The police haven't removed Trump from his rallies. He has been quite a force for disruption. You seem to maintain that a campaign rally by a candidate for POTUS is no different (from a Constitutional perspective) than any other gathering of people.Did I make a mistake? Is there something in the Constitution that covers campaign rallies? http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hr/Assembly.htm Can you read your own writing Tim? Do you remember what you wrote? It's right there..above. And here below... You seem to maintain that a campaign rally by a candidate for POTUS is no different (from a Constitutional perspective) than any other gathering of people. So like I said, is there anything in the Constitution that covers Campaign rallies specifically, apart from Freedom of assembly? Because like you said, I do maintain that a campaign rally is no different than any other gathering of people...from a Constitutional perspective. Vyazma, not everything has to be spelled out in the Constitution to be a Constitutional right. Court decisions, especially the SC, decide these things, and courts have ruled that people have the right to attend publicly accessible events even when held on private property. There is a huge legal difference between and presidential campaign rally and a birthday party.
Vyazma, not everything has to be spelled out in the Constitution to be a Constitutional right. Court decisions, especially the SC, decide these things, and courts have ruled that people have the right to attend publicly accessible events even when held on private property. There is a huge legal difference between and presidential campaign rally and a birthday party.The courts have also ruled that people can be removed from private property. Or public property. Any property. That's my point...there's no difference when it comes to public disturbances. The police use their discretion and the law to remove people from events. Like I said this isn't a freedom of assembly issue. Or speech issue. This is a public disturbance issue. The cops remove unruly people all the time from public and private places. It's really cut and dried.
I saw a video of a girl being removed from a Clinton speaking event.
The cops ushered her right out.
It happens all the time. People get arrested for public disturbances…the courts uphold it.
We’d have utter chaos if these systems weren’t in check.
Nobody would be able to get anything done.
I saw a video of a girl being removed from a Clinton speaking event. The cops ushered her right out. It happens all the time. People get arrested for public disturbances....the courts uphold it. We'd have utter chaos if these systems weren't in check. Nobody would be able to get anything done.What you're overlooking is that many of the people being escorted out of Trump rallies were guilty of nothing more than standing around and observing. Their offenses ranged from wearing Bernie Sanders t-shirts to being black.
What you're overlooking is that many of the people being escorted out of Trump rallies were guilty of nothing more than standing around and observing. Their offenses ranged from wearing Bernie Sanders t-shirts to being black.I'm not overlooking that. I'm taking a look at the whole picture. I'm being extremely wary of what I hear or read in the media. The hyperbolic and rhetorical bombardment that Trump is taking is off the charts. I know he brings some of it on himself....but he just likes to feed the fire. Let's be honest, these rallies have been pretty peaceful. Take a look at the Chicago Convention of '68. It's not even in the same Universe. Yeah somebody got punched. Another got manhandled. Ok. Not good. But there is far more hyperbole and sensationalism going on here then anything else. I'm sure there's a couple of angles to this carpet bombing of Trump. I think it's kind of funny that the Greens or the Neo-Libs etc.. are finding themselves bedfellows with the GOP Establishment. Not that the Neos or the Green types(or any of these Social Justice types) would realize it.(but you better believe the GOP Est. realizes it!!) That's the irony that really gets my wheels turning.
Let's be honest, these rallies have been pretty peaceful. Take a look at the Chicago Convention of '68. It's not even in the same Universe.So, this argument is, Trump is not as bad one of the most pivotal and divisive years of the 20th century? The year we got a President who was later found to be involved in criminal activity? It actually is in the same universe, the cops have just gotten better at beating people up without it looking like a big mess on the evening news. They can select black people and harass and arrest them in greater numbers, but just don't use certain words, and you will never get indicted for race based policing.
So, this argument is, Trump is not as bad one of the most pivotal and divisive years of the 20th century?Didn't see this coming.... No, actually the Trump rallies stand on their own merits. Considering the number of rallies, attendees, protesters and divisiveness. Even not considering any of that. The rallies have been pretty peaceful. Probably more peaceful than an average rock or country music tour. Less arrests and injuries all around.. After that, I don't know what you're indicting. Or what any of that has to do with this topic... The state of the US social-political climate? The police? Race relations? What about it?
