Trump: Protesters Who Were Beaten Up By My Supporters Violated My Rights First

I can agree with this.

I believe I started drifting away from what was being brought up in the op into other things.

Trump did not have the right to encourage his people to attack people for just interfering with his speach if that is what he was implying.

Agreed. I think they're raising other, better, arguments that are more legally sound, the trespass argument for example. But that other argument, that doesn't fly.
 
@ me next time, pussy.

Also, I destroyed your feeble "argument" last night. I'm sorry your intellect isn't what you wish it was, but here we are.
Why would I need to @ you? You're in every thread all the time. Your "destruction" was just posting a gif(shocker) of a goal post. That's intellectual destruction in your world?
 
No, it would not. That is dumb.

Really? Who's the President?

What's really dumb is you arguing that protesters have free reign to protest wherever they want.

Trespassing? Permits? How do they work?
 
No but they can be used when fault is held in court if per my link they cause reasonable imtemadation.

If some is in your wife's face calling her a cunt and whore and you push them away and a fight starts the court will consider that.

Do you have a link for that? Your links say the opposite.

So you have a link to any legal cases where a celebrity was telling people to get violent and he would protect them? You keep ignoring this aspect... which is literally the only thing that matters in this discussion.
 
Really? Who's the President?

What's really dumb is you arguing that protesters have free reign to protest wherever they want.

Trespassing? Permits? How do they work?

I've never said they can protest wherever they want without incurring removal or arrest. I'm saying you can't assault them (or encourage assault) when they protest.
 
Someone was planning on throwing something at him, he simply told the audience if they see someone about to throw something, stop it.

Reread the article and pay attention to the things you don't want it to say.

I see nothing wrong with that.

Of course you don't. Mysteriously, you are not the courts.
 
Do you have a link for that? Your links say the opposite.

So you have a link to any legal cases where a celebrity was telling people to get violent and he would protect them? You keep ignoring this aspect... which is literally the only thing that matters in this discussion.

Go read my last post to Pan.
 
Homer Thomson has 30,000 likes and he seriously only posts gifs and memes. Kong dsnt tap has like 20,000 likes and hasn't made a single post that was anything other name calling. Don't care if you're feeling nice, there are your 2 separate posters.
Ok so find a post of theirs that says nothing more than " republicans suck " that " instantly gets 20 likes "

And fyi when you are shit talking someone it's poor form to not tag them

@HomerThompson @KONG-D'SNT-TAP
 
Bullshit. @Big_Chief_Stove and @glennrod are two people in particular who I look forward to disagreeing with me. They've pointed me to so much interesting information that has polished my ideas.

Talking to you is like talking to someone who has only had sex with prostitutes: you can't even comprehend women sleeping with you because they want to. You can't even comprehend people listening to your posts because they're informative.
Dredd,

Top of the evening to you sir.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,036
Messages
55,463,019
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw
Back
Top