Man Arrested at Trump Rally Says He Was Trying to Kill Him

[Melkandor]

A nobel peace prize is just the elite's way of saying "welcome to the club"

Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for literally not being Bush. But hey, that's all fine and dandy, right?

- - - Updated - - -

I did back it up in a later post, just to rub it in.

Here's some more information into his actions:

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/histor...-fall-timeline

Your links are shit. They have no bearing on what we were talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Will be interesting to see what happens to this guy, premeditated murder against a political figure. Would be interesting to see if a Lee Harvey Oswald situation goes down where a Trump supporter guns him down.

He was an illegal immigrant here on an overstayed visa. Since that is the case, Obama's DoJ will simply let him go to either Britain, or a nice cozy cell for a few months to a year.

[PosPosPos]

He was an illegal immigrant here on an overstayed visa. Since that is the case, Obama's DoJ will simply let him go to either Britain, or a nice cozy cell for a few months to a year.

Yeah well, assuming that the cells in US are known for their humane treatment of prisoners.

[zenkai]

And he's saying "back in his day they used to take them out on stretchers" and other things, that are very obviously advocating violence. There's a reason you hear literally no other candidate saying anything even remotely like this. Because it's wildly unpresidential, and given how high emotions run at rallies (from Trump and others) irresponsible as all hell.

Again he is talking about self defense when people attack you. Not saying that it's always ok with stopping violence with violence but it's a far cry like you make it out to be that he is telling people to go out and commit violence

What Trump protesters are or aren't doing is irrelevant to his comments. A presidential candidate should never be advocating for violence at their rallies.

It is very relevant, you're bias towards just wants to ignore that

Not in the slightest, and I've said so. I think they're awful for doing so and hope they dealt with through our legal system appropriately.

Good, we agree on something.

I think it's better to leave the authorities to handle it, as there are absolutely plenty of law enforcement officials (including secret service) in place at these events.

I do too, at the same time if I saw someone attacking someone, even Hillary, who I loath, (I don't have much love for Trump either) I would stop them.

And you'd be a terrible presidential candidate, then. Because if someone throws a tomato at you (for example), that doesn't give you any license or legal protection should you decide to kick their ass.

Actually it does. Someone attacked me unprovoked once, I kicked their ass, I didn't go to jail.

[Edge-]

Again he is talking about self defense when people attack you. Not saying that it's always ok with stopping violence with violence but it's a far cry like you make it out to be that he is telling people to go out and commit violence

No he's not, and he knows it. It's the same thing he does when he says stuff like, "I would never call Meagan Kelly a bimbo. I would never, I'm not that rude." and he's phrasing his comment that way specifically to call Meagan Kelly a bimbo while being able to say, "But see, I said I'd never do it!".

Come on, man.

It is very relevant, you're bias towards just wants to ignore that

How so?

Good, we agree on something.

We probably agree on just as much as we disagree on.

I do too, at the same time if I saw someone attacking someone, even Hillary, who I loath, (I don't have much love for Trump either) I would stop them.

If I was in a position to restrain them, sure. But then let authorities handle it. But punching them, kicking their ass, or sending them out on a stretcher? Come on, man.

Actually it does. Someone attacked me unprovoked once, I kicked their ass, I didn't go to jail.

Here's teh definition of self defense

the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault, battery or homicide. The force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to continue the attack or use excessive force. Examples: an unarmed man punches Allen Alibi, who hits the attacker with a baseball bat. That is legitimate self-defense, but Alibi cannot chase after the attacker and shoot him or beat him senseless. If the attacker has a gun or a butcher knife and is verbally threatening, Alibi is probably warranted in shooting him. Basically, appropriate self-defense is judged on all the circumstances. Reasonable force can also be used to protect property from theft or destruction. Self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property, unless personal danger is also involved, as is the case in most burglaries, muggings or vandalism.

So if someone threw a tomato at you and only that, you would absolutely not be within your legal rights to kick their ass. If someone attacked you and sustained that attack, you would have every legal right to defend yourself. Different situations.

[PosPosPos]

Actually it does. Someone attacked me unprovoked once, I kicked their ass, I didn't go to jail.

You are confusing between self-defense and doling out retribution.

Then again, I am not surprised since vengeance, and not actual justice, is one of the core tenets of conservatism in the US.

More prison-related penalties for minor crime and advocating capital punishments for anything remotely serious in nature is just about what sums up the whole affair with your lot. Oh, and always threatening to gun people down if they stepped so much as one breath into your safe space.

[zenkai]

You are confusing between self-defense and doling out retribution.

Then again, I am not surprised since vengeance, and not actual justice, is one of the core tenets of conservatism in the US.

