the above. I guess I just didn't see a context for what you wrote regarding Obama's "live with it". Seemed to me that such a statement surely would have referred to actual sub-national terror acts.

not to pile on but reportedly there are record number of FOI requests where they failed to find the requested government documents.

I listened to Greenberg, Snowden and Chomsky the other day, and they made some very interesting points regarding this issue. One of them was that the US government essentially went down the path of just classifying documents routinely rather than actually classify important information as top secret. And this has gone on for a long time. I think it's only natural that this just keeps increasing in volume considering that principle.

From what I gather, Sanders is a non-interventionist.  That is fine if you can put up with the results when others like the Russians do the job for you.

What would you guess the results could be? I haven't given it much thought to be honest.

I'd rather not speculate beyond the hypothetical, (he actually does what he says he would do). Hopefully any intelligent leader put in that position of authority will respond to the facts he is presented with at the time, responsibly.

JR

He's a weird one, Putin. It's sometimes hard to tell if he's playing a game for domestic voters, or for international eyes to create a particular image, or if he's actually after some tangible gains. The latter seems somewhat unlikely, as opposed to, say, China.

Putin is trying to hold his oligarchy together.  The Russian people are willing to go with the flow as long as there is some flow flowing. Russia is a major energy exporter and have been economically hurt by the drop in energy prices. The other shoe will drop as the world absorbs a similar surplus in NG as it sees now for oil. Marginal world NG future prices are already dropping in anticipation of this, and Australia just shuttered one of their several LNG terminal projects because the low projected future price for NG will not cover the cost for the huge infrastructure investment. In other words energy costs will remain low for several more years to come.

Putin will take advantage of the local vacuums we leave behind, to rattle cages around his periphery, which no doubt gives Russian citizens some pride. Helping keep him in power for longer. He has not needed to worry about the US challenging him for some several years now.

JR

 

[Winetree]

This is an E-mail I received. I thought this was interesting considering
Trump wants to stop the temporary banning of Muslims coming into our country.

Ask any person, not your child between the ages of 18 and 25, if they ever heard of the Nuremburg Trials. 1 in 13 might say they have, but will not be able to tell you "what" was on trial (not who). Those same people will not be able to tell you the name of the Vice President. 84% of those who receive this will not read it completely, or at all. 10% will but will also chose not to forward it. The remaining 6% will forward it.
 
    The war started in the 7th century and lasted through the 17th century. I would contend it never stopped but historically the facts below are correct.

    This is why I choke when I hear someone say we will defeat or
contain these Islamic terrorists in a few years or even 30 years as recently stated by Leon Panetta.

    If the latest batch of murders, beheadings, and killing of innocent Christians has shocked you, maybe you should read this compilation of historical facts about the hatred of Muslims.

    WE, THE STUPID
 
    This is factually (and historically) correct - and verifiable:

    In 732 A.D. the Muslim Army, which was moving on Paris, was defeated and turned back at Tours, France, by Charles Martell.

    In 1571 A.D. the Muslim Army/Navy was defeated by the Italians and Austrians as they tried to cross the Mediterranean to attack southern Europe in the Battle of Lepanto.

    In 1683 A.D. the Turkish Muslim Army, attacking Eastern Europe, was finally defeated in the Battle of Vienna by German and Polish Christian Armies.
 
    This has been going on for 1,400 years and half of the
politicians don't even know it.
 
    If these battles had not been won, we might be speaking Arabic and Christianity could be non-existent; Judaism certainly would not exist.
 
    Reflecting: A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine that America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves. Pause a moment and reflect back.
 
    These events are actual events from history. They really happened!

Do you remember?

    47 years since 1968 and this just keeps going on and on.

 
    1. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male.

    2. In 1972, at the Munich Olympics, Israeli athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim males.

    3. In 1972, a Pan Am 747 was hijacked and eventually diverted to Cairo where a fuse was lit on final approach. Shortly after landing it was blown up by Muslim males.

    4. In 1973, a Pan Am 707 was destroyed in Rome, with 33 people killed, when it was attacked with grenades by Muslim males.

    5. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim males.

    6. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim males.

    7. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim males.

    8. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70-year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim males.

    9. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim males.

    10. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim males.

    11. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim males.

    12. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim males.

    13. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as
missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim males.

    14. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim males.

    15. In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and beheaded by - you guessed it - a Muslim male. (Plus two other American journalists who were just recently beheaded).

    16. In 2013, the Boston Marathon Bombing resulted in 4 Innocent people, (including a child) being killed and 264 people injured by Muslim males.
 
