Clinton Campaign/DNC Coordinated w/Organizations To Incite Violence at Trump Events

[FromWayDowntown]

But to say don't "overreact" or "don't be annoyed" kinda misses the point.

Unless, of course, you can be a grown up and ignore people who are sent into a location just to annoy you. I know lots of people who've been in plenty of situations in which others around them were acting in inflammatory or provocative ways and somehow they realized that being annoyed doesn't mean that you get to resort to violence.

It's a silly move by the Clinton campaign if it's actually happening, but (of course) it's also managed to reveal that the guy who is atop the GOP ticket is perfectly willing to call for physical violence against those who disagree with him and that some of his supporters will gladly rally to that call.

[rmt]

Here you have proof from their own mouths that they incited and shut down the Chicago Trump rally - interfering with Trump's 1st amendment rights and with thousands' to hear him/shut down highway and still you guys see nothing wrong.

[vy65]

Unless, of course, you can be a grown up and ignore people who are sent into a location just to annoy you. I know lots of people who've been in plenty of situations in which others around them were acting in inflammatory or provocative ways and somehow they realized that being annoyed doesn't mean that you get to resort to violence.

It's a silly move by the Clinton campaign if it's actually happening, but (of course) it's also managed to reveal that the guy who is atop the GOP ticket is perfectly willing to call for physical violence against those who disagree with him and that some of his supporters will gladly rally to that call.

I agree that people should be mature, and ignore people that enter into a location who have been sent for the sole purpose of agitation. I am not defending the Trump supporter's response. We are in agreement that it is absolutely, 100% the wrong thing to do in the situation.

I also believe that the people being sent to, by this Foval guy's admission, incite violence are just as bad than the rednecks punching the guy in the planned parenthood t shirt.

I don't see how the agitator is blameless here. Maybe you don't believe they are. But calling one person violent and the other person silly doesn't seem a fair characterization of the situation.

[vy65]

I get where you're coming from but I think it's the whole point. The campaign is doing this because they know they can, and it will amplify a negative characteristic. If they couldn't count on people getting violent at these rallies, they wouldn't bother. So it's not like the narrative is just fabricated from nothing.

I think you're right. But that's pretty sad. The purpose of cons utional features like the First Amendment is to use speech to combat bad ideas. This video is depressing because it shows people giving up on discourse, debate, free flow of ideas, etc... and resorting instead to poking rednecks in the eye.

[Spurminator]

I just hope this revelation causes conservatives to finally get on board with shutting down Super PACs so we can regain some transparency in political campaigns.

(It won't)

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't see how the agitator is blameless here. Maybe you don't believe they are. But calling one person violent and the other person silly doesn't seem a fair characterization of the situation.

If the agitator doesn't do anything other than speak, then I might not call him blameless, but I do see that as being an exercise of freedom and political speech at a certain level, at least for as long as it remains non-violent. If the agitators get violent, then I'd absolutely agree that they're at fault, too.

And I don't know that even with all of that, I'd call the agitator blameless; I just don't think pure agitation justifies a physically violent response. Like I say, I think the tactic in general is silly, but in this election, it's proven to be somewhat effective.

Any suggestion that a violent response to non-violent agitation is in any way justified is nonsense.

[FromWayDowntown]

n/m

[vy65]

If the agitator doesn't do anything other than speak, then I might not call him blameless, but I do see that as being an exercise of freedom and political speech at a certain level, at least for as long as it remains non-violent. If the agitators get violent, then I'd absolutely agree that they're at fault, too.

And I don't know that even with all of that, I'd call the agitator blameless; I just don't think pure agitation justifies a physically violent response. Like I say, I think the tactic in general is silly, but in this election, it's proven to be somewhat effective.

Any suggestion that a violent response to non-violent agitation is in any way justified is nonsense.

But they're not showing up to rallies to have a sit-down debate over Roe. They're sent for the purpose of inciting violence. Again, the onus is on the responder to not react with violence, but you're not fairly characterizing the situation depicted in the video by saying its peaceful citizens exercising their first amendment rights vs. mean nasty trump supporters.

