How Anti-Trump Protesters Help Trump

Hello dear reader(s)!

Last night you no-doubt heard that a Donald Trump rally was shut down by protesters in Chicago.  The protesters are claiming victory for their actions that resulted in the Trump campaign pulling the plug on the event for the safety of all involved.  And despite the fact that as a liberal who usually sides with Democrats I have said it is in liberals’ strategic interests to allow Trump to continue to fracture the Republican party, it should be obvious by previous posts and remarks that I am no Trump supporter.

That said, however, I am definitely not on the side of the protesters in this case.  And as liberal and anti-Trump, and anti-Republican as I am in general, if I am not on the side of the protesters, they should be asking themselves who is.

You see, the rallies candidates have are almost always considered to be private events.  The candidates usually pay for the places they hold the rallies, private security, and a whole host of other costs associated with holding them.  As such, the events are private and the candidates have final say on who is allowed in, and who is allowed to stay.

Pretend you are getting married.  You rented a wonderful location and sent out your invitations.  People tried to crash the wedding.  Do you not have the right to throw them out?

Or look at it another way.  You are in the ceremony, giving your vows.  Everyone there was invited.  It is going fine, until someone who has had a secret crush on the bride all along decides to object.  The bride is horrified, and wants him gone.  The groom is horrified and wants him gone. The family and other friends are horrified and want him gone.  The groom wants to kick his butt and says as much.  If the groom’s best friend from high school who has always been a bit too aggressive sucker-punches the guy as he is being taken out by security, is the groom responsible?  Doesn’t the groom have a right to have this guy removed and that he wishes he could kick his butt?

The fact of the matter is that we as citizens of the US have the right to free speech.  We have the right to peaceably assemble.  So if all of these crowds stayed outside the event and held up signs and chanted things about the fascist candidate, they would be in the right and within their rights.  But they don’t do that.  They go into the rally, with the express intent of disrupting it.  They go into someone’s private event to crash it.  And then they cry when people get upset and treat them a little roughly as they are trying to remove them from the event.

Now, two wrongs don’t make a right.  The people inside the rallies should allow the security to handle it.  But actions sometimes have consequences and when you go into a private event with the express intent of disrupting it, people are going to get angry.  Change Donald Trump’s rally to your wedding, and think about what would happen.

And this is what it comes down to recently with my problem with my fellow liberals.  It isn’t about message, it is about tactics.  The message that Donald Trump is using fascist techniques to gain power needs to be heard.  But when you use speech suppressing techniques such as trespassing and disrupting a private event to deliver that message, the message itself gets lost to anyone who really needs to hear it.  If you lose my support, you have definitely lost the support of those who might have been thinking of voting for Trump but weren’t sure.  The ones who think they are all flawed and would have stayed home now have an incentive to show up.

The worst part?  How many of these protesters do you believe will actually cast a ballot?

I’m fine with protesting.  If you protest to send a message, not to deny the right of someone to say horrible things at a private event.  Is this what we do now?  Shut down any speech we don’t like?  If so, we are no better than they are.  Do you know what would send the loudest message?  A message far louder than stopping a rally?  A crushing defeat in the polls, and the destruction of a major political party with a racist, xenophobic base that committed suicide by making those decades old views so public.  But no, instead, you will drive people into the arms of candidate Trump, as he will be seen a victim of fascist tactics instead of a perpetrator of them.  In all honestly, he is both.

Right now, Trump is the GOP’s problem.  This is why the GOP establishment is lining up to try to stop the monster they created.  Not only are the tactics of disruption along the same kinds of tactics the Republicans use, but it is really doing the Republican party’s dirty work.

Meanwhile the terrible rhetoric on the other side is ignored.  Hillary Clinton is allowed to spew lies about Bernie Sanders with the auto bailout, her establishment friends lie about his civil rights record, and she is allowed to whitewash history regarding the Reagans and AIDS.