More prison-related penalties for minor crime and advocating capital punishments for anything remotely serious in nature is just about what sums up the whole affair with your lot. Oh, and always threatening to gun people down if they stepped so much as one breath into your safe space.

You are not following the conversation, proof is in the posting

[Dextroden]

Someone doesn't understand how probability works...

If I have 2 lottery tickets and you have one, I have 100% more chances than you at "winning". Chances are that neither of us are going to "win", so obviously nothing is guaranteed.

Trump says things that rile up millions and she pissed off a handful of conservative radicals. Statistically, Trumps preaching of intolerance and stupidity has reached far more ears than her "more of the same" did. That is a fact.

I have no idea why you're so hung up on Cox, I know the Trump fan-club thinks Trump is the most liked man on the planet, but realistically that just isn't so. She was a woman talking about Britain staying in the EU and he's a xenophobic, egotistical, self-serving megalomaniac.

Someone has already tried to kill him and he's been in the spotlight only about a year. It's clearly not guaranteed, but it certainly seems if there was a safe list to bet on for attempts Trump would be at the top of that list at the moment.

Call the attempt on him a fluke if you want, but I'm pretty sure they're given Secret Service detail as a candidate for a reason, and it isn't over a "non-zero chance".

You keep, alluding that I want him dead, which is untrue. I just don't want to see an orange bag of trash take office, he can go party with Epstein some more, like he used to, for all I care....

They both still had attempts on their life. So, she must be a horrible person using the logic that people that run their mouths invite attacks like this. I don't know Cox, but you must have done something awful to be killed.

I'm no fan of Trump. I'm just greatly enjoying the side of politics that visions itself as the "good" justifying political violence against politicians they don't like and their supporters.

[Edge-]

You are not following the conversation, proof is in the posting

No, he's following it. You're still mistaking between Trump advocating for violence against protesters (which would not be self defense, even if they threw a tomato at him) and lawful self defense against a physical attack.

[IntellectuallyChallenged]

Killing children is even more wrong than killing adults.

[zenkai]

No he's not, and he knows it. It's the same thing he does when he says stuff like, "I would never call Meagan Kelly a bimbo. I would never, I'm not that rude." and he's phrasing his comment that way specifically to call Meagan Kelly a bimbo while being able to say, "But see, I said I'd never do it!".

Come on, man.

Your initial claim was he is inciting violence and there are tons of video proof. I linked the video proof and asked where is he saying to go out and attack protesters unprovoked. Again I am not saying I 100% agree with everything he is saying in all the video evidence he posted but nowhere do I see him saying go out and commit violence, he basically said attack someone who is attacking me. That is way different than saying go to Democrat rallies and commit violence.

If I was in a position to restrain them, sure. But then let authorities handle it. But punching them, kicking their ass, or sending them out on a stretcher? Come on, man.

I agree, I didn't say it was ok to beat the shit out of someone throwing a tomato at Trump, I said I would stop them. I don't agree with trump saying to attack them if they do.

Here's teh definition of self defense



So if someone threw a tomato at you and only that, you would absolutely not be within your legal rights to kick their ass. If someone attacked you and sustained that attack, you would have every legal right to defend yourself. Different situations.

Let's test it out, I'll throw tomatoes at you and you just sit there and take it.


My whole point, and please show me were I am wrong, is that you basically are saying Trump is telling his supporters to go out and attack people. The couple of times I saw him say to attack someone (and again I am not agreeing with him for saying it) it was in self defense situations. I have yet seen a video of Trump saying to go to Democrat rally and commit violence. But that is what many people are insinuating or saying out right

I don't care about peoples biased opinions I only care about the Truth

- - - Updated - - -

No, he's following it. You're still mistaking between Trump advocating for violence against protesters (which would not be self defense, even if they threw a tomato at him) and lawful self defense against a physical attack.

How many times do I have to say it, I don't agree with what he said, but its a huge difference between saying

"Hey if someone throws a tomato at me, kick their ass" vs "hey go to Hillary's campaigns and lets beat up people at the rally"


As I see it, looks like Trump protesters are the ones that START the violence most of the time

[Edge-]

Your initial claim was he is inciting violence and there are tons of video proof. I linked the video proof and asked where is he saying to go out and attack protesters unprovoked. Again I am not saying I 100% agree with everything he is saying in all the video evidence he posted but nowhere do I see him saying go out and commit violence, he basically said attack someone who is attacking me. That is way different than saying go to Democrat rallies and commit violence.

He's advocating that attendee's punch protesters at the rallies in the face "if they're about to throw tomato's, making comments that protesters used to be "sent out on stretchers" in his day etc.

