• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump's Calling For Violence At His Rallies Shows How Hypocritical The Right Is

Winston

Winston

Give me convenience or give me death
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
24,742
Reaction score
24,123
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
There's a lot of talk about the left "suppressing free speech". However, I've not met one lefty who wants laws changed or wants people's rights scrubbed clean. (Donald Trump has introduced the idea of changing libel laws.)

The Right lives in a glass house when discussing 1st amendment related issues. Trump repeatedly and clearly called for protestors to be met with violence at his rallies last summer.

So, why has the right been silent for so long? Donald Trump is intolerant of criticism and different points of view that Americans have the right to express under the first amendment. And, Donald Trump represents the right. Given that the right still supports Trump, then the right is everything they have leveled against Antifa and BLM. Well, what was right about Trump calling for protestors to be carried off in stretchers last summer?

Unfortunately these arguments that are literally everywhere on this forum, aren't about free speech and the right to assemble. For god's sake these conservatives are coming to the defense of the KKK and Neo-Nazi's in their time of need.

It was and still is about the right smashing the left to smithereens. Everything the left does is wrong, when the left protests it's inappropriate, when the right protests it's preserving history. When violence breaks out, the right was acting in self defense and the left were paid agitators.

When Trump calls for violence at his rallies, the only thing the right can hear are the cheers in the thunderdome.
 
Winston said:
There's a lot of talk about the left "suppressing free speech". However, I've not met one lefty who wants laws changed or wants people's rights scrubbed clean. (Donald Trump has introduced the idea of changing libel laws.)

The Right lives in a glass house when discussing 1st amendment related issues. Trump repeatedly and clearly called for protestors to be met with violence at his rallies last summer.

So, why has the right been silent for so long? Donald Trump is intolerant of criticism and different points of view that Americans have the right to express under the first amendment. And, Donald Trump represents the right. Given that the right still supports Trump, then the right is everything they have leveled against Antifa and BLM. Well, what was right about Trump calling for protestors to be carried off in stretchers last summer?

Unfortunately these arguments that are literally everywhere on this forum, aren't about free speech and the right to assemble. For god's sake these conservatives are coming to the defense of the KKK and Neo-Nazi's in their time of need.

It was and still is about the right smashing the left to smithereens. Everything the left does is wrong, when the left protests it's inappropriate, when the right protests it's preserving history. When violence breaks out, the right was acting in self defense and the left were paid agitators.

When Trump calls for violence at his rallies, the only thing the right can hear are the cheers in the thunderdome.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton wanted to alter the 1st amendment...
 
It's all about playing the victim. The 'alt-right' needs to paint themselves as victims. This attracts scumbags of all sorts to join in. Without victim status, the scumbags have no explanation for their rejection. Only through the victim-card can racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamophobes and other assorted phobes deal with their fail.

The same bigoted dumbasses pretend minority claims of victimization are fake.


That said, one should not paint all Trump supporters with such a brush. I'm just referring to the alt-right, which is not really right-wing at all. Bigotry is not a right wing platform.

Every pillow-weeper and bleeding-heart standing up for nazis is another person showing their bigotry. Good, best they're in the light.
 
Trump will pay the legal bill.

Yes, right wingers are hypocrites. Trump's campaign rallies had more violence than any other candidate in history. People were getting yelled at, kicked out, and hassled for be Muslim. Also, there was the memorable guy who sucker punched the black guy. Trump supporters still voted for Trump, never condemned that violence.

It's as hypocritical as when they called Obama an inexperienced celebrity... :lol:

Trump has literally zero political experience and is a realty tv star.
 
Crovax said:
Hillary Clinton wanted to alter the 1st amendment...
Click to expand...

Delicious serving of but, hillary but, I'll raise you a but, Trump.
 
Winston said:
Delicious serving of but, hillary but, I'll raise you a but, Trump.
Click to expand...

You were the one who claimed that no lefties what to infringe on free speech and then whine that I pointed out a lefty who did

Both Hillary, Trump and the majority of both parties are anti-free speech, where do you stand?
 
