Chicago Trump Rally Cancelled

[Mermaid]

sorry but LoL

Hillary lies All The Time.  This link is fun.  Lots of links to other clinton whoppers on the side:

http://nypost.com/2015/11/28/hillary-clintons-million-little-lies/

Are you saying no illegal mexican/latino immigrants are rapists or other type of criminal (beyond being illegally in the country)?

No, of course you are not. 

Strawman arguments aren't becoming.

[Mermaid]

And abortion protesters who bar entry to clinics aren't violating anyone's right to their own body. I mean, they're just preventing you from safely doing something that's perfectly legal. Nope, no violation of rights here.

I hate the abortion protesters as much as you do. I want to slap the shit out of them. But they do have a right to free speech. They are crossing a line when they PREVENT you from doing things. I do not think this is a good example of what happened at the rally. It was canceled out of fear of violence, but nobody prevented it from happening. It would have been unpleasant, sure, but I do not agree that it was a violation of anyone's right to free speech.

[Mermaid]

Yes it was. 

The Trump rally was cancelled due to safety concerns via the protesters.  People who do not support a candidate and are taking matters into their own hands rather than democratically attending their primaries and voting during elections.

They do not have to support Trump.  The state caucus is the proper place to set election agendas.  The protesters do not like Trumps platform and with intent, decided to disrupt peoples right to hear their candidate of choice; celebrating the fact that the democratic process was interrupted.

It is a shameful reflection on Chicago.

I do not agree that this was a violation of anyone's right to free speech. Nobody was prevented from speaking by law. Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Well isn't it just so patriotic to defend the rights of the presidential candidate who has said he could shoot people and get away with it, the same one advocating openly to be a war criminal.  You can blather on all day long about these grand, high falutant ideas and I might agree, but Trump has brought every bit of this rhetoric on himself.

[Jack89]

I can't believe how many of you people are excusing or defending the actions of these violent protesters.  I hear people say, " I don't condone their actions, but...".  There is no but.  When you try to prevent other people from speaking because you don't like what they're saying, either passively or violently, you are against free speech.  And don't try to say you trying to stop hate speech, that's pure bullshit.  Sure, Trump is a liar and has crazy political views, but I personally find BLM and radical feminist views much more divisive, discriminatory and hateful.  Would it be alright if a bunch of skinheads showed up and shut down a BLM or feminist rally through intimidation and violence?  Hell no.

[Mermaid]

I can't believe how many of you people are excusing or defending the actions of these violent protesters.  I hear people say, " I don't condone their actions, but...".  There is no but.  When you try to prevent other people from speaking because you don't like what they're saying, either passively or violently, you are against free speech.  And don't try to say you trying to stop hate speech, that's pure bullshit.  Sure, Trump is a liar and has crazy political views, but I personally find BLM and radical feminist views much more divisive, discriminatory and hateful.  Would it be alright if a bunch of skinheads showed up and shut down a BLM or feminist rally through intimidation and violence?  Hell no.

I said absolutely none of this.

[chill98]

Strawman arguments aren't becoming.

Fair enough.  More from hillary:

In an interview last month on Fox News, Mrs. Clinton said she does not “think that we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do better.”

In an interview on WABC radio, she said: “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

“Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we’re going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let’s have a system that keeps track of them,” she said.

Unlike many pro-business Republicans, Mrs. Clinton also has castigated Americans for hiring illegal aliens.

“People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,” she said. “I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/13/20041213-124920-6151r/?page=all

She was against it, but now she's for it.  Which position do you think she really takes?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-stance-on-immigration-is-a-major-break-from-obama/2016/03/10/6388a1f8-e700-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

She will say anything to get a vote and then revert to sameold sameold.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I said absolutely none of this.

True: your argument is that they technically didn't prevent the rally. And as we all know, technically correct is the best kind of correct. /s

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Well isn't it just so patriotic to defend the rights of the presidential candidate who has said he could shoot people and get away with it, the same one advocating openly to be a war criminal.  You can blather on all day long about these grand, high falutant ideas and I might agree, but Trump has brought every bit of this rhetoric on himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjJN08uqt70

[Mermaid]

True: your argument is that they technically didn't prevent the rally. And as we all know, technically correct is the best kind of correct. /s

Based on my understanding of what rights to free speech mean, I think both "sides" exercised these rights quite well. It's very very important that this basic right to free speech is upheld, like I said. People are assholes, but they did not prevent anything. That decision was made by Trump.

Freedom of speech does in no way mean freedom from consequences of saying whatever the hell you want. It has only to do with government repercussions.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Freedom of speech does in no way mean freedom from consequences of saying whatever the hell you want.

Interesting. So, if people are willing to threaten Trump with violence, you would agree that they should accept the consequences of making Trump into a sort of martyr. I mean, his supporters sure as hell didn't back down when he was simply being trash-talked. What do you think they'll do now?

Consequences are not necessarily the end of a discussion. Quite often they are the beginning of a feud. If you're fine with no-platforming someone, then you should also be fine with the consequences of doing so.

[chill98]

I do not agree that this was a violation of anyone's right to free speech. Nobody was prevented from speaking by law. Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship.

Trump was prevented from speaking.  It became a safety issue caused by the disruption of a legal political rally.  And it is against U of Chi rules:

The right of freedom of expression at the University includes peaceful protests and orderly demonstrations. At the same time, the University has long recognized that the right to protest and demonstrate does not include the right to engage in conduct that disrupts the University's operations or endangers the safety of others. University Statute 21 states:

"Disruptive Conduct . Conduct of members of the University disruptive of the operations of the University, including interference with instruction, research, administrative operations, freedom of association, and meetings, is prohibited and is subject to disciplinary action".

https://studentmanual.uchicago.edu/protest

Added: The UIC (University of Illinois at Chicago) Pavilion is a 9,500-seat multi-purpose arena. It is home to the University of Illinois at Chicago Flames basketball team and the Windy City Rollers.

[Mermaid]

Interesting. So, if people are willing to threaten Trump with violence, you would agree that they should accept the consequences of making Trump into a sort of martyr. I mean, his supporters sure as hell didn't back down when he was simply being trash-talked. What do you think they'll do now?

Consequences are not necessarily the end of a discussion. Quite often they are the beginning of a feud. If you're fine with no-platforming someone, then you should also be fine with the consequences of doing so.

No. I said none of that either.

[Mermaid]

Trump was prevented from speaking.  It became a safety issue caused by the disruption of a legal political rally.  And it is against U of Chi rules:

https://studentmanual.uchicago.edu/protest

Added: The UIC (University of Illinois at Chicago) Pavilion is a 9,500-seat multi-purpose arena. It is home to the University of Illinois at Chicago Flames basketball team and the Windy City Rollers.

This is not relevant to the right to Freedom of Speech. You are citing policy here. That is the crux of what I am saying here. Freedom of Speech is not U of Chicago rules. I am stating no more, no less than this.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

No. I said none of that either.

I never said you did. I extrapolated your position based on past statements. If my extrapolation is false, then explain why. Otherwise, based on the evidence, you agree that feud behavior is a perfectly valid response to someone saying something you don't agree with.