    No Obama, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people.
 
    So, ask yourself "Just how stupid are we???"
 
    Absolutely No Profiling! They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the Obama's security detail, 85-year-old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, BUT........leave Muslim Males alone lest we be guilty of profiling.

    Ask yourself, "Just how stupid are we?" Have the American people completely lost their minds or just their Power of Reason???
 
    Let 's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria
Alred's and other stupid attorneys, along with Federal Justices, that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves -- if they have any such sense.
 
    As the writer of the award winning story " Forrest Gump " so aptly put it, "Stupid Is As Stupid Does."

    Each opportunity that you have to send this to a friend or media outlet... Do It! OR JUST SIT BACK, KEEP GRIPING, AND DO NOTHING. As OBAMA SAID IN HIS BOOK NOTHING SOUNDS SO BEAUTIFUL AS THE MUSLIM CALL TO EVENING PRAYERS
FROM THE TOWER.
 
   

 

[JohnRoberts]

That is compelling spam for the low information crowd.

Yes there are many historical facts, but this is all conflated together as a war between cultures not ISIL's minority of sunni jihadis running amok. ISIL seems very comfortable killing other muslims, as well as jews, and christians, and whoever. Yes, the seed for this conflict has been around for centuries, but like a weed it can be cultivated out, and managed. 

Keep focus, ISIL isn't exactly hiding, lets splat them where they live, then we can address any remaining cultural issues.

I think an army including mostly muslims would be very effective at killing ISIL (like Iraq's army, or Syria's recently restored forces). The Kurds, well they're just good fighters.

Who doesn't want to see ISIL erased, other than ISIL?

JR

 

[kambo]

I think an army including mostly muslims would be very effective at killing ISIL (like Iraq's army, or Syria's recently restored forces). The Kurds, well they're just good fighters.

JR

no, it wont... its already proven that doesnt work as effective as the commanders hoped...
there is a religious tie, and ISIL soldiers are local muslim kids! whole region is muslim....

Who doesn't want to see ISIL erased, other than ISIL?

JR

100% true...

edit: actually that is 90% true... didnt wanna go deep, but, some local authorities needs ISIL for some on going security... but in general, when all regional problems solved, yes 100%

 

[kambo]

This is an E-mail I received. I thought this was interesting considering
Trump wants to stop the temporary banning of Muslims coming into our country.

 

good for him  8)

if i start listing all the killing made by the christians in history, this forum would be locked from over information!

edit: everybody needs to be more objective!

 

[DaveP]

I don't really understand the need for riots in California and smashing police cars over a Trump rally?

I would have thought it was the state he was least likely to win in November.

From what I saw, it was just a small element of trouble makers while the rest looked on in approval?

Trump supporters don't disrupt Sanders rallies, so it does not look good for free speech, when all you have to do is not vote for the guy.

DaveP

 

[lassoharp]

I don't really understand the need for riots in California and smashing police cars over a Trump rally?

I know.  It makes no sense.  Hundreds of people who are afraid of bad things that have happened only in their imaginations and projections take to the streets in the name of preventing said things and  participate in creating real bad things themselves.  That could be called stupid.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Ironic perhaps but the protests may help mobilize some people in CA to consider Trump.

I am not a fan of conspiracy but it seems there may be some puppet master stirring the pot.

I will be glad when this is over, but doubt I will happy with the outcome, no matter what it is (again).

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

I don't really understand the need for riots in California and smashing police cars over a Trump rally?

I know.  It makes no sense.  Hundreds of people who are afraid of bad things that have happened only in their imaginations and projections take to the streets in the name of preventing said things and  participate in creating real bad things themselves.  That could be called stupid.

That could have been said of any number of horrific "things" that ended up happening, before they happened. It's not a logical argument and is entirely unconvincing. Hindsight is 20-20, the question is whether or not we've learned from it. If we have, we should arguably protest "things" that may recur and are bad. So really the discussion shouldn't be what you are making it, but whether or not the fears at the core of the protests are justified.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Ironic perhaps but the protests may help mobilize some people in CA to consider Trump.

I am not a fan of conspiracy but it seems there may be some puppet master stirring the pot.

I will be glad when this is over, but doubt I will happy with the outcome, no matter what it is (again).

JR

Agreed.

 

[lassoharp]

That could have been said of any number of horrific "things" that ended up happening, before they happened. It's not a logical argument and is entirely unconvincing. Hindsight is 20-20, the question is whether or not we've learned from it. If we have, we should arguably protest "things" that may recur and are bad. So really the discussion shouldn't be what you are making it, but whether or not the fears at the core of the protests are justified.