Furthermore, the mayor of Chicago covered up a police shooting until after his re-election.  Chicago is dealing with horrible violence, to where locals call it Chiraq.  The mayor, happens to be a vocal Clinton supporter and…coincidentally…as Clinton was taking heat yesterday for her whitewashing of history on AIDS and the Reagans, a Trump rally IN CHICAGO was cancelled because of security concerns despite the fact that the city was aware of the disruption plans and mass protests for hours before the event, leading to criticism of the police preparedness.  Suddenly, the scandal involving candidate Clinton is buried.  Maybe it is all a coincidence, but it sure is convenient.

Trump is not our problem yet.  Let the Republicans sort it out.  Meanwhile, we need to pay attention to what is our problem.  Our own primaries and the establishment anointing of someone based on political favors and “turns”.

And if these tactics continue into the general, Trump, who is not our problem yet…

Well he will be when he is elected President.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Author: Josh Wrenn

Cancer survivor, wanna-be artist, musician, author, and all around good guy.

13 thoughts on “How Anti-Trump Protesters Help Trump”

  1. I absolutely agree Josh. Up until last night, Trump’s assertion that protesters at his rallies were violent was blatantly false and everyone knew it. Now what happened in last night and the protester who rushed the stage at his Ohio rally a short while ago has given him exactly what he wants. He and many of his followers feed off this. Right after Super Tuesday Sean King of the New York Daily News wrote that it’s just a matter of time before someone is killed at a Trump rally and I’m afraid he’s right.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Right, I don’t think they’ve been violent. but unless they stayed outside to protest, they aren’t within their rights either. It has the potential to get really ugly, and these tactics have allowed Trump to almost seem as if he didn’t have anything to do with the ugliness.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Hitler used to plant “protesters” in his crowds to stir up the passions of his supporters. Protesting inside the event does just that – it makes the hateful thinking even worse and the supporters even more fervent. Authoritarian personalities feed off their anger and their desire to crush those they see as threatening their way of life and those they blame for their woes. Causing the event to be cancelled is just riling up Trump’s base and ensuring they’ll show up on election day.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I’m no supporter of violence, but I’m convinced the fact that protests end in violence ONLY at Trump rallies, while protests at other candidate’s rallies get resolved peacefully, hurts Trump more than it helps him. I’m also not sure we have any duty to extend free speech rights to hate speech and incitements to assault coming from a podium. Local officials do have a duty to protect public safety, and if Trump rallies are a threat to that, the freedom to stir up riots isn’t Constitutionally protected. Silent protestors, protestors in police custody and journalists all got roughed up previously at Trump rallies with minimal legal consequence, so protestors pushing back harder was a predictable result. 50,000 had signed petitions against the rally being held at UIC before the event, and it was unwise to choose a venue at a racially diverse campus in the first place.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Trump has not called for violence except in one case where he said he would pay legal fees if for those who roughed someone up. The rest of the time, he has said HE’D LIKE TO commit violence against someone, which is legally protected. That is just fact. It is why I am allowed to say Ted Cruz has a face that is punchable as opposed to telling people they need to punch Ted Cruz. We have a right to our opinions, no matter how heinous. Otherwise, who is to judge what is heinous? Protest all you want, but once you come in, you are no longer a protester, you are a trespasser. Trespassers are breaking the law and are subject to being forcefully removed. The suckerpunch was obviously wrong, but is something that can not reasonably be pinned on Trump. If someone comes into your private event with the intent to disrupt it, what would you do? What might other people there do? Protest in the ballot box, or protest outside. But once you step foot in someone’s private event with the intent to disrupt it, you become responsible. You become the fascist trying to deny people their rights. And that is how many, many people are going to see it. You are driving people into his arms.

