Browse By

Donald Trump Plays Violent Anti-Trump Protesters Like a Fiddle

You may have heard the news. If you haven’t, you should.

At a Donald Trump campaign rally yesterday in San Jose, anti-Trump protesters:

  • Stole signs and Trump supporters’ hats and burned them
  • Threw eggs and food at a Trump supporter, hitting her face and body while screaming “fuck you, you piece of shit”
  • Spit on multiple Trump supporters
  • Punched and bloodied multiple Trump supporters
  • Smashed car windows
  • Threw multiple items at police officers

Brutal, violent mob intimidation by his opponents is exactly what Donald Trump hopes for. He gets an opening to characterize his opponents as “thugs…”

Donald Trump refers to group of thugs in San Jose

… which is how Trump justifies treating entire classes of people brutally, even lethally. In turn, this is how authoritarians justify voting for Trump: without a strongman, they’ll say, there’s no way to stop the “thugs” from overtaking America.

It doesn’t matter that violent protests aren’t common and have no prospect of actually taking over the nation. People will react to images of violence as if they are common regardless of the truth.

It doesn’t matter that these acts of political violence against pro-Trump Americans are defended as a rejection of “bourgeois” or “respectability politics.” They still violate people’s basic rights on the basis of their political positions.

Some people in America believe that it’s acceptable to be violent against others if those others are themselves violent. Some people who believe this support Donald Trump. Some people who believe this oppose Donald Trump. As the violence escalates, Donald Trump’s waltz toward the White House is made ever easier.

9 thoughts on “Donald Trump Plays Violent Anti-Trump Protesters Like a Fiddle”

  1. J Clifford says:

    I’m curious to see what people are thinking about the idea of going to protest outside the Republican convention this year. I’m put off by the prospect of idiots like these protesters in San Jose showing up.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      I have the same qualms. The San Jose Mercury News shared a reaction by one person in attendance, Arnold Morales: “I came to protest Donald Trump, not to get in the middle of this. This is really, really stupid. There’s a lot of people like me, but everyone will just focus on the four crazy ones. That diminishes the message.”

      Apart from the immorality of violence, I do not want my presence at a protest to be used by Donald Trump to catapult himself into the White House. The danger of this man’s candidacy requires that we be strategic.

      That said, what does a productive, strategic presence look like?

      1. Charles Manning says:

        Trump opponents should take to the streets everywhere Trump goes, but keep it totally legal. That means allowing Trump to speak before expressing contempt for what he says, and refraining from abusive and obscene language. Hillary, while not my candidate, has been doing that fairly well. Maybe Sanders is too, but the media don’t report him saying much of anything other than that he’s going to win the nomination get elected president (the idea being to make him look out of touch with reality).

  2. Korky Day says:

    First of all, we must realize that it’s the Irregular Times and almost all the other media, with their unfair coverage of Trump, who are most guilty of stirring up the violence.

    Trump is responsible somewhat, but less so than the media and Trump’s libelous opponents. He has plenty of faults, but he’s no more racist than the average US American. Present a more nuanced view and stop the hatred of Trump. He’s not my favourite candidate, but he is better than Clinton, who you don’t lie about as you lie about Trump.

    1. Charles Manning says:

      Irregular Times is the only news source I’m aware of that regularly points out that violence against or in response to Trump’s rhetoric aids his campaign. The MSM never makes that point — at least not when I’m watching or reading. So, Korky Day, you’re 180 degree off.

      If Trump did something amounting to an imminent threat to harm his opponents, like pulling a gun on them or destroying their property without legal justification, they could be justified in using force in self-defense. If Trump gets elected, that might happen; but at this stage, it’s ludicrous to think of the violence as self-defense.

    2. Jim Cook says:

      Absurd on its face.

    3. Reynardine says:

      ‘Scuse. I know only a marginal handful as racist and violent as Trump, and “average” Americans tend to shun them.

  3. Korky Day says:

    Our own CBC radio yesterday was horrified that Trump is against identifiable groups!
    Sure he is. Those ‘identifiable groups’ include illegal immigrants, terrorists, liars, and puppets and dupes of Wall Street, etc.

  4. Reynardine says:

    Don’t rule out the presence of provocateurs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!