I think I can agree, in the abstract, that the first person to throw a punch may be more to blame for the ensuing violence. But I think the blame is a lot more even than you're depicting. Especially since this isn't some organic demonstration of citizen's democracy, but seems to be coming, in some form by the DNC. The level of direction from the DNC, whatever it might be, distinguishes this situation for me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you can be goaded into assault through speech then you are a weakminded fool that is dangerous.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But they're not showing up to rallies to have a sit-down debate over Roe. They're sent for the purpose of inciting violence. Again, the onus is on the responder to not react with violence, but you're not fairly characterizing the situation depicted in the video by saying its peaceful citizens exercising their first amendment rights vs. mean nasty trump supporters.

I think I can agree, in the abstract, that the first person to throw a punch may be more to blame for the ensuing violence. But I think the blame is a lot more even than you're depicting. Especially since this isn't some organic demonstration of citizen's democracy, but seems to be coming, in some form by the DNC. The level of direction from the DNC, whatever it might be, distinguishes this situation for me.

Gandhi sent his followers on the salt march despite threat of violent protest from the British. The "know your place" standard is .

[FromWayDowntown]

But they're not showing up to rallies to have a sit-down debate over Roe. They're sent for the purpose of inciting violence. Again, the onus is on the responder to not react with violence, but you're not fairly characterizing the situation depicted in the video by saying its peaceful citizens exercising their first amendment rights vs. mean nasty trump supporters.

I think I can agree, in the abstract, that the first person to throw a punch may be more to blame for the ensuing violence. But I think the blame is a lot more even than you're depicting. Especially since this isn't some organic demonstration of citizen's democracy, but seems to be coming, in some form by the DNC. The level of direction from the DNC, whatever it might be, distinguishes this situation for me.

Oh, so the calculation of the provocation somehow diminishes the extent to which the violent responder is actually responsible for his own bad choice? I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is particularly justified in this situation. But at a basic level, the right to oppose a candidate is fairly fundamental cons utional exercise (even if the opposition's choices for expressing that viewpoint are calculated); the response to opposition by resorting to violence is fairly fundamentally a criminal assault.

I'm not sure what difference the level of discourse makes here, frankly. Even Presidential debates at this point aren't sit-down discussions of the merits of policies.

[vy65]

Oh, so the calculation of the provocation somehow diminishes the extent to which the violent responder is actually responsible for his own bad choice?

No. Not what I said. In fact, I said that, in the abstract, I can agree that the violent responder may be more to blame for the ensuing violence. My point is that you're not fairly representing the situation by depicting the people who were sent for the purpose of inciting violence by pretending that they're a part of an organic peaceful protest. The video's allegation is that they were sent to start a fight -- I don't know how someone who is sent to incite a fight is somehow blameless for the resulting violence. Is that your position?

I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is particularly justified in this situation. But at a basic level, the right to oppose a candidate is fairly fundamental cons utional exercise (even if the opposition's choices for expressing that viewpoint are calculated); the response to opposition by resorting to violence is fairly fundamentally a criminal assault.

I have my answer then -- and we're agreed. Although there may be some issue with a campaign directing individuals to incite violence at the Trump rally's. But that determination is above my pay-grade.

I'm not sure what difference the level of discourse makes here, frankly. Even Presidential debates at this point aren't sit-down discussions of the merits of policies.

The point I'm making is about intent, that's all.

[FromWayDowntown]

The point I'm making is about intent, that's all.

I still don't know what the level of discourse has to do with any of this. Are you saying that the agitators would somehow be more justified if they were sitting at tables offering to have genuine policy discussions with people whose first response to them is violence?

I can intend to express myself politically without first having to demonstrate my policy bona fides or an interest in engaging in an actual debate with someone. We don't only protect well-supported political speech or only that speech that comes from people with real policy chops.

[vy65]

I still don't know what the level of discourse has to do with any of this. Are you saying that the agitators would somehow be more justified if they were sitting at tables offering to have genuine policy discussions with people whose first response to them is violence?

I can intend to express myself politically without first having to demonstrate my policy bona fides or an interest in engaging in an actual debate with someone. We don't only protect well-supported political speech or only that speech that comes from people with real policy chops.

There is a level of culpability to someone who goes to a political event, intending to provoke another person into physical violence, who says volatile to accomplish that goal, and gets into a fight. That person has a level of culpability that is not present for someone who merely protests as a form of free expression or to have an actual debate because the agitator had the intent of starting a fight while the other did not.

