Trump Rally in STL turns into madness

[Lightbringer]

hilarious how all of these cut in right when the act happens, so any and all build up is eliminated

Except there were witnesses of the account.

Also the first two videos clearly show people spitting and dragging protesters, so don't bullshit me.

 

[slimreaper]

Except there were witnesses of the account.

Also the first two videos clearly show people spitting and dragging protesters, so don't bullshit me.

Post from Chicago, this is the matter at hand

 

[Lightbringer]

Post from Chicago, this is the matter at hand

I like how you're now changing focus because you've been proven wrong.

 

[slimreaper]

I like how you're now changing focus because you've been proven wrong.

I never once said trump supporters didn't go at single protesters first.


This thread is about what happened last night

 

[Lightbringer]

I never once said trump supporters didn't go at single protesters first.


This thread is about what happened last night

But you said there was only one video of Trump supporters assaulting protesters and we were talking about the right to protest in general.

NO one video shows that and you proceed to re post it over and over

 

[Lightbringer]

hilarious how all of these cut in right when the act happens, so any and all build up is eliminated

Oh and here's the video showing the choke slam.

[video=youtube;ruHoM1zjzA8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruHoM1zjzA8[/video]

 

[demon of the leaf]

Oh and here's the video showing the choke slam.

[video=youtube;ruHoM1zjzA8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruHoM1zjzA8[/video]

I saw the news coverage im not a supporter of trump or sanders or any of the candidates but almost all of the crap i saw in that protest wasnt even a protest anymore it was a disgraceful assortment of fools and moronic mass i have ever seen and some were protesting and not knowing what they were protesting much of the violance was from the protestors own hands as an american i am appalled i watched

There is a right to a peaceful protest key word peaceful meaning no violance
There is a right to free speech meaning you can say what you want and i can say what i want and slimrapper can say what he wants
There is a right to peaceful assembly

I see alot of sanders voters and clintons supporters at trumps conventions being disruptive and by being disruptive you liable for arrest i might think much of trumps supporters are a bunch of angey people sick of the way things have been and voting out of spite but never have i seen them go to a sanders convention or a clinton convention to me that speaks alot about character and the fact that neather clinton or sanders drains a bit of respect

I saw also trump even said not to even hit a protester as they were being escorted out

 

[Lightbringer]

I saw the news coverage im not a supporter of trump or sanders or any of the candidates but almost all of the crap i saw in that protest wasnt even a protest anymore it was a disgraceful assortment of fools and moronic mass i have ever seen and some were protesting and not knowing what they were protesting much of the violance was from the protestors own hands as an american i am appalled i watched

There is a right to a peaceful protest key word peaceful meaning no violance
There is a right to free speech meaning you can say what you want and i can say what i want and slimrapper can say what he wants
There is a right to peaceful assembly

I see alot of sanders voters and clintons supporters at trumps conventions being disruptive and by being disruptive you liable for arrest i might think much of trumps supporters are a bunch of angey people sick of the way things have been and voting out of spite but never have i seen them go to a sanders convention or a clinton convention to me that speaks alot about character and the fact that neather clinton or sanders drains a bit of respect

I saw also trump even said not to even hit a protester as they were being escorted out

Being disruptive is not being violent. Most protests are disruptive, that's kind of the point. That's still within everyone's rights.

Did the protesters incite violence, did they swing the first punch at anyone? No.

Trump incited violence in other rallies on multiple occasions which were caught on video, including asking his supporters to punch someone and that he'd promise to pay the legal fees.

 

[Cabbage]

What's unappealing about Bernie Sanders?

He still has a decent chance of winning. The states that vote after March 15th are all projected to be in favor of him. He also managed to pull of the greatest upset in primary history by winning Michigan.

Probably too late for it to matter though. All Hillary has to do is win Ohio, Florida, and New York and she completely stops all potential Bernie has, because she's already won most of the superdelegates. I mean, even if Bernie wins most of the Pacific Northwest and Wisconsin (my home state), other states such as Kentucky and much of the East coast will probably move towards Hillary. Mind, Bernie has a chance to win Illinois, and I'm hopeful he may win at least one more state. But the odds, sadly, are against him at this point. Also, his historic win in Michigan is actually not truly significant in the delegate count, as he only won seven more delegates than Hillary (67 to her 60). But, if he can keep the momentum up, then maybe, just maybe, he still has a chance to win.

