Random thought

[Hawkmoon]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/anti-trump-groups-threaten-largest-civil-disobedience-action-of-the-century/

It's apparently an open secret that George Soros is funding anti-Trump demonstrations. So these are not spontaneous, "grass roots" expressions of ... anything. They are pre-planned, deliberate attempts to subvert the political process by which the United States country governs itself.

Isn't that sort of like ... "treason"? Shouldn't these clowns be arrested and charged with something a lot more serious than distrurbing the peace? Something like attempting to take over the government? That's what treason is, right?

[agricola]

It isn't, and to be honest I would be amazed if Soros was the only one funding the anti-Trump crowd.

[Perd Hapley]

"the United States country"

Your grammar really drinks when you're slipping. 

[Blakenzy]

I would say that he could be charged with funding a riot. SOP Third world politics creeping into 'merica.

As far as treason, almost every person in high office should be charged with that. Seriously.

[Hawkmoon]

Your grammar really drinks when you're slipping. 

You got me.

I originally wrote "this country," and then I remembered that the Internet (and the membership of this forum) is International and that I shouldn't assume that all readers are citizens of and physically in the U.S. so I changed it -- and didn't clean up the resulting grammatical mess.

My bad.

[Perd Hapley]

You got me.

I originally wrote "this country," and then I remembered that the Internet (and the membership of this forum) is International and that I shouldn't assume that all readers are citizens of and physically in the U.S. so I changed it -- and didn't clean up the resulting grammatical mess.

My bad.

I figured. It happens.

[seeker_two]

I would say that he could be charged with funding a riot. SOP Third world politics creeping into 'merica.

Inciting riot, interfering with a Federal election, trespassing.....there's a law somewhere to cover it.....

.....whether it will be enforced or prosecuted is another matter.

[K Frame]

"Isn't that sort of like ... "treason"?"

 

[makattak]

It's most certainly not treason.

It is, however, playing with fire.

The right/traditional/patriotic wing in this country has been generally law abiding and going through the political process in the traditional way.

People have limits, though. Trump is a result of the blue-collar workers feeling generally ignored and put upon. (Which they rightfully feel, even if they are looking to the wrong person to fix it.)

Try to stop the legitimate expression of their frustrations with violence or the threat of violence? The sucker punch in North Carolina is just a hint of what will result.

Please note, I'm not encouraging the resulting violence nor am I pleased by that outcome. I'm just predicting it, given what I know of human nature.

[MechAg94]

If you add to that a possible attempt by the Republican Party to circumvent the Primary voting process and things could get ugly. 

From what I heard, Soros (or someone who is funded by him) gave a sizeable chunk of money to the Kasich campaign.  I wonder where else Soros and others like him are throwing money around that isn't so public. 

[makattak]

I wonder where else Soros and others like him are throwing money around that isn't so public. 

"News" organizations.

[Hawkmoon]

Unfortunately, the definition of "Treason" in the COTUS is too limited to help us. I had forgotten that (if I ever knew it). My initial post was based on a dictionary definition, such as the following from Merrian-Webster On-line, which I think does fit:

Full Definition of treason

    1
    :  the betrayal of a trust :  treachery

    2
    :  the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family.

It may be a stretch, but I think trying to rig an election by intentionally turning public appearances by opposing candidates into riots or near-riots could be regarded as "attempting by overt actions to overthrow the government ..." There aren't too many things more overt that a good riot.

[MechAg94]

"News" organizations.

I thought I saw a brief mention of that last year.  I can't remember where.

[Blakenzy]

Well he is "betraying" the electoral process, or attempting to do so, by using strong arm tactics and brute force. Having a loud crowd forcefully descend upon a political speech or gathering and impede free discourse is a strong arm tactic.

As far as stopping what is already rolling with the "Trump", good luck with that. If they can't get the "Trump" peacefully, there will be an insurrection. People have had it. The show is over. Some people "in power" don't seem to get that it seems. Does anyone here really see another Bush or Clinton going over well with most Americans?

[TommyGunn]

Well he is "betraying" the electoral process, or attempting to do so, by using strong arm tactics and brute force. Having a loud crowd forcefully descend upon a political speech or gathering and impede free discourse is a strong arm tactic.

As far as stopping what is already rolling with the "Trump", good luck with that. If they can't get the "Trump" peacefully, there will be an insurrection. People have had it. The show is over. Some people "in power" don't seem to get that it seems. Does anyone here really see another Bush or Clinton going over well with most Americans?

If your Avatar were a picture of yourself, Blakenzy, I'd say you're well-dressed for the event!

[Blakenzy]

If your Avatar were a picture of yourself, Blakenzy, I'd say you're well-dressed for the event!

I think that there are enough angry and disenfranchised people that won't take kindly to underhanded maneuvers to another serving of the same-old, same-old flavor forced down their throats. If they feel cheated out of what they see as their voice, there is a good chance they will act out.

[Hawkmoon]

I think that there are enough angry and disenfranchised people that won't take kindly to underhanded maneuvers to another serving of the same-old, same-old flavor forced down their throats. If they feel cheated out of what they see as their voice, there is a good chance they will act out.

And if they do, the Ds and their PR machine will blame it all on Trump. They (the Ds) win either way -- if they succeed in forcing cancellations of Trump events, they win on the spot. If they succeed by NOT getting the events cancelled but by causing riots that they can then attribute to Trump -- they still win.

[Perd Hapley]

And if they do, the Ds and their PR machine will blame it all on Trump. They (the Ds) win either way -- if they succeed in forcing cancellations of Trump events, they win on the spot. If they succeed by NOT getting the events cancelled but by causing riots that they can then attribute to Trump -- they still win.

Not quite. We had some people on the forum here say that they were now more likely to vote for Trump, since BLM rioted against him. I think Trump came out of that with more support than before. This is the pattern for all left-wing or "moderate" criticism of Trump, so far.

[RoadKingLarry]

If you add to that a possible attempt by the Republican Party to circumvent the Primary voting process and things could get ugly. 

From what I heard, Soros (or someone who is funded by him) gave a sizeable chunk of money to the Kasich campaign.  I wonder where else Soros and others like him are throwing money around that isn't so public. 

Possible hell. It's pretty much a foregone fact. Unless Trump manages to squeak in with the magic 1237 delegate count he will not be the nominee. Current feeling is that we would end up with some combo of Romney/Kasich/Rubio/Ryan on the ticket.

[MechAg94]

Possible hell. It's pretty much a foregone fact. Unless Trump manages to squeak in with the magic 1237 delegate count he will not be the nominee. Current feeling is that we would end up with some combo of Romney/Kasich/Rubio/Ryan on the ticket.

There certainly are a lot of establishment guys bringing it up.  However, I am not sure if it is serious (meaning enough of them to make it happen) or if it is just them floating the idea to see what the reaction is.  We still have months to go before the Convention. 

I think it would be a big mistake myself.  I am just afraid that some of those establishment guys think they would be better off under Hilary than Trump or Cruz.

[French G.]

I think that there are enough angry and disenfranchised people that won't take kindly to underhanded maneuvers to another serving of the same-old, same-old flavor forced down their throats. If they feel cheated out of what they see as their voice, there is a good chance they will act out.

Apropos, since this whole process has full retard written all over it.