I'm making no claim about showing your bona fides before speaking -- that's irrelevant. This isn't about the (evidentiary, policy-based, etc...) support of said speak. It's about intent. There is no politically useful benefit to the incite-to-violence component of the agitator's speech -- and -- I have a much harder time having sympathy for someone who goes to a Trump rally to start a fight and succeeds in doing so.

[CosmicCowboy]

There is a level of culpability to someone who goes to a political event, intending to provoke another person into physical violence, and who says volatile to accomplish that goal. That person has a level of culpability that is not present for someone who merely protests as a form of free expression or to have an actual debate.


I'm making no claim about showing your bona fides before speaking -- that's irrelevant. This isn't about the (evidentiary, policy-based, etc...) support of said speak. It's about intent. There is no politically useful benefit to the incite-to-violence component of the agitator's speech -- and -- I have a much harder time having sympathy for someone who goes to a Trump rally to start a fight and succeeds in doing so.

Bottom line is still, the first one to shove or throw a punch started the fight no matter what the verbal provocation. It was stupid for Trump to encourage it and it was stupid for his followers to do it.

[pgardn]

There are a lot of POed people from both parties. Remember the Bernie folks. There is a legitimate disgust aimed at entrenched politicians. The Trump folks are feeling like what some minorities have felt. Welcome.

What has me interested is since the elections are rigged (I take this to mean set up to be predetermined), and one candidate has called for "vigilance" at polling stations, what happens when Trump supporters see other Trump supporters getting hauled out of voting sites because they violate basic rules.

The guy in my neighborhood who shows up at the voting site wearing an elephant mask always stays the "right" distance away and does not harass people. Is he now supposed to pretend to trample people under heavy elephant feet...

[pgardn]

If the agitator doesn't do anything other than speak, then I might not call him blameless, but I do see that as being an exercise of freedom and political speech at a certain level, at least for as long as it remains non-violent. If the agitators get violent, then I'd absolutely agree that they're at fault, too.

And I don't know that even with all of that, I'd call the agitator blameless; I just don't think pure agitation justifies a physically violent response. Like I say, I think the tactic in general is silly, but in this election, it's proven to be somewhat effective.

Any suggestion that a violent response to non-violent agitation is in any way justified is nonsense.

All they have to do is coax others into violence by directing a legit plan as I understand it.

"Pick up those chairs and smack those guys on the head"

[ElNono]

There is a level of culpability to someone who goes to a political event, intending to provoke another person into physical violence, who says volatile to accomplish that goal, and gets into a fight. That person has a level of culpability that is not present for someone who merely protests as a form of free expression or to have an actual debate because the agitator had the intent of starting a fight while the other did not.

How do you gauge that though, without trying to read minds? Different people react differently to provocation. Unless there's an actual, direct threat of violence, I figure it would be pretty difficult to ascertain. I mean, at least criminal intent is not novel and has been certainly prosecuted before, but it's probably among the most difficult cases to prove.

EDIT: Didn't watch or read anything from OP, just picked up this discussing from the vy/FWD back and forth.

[vy65]

How do you gauge that though, without trying to read minds? Different people react differently to provocation. Unless there's an actual, direct threat of violence, I figure it would be pretty difficult to ascertain. I mean, at least criminal intent is not novel and has been certainly prosecuted before, but it's probably among the most difficult cases to prove.

EDIT: Didn't watch or read anything from OP, just picked up this discussing from the vy/FWD back and forth.

In general, it's definitely a hard thing to do. You'd have to piece the facts and cir stances together to infer intent. Which can have some problems. But that's all academic in this case: the video has democratic organizers saying they send plants to Trump protests to incite violence, so intent is a foregone conclusion in this case.

[FromWayDowntown]

In general, it's definitely a hard thing to do. You'd have to piece the facts and cir stances together to infer intent. Which can have some problems. But that's all academic in this case: the video has democratic organizers saying they send plants to Trump protests to incite violence, so intent is a foregone conclusion in this case.

I'm not even sure I can go with you here. There were many, many people in the mid-to-late 1960's who attended political events specifically to non-violently agitate opponents on any number of deeply political issues without any real expectation or intention to engage in a meaningful discussion of issues. They were met with the violence they likely expected for their agitation. I'm not sure that it would be correct to simply assume that their presence alone in those cir stances justifies putting part of the blame for the resulting violence upon them based on their choice to agitate.