I am talking  about the situation with Trump rally protesters, and specifically about the behavior of certain people at the rally that Dave referred to.  You seem to be taking it as a general affront to protest, which it is not.  I doubt that you believe that starting fights and destroying public property constitutes peaceful protest.  So where does that leave the minds of those who engage in such actions, allegedly in the name of constructive protest?  I see it largely as I described it in the comment, and should probably throw in the phenomenon of like attracting like.  Trump puts out a lot of anger, and angry people - who arguably are less concerned with the rights of others in which they claim to be  protesting for - are attracted to that.   

Hindsight is 20-20, the question is whether or not we've learned from it. If we have, we should arguably protest "things" that may recur and are bad.

We should have learned a lot from the 60's, and if we care to go back farther, essentially the entire history of American labor.  The core of the protests in the 60s were over civil rights and the Vietnam War and people were reacting to "bad things" that were already happening.  And yes, I understand the concern and rationale of arguing we should be ever vigilant to preventing similar bad things from happening in the future, and Trump has obviously become the boogey man for many.  But I think you have already given a good answer here . . . . .

Hindsight is 20-20

 

. . . . which is another way of saying that seeing into the future with any reliable certainty is much much less than that.  We don't know what will happen during a potential Trump presidency, so all we are left to rationally deal with are the man's words . . . . . Which have already been discussed endlessly in this thread.  Interpretations can go any number of ways, and personally I feel the guy is more hot air - lots of big talk and none of the walk - likely because he doesn't really intend to do the outrageous things he spews.  I see someone who is caught up in the forces of big time politics and has latched on to what is easiest for him to relate to and employ - "Just tell your people what they want to hear and forget the rest because they won't vote for you anyway"  Add to that - "And it won't matter once you get elected because no president ever does what they say and people will just forget about it"  That is what I get from the man.  I smell a lot of BS in his tirades but I do agree we should express our protest against their implications.  What I'm not too keen on is letting his words (of quite questionable validity) run wild in our imaginations and taking to the streets in clearly dangerous situations over what we fear "might be".  The 60s and thousands of labor protests from the turn of the century have taught us that we have a clear stalemate to deal with, which I don't feel we have.  Namely that public protest ends up being a standoff with law enforcement officers who are arguably in place to protect the rights of those that are being protested just as much as they are there to protect the rights of the non participating public, who also pays there salaries.  My point being the police will always be there, and when the emotional level is so high and raw as it has been with the Trump protests, you have a dangerous situation where unconscious emotional drives are more likely to dominate the action.  This is what I was referring to in my original comment.  Calling them "stupid" was maybe a little absolutist but I hope you understand the point in the context of the current situation. 

So really the discussion shouldn't be what you are making it, but whether or not the fears at the core of the protests are justified.

When they result in destruction and violence I would have to say not.  Nothing has actually happened - these uproars have all been over his words . . . . .  Whether or not the fears are justifiable based on talk that is largely in the context of political rhetoric would seem to be a lost point when people are actually letting these fears dictate their actions in destructive ways.  I do see your point but there is the matter of the reality how people actually behave. 

we should arguably protest "things" that may recur and are bad

Key distinction - "May recur" is not the same as "is happening"  60s protesters were taking to the streets over things that were already happening - same with the current Wall St protests - same with the current backlash at NCs HB2 bill.  Had Gov McCrory been the loud mouthed rabble rouser that Trump is we could have probably seen exactly how he felt on the matter before the bill was passed.  Justifiable concern - yes.  Creating violent protests beforehand over his words - I'd say no. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

The police learned from the riots at the Chicago democratic convention back in the 60's. Free speech does not give anyone the right to disrupt peaceful assembly and free speech by others.

Protesters need to register and assemble in dedicated areas separate from the groups they want to disrupt. Breaking this law is just like breaking any other law and should not be tolerated.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

I am talking  about the situation with Trump rally protesters, and specifically about the behavior of certain people at the rally that Dave referred to.  You seem to be taking it as a general affront to protest, which it is not.  I doubt that you believe that starting fights and destroying public property constitutes peaceful protest.

I know you weren't talking about protesting in general, pretty much every person will be in favor of protesting things he/she disagrees with, and the bigger the disagreement the more tolerant they are of the means of protest as well. What I was referring to was that some things warrant protesting in advance. And the means are then really a different issue.

But let's just pick an obious example; let's say this is the 2030's, we're in Germany and someone starts yapping about ethnically homogenous societies. So we have a mirror image of what happened about a century ago. At what point do we protest? To what degree and using what means?