The police haven't removed Trump from his rallies. He has been quite a force for disruption. You seem to maintain that a campaign rally by a candidate for POTUS is no different (from a Constitutional perspective) than any other gathering of people.Did I make a mistake? Is there something in the Constitution that covers campaign rallies? http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hr/Assembly.htm Can you read your own writing Tim? Do you remember what you wrote? It's right there..above. And here below... You seem to maintain that a campaign rally by a candidate for POTUS is no different (from a Constitutional perspective) than any other gathering of people. So like I said, is there anything in the Constitution that covers Campaign rallies specifically, apart from Freedom of assembly? Because like you said, I do maintain that a campaign rally is no different than any other gathering of people...from a Constitutional perspective. The Bill of Rights limits the GOVERNMENT from abridging the rights of citizens. I suggest that a campaign rally for a candidate for POTUS is intrinsically a part of our governmental process. You suggest that it is no more that, than is a popularly attended football game.
The Bill of Rights limits the GOVERNMENT from abridging the rights of citizens. I suggest that a campaign rally for a candidate for POTUS is intrinsically a part of our governmental process. You suggest that it is no more that, than is a popularly attended football game.Well campaign rallies are far closer to a football game than any kind of Governmental process. Last time I checked there weren't any government rules or codes concerning campaign rallies. Again, you're letting a little too much romanticism into your views. From the ACLU's website:
Campaigns can opt to exclude protesters from campaign rallies. The First Amendment doesn’t stop them — in fact, the First Amendment protects the campaign’s right to control its message. Generally, a campaign rents space for its rallies, which gives it the right to exclude people for “trespass" as well as get law enforcement’s help to do so. A campaign can declare someone to be a trespasser if their presence interferes with the campaign’s chosen message. At a rally, for instance, enthusiastic sign-waving can be a requirement of attendance. A campaign has the right to control its own political theater, within the limits of nondiscrimination law. Deeming someone trying to attend a rally to be a protester because of her race or religion would, of course, violate the law.
So, this argument is, Trump is not as bad one of the most pivotal and divisive years of the 20th century?Didn't see this coming.... No, actually the Trump rallies stand on their own merits. Considering the number of rallies, attendees, protesters and divisiveness. Even not considering any of that. The rallies have been pretty peaceful. Probably more peaceful than an average rock or country music tour. Less arrests and injuries all around.. After that, I don't know what you're indicting. Or what any of that has to do with this topic... The state of the US social-political climate? The police? Race relations? What about it? All of the above. The March to Selma was 1965, racism was blatant in the South for the previous 80 years, before that we had slavery. So what are you comparing to? How have we improved on 1968? I don't think we did. We almost did, then Reagan started the war on drugs, and someone started saying immigration was the problem. "Black" and "Mexican" was replaced by "inner city" and "felon". We locked up millions for minor drug crimes and created a system of oppression that appears to be race and culture neutral. Who would want to defend a drug addict felon? Only the most bleeding heart liberal. So, even though I could go to just about any college campus tonight and observe criminal behavior, but that's not who's getting locked up and labeled. This went on quietly for 30 years. Trump is just going back to the good old days of talking openly about it, calling Mexicans "not good people" and using words like "them", not to mention what he says about women. There are plenty of pre-1968 people out there who passed on their anger to the next generation. They've been waiting for someone to rally behind and Trump knows exactly what they want to hear.
All of the above. The March to Selma was 1965, racism was blatant in the South for the previous 80 years, before that we had slavery. So what are you comparing to? How have we improved on 1968? I don't think we did. We almost did, then Reagan started the war on drugs, and someone started saying immigration was the problem. "Black" and "Mexican" was replaced by "inner city" and "felon". We locked up millions for minor drug crimes and created a system of oppression that appears to be race and culture neutral. Who would want to defend a drug addict felon? Only the most bleeding heart liberal. So, even though I could go to just about any college campus tonight and observe criminal behavior, but that's not who's getting locked up and labeled. This went on quietly for 30 years. Trump is just going back to the good old days of talking openly about it, calling Mexicans "not good people" and using words like "them", not to mention what he says about women. There are plenty of pre-1968 people out there who passed on their anger to the next generation. They've been waiting for someone to rally behind and Trump knows exactly what they want to hear.I think institutionally we have come a good way towards defeating racism. Socially, somewhat. I think the newer generations might be less prone to racism. There's always going to be a little inherent natural racism. I don't think that can ever be removed. I think it's part of the human condition. I'm talking from Milwaukee to Bangladesh and everywhere in between. Trump's playing with a little bit of fire. Not much racism though. If any... Anti Foreign-Nationalism? Yeah. I'm ok with that myself. "Mexican", illegal or otherwise, isn't a race. It's a nationality. And if white Canadians were part of an immigration problem I would be against them too. Anti-Muslim comments....ehhnn? More like Anti-refugee comments to my ears. And we know which way the "refugee" issue is going. Worldwide. There's only so much a given population will take when it's cultural and economic identity is stressed. If you want to discuss these issues that would be great. I'm not going to listen to a bunch of people wring their hands and moan when Democracy takes a turn they don't favor. Referring to Trump as Hitler or a fascist doesn't make good social-political commentary for me. Neither does referring to people as stupid or ignorant. Like I said before, I think there are a few silver linings to Trump's campaign. Some have already borne fruit. Undoubtedly. I like to think I'm politically and historically astute. I'm watching history unfold and serious Party dynamics change here. I'm not really interested in the daily soundbites of a bunch of magpies screaming about how Trump is like Hitler. That's below the level of conversation I wish to partake in.