[vy65]

I'm not even sure I can go with you here. There were many, many people in the mid-to-late 1960's who attended political events specifically to non-violently agitate opponents on any number of deeply political issues without any real expectation or intention to engage in a meaningful discussion of issues. They were met with the violence they likely expected for their agitation. I'm not sure that it would be correct to simply assume that their presence alone in those cir stances justifies putting part of the blame for the resulting violence upon them based on their choice to agitate.

Do you disagree that the agitators sent to Trump's rallys were sent for the purpose of inciting physical violence. If so, why is your example of peaceful protest relevant?

I don't have much sympathy for people who would peacefully troll their political opponents. But I do have far more sympathy for them than the agitators who were deployed to essentially start a fight as claimed in the video.

Again, it is the intent to start a fight that sets this apart for me and makes me feel that the agitators bear some culpability (albeit not as much as the person throwing the punch).

[vy65]

Put another way, I don't see anything non-violent here (in the same sense as a 60s protest). Knowingly sending plants to start fights at Trump rally's seems a different sort of animal than those who authentically tried some form of non-violent protest.

[FromWayDowntown]

Do you disagree that the agitators sent to Trump's rallys were sent for the purpose of inciting physical violence. If so, why is your example of peaceful protest relevant?

I don't have much sympathy for people who would peacefully troll their political opponents.

I'm not sure that I'm willing to assume that all dissenters or even all agitators at Trump rallies went there with violence in mind. My point, though, is that you seem to say that unless people go there intending to engage in a real discussion of issues, their presence isn't really political; that they're at fault (to some extent) if violence befalls them. If that's true, then it seems that you must believe that the protesters of the 1960's, who were decidedly non-violent and who were never going to actually engage in a discussion of issues with those they opposed -- at least not in the cir stances where they voiced that opposition -- were somehow at fault for the violence used against them.

If that's true, I would vehemently disagree. That sort of a view lets the jackasses who actually engage in violence off the hook way too easily. Ultimately, if there's violence it happens because those who elect violence have chosen that.

[FromWayDowntown]

Put another way, I don't see anything non-violent here (in the same sense as a 60s protest). Knowingly sending plants to start fights at Trump rally's seems a different sort of animal than those who authentically tried some form of non-violent protest.

If all they're doing is vehemently voicing opposition to Trump and Trump supporters without engaging in violence themselves (even if they're sort of hoping that the other side will go there), how is it any different really?

Other than perhaps that you choose to agree with one group and disagree with the other . . . .

[vy65]

I'm not sure that I'm willing to assume that all dissenters or even all agitators at Trump rallies went there with violence in mind.

Let me stop you there. I am only speaking to those agitators sent for the purpose of inciting violence. These agitators were the subject of the video -- so I've been operating under the assumption that they are the people we've been discussing. I think it's fair to say that there were some people (for whom protestor is probably a better word) who went to Trump rallies for the purpose of protesting Trump. These would be people who were not intentionally deployed by Foval et al. and who ostensibly had a non-violent (or at least non-incitement) purpose in mind.

I see fault with the agitators. I do not see fault with the protestors. I'm curious if you disagree with this.

My point, though, is that you seem to say that unless people go there intending to engage in a real discussion of issues, their presence isn't really political; that they're at fault (to some extent) if violence befalls them. If that's true, then it seems that you must believe that the protesters of the 1960's, who were decidedly non-violent and who were never going to actually engage in a discussion of issues with those they opposed -- at least not in the cir stances where they voiced that opposition -- were somehow at fault for the violence used against them.

I think this is easily answered above. I have no problem with non-violent 'non-engagement.' I question its efficacy, but I don't see any problem with Trump protestors who non-violently protest a rally while refusing or not-intending to have any sort of real or substantive engagement with the pro-Trump crowd.

However, I see those who go to Trump rallies for the purpose of inciting violence as falling within this non-violent group. As alleged in the video, the agitators are there not for any sort of expressive purpose (as the non-violent protestor is). They're just there to start a fight. I don't think that you can group those two groups together and I see no value to viewing a person who goes to a rally for the purpose of starting a fight as blameless.

If that's true, I would vehemently disagree. That sort of a view lets the jackasses who actually engage in violence off the hook way too easily. Ultimately, if there's violence it happens because those who elect violence have chosen that.

Again, I agree that the person who throws the first punch bears the most responsibility for violence. But I think it ridiculous to completely exonerate from all blame a person who attends a Trump rally to solicit a fight.