      Like

      1. You misunderstand the legalities, and you appear not to have seen any of the news show montages of the other times Trump has been inciting violence. But we can agree to disagree. I was around for the 1968 campaign. I’ve seen all these dynamics before. When violence broke out between protestors and police outside the Democratic Convention, it reflected badly on the Democrats and the police, not the protestors. It boosted the Nixon campaign. And violent ejection of protestors at various Wallace rallies also made that campaign look worse than those opposed.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. No, I do not. It is the same reason Ted Nugent doesn’t get arrested for the things he says. If Donald Trump were legitimately inciting things, he’d be arrested. It is not illegal to voice that you would like to hurt someone. It is illegal to call for it. And I said, when he told his supporters to rough the people up and that he would pay the legal fees, that was crossing the line. I don’t get these from montages, I get these from all incidents that are brought to light either from mass media or social media as admittedly, I am not following the Trump campaign around in person. That instance is the only instance he has actually incited anything. All the rest, he is expressing his opinion, and that is protected. It is helping him, just look at the polls. You said it yourself, in 68, the protests and violence caused a backlash that helped Nixon, despite the fact that the Nixon campaign relished the chaos and created the conditions that led to it. The same is happening in the Trump campaign. They are baiting people in, and the protesters are swallowing the bait. It isn’t the message, it is the way the message is delivered. These are legally private events. If you crash a private event, it is the right of the event holders to have you removed. If you resist, they can do it by force. When you go in, and try to disrupt someone speaking at a private event, you are denying that person the right to speak freely in private. You become the fascist. It plays into Trump’s hands. You become the person trying to deny someone the right to speak. Protest peacefully outside, and your message gets heard, and there is no way to spin that in Trump’s favor. Go inside to disrupt, and you drive people into his arms. But you don’t have to believe me, the polls prove it.
        Just the same as if you come onto my page to protest me. I have the right to remove your comment and silence you. It is my page.
        It is their event, they have the right to silence you there.
        Go outside, and/or vote, and there is nothing they can do.

        Like

      3. I understand your view, even if I disagree. Let’s not muddy the issue with examples about blog space. This isn’t your page any more than my blog is solely mine. WordPress owns the space, they allow us to publish our thoughts in their space in trade for permission to paste ads on the end of our posts, and we’re both subject to the TOS contract we agreed to. This is commercial space, not a free speech zone. We get to regulate traffic and responses for no pay, but retain no exclusive rights to content we publish (WordPress co-owns the copyright), and we can get suspended at any time without notice for TOS infractions.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. But that’s ,my point, INSIDE the rally, is also not a free speech zone, it’s a private event. Yes, WP can suspend me, but I moderate my page. If you were disrupting my blog (you’re not), I could remove your comment and mark all future comments as spam. That is my right, because this is a private blog. I’m not going to, because healthy debate is fine with me and you are not doing anything abusive that would rise to that level, but I could. It is my discretion, just like it is Trump’s right to remove candidates AT HIS RALLIES. Again, I do not like Trump. I think Trump is not someone who should be our President. I think he should be opposed (although I think it is better strategically to allow the candidate to take down the hateful GOP first), but it is the TACTICS used that are driving people into his arms. Trying to disrupt his event is the same dirty things he would do to others. It takes away any moral authority we would have. Making our voices heard outside his event is a different story, and could not be spun by his campaign as it already is. And the GOP voters are listening to that spin. He gains off of this. Message right (although again, strategically, I think we should wait as the Republicans implode to voice it), but tactics wrong. It does more harm than good. It loses the moral authority of the message. I thin at this point we need to agree to disagree on this, because nothing I can say will convince you that the tactics are harmful to the cause, and that these events are private and therefore subject to the control of the event holders..and there is nothing you can say that will convince me the tactics are good. We will wait and see who wins the nomination to find out who was right here.
        And then hopefully we will both show up to vote for someone else…but not Ted Cruz either.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. I have been to my share of protests (Vietnam War, Iraq War) so let me throw in my two cents. I think it is quite appropriate to protest outside any campaign rally. Especially when the rally promotes hatred and racism.
    But I think it is not appropriate to disrupt any rally for any candidate. That goes too far.
    This kind of disruption is exactly what Trump wants. He will use these protesters for the duration of the campaign. he will use them as examples of “liberals” and “others” (code for blacks and Hispanics). Fox News will show it to lather up their minions, as well.
    These protesters should rethink their strategy or they will end up being used and will end up helping, rather than hindering, this modern day Mussolini. Be civil. Be smart.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Holy fuck. Am I ever grateful I live in Canada… and did you hear Josh that any American who doesn’t want for Toupee (my name for Trump) wins, y’all can come over to lovely Cape Breton Island and live peacefully. 🙂

    Like

Comments appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s