Donald Trump spoke in Saint Louis yesterday. Unlike Chicago, he was not shut down.
But it wasn’t for lack of trying.
According to an Associated Press article, which was clearly biased in favor of the “protesters” (more on this further on) “Trump’s St. Louis rally was interrupted repeatedly by protesters, and police said 31 people were arrested and charged with general peace disturbance.”
Fascists. Brownshirts. The people whose definition of free speech is “I say what I want, you better listen, and everyone else with a different opinion has no right to say anything at all”.
Somewhere in the depths of hell, hitler and mussolini must be grinning from ear to ear.
But how did the Associated Press article frame this attempt to stop a major presidential candidate from speaking to an audience which came to hear what he had to say? Here is the first paragraph of the article:
Donald Trump, Republican presidential front-runner, appeared Friday in St. Louis, as he faced intensifying criticism for the violent clashes between supporters and protesters at his rallies.
Not that a concerted effort was made to prevent anyone from hearing what he had to say, but that he was responsible for the violence which the “protesters” trying to prevent him from speaking did everything in their power to cause.
And then we have this:Trump’s St. Louis rally was interrupted repeatedly by protesters, and police said 31 people were arrested and charged with general peace disturbance. One person arrested outside the event was charged with third-degree assault.
Trump taunted the protesters from the stage at the city’s Peabody Opera House, even as he promised that police and security would be “gentle” as they removed them.
What did Trump say to “taunt” them? Well the first thing he said was that “They’re allowed to get up and interrupt us horribly and we have to be very, very gentle. They can swing and hit people, but if we hit them back, it’s a terrible, terrible thing, right?”
In other words, he called them out for the fact that they were being given leeway to stop freedom of speech in its tracks.
That is not a taunt, that is a statement of empirical fact.
Then, when the disruptions continued, Trump called them “troublemakers” (which they not only were, they were actively trying to be) and told them to “go home to mommy”…”go home and get a job”… and that “they contribute nothing.”
Is that taunting? If you want to deal in strict dictionary definitions, of course it is. But in the real world, taunting is what you do to provoke someone, not what you do as a reaction to being provoked…which is what Trump did.
In the previous blog, I talked about what the identical groups did in Chicago – and how it was a pyrrhic victory because it helped Trump more than it hurt him. Those words can be applied, word for word, to what happened in Saint Louis.
As someone who does not support Trump, and would not vote for him, it creates sympathy on my part for him (enough so that I’ve started capitalizing his name again – something I had stopped doing some time ago).
It stands to reason that it is moving people who would support and vote for Trump if given a push in that direction, the push in that direction.
As for the people who hate Trump enough to try and shut him down? How many votes do you figure it got their cause?
Tell you what: Add up all the moveon.org and #blacklivesmatter Trump supporters there were before Saint Louis and Chicago. Did you come to a number? Maybe a single digit, oblong in shape? That’s how many votes it got them, because that’s how many there were to get.
See my point?
“faced intensifying criticism f . . . . . . . . . .. [Trump] . “faced intensifying criticism for the violent clashes ” – – – – – – – – – – – Q: Who Broke that Window? – – – – – – – – – – A: Joey did. . I threw a Rock at him, and He Ducked. . . . . . . . . . . . .