 

[Lightbringer]

Probably too late for it to matter though. All Hillary has to do is win Ohio, Florida, and New York and she completely stops all potential Bernie has, because she's already won most of the superdelegates. I mean, even if Bernie wins most of the Pacific Northwest and Wisconsin (my home state), other states such as Kentucky and much of the East coast will probably move towards Hillary. Mind, Bernie has a chance to win Illinois, and I'm hopeful he may win at least one more state. But the odds, sadly, are against him at this point. Also, his historic win in Michigan is actually not truly significant in the delegate count, as he only won seven more delegates than Hillary (67 to her 60). But, if he can keep the momentum up, then maybe, just maybe, he still has a chance to win.

That's not how superdelegates work.

Superdelegates can pledge to a certain candidate, like Hillary, but will switch allegiance based on the popular vote. So if Sanders gets more votes, they have no choice but to support him.

Actually what the media is currently doing by constantly showing the delegate number count with superdelegates included is un-democratic.

It was the same thing that happened back in 2008. Hillary had more superdelegates, yet still lost to Obama.

Bernie Sanders pulled off the greatest primary upset in all of primary history by winning Michigan, even though virtually every single poll showed him losing by a whopping 22 points and there are currently not many polls out for Ohio, Florida, NY.

Also the states that come after March 15 widely favor Sanders.

In terms of actual delegates won, Sanders is behind by about 200. So he has a pretty good chance.

 

[Cabbage]

That's not how superdelegates work.

Superdelegates can pledge to a certain candidate, like Hillary, but will switch allegiance based on the popular vote. So if Sanders gets more votes, they have no choice but to support him.

Actually what the media is currently doing by constantly showing the delegate number count with superdelegates included is un-democratic.

It was the same thing that happened back in 2008. Hillary had more superdelegates, yet still lost to Obama.

Bernie Sanders pulled off the greatest primary upset in all of primary history by winning Michigan, even though virtually every single poll showed him losing by a whopping 22 points and there are currently not many polls out for Ohio, Florida, NY.

Also the states that come after March 15 widely favor Sanders.

In terms of actual delegates won, Sanders is behind by about 200. So he has a pretty good chance.

Part of the reason for skepticism is this:

In accordance to the RealClearPolitics tracking of the delegate count (found

You must be registered for see links

), most of the victories Bernie has had thus far (with the notable exceptions of Minnesota, Kansas, and Vermont) had a delegate margin of less than ten. Meanwhile, Hillary commonly wins with margins more than twice than what Bernie wins in those same states. Already he has a problem of even catching up with Hillary when his wins end up being less significant in those terms. To compound the problem, Hillary has a 9 percent lead (in the smallest lead mind, and also mind these polls usually have a ~5% margin of error, so the lead could very well be less than this) in Ohio, an upper twenty lead (again the smallest one) in Florida, and an average ~20% lead in North Carolina (there's one poll that has a 10 percent lead there, but it's from back in February, so I doubt it holds as much validity anymore). There are two states of interest however: in Illinois, Bernie is extremely close to Hillary (one poll actually has him winning by two percent, so essentially it's anyone's game there), and Missouri literally has only one poll (at least that's available through RealClearPolitics), thus I think that that state's also up in the air. Thus, the best bet for Bernie is to pull a second historic win in Ohio and also win Illinois while not falling too far behind in Florida, Missouri, and North Carolina. However, the problem is that his wins in Ohio and Illinois will probably be more narrow than Hillary's in Florida, Missouri, and North Carolina, meaning that while Bernie will continue his momentum, Hillary will be much closer to cinching the nomination (I mean, she already has more than half of the delegates needed for nomination, while Bernie doesn't even have half as many as she does (this naturally includes the superdelegates mind you)). Mind, I'm still hopeful for Bernie to begin his comeback and win the nomination, but at the same time I can't be delusional about his chances here :/. Stranger things have happened, but one best not hope for the strange to happen.

A link to the polls mentioned can be found

You must be registered for see links

. The link leads to the polls of Illinois, given that that's the most contested race at the moment. The rest of the polls can be found through the links above the polls. Perhaps I'm being erroneous in my interpretation here, in which case I'd love to be illuminated as to these errors .