All of the above. The March to Selma was 1965, racism was blatant in the South for the previous 80 years, before that we had slavery. So what are you comparing to? How have we improved on 1968?I just noticed this... Are you familiar with the Democratic National Convention of 1968 in Chicago? That's what I was comparing these rallies to. Not issues of slavery or Selma or whatever else you've dredged up here.
The Bill of Rights limits the GOVERNMENT from abridging the rights of citizens. I suggest that a campaign rally for a candidate for POTUS is intrinsically a part of our governmental process. You suggest that it is no more that, than is a popularly attended football game.Well campaign rallies are far closer to a football game than any kind of Governmental process. Last time I checked there weren't any government rules or codes concerning campaign rallies. Again, you're letting a little too much romanticism into your views. From the ACLU's website:
Campaigns can opt to exclude protesters from campaign rallies. The First Amendment doesn’t stop them — in fact, the First Amendment protects the campaign’s right to control its message. Generally, a campaign rents space for its rallies, which gives it the right to exclude people for “trespass" as well as get law enforcement’s help to do so. A campaign can declare someone to be a trespasser if their presence interferes with the campaign’s chosen message. At a rally, for instance, enthusiastic sign-waving can be a requirement of attendance. A campaign has the right to control its own political theater, within the limits of nondiscrimination law. Deeming someone trying to attend a rally to be a protester because of her race or religion would, of course, violate the law.That's good enough for me. The Trump campaign is not infringing on protester's Constitutional rights. I wish you'd posted this earlier in the thread. You made some good points but this is the only definitive thing I've seen.
I wish you'd posted this earlier in the thread. You made some good points but this is the only definitive thing I've seen.Well I only just found it or I would have.
The Bill of Rights limits the GOVERNMENT from abridging the rights of citizens. I suggest that a campaign rally for a candidate for POTUS is intrinsically a part of our governmental process. You suggest that it is no more that, than is a popularly attended football game.Well campaign rallies are far closer to a football game than any kind of Governmental process. Last time I checked there weren't any government rules or codes concerning campaign rallies. Again, you're letting a little too much romanticism into your views. By romanticism, you must mean logic. From the ACLU's website:
Campaigns can opt to exclude protesters from campaign rallies. The First Amendment doesn’t stop them — in fact, the First Amendment protects the campaign’s right to control its message. Generally, a campaign rents space for its rallies, which gives it the right to exclude people for “trespass" as well as get law enforcement’s help to do so. A campaign can declare someone to be a trespasser if their presence interferes with the campaign’s chosen message. At a rally, for instance, enthusiastic sign-waving can be a requirement of attendance. A campaign has the right to control its own political theater, within the limits of nondiscrimination law. Deeming someone trying to attend a rally to be a protester because of her race or religion would, of course, violate the law.In that case, I would encourage large groups of black people, Mexican people, and Muslims to quietly attend Trump rallies. If the attendees at a rally are required to behave in some specified staged manner, this should be explicitly pointed out in any media coverage. If anyone does not behave in the required staged manner, and is, then excluded, EVERYONE who does not behave in that manner should be excluded. BTW, a couple of weeks ago 30 quiet black students were escorted out of a Trump event at Valdosta State University, by the Secret fricking Service, at Trump's request, before the event even began.
