When your whole campaign is admittedly based in people's anger, why are we surprised by people's anger?
As another stated, alot of ppl have been angry...fed up...
for a long time, with having to sit back and watch
their country be destroyed by leftists, liberals,
pc authoritarians, muslum terrorists/appeasers,
ILLEGAL immigration sympathizers and abettors,
and ungodly lies forced upon their children,
like same-sex 'unions' and evolution, etc.,
with no option to even debate.
Someone stood up and put an identifying face
and voice to their anger and disgust
at the way things are going,
and ppl feel they have a right to support him
in his passion to want to see America
reverse the self-destructive course
the ungodly left has had her spinning down.
I don't think too many are surprised at ppl's anger.
The real surprise is how long ppl have laid down,
and let the leftists
'fundamentally TRANCE-form America'
by putting ppl into a zombie-like stupor
to just accept whatever left-wing garbage
gets shoved at them.
Ppl are finally shoving it back,
and they want a candidate
that seems to care enough to represent
their anger, and love for America.
Might even accomplish some good?
exactly..Trump must deal with the monster he created
A: The 'monster' is the anti-christian, anti-American left,
and
B: Is not created by Donald Trump.
He is just a voice of many who are sick of the monster.
It's fairly well known here what I think of Trump, so no need to speak of that.
However, regarding the Rally and the Protest last night in Chicago, let me say that while I agree fully that both sides have the Constitutional right to assemble and express their beliefs/speech.
What is not acceptable is when one side (with whatever measure) silences the other side. Regardless of which side it is, this is not Constitutional.
Neither side is innocent in all of this, for there are documented instances of violence initiated by members of both sides.
In my opinion, a large part of the blame for such things lies with the Authorities. There is NO WAY they did not know such a protest was planned, and they did not properly prepare for what transpired.
All they had to do was establish "zones" for both sides to assemble in, and anyone (from either side) that violated their designated "zone" should have been arrested.
When the Constitutional right to protest turns into an attempt to silence those opposed to ones beliefs, it is no longer a Constitutional (1st Amendment right), it is Domestic Terrorism.
Blame is plentiful, and even Trump (given his rhetoric) shares in the blame for such as occurred in Chicago.
Domestic Terrorism?
That's a bit of a misapplication here.
Nonetheless, If -T- holds a lawful rally, and -P-
protests/disrupts to the point that -T- cannot
conduct the rally, effectively shutting off -T's-
constitutional right to free speech/assembly,
shouldn't -P- have to cease or be arrested?
Why do some ppl DEMAND the right to free speech
for certain protestors, but DENY the right
to free speech for others in the first place?