Crovax said:
You were the one who claimed that no lefties what to infringe on free speech and then whine that I pointed out a lefty who did

Both Hillary, Trump and the majority of both parties are anti-free speech, where do you stand?
Click to expand...

I never said no lefties. I said I haven't met one.

However, given that HRC is in the dustbin of history, and Trump is our president, why do you think the right, has forgotten that Trump called for violence to suppress free speech?

But it's all the rage to bemoan counter protestors hating the constitution?

And I support the first amendment as is, I would not like any changes.
 
Winston said:
I never said no lefties. I said I haven't met one.

However, given that HRC is in the dustbin of history, and Trump is our president, why do you think the right, has forgotten that Trump called for violence to suppress free speech?

But it's all the rage to bemoan counter protestors hating the constitution?

And I support the first amendment as is, I would not like any changes.
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders did as well, also Pelosi, and Schumer, Yes Clinton and Sanders are now both past candidates unlikely to run again but they are major players in the democratic party and you have never met someone on the left that supports their proposals?

As to your question I have no clue how anyone supports Trump now in any capacity (although I can understand why someone would have voted for him) and I try not to get into the minds of deranged people
 
Crovax said:
Bernie Sanders did as well, also Pelosi, and Schumer, Yes Clinton and Sanders are now both past candidates unlikely to run again but they are major players in the democratic party and you have never met someone on the left that supports their proposals?

As to your question I have no clue how anyone supports Trump now in any capacity (although I can understand why someone would have voted for him) and I try not to get into the minds of deranged people
Click to expand...

I'm interested in seeing their proposals to alter the first amendment.

Do you mean campaign finance reform? Or, do you mean prosecuting people for thought crimes?
 
Winston said:
There's a lot of talk about the left "suppressing free speech". However, I've not met one lefty who wants laws changed or wants people's rights scrubbed clean. (Donald Trump has introduced the idea of changing libel laws.)

The Right lives in a glass house when discussing 1st amendment related issues. Trump repeatedly and clearly called for protestors to be met with violence at his rallies last summer.

So, why has the right been silent for so long? Donald Trump is intolerant of criticism and different points of view that Americans have the right to express under the first amendment. And, Donald Trump represents the right. Given that the right still supports Trump, then the right is everything they have leveled against Antifa and BLM. Well, what was right about Trump calling for protestors to be carried off in stretchers last summer?

Unfortunately these arguments that are literally everywhere on this forum, aren't about free speech and the right to assemble. For god's sake these conservatives are coming to the defense of the KKK and Neo-Nazi's in their time of need.

It was and still is about the right smashing the left to smithereens. Everything the left does is wrong, when the left protests it's inappropriate, when the right protests it's preserving history. When violence breaks out, the right was acting in self defense and the left were paid agitators.

When Trump calls for violence at his rallies, the only thing the right can hear are the cheers in the thunderdome.
Click to expand...

What Trump does or doesn't do or say, in no way defines the right as a whole.
 
Winston said:
I'm interested in seeing their proposals to alter the first amendment.

Do you mean campaign finance reform? Or, do you mean prosecuting people for thought crimes?
Click to expand...

If you want to get into thought crimes that a whole other debate, which many democrats and republicans support

Im talking about altering the 1st amendment to curtail political speech of people. In this specific case all of the democrats I mentioned want a new constitutional amendment that would overturn citizens united
 
Beaudreaux said:
What Trump does or doesn't do or say, in no way defines the right as a whole.
Click to expand...

I agree. Thanks for some perspective.

The OP is basically a rebuttal to the ubiquitous, the left hates free speech posts I've been seeing.

Edit: you guys got a raw deal with Trump, when his behavior cedes the moral high ground.
 
Winston said:
I'm interested in seeing their proposals to alter the first amendment.

Do you mean campaign finance reform? Or, do you mean prosecuting people for thought crimes?
Click to expand...