Trump puts out a lot of anger, and angry people - who arguably are less concerned with the rights of others in which they claim to be  protesting for - are attracted to that.   

I don't think that's fair. I think many that engage in "mass violence" in general (and I really mean in general now) are there for the violence itself, regardless of the event, be it political protests, counter-protests, or sports, or whatever. And I think some are there not because of the anger Trump puts out but out of a legitimate concern. And I also think that the comment rights is arguably worth discussing, because it involves whose rights it is and specifically what rights they are. I'm not sure it's clear and simple an answer.

Hindsight is 20-20

 

. . . . which is another way of saying that seeing into the future with any reliable certainty is much much less than that.  We don't know what will happen during a potential Trump presidency, so all we are left to rationally deal with are the man's words . . . . . Which have already been discussed endlessly in this thread.  Interpretations can go any number of ways, and personally I feel the guy is more hot air - lots of big talk and none of the walk - likely because he doesn't really intend to do the outrageous things he spews.  I see someone who is caught up in the forces of big time politics and has latched on to what is easiest for him to relate to and employ - "Just tell your people what they want to hear and forget the rest because they won't vote for you anyway"  Add to that - "And it won't matter once you get elected because no president ever does what they say and people will just forget about it"  That is what I get from the man.  I smell a lot of BS in his tirades but I do agree we should express our protest against their implications.  What I'm not too keen on is letting his words (of quite questionable validity) run wild in our imaginations and taking to the streets in clearly dangerous situations over what we fear "might be".

Yes, I certainly see your point, and if I was a betting man I'd bet that about half of what he says is BS to get elected. But the problem is that he did say it, and once he's in power we just don't know what would happen. There are likely a lot of Americans who are fine with that because they don't see themselves as suffering from these "things" should they occur. That's always the case. Defenders of the Patriot Act and other increased means of government surveillance of residents was supported by many because "unless you have something to hide". In other words "Like I care, I wouldn't be the one targeted." Pure ego-centrism, or a lack of imagination, or intellectual capacity.

So, again, I understand the point of "it hasn't happened yet", but the problem is that some things just may happen and people will let it slide, and then it'll get progressively worse, and "nobody" will notice except for the ones protesting, but they're always troublemakers. Imagine for a second if everything Trump had said about Muslims and/or Mexicans had been said about the Jewish. Now imagine if the reaction had been the same on the streets. What would the reaction to those protests have been? In my opinion I think it would have been far more forgiving, for lack of a better word.

And so I suppose I'm saying that I agree that we have laws and rights and they should be obeyed and respected until they shouldn't, and there needs to be a discussion about how we determine when they shouldn't. I for one see a problem with waiting when it comes to certain issues because if those issues involve enacting legislation then it can have severe ripple effects that make protesting a far worse crime, from the perspective of the state, and thus far more difficult to do.

we should arguably protest "things" that may recur and are bad

Key distinction - "May recur" is not the same as "is happening" 

I know that. You know I know that. When I wrote "arguably" I meant that we should literally argue the merits of protests. The very fact that something isn't already happening does NOT invalidate protest. That's like saying that if a politician argued for segregated bathrooms and buses and drinking fountains we shouldn't take to the streets because it hasn't happened yet. Some things are just rotten, and we can get to that realization through discussion and investigation if we aren't already aware of it. And once we are, they warrant protest... in advance...

So again, the discussion should probably be specifically over what he said and what potential ramifications any resulting policies may have, before discussing the protests. Although, I admit, we have discussed a lot of what he's said (I think).

The one other thing I'd mention though is that sometimes things aren't as clear as they seem. I think it's absolutely fair to say that a candidate that's a legitimate frontrunner for one of only two parties, for two candidates to the presidency of the most powerful country on earth, has a huge impact on society as he's running his campaign. So while Trump may never actually enact policies that are as bad as some protesters fear he might actually create a significantly worse society due to spreading the hate he spreads. If this had been a "nobody" in the middle of America somewhere, with a far more pronounced hateful agenda, but with only say 10,000 followers "locally", then it's a lesser issue. When the person is on national TV all the time, and all over the internet, considered to be a legitimate candidate to be taken seriously, then it's different. And I do find protests to be totally valid to have in advance simply due to the damage he does spouting hatred, and I'm far less concerned over the limited incidents and damage due to violence than I am due to what is likely to happen should he gain power, which again can be "confined" to changing society itself rather than the state.

He's legitimizing some very bad sentiments, and we're all worse off for it.