 

[Lightbringer]

Part of the reason for skepticism is this:

In accordance to the RealClearPolitics tracking of the delegate count (found

You must be registered for see links

), most of the victories Bernie has had thus far (with the notable exceptions of Minnesota, Kansas, and Vermont) had a delegate margin of less than ten. Meanwhile, Hillary commonly wins with margins more than twice than what Bernie wins in those same states. Already he has a problem of even catching up with Hillary when his wins end up being less significant in those terms. To compound the problem, Hillary has a 9 percent lead (in the smallest lead mind, and also mind these polls usually have a ~5% margin of error, so the lead could very well be less than this) in Ohio, an upper twenty lead (again the smallest one) in Florida, and an average ~20% lead in North Carolina (there's one poll that has a 10 percent lead there, but it's from back in February, so I doubt it holds as much validity anymore). There are two states of interest however: in Illinois, Bernie is extremely close to Hillary (one poll actually has him winning by two percent, so essentially it's anyone's game there), and Missouri literally has only one poll (at least that's available through RealClearPolitics), thus I think that that state's also up in the air. Thus, the best bet for Bernie is to pull a second historic win in Ohio and also win Illinois while not falling too far behind in Florida, Missouri, and North Carolina. However, the problem is that his wins in Ohio and Illinois will probably be more narrow than Hillary's in Florida, Missouri, and North Carolina, meaning that while Bernie will continue his momentum, Hillary will be much closer to cinching the nomination (I mean, she already has more than half of the delegates needed for nomination, while Bernie doesn't even have half as many as she does (this naturally includes the superdelegates mind you)). Mind, I'm still hopeful for Bernie to begin his comeback and win the nomination, but at the same time I can't be delusional about his chances here :/. Stranger things have happened, but one best not hope for the strange to happen.

A link to the polls mentioned can be found

You must be registered for see links

. The link leads to the polls of Illinois, given that that's the most contested race at the moment. The rest of the polls can be found through the links above the polls. Perhaps I'm being erroneous in my interpretation here, in which case I'd love to be illuminated as to these errors .

Well Hillary definitely has an advantage obviously, but to say that Bernie is done for is completely untrue.

His campaign has been gaining more momentum. If the media properly covered Bernie, then he would be leading without question. It's really just a matter of getting the word out.

The fact that he managed to close such an enormous gab is a miracle in itself. So it's just a matter of time.

 

[Cabbage]

Well Hillary definitely has an advantage obviously, but to say that Bernie is done for is completely untrue.

His campaign has been gaining more momentum. If the media properly covered Bernie, then he would be leading without question. It's really just a matter of getting the word out.

The fact that he managed to close such an enormous gab is a miracle in itself. So it's just a matter of time.

I mostly agree with this, but while the media is, unfortunately, biased towards pro-Hillary statements, I'm personally not persuaded that, if given truly fair coverage, Bernie would be leading without question. But eh, let's see what happens

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

Well Hillary definitely has an advantage obviously, but to say that Bernie is done for is completely untrue.

His campaign has been gaining more momentum. If the media properly covered Bernie, then he would be leading without question. It's really just a matter of getting the word out.

The fact that he managed to close such an enormous gab is a miracle in itself. So it's just a matter of time.

I'd love to see what the media would do if Trump and Sanders were the candidates.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Make America Great Again

You must be registered for see images

 

[Pukkake Pokayo]

You must be registered for see images

Good luck Murica

*GG Murica

 

[Lightbringer]

I mostly agree with this, but while the media is, unfortunately, biased towards pro-Hillary statements, I'm personally not persuaded that, if given truly fair coverage, Bernie would be leading without question. But eh, let's see what happens

There was a poll done before about how much coverage Bernie gets and it was something like 2 minutes of total coverage from all major media outlets as opposed to Hillary's 100+ hours.

The average person doesn't rigorously follow politics and many still don't know who Bernie Sanders is. Hillary Clinton is a huge name and virtually everyone knows her. So when it's time to vote, she's the default candidate that Democrats would fall back on because they are aware of her name and not so much of her policies. The media portrays her as some saint and people just accept that.

Once you look at the policies and the history of Hillary Clinton, it's hard to make a logical argument to support her over Bernie Sanders.

 

[Natsu Shazneel]

Have an cousin whose obsessed over him.

 

[Pukkake Pokayo]

[video]https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1350394781656208&substory_index=75&id=100000570975130[/video]