Ms Clinton endorsed a constitutional amendment which would effectively nullify the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC​. I think that might be what they are referring to here. It sounds better to be against "modifying" the First Amendment than it does to be against attempting to get big money out of politics.
 
Crovax said:
If you want to get into thought crimes that a whole other debate, which many democrats and republicans support

Im talking about altering the 1st amendment to curtail political speech of people. In this specific case all of the democrats I mentioned want a new constitutional amendment that would overturn citizens united
Click to expand...

Money=Speech is a perverted concept. Do you think the founding fathers would've intended the Constitution give the wealthy control over the politicians through campaign donations?
 
Winston said:
Money=Speech is a perverted concept. Do you think the founding fathers would've intended the Constitution give the wealthy control over the politicians through campaign donations?
Click to expand...

We arent talking about campaign donations we are talking about people being able to form a groups and advocate for a cause. I have no clue why the democrats are against super pacs they play right into the democratic strength a large amount of small donors. If citizens united was overturned Charles Koch could still spend $1 million dollars of his own money to put a political ad on TV but 10,000 people each donating $10 to make a $1 million ad would be banned. The elimination of citizens united would truly be the rise of rich only political speech.
 
Crovax said:
We arent talking about campaign donations we are talking about people being able to form a groups and advocate for a cause. I have no clue why the democrats are against super pacs they play right into the democratic strength a large amount of small donors. If citizens united was overturned Charles Koch could still spend $1 million dollars of his own money to put a political ad on TV but 10,000 people each donating $10 to make a $1 million ad would be banned. The elimination of citizens united would truly be the rise of rich only political speech.
Click to expand...

But, the system we currently have is broken. Congressional approval is at historic lows, I surmise because the politicians vote and legislate on behalf of the donors, rather than their constituents. You're saying Democrats have identified a problem, without offering a solution?
 
Winston said:
But, the system we currently have is broken. Congressional approval is at historic lows, I surmise because the politicians vote and legislate on behalf of the donors, rather than their constituents. You're saying Democrats have identified a problem, without offering a solution?
Click to expand...

I dont even think you can call it part of that problem since the candidate cant have any contact with the super pac so they would have no idea which donors to kowtow too.

I think the main part of congresses historic lows is the grid lock which is mostly because this is really the 1st time we have had ideologically based parties, up until now it has been more of a geographical thing combined with now two straight presidents who have no desire to work with the opposition and opposition who will no compromise no matter how reasonable. Dark money and big funding has been much worse in the past and still we manged to pass some pretty good laws.

Also if we want to get more into the issues of overturning citizens united that is the same protections that allow corporations like the NYT and WaPo to publish what they wish. If corporations were exempted from free speech rights (which is the proposal) only the individual journalists would be protected and all sorts of laws and lawsuits could bring down the companies themselves.

Im not sure the really is a problem with having free speech, it is possible to accept that the upsides are much better than the downsides and that not everything that is legal has to be morally correct also.
 
Crovax said:
We arent talking about campaign donations we are talking about people being able to form a groups and advocate for a cause. I have no clue why the democrats are against super pacs they play right into the democratic strength a large amount of small donors. If citizens united was overturned Charles Koch could still spend $1 million dollars of his own money to put a political ad on TV but 10,000 people each donating $10 to make a $1 million ad would be banned. The elimination of citizens united would truly be the rise of rich only political speech.
Click to expand...

We are talking about freedom of speech for money.
Money talks, to be sure, but does it really have rights? Can money keep and bear arms as well?
 
Winston said:
There's a lot of talk about the left "suppressing free speech". However, I've not met one lefty who wants laws changed or wants people's rights scrubbed clean. (Donald Trump has introduced the idea of changing libel laws.)

The Right lives in a glass house when discussing 1st amendment related issues. Trump repeatedly and clearly called for protestors to be met with violence at his rallies last summer.