In that case, I would encourage large groups of black people, Mexican people, and Muslims to quietly attend Trump rallies.If you mean Mexican Americans I agree..I would encourage all of those folks to attend too. I think more and more are actually. But Mexicans can't vote in the US Tim.
If the attendees at a rally are required to behave in some specified staged manner, this should be explicitly pointed out in any media coverage. If anyone does not behave in the required staged manner, and is, then excluded, EVERYONE who does not behave in that manner should be excluded.Aww gee....great ideas Tim. Golly.
BTW, a couple of weeks ago 30 quiet black students were escorted out of a Trump event at Valdosta State University, by the Secret fricking Service, at Trump's request, before the event even began.I'm pretty sure they had Hillary buttons on their coats. That would allow the event organizers to exclude them from admission. The organizers don't have to legally allow any protesters in. How 'bout that?
In that case, I would encourage large groups of black people, Mexican people, and Muslims to quietly attend Trump rallies.If you mean Mexican Americans I agree..I would encourage all of those folks to attend too. I think more and more are actually. But Mexicans can't vote in the US Tim.
If the attendees at a rally are required to behave in some specified staged manner, this should be explicitly pointed out in any media coverage. If anyone does not behave in the required staged manner, and is, then excluded, EVERYONE who does not behave in that manner should be excluded.Aww gee....great ideas Tim. Golly.
BTW, a couple of weeks ago 30 quiet black students were escorted out of a Trump event at Valdosta State University, by the Secret fricking Service, at Trump's request, before the event even began.I'm pretty sure they had Hillary buttons on their coats. That would allow the event organizers to exclude them from admission. The organizers don't have to legally allow any protesters in. How 'bout that? If Mexicans are going to pay for Trump's useless wall, it is only fair that they get to attend his shows. You like my ideas or do you just enjoy being a sarcastic dick? The black students were wearing Hillary buttons? Are you just making that up? Local law enforcement led them out, although one SS agent reportedly oversaw it. Local law enforcement's story is that the students were ejected for being disruptive. They said that they had body cam video of the students being disruptive. But I haven't seen it. Have you?
They said that they had body cam video of the students being disruptive. But I haven't seen it. Have you?Oh well there you go. I don't need to see it. You could try for a FOIA request and get the video Tim if you're that interested. I'll take the cop's words. That's a tough job at those rallies. They have their hands full. Really, it's a thankless job.
They said that they had body cam video of the students being disruptive. But I haven't seen it. Have you?Oh well there you go. I don't need to see it. You could try for a FOIA request and get the video Tim if you're that interested. I'll take the cop's words. That's a tough job at those rallies. They have their hands full. Really, it's a thankless job. I don't envy the job that law enforcement are compelled to do at Trump rallies, especially when they are placed in a double bind. (For some reason, their job seems particularly difficult at Trump rallies.) But they are not immune to making mistakes and using deception to cover mistakes. I'll believe it when I see it.
From the ACLU's website:From the same site and article: "Presidents absolutely may not exclude people from government-sponsored events because of their peaceful expression..." So okay. Trump is not a governmental official. He can privatize a certain location, invite the public, and exclude anyone who does not play their part as trained monkeys or actors in his political theatre, even though there is the very real possibility that he will be our next POTUS. Just one caveat, however, his campaign rallies are not completely, privately sponsored. He, now, has Secret Service agents, paid for by US taxpayers, who have become a part of his show. Trump is obviously not going behave the way a President must. Yet he is afforded the taxpayer sponsored protection that is generally only provided to our President. IMO, he should be required to reimburse taxpayers for SS protection, in any campaign show, in which he restricts peaceful self-expression of attendees. IOW, if privatization is the justification for prohibiting peaceful expression, then the event should be fully privatized.Campaigns can opt to exclude protesters from campaign rallies. The First Amendment doesn’t stop them — in fact, the First Amendment protects the campaign’s right to control its message. Generally, a campaign rents space for its rallies, which gives it the right to exclude people for “trespass" as well as get law enforcement’s help to do so. A campaign can declare someone to be a trespasser if their presence interferes with the campaign’s chosen message. At a rally, for instance, enthusiastic sign-waving can be a requirement of attendance. A campaign has the right to control its own political theater, within the limits of nondiscrimination law. Deeming someone trying to attend a rally to be a protester because of her race or religion would, of course, violate the law.