You can end it here, but I won't. Your quotes are from a response to people coming to his event, and the event of everyone who spent their time and money to get there, to disrupt it. An event that's integral to the political process of our democratic systems.
What's so....perfect about your reply there is these were political events, not private parties. Thousands of people. And I know they were 'private' because Trump paid for the venues and could set the rules, and eject those not abiding by them, but I'm not aware that it's legal, in say a restaurant, or here, for the public to assault them, beat them, if they are breaking the rules. And for you to excuse a Presidential candidate for advocating that is just really....incredible.
On the other hand, when Democrats urged people to protest members of the executive branch, that's in fact only encouraging them to do what we have a sacred RIGHT to do in this country, which is protest without fear of the government. That's IMO at least one key and essential difference between a free country and an authoritarian one. In a free country, we can criticize our leaders in public!
Trump's idea is if they protest him at one of his POLITICAL RALLIES, other attendees should assault them. And you don't see that as adding to the discord. It's unbelievable.
If we were to make a comparison to say....a gay wedding going down and protesters entered the wedding service to yell, scream, and disrupt the wedding, I'd not only be OK with people saying those things, but would be 100% OK of some people in attendance punched them straight in the face. That's their event.
I'm not sure I believe you but there is a fundamental difference between protesting at a sacred event, that's obviously private, and doing it at a political rally. Do you not respect the right of people to express their political differences at political forums without fear of bodily harm including death?
And of course assault is illegal, so whether you approve of an illegal act is irrelevant to the appropriateness of our POTUS advocating for illegal acts by his cult.
This is entirely different than telling people to go out into various public areas to find and harass members of the opposing political party merely for having a different political ideology.
Yes it is completely different, because what you're describing is in fact a protected right. It's incredible you don't recognize that. Protest is ALWAYS about the protesters opposing government or others "
merely for having a different political ideology" which of course is reflected in actual policy decisions. Do you think we should be prohibited from confronting our leaders in public, as if they are royalty? Do we have a constitutional obligation to sit down and shut up when our government behaves in ways we find abhorrent? Or must we just protest in ways comfortable and acceptable to our leaders, that don't inconvenience them in any way?