He's doing what he normally does, dance around explicitly saying what he means but get across the very message. In this case it's keeping his crowd of fans rowdy and angry, as he thrives by exploiting peoples anger.

I agree, I didn't say it was ok to beat the shit out of someone throwing a tomato at Trump, I said I would stop them. I don't agree with trump saying to attack them if they do.

Horray, another point of common ground : D

Let's test it out, I'll throw tomatoes at you and you just sit there and take it.

If I had a secret service detail and a room full of law enforcement officers who would go after the you while you throw tomatoes at me, sure. I'm all for that.

My whole point, and please show me were I am wrong, is that you basically are saying Trump is telling his supporters to go out and attack people. The couple of times I saw him say to attack someone (and again I am not agreeing with him for saying it) it was in self defense situations. I have yet seen a video of Trump saying to go to Democrat rally and commit violence. But that is what many people are insinuating or saying out right

I mean, you've seen the videos, I'm not sure what else there is to say that might convince you. Kinda feels like the whole, "Trump hasn't said anything racist!" *links to list of racist things Trump has said* "Those things aren't racist!" situation.

How many times do I have to say it, I don't agree with what he said, but its a huge difference between saying

"Hey if someone throws a tomato at me, kick their ass" vs "hey go to Hillary's campaigns and lets beat up people at the rally"

Nobody is saying he was telling his supporters to attack people at a Hillary rally. The comment has always been that he's advocated for violence against protesters interrupts his rallies, which is exactly what's in the NYT video you linked. And a presidential candidate should never advocate or even hint at advocating for violence against protesters. Ever.

As I see it, looks like Trump protesters are the ones that START the violence most of the time

Nowadays, yeah. But back when these comments were being made was when there were the issues like the old guy suckerpunching the protester peacefully leaving the rally or the Trump security guy throwing a member of the press to the ground for no reason.

[purebalance]

Ugh, clearly you're already aware of everything he's said, which most people believe to be bigoted. Your opinion is that those things aren't bigoted and of course your opinion isn't going to change just because someone reminds you of everything you already know about Trump.

The only thing that will change your opinion is if you get a TBI that suddenly ups your IQ by 25 points. Hey, rarer things could happen!

Being against illegal immigration: Not bigoted
Saying a judge might have a problem with him because of the boycotts Mexico has had against him: Not bigoted
Saying that we should stop Muslim immigration until ISIS is under control: Not bigoted


Thinking things are bigoted just because you don't agree: Definitely bigoted

[Edge-]

Saying a judge might have a problem with him because of the boycotts Mexico has had against him: Not bigoted

It is when his entire justification for saying the judge has a problem with him is because the judge is of Mexican decent. Ignoring the fact that he was born and raised in the US, ignoring the fact that the judge has dealt with Mexican cartels, and a host of other comments Trump made.

When even the bloody GOP leadership is calling his comments racist, I think you have to finally admit that yes, he says racist shit.

Saying that we should stop Muslim immigration until ISIS is under control: Not bigoted

Actually, it is. You're lumping over a billion people together with a very, very small minority of folks. I mean, when Trump went after the Muslim community for "hiding" folks like the Orlando shooter and "not doing their part", even the bloody FBI came out and called him on his bullshit. The FBI called Trump out.

Thinking things are bigoted just because you don't agree: Definitely bigoted

Calling people who make bigoted comments bigots doesn't make you a bigot (the whole "YOU ARE INTOLERANT FOR BEING INTOLERANT OF MY INTOLERANCE!" nonsense). If it upsets you that something you agree with happens to be, in fact, a bigoted opinion, then that's kinda tough cookies.

[Pangean]

Saying a judge might have a problem with him because of the boycotts Mexico has had against him: Not bigoted

Mexico does not have boycotts going against Trump that I am aware of. Could you post cites for that please.

Also Trump said that the judge is actually biased and hates him. Which is not saying "might have a problem".

"I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump -- a hater. He's a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel. And he is not doing the right thing,"

""We're in front of a very hostile judge," Trump went on. "The judge was appointed by Barack Obama, federal judge. Frankly, he should recuse himself because he's given us ruling after ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative.""

Now the problem is for Trump he claimed the judge was biased specifically because of his Mexican heritage. That's bigotry. Assigning beliefs to the person because of their heritage.

Definitely bigoted and by some peoples definition racist.

[PosPosPos]

You are not following the conversation, proof is in the posting

I did follow the conversation, you are the one thinking that someone tossing you a rotten tomato that you arguably deserve, merits a vengeful beatdown from your part.

[Atleastalittle]

Crazy people will do crazy things.

[Rudkobing]

If only he got the job done.