Sen. Tim Kaine’s son among several arrested after protesters

>They fully understand the responsibility to express those concerns peacefully.

A few paragraphs after

>The youngest son of Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) was among six people arrested over the weekend during a rally for President Trump in Minnesota that turned chaotic when counterprotesters set off fireworks, lit a smoke bomb and sprayed a chemical irritant into the crowd

Is just confusing. Clearly he doeant understand what it means or he wouldnt be pepperspraying people for having a different opinion.

hahaha cool

>>119468
nazis had a "different opinion" too. they deserved much more than pepper spray

24 years old and still acting like a kid. Of course he'll walk away from all this. It's a shame the police aren't more violent towards rioters in general.

>>119475
24 basically is a kid these days. Even 35 is a kid. True adulting doesn't start until you're at least 49.

>>119474
Better stop with this extreme free speech citizen, wouldnt want to get convicted of thought crime would you?

>>119477
because nazis and fascists were so famous for their love of free speech

>>119479
Youre a thick one arent you? Because last I checked shooting fireworks and pepperspray into a crowd for having wrong opinions isnt "peacefully expressing concerns"

Besides, what makes this crowd a group of fascists and nazis?

>>119482
their extreme flavor of nationalism

in germany, the change started democratically, too. regular people were just freely expressing their opinion that hitler should be their leader

>>119483
it's exactly what the "ebul librul meteor" were trying to prevent by teaching people to be tolerant. yes, the experiment failed but the intention was good. so if it was "propaganda" it's the kind of propaganda i am in favor of

>>119483
Pretty big stretch there, armstrong. Still not giving a reason why people are excusing literal assault for supporting a political candidate.

>>119486
it seems like a stretch to you because that line is always blurred. you therefore can never let down your guard

again, it would have seemed like a stretch to german people in the 30s, and in fact, it did

>>119488
Still nothing? Just going to keep calling them Nazis?

>>119489
yes, because they are
>oh no you can't call a spade a spade that would be a STRETCH

>>119447
L I N W O O D

>>119483
You have to be 18 to post here you know.

>>119490
>Ha I called them Nazis so they dont get rights anymore
Seek help, you seem delusional.

Still havnt explained why we can excuse attacking peacefully assembled people. Its a pretty important part of the nations constitution.

>>119490
So because they fall under your definition of nazi, they deserve to get assaulted, Where does this end? Should they be arrested, put in prison? Killed?

>>119490
>Punch all Nazis
>Who's a Nazi?
>Everyone who doesn't toe my political line

all these (You)s
clearly it struck a nerve

>his wife's son

>>119499
this

"anti" fascists are the biggest bunch of hypocrites. Beating up establishment republicans, rando libertarians and tea party fudds because they let the 50 year old "Republicans are Nazis" meme go to their head

>>119534
Imagion being so anti fascist that you advocate nazi levels of rights supression actions against people you deem to be fascist

>>119499
This is why leftists frighten me. It's the most ignorant murderous hillbilly lynch-the-black-guy tier talk, but coming from people who praise themselves as being on the right side of history. That's a bad combination right there.

>>119610
>muh day of the rope

The irony of fascists complaining about the opposition opposing their views and characterizing it as "oppression" actually physically hurts me.

Well I don't support violent action against a fellow citizen foe having a different opinion, but what is considered appropriate when the president's cabinet members are nearly all in the 1%, constantly lie, are blatantly corrupt and try to silence certain media outlets that don't say good things about them? Historically, that's how nearly every corrupt or totalitarian state began. I don't think violence is the answer, but those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it, and I think America is in desperate need of a history lesson.

>>119485
>tolerant
>PIGS IN A BLANKET FRY LIKE BACON
>tolerant
>KILL ALL WHITE MEN
>tolerant
>REPUBLICANS ARE RACIST
>tolerant
>TRUMP SUPPORTERS ARE NAZIS


WOW THANKS FOR THE KINDNESS fag

>>119672
Calm your tits, you hysterical wench.

Not giving media outlets interviewing time is not the same as silencing them.
Everyone in government is part of the 1%, bitching about that only after you lose an election is disingenuous.
Constantly lie, but that's only a big deal when the liar isn't Obama.
Blatantly corrupt politicians is like calling water wet.

>I'm not for violence, but I think we need violence.

KYS, sugartits.

>>119682
It's not even a question of whether or not we "need" it. It seems that it's pretty much inevitable at this point. It's more a question of when.

>>119682
Just because you didn't like the last president doesn't justify normalizing corruption. Trump's supporters never even try to justify his insanity, they just try and shift the blame and then change the subject. And I never said I was for violence; I literally said twice that I am not for violence. I posed a question: what should be done when our country is showing patterns that have historically lead to mass conflict and totalitarian states? Please at least try to pose and answer or solution before going off the rails of how your liberal strawman hates everything

>>119687
>Trump's supporters never even try to justify his insanity
That's because YOU are the insane one


Liberals will never understand

>>119682
Absolutely none of that refutes the extraordinary statements and measures that Trump has said and done.

>>119687
>Just because you didn't like the last president doesn't justify normalizing corruption.
That happened the entire election when everyone stuck their fingers in their ears to block out the blatant shit the left was doing
>Trump's supporters never even try to justify his insanity
Pretty easy to look rational next to the rioters that have been coming out of the woodwork since his election. Can you describe, in a few lines, what exactly has been so irrational in his presidency and where people were opposing it in any sane fashion?
>they just try and shift the blame and then change the subject
The first Berkeley riots werent violent liberal arts students, they were just agitators. The second time it was just peacefully expressing concerns, spiced up with pepperspray and fireworks.
>And I never said I was for violence; I literally said twice that I am not for violence.
You only said we needed violence. That is not advocating violence, just saying we need to overthrow a democratically elected leader and strip his supporters of human rights.
>I posed a question: what should be done when our country is showing patterns that have historically lead to mass conflict and totalitarian states?
You may want to crack a history book instead of a facebook feed. The people suppressing free speech were the fascists. The people assaulting the peacefully assembled political events were the Nazis.
>Please at least try to pose and answer or solution before going off the rails of how your liberal strawman hates everything
Please think about what you post. You seem to sincerely believe someone is a Nazi deserving of execution for wrong opinions. Still waiting on a reason to excuse assaulting a group of peacefully assembled people for purely political reasons.

>>119821
>the blatant shit the left was doing
like what?

>>119826
>Stonewalling non-establishment candidates
>Deciding primary elections in some counties with fucking coin tosses, all Hillary https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/02/heres-just-how-unlikely-hillary-clintons-6-for-6-coin-toss-victories-were/?utm_term=.1cb9a93959d6
>Colluding with the Clinton campaign every step of the way, going so far as to give debate questions in advance https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/31/hacked-emails-suggest-trump-was-right-after-all-clinton-got-previews-of-some-debate-questions/?utm_term=.57e4660a7888
>Getting caught sending taxpayer money to politically active groups
>Literally everything with Hillarys email server from the Pay to Play to telling journalists what to publish

>>119834
What's your point? I'll take coin tosses over the debacle that was the GOP nomination process. You're an ignorant child if you don't think every campaign colludes to get debate questions from the press, and 95% of the shit you think was on "Hillary's" email server wasn't on her server and was part of standard opposition research. Not to mention how you're conflating the State department emails with her campaign emails, but that's typical for a GOP mindwash victim.

>>119838
>Every campaign was using backroom deals to get the questions before hand
>GOP was probably just as corrupt, we just cant proove it :^)
>Coin flips are better than voting in an election
>Hillary's private server wasnt a part of her campaign so it doesnt count
>Call me a brainwashed child a few times while defending real, tangible and proven corruption

Sorry but you didnt somehow work russia into it, merely a silver in mental gymnastics.

At some point Id still like the answer to the original question about there being no charges for assaulting people over their political affiliation.

>>119873
Every campaign has used backroom deals since before William McKinley.

The GOP was more corrupt. There is plenty of proof if you'd take off your blinders.

Coin flips are only used when elections are a tie.

Hillary's private server wasn't part of her campaign. So it doesn't count. Get over it already.

I will continue to call you a brainwashed child because you are acting like a brainwashed child who is spouting non-sequitur talking points based on half-truths and false premises.

In answering your original question: Wait for the civil lawsuits to come out before you go assuming there will be no consequences.

>>119892
>STILL defending corruption
>Claims proof without posting proof
>Something something it counts when I say it counts
>Answering with an answer I dont like is non-sequitor

Piss poor answer to boot, article says they were arrested for assaulting people and released without charges. This is not a matter for civil courts. It is a matter for criminal courts. They wont see a single repercution for their actions.
http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/civil-cases-vs-criminal-cases-key-differences.html

>>119899
>You just don't like what I said, not the fact that it's incorrect and based on false premises!
Ahh yes, the classic /pol/tard defense.

>>119901
Where is it incorrect? What false premise? You are welcome to actually make an argument whenever you feel like it. The original long post I made in response to >>119687 points out that it is ludicrous to keep deflecting the faults of the left everytime their followers do something batshit insane.

By your admission corruption HAS been normalized. The left was caught time and time again in the last year, from shady shit that might be merely coincidence at 1:64 odds, to circumventing the will of the people in the primaries. You want to throw out hillarys state department emails? Fine. Lets stick to what was just in her campaign emails then.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/13/wikileaks-spotlights-hillary-clinton-campaigns-abi/

>>119909
See.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails

Find something in there she personally did wrong in there. (protip: you can't because there isn't anything)

Keep in mind:
> "Taking one campaign manager's email account and releasing it with zero curation in the last month of an election needs to be treated as what it is: political sabotage, not whistle-blowing."