So, why has the right been silent for so long? Donald Trump is intolerant of criticism and different points of view that Americans have the right to express under the first amendment. And, Donald Trump represents the right. Given that the right still supports Trump, then the right is everything they have leveled against Antifa and BLM. Well, what was right about Trump calling for protestors to be carried off in stretchers last summer?

Unfortunately these arguments that are literally everywhere on this forum, aren't about free speech and the right to assemble. For god's sake these conservatives are coming to the defense of the KKK and Neo-Nazi's in their time of need.

It was and still is about the right smashing the left to smithereens. Everything the left does is wrong, when the left protests it's inappropriate, when the right protests it's preserving history. When violence breaks out, the right was acting in self defense and the left were paid agitators.

When Trump calls for violence at his rallies, the only thing the right can hear are the cheers in the thunderdome.
Click to expand...

When the right protests, it's about preserving history? What does that even mean?

I'm betting not one poster on this forum approves of the altright's message. Show me a few, if I'm wrong. What they and I will defend is their right to express their message at a permitted rally. And if you're not willing to defend EVERYONE's right to free speech, then you don't believe in the First Amendment.

Post Script . . . I also think libel laws should be changed. Phil McGraw (Dr. Phil) shouldn't have to help The Globe sell their newspapers by their printing that he's a homosexual unless they can prove it. The money angle is where I think the line should be drawn.
 
Last edited:
Crovax said:
I dont even think you can call it part of that problem since the candidate cant have any contact with the super pac so they would have no idea which donors to kowtow too.

I think the main part of congresses historic lows is the grid lock which is mostly because this is really the 1st time we have had ideologically based parties, up until now it has been more of a geographical thing combined with now two straight presidents who have no desire to work with the opposition and opposition who will no compromise no matter how reasonable. Dark money and big funding has been much worse in the past and still we manged to pass some pretty good laws.

Also if we want to get more into the issues of overturning citizens united that is the same protections that allow corporations like the NYT and WaPo to publish what they wish. If corporations were exempted from free speech rights (which is the proposal) only the individual journalists would be protected and all sorts of laws and lawsuits could bring down the companies themselves.

Im not sure the really is a problem with having free speech, it is possible to accept that the upsides are much better than the downsides and that not everything that is legal has to be morally correct also.
Click to expand...

I would counter with the GOP having complete control of both houses and an executive. So, what's the holdup? They can't blame gridlock on the Democrats, when they plain have the votes if they could all agree on something.

The lobbyists being a part of writing platforms is a huge red flag to me. Politicians don't want to listen to the people, because the people's interests are diametrically opposed with their donors.
 
Winston said:
I would counter with the GOP having complete control of both houses and an executive. So, what's the holdup? They can't blame gridlock on the Democrats, when they plain have the votes if they could all agree on something.

The lobbyists being a part of writing platforms is a huge red flag to me. Politicians don't want to listen to the people, because the people's interests are diametrically opposed with their donors.
Click to expand...

They dont have 60 in the senate, the hold up is a filibuster
 
MaggieD said:
When the right protests, it's about preserving history? What does that even mean?

I'm betting not one poster on this forum approves of the altright's message. Show me a few, if I'm wrong. What they and I will defend is their right to express their message at a permitted rally. And if you're not willing to defend EVERYONE's right to free speech, then you don't believe in the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

The preserving history bit refers to the right protesting statue removal, and the inappropriate bit refers to the exile of Colin Kaepernick.

I am in harmony with you sticking up for their right to assemble and advocate controversial positions.

What I find upsetting, is when people on the right smear the left as Constitution haters, while giving Trump a pass for literally calling for violence against protestors last summer.

I find it disingenuous to support a president who called for violence against protestors, while saying that the left is responsible for violence and hostile to the first amendment.
 
Dittohead not! said:
We are talking about freedom of speech for money.
Money talks, to be sure, but does it really have rights? Can money keep and bear arms as well?
Click to expand...

My guns cost money as well as the ammo for them to be effective. Think about if a law said you have the RKBA but you arent allowed to use money to buy guns or ammo. Think that law would fly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom