The left does not hold any sort of moral high ground.

[Valystria]

Trump himself is the one who's come closest to advocating violence against opponents.

And yet he hasn't. There goes the validity of your assertion.

It's great how you can't say why or how Trump is bad. You're just asserting it's entirely justified for leftists to attack Trump on the grounds that they believe Trump "lacks virtue" and is "illiberal". It's this rampantly widespread attitude that "lacks virtue" and is "illiberal".

They have the moral high ground because Trump has no virtue.

I believe it's actually called 'stoopoing to his level.'

It's not Trump supporters showing up to violently crash Sanders and Hillary rallies or run Trump supporters off the streets.

[Caninope]

The defense of the right to freedom of assembly is not a justification for battery under Florida law. There is no such defense under Florida Statue 748.03. As noted here, possible defenses include: self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, and mutual combat. None are particularly apt in this case.

Several of the others do have a defense of others rationale, as the link I posted above shows.

Also the edit:

It's also qualitatively different, and you know it as well as I do. The intent to injure is lacking, and were these incidents judged by an impartial judge, the ones with intent and premeditated planning to assault, who actively seeks out the victims, would be deemed worse.

The sides aren't equivalent, even if you don't accept the Trump supporters legal arguments for why what they do isn't assault.

The Trump supporters also use a minimal amount of force in these incidents.

I responded to the edit.

And once again, the minimal amount of force would be no force at all.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

It's not Trump supporters showing up to violently crash Sanders and Hillary rallies or run Trump supporters off the streets.

No, I'm saying you can't claim a moral highground by responding to encouraging violence by actually committing violence.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Someones dangerously close to getting their illuninati membership revoked, and a visit from black helicopters.

I have seen the threads of fate and the hand that pulls.

The hand tells me to tell you to buy more of Ron Paul's gold.

[Ostroeuropa]

Several of the others do have a defense of others rationale, as the link I posted above shows.

Also the edit:


The Trump supporters also use a minimal amount of force in these incidents.

I responded to the edit.

And once again, the minimal amount of force would be no force at all.

So you've essentially conceded that the actions aren't equivalent and are arguing instead that Trump supporters actions technically constitute assault.

[Valystria]

It's not Trump supporters showing up to violently crash Sanders and Hillary rallies or run Trump supporters off the streets.

No, I'm saying you can't claim a moral highground by responding to encouraging violence by actually committing violence.

That would be applicable if Trump had encouraged violence... in this case the leftist opposition against Trump uses a mythical fabrication to justify violence.

[Great Feng]

Trump himself is the one who's come closest to advocating violence against opponents.

1: And yet he hasn't. There goes the validity of your assertion.

It's great how you can't say why or how Trump is bad. You're just asserting it's entirely justified for leftists to attack Trump on the grounds that they believe Trump "lacks virtue" and is "illiberal". It's this rampantly widespread attitude that "lacks virtue" and is "illiberal".

I believe it's actually called 'stoopoing to his level.'

2: It's not Trump supporters showing up to violently crash Sanders and Hillary rallies or run Trump supporters off the streets.

1: Sources?
2: That's not necessarily due to a "rabid left", though that does contribute. That's because many believe Trump is Fascist and/or will cause WW3, and they're willing to be violent and undemocratic to stop it and save their precious "democracy". They may be wrong, but they're defending what they believe is their country. Granted I still disapprove of it, but I at least understand the reasons behind them, and the reasoning is sound(Preventing a guy that'll cause WW3 from gaining power by shutting him down), though they shouldn't do it anyway out of moral decency and you don't know for sure that he'll cause WW3 or America's collapse.

[Caninope]

I responded to the edit.

And once again, the minimal amount of force would be no force at all.

So you've essentially conceded that the actions aren't equivalent and are arguing instead that Trump supporters actions technically constitute assault.

No, I still hold the line that it is definitely misdemeanor battery and possibly assault.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

No, I'm saying you can't claim a moral highground by responding to encouraging violence by actually committing violence.

That would be applicable if Trump had encouraged violence... in this case the leftist opposition against Trump uses a mythical fabrication to justify violence.

I mean, he it is factual that he said he'd defend someone in court for someone assaulting someone who might throw rotten tomatoes at him or something.

So there's that.

You and I understand that he was joking/verbally shitposting but the media has a standing rule that everything a public figure says is to be taken literally, and joe everyman simply isn't wise enough to know the difference.

[Ostroeuropa]

So you've essentially conceded that the actions aren't equivalent and are arguing instead that Trump supporters actions technically constitute assault.

No, I still hold the line that it is definitely misdemeanor battery and possibly assault.

Okay, I can see how someone could argue that.

[Ostroeuropa]

That would be applicable if Trump had encouraged violence... in this case the leftist opposition against Trump uses a mythical fabrication to justify violence.

I mean, he it is factual that he said he'd defend someone in court for someone assaulting someone who might throw rotten tomatoes at him or something.

So there's that.

You and I understand that he was joking/verbally shitposting but the media has a standing rule that everything a public figure says is to be taken literally, and joe everyman simply isn't wise enough to know the difference.

Offering to pay someones legal defenses is not an incitement to violence.

[The Black Forrest]

Trump himself is the one who's come closest to advocating violence against opponents.

And yet he hasn't. There goes the validity of your assertion.

Eh? Actually he has. Simply offering to pay anothers legal bills for assault is pretty much advocating it.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/1000000 ... lence.html

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I mean, he it is factual that he said he'd defend someone in court for someone assaulting someone who might throw rotten tomatoes at him or something.

So there's that.

You and I understand that he was joking/verbally shitposting but the media has a standing rule that everything a public figure says is to be taken literally, and joe everyman simply isn't wise enough to know the difference.

Offering to pay someones legal defenses is not an incitement to violence.

But it can easily be interpreted as a blank check.

e: for mayhem, not a literal blank check.

[The Black Forrest]

I mean, he it is factual that he said he'd defend someone in court for someone assaulting someone who might throw rotten tomatoes at him or something.

So there's that.

You and I understand that he was joking/verbally shitposting but the media has a standing rule that everything a public figure says is to be taken literally, and joe everyman simply isn't wise enough to know the difference.

Offering to pay someones legal defenses is not an incitement to violence.

Actually it is.

[Moschetia]

They have the moral high ground because Trump has no virtue.

I believe it's actually called 'stoopoing to his level.'

Demonizing Trump isn't stooping to his level because he's an illiberal demagogue. Supporting violence against Trump and his friends is stooping to his level, but the entire left has not endorsed that, which is why your argument doesn't hold water.

[Valystria]

1: And yet he hasn't. There goes the validity of your assertion.

It's great how you can't say why or how Trump is bad. You're just asserting it's entirely justified for leftists to attack Trump on the grounds that they believe Trump "lacks virtue" and is "illiberal". It's this rampantly widespread attitude that "lacks virtue" and is "illiberal".


2: It's not Trump supporters showing up to violently crash Sanders and Hillary rallies or run Trump supporters off the streets.

1: Sources?
2: That's not necessarily due to a "rabid left", though that does contribute. That's because many believe Trump is Fascist and/or will cause WW3, and they're willing to be violent and undemocratic to stop it and save their precious "democracy". They may be wrong, but they're defending what they believe is their country. Granted I still disapprove of it, but I at least understand the reasons behind them, and the reasoning is sound(Preventing a guy that'll cause WW3 from gaining power by shutting him down), though they shouldn't do it anyway out of moral decency and you don't know for sure that he'll cause WW3 or America's collapse.

You want a source that Trump hasn't come close to encouraging violence? Do you know what the burden of proof is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi (shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat)) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

You're promoting the assertion that Trump has come close to encouraging violence. Instead of providing evidence for that assertion, you're demanding evidence be provided that Trump hasn't come close to encouraging violence. You want a lack of evidence demonstrating the lack of Trump's incitements to violence to be presented as evidence against your lack of evidence?

The burden of proof is on you. Demonstrate Trump has come close to inciting violence instead of demanding everyone else to prove Trump hasn't done that. That is not how the burden of proof functions.

---

That would be applicable if Trump had encouraged violence... in this case the leftist opposition against Trump uses a mythical fabrication to justify violence.

I mean, he it is factual that he said he'd defend someone in court for someone assaulting someone who might throw rotten tomatoes at him or something.

So there's that.

You and I understand that he was joking/verbally shitposting but the media has a standing rule that everything a public figure says is to be taken literally, and joe everyman simply isn't wise enough to know the difference.

This is the incident you are referring to.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/272622-sanders-trump-should-take-responsibility-for-violence-at-rallies

Trump's events are frequently interrupted by protesters; at one event, Trump told the crowd to "knock the crap out of" protesters allegedly planning to throw tomatoes, adding "I'll pay the legal fees."

Note that it was not directed at a mere political opponent. It is directed towards violent protesters who were disrupting a Trump event by throwing projectiles at event participants. Trump supporters have a right to defend their rallies. Defending their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is entirely acceptable and appropriate.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I believe it's actually called 'stoopoing to his level.'

Demonizing Trump isn't stooping to his level because he's an illiberal demagogue. Supporting violence against Trump and his friends is stooping to his level, but the entire left has not endorsed that, which is why your argument doesn't hold water.

You sure like those buzzwords don't you?

[Galloism]

You know, when Hillary herself endorses violence as a viable action, as Trump already did, you may have a point.

Yes, some people are violent regardless of political persuasion. This is not news.

What IS news is that Trump has already endorsed violence, and he's a presumptive nominee.

[Grand Britannia]

How many rallies have Trump supporters attacked for being Hillary/Bernie supporters.

Because saying something and doing it are two different things.

[Great Feng]

1: Sources?
2: That's not necessarily due to a "rabid left", though that does contribute. That's because many believe Trump is Fascist and/or will cause WW3, and they're willing to be violent and undemocratic to stop it and save their precious "democracy". They may be wrong, but they're defending what they believe is their country. Granted I still disapprove of it, but I at least understand the reasons behind them, and the reasoning is sound(Preventing a guy that'll cause WW3 from gaining power by shutting him down), though they shouldn't do it anyway out of moral decency and you don't know for sure that he'll cause WW3 or America's collapse.

You want a source that Trump hasn't come close to encouraging violence? Do you know what the burden of proof is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi (shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat)) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

You're promoting the assertion that Trump has come close to encouraging violence. Instead of providing evidence for that assertion, you're demanding evidence be provided that Trump hasn't come close to encouraging violence. You want a lack of evidence demonstrating the lack of Trump's incitements to violence to be presented as evidence against your lack of evidence?

The burden of proof is on you. Demonstrate Trump has come close to inciting violence instead of demanding everyone else to prove Trump hasn't done that. That is not how the burden of proof functions.

---

I mean, he it is factual that he said he'd defend someone in court for someone assaulting someone who might throw rotten tomatoes at him or something.

So there's that.

You and I understand that he was joking/verbally shitposting but the media has a standing rule that everything a public figure says is to be taken literally, and joe everyman simply isn't wise enough to know the difference.

This is the incident you are referring to.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/272622-sanders-trump-should-take-responsibility-for-violence-at-rallies

Trump's events are frequently interrupted by protesters; at one event, Trump told the crowd to "knock the crap out of" protesters allegedly planning to throw tomatoes, adding "I'll pay the legal fees."

Note that it was not directed at a mere political opponent. It is directed towards violent protesters who were disrupting a Trump event by throwing projectiles at event participants. Trump supporters have a right to defend their rallies. Defending their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is entirely acceptable and appropriate.

Actually I just asked this guy in this other thread to give me some evidence of Trump inciting violence.
So I'm not being biased.
Though admittedly I feel stupid now, as I realize I did kinda fuck up there.
So ignore #1, but reply to #2.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

You know, when Hillary herself endorses violence as a viable action, as Trump already did, you may have a point.

Yes, some people are violent regardless of political persuasion. This is not news.

What IS news is that Trump has already endorsed violence, and he's a presumptive nominee.

A movement is more than its leader.

[Valystria]

And yet he hasn't. There goes the validity of your assertion.

Eh? Actually he has. Simply offering to pay anothers legal bills for assault is pretty much advocating it.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/1000000 ... lence.html

That is a false conflation. Offering to pay someone's legal bills is not offering to pay them to do something. Come up with an actual advocacy for violence.

[The Black Forrest]

Eh? Actually he has. Simply offering to pay anothers legal bills for assault is pretty much advocating it.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/1000000 ... lence.html

That is a false conflation. Offering to pay someone's legal bills is not offering to pay them to do something. Come up with an actual advocacy for violence.

*shugs* You can split hairs all you like. You didn't even watch the video eh? A little more then that one incident.

[Moschetia]

Trump himself is the one who's come closest to advocating violence against opponents.

And yet he hasn't. There goes the validity of your assertion.

It's great how you can't say why or how Trump is bad. You're just asserting it's entirely justified for leftists to attack Trump on the grounds that they believe Trump "lacks virtue" and is "illiberal". It's this rampantly widespread attitude that "lacks virtue" and is "illiberal".

And yet I said "Trump himself is the one who's come closest to advocating violence against opponents" which he certainly has.

America is the prime representative for liberal democracy. Trump, if you haven't noticed, is illiberal. He does not represent our values, and must be shamed.

His demagoguery and lack of virtue otherwise is pretty easy to spot.

[Galloism]

You know, when Hillary herself endorses violence as a viable action, as Trump already did, you may have a point.

Yes, some people are violent regardless of political persuasion. This is not news.

What IS news is that Trump has already endorsed violence, and he's a presumptive nominee.

A movement is more than its leader.

Indeed, but when the leader endorses violence, it says a lot more about the movement than a few unaffiliated nutbags throwing a hissy fit.

For example:

Let's say an intern at Microsoft commits wire fraud. That speaks badly of him. Does it speak badly of Microsoft? Maybe a little. Might mean that their hiring practices need tweaking.

What does it say when the CEO at Microsoft commits wire fraud?