. . . .
Trump has encouraged physical battery at his campaign events, even telling supporters he’d pay their legal fees if they get arrested for assaulting dissenters. (See, e.g., Iowa event: ”So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of ‘em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise”; see also Las Vegas event: regarding an unruly protester removed by security, Trump tells crowd, “I’d like to punch him in the face. He’s smiling, having a good time.”) Trump has continued to fan these flames even after it has become obvious that some of his supporters are acting on the invitation to resort to violence. Incitement to violence is a crime; incitement to violence at a large rally is incitement to riot — a crime that can get people badly injured or even killed.
. . . .
It is slanderous to claim, as Trump hacks have, that Ted Cruz sided with the hard Left protesters. Cruz — whom I support for the GOP nomination — clearly said, “as violence broke out, [Trump’s] rally was canceled all together. Now, the responsibility for that lies with protesters who took violence into their own hands.” That’s true and it was important to say it.
The next thing Cruz said was also exactly right:
n any campaign responsibility starts at the top. Any candidate who is responsible for the culture of the campaign. And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.
. . . .
- Discussion
-
Good opinion by McCarthy. It tells you just what Ted Cruz said. Cruz neither sided with the protesters nor “blamed” Trump totally. He just made the point that these anarchists don’t need an excuse to cause trouble, but Trump is being irresponsible for using rhetoric to inflame them, potentially putting his supporters at risk.
Why would anyone support a candidate who has no regard for your safety? If he is going to let the malcontents possibly attack and injure you, do you really think he is going to protect the nation from its enemies?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.