Protests against Trump risk backlash in Republican primary

[tx22cb]

I'd prefer Trump over Cruz any day of the week.

At first, the GOP insiders anointed Jeb, and gave him hundreds of millions of dollars.

When Jeb disintegrated, the GOP establishment reluctantly got behind Rubio ... until he too was blown out of the water in FL.

Now the GOP are holding their noses, swallowing their pride, throw their principles out of the window and are trying to get behind the loathesome Cruz. I expect them to be have picked the wrong horse for a 3rd time.

And the Dems underestimate Trump at their peril too.

[canathai8]

Trump is a largish, well-fed - rather rotund man with smallish hands - that infers a lack of manual labor in his 3 score years and eight. No wonder he dislikes immigrants so much

That he wields his modestly attractive, entitled wife like a spiked club (for PR) is another sordid matter altogether..

Sure glad not to be a fly on that wall

When they "get it on"

[canathai8]

IMHO - Trump's ill-fitting, rumpled, frumpy-looking blue suits (with a hand-me-down red tie - serving as a cold condiment) hang off his misshapen, portly body - "like flax off a distaff" ****

**** from Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night"

But that ain't why he won't be President - oh no

His pisss-poor attitude will ultimately trip him up - Donald and his handlers haven't figured out yet - that attitude = altitude

Donald thinks because he's rich - he can say whatever he f'king-well wants - and push his considerable weight around

And Hilary is lovin' every minute of it

[Dumbastheycome]

You have the right to demonstrate and voice your opinion. You do not have the right to impede others in their right to free expression.

Socialists believe that free speach only applies to them. If you try to voice an opposing position the will always try to drown you out.

Really? I thought that what was happening was that socialists actually had something to say....spreading hate - a speciality of the right..... is regardless of freedom of speech, illegal in most countries........

Few would note the differentiation.

Liberal Lefties versus Righteous Righties.

A conundrum of appeal that electioneers deliberate on how to manipulate.

[lannarebirth]

Sanders is feeling the Backlash , in Alaska it reduced his winning to 81% and in Hawaii and Washington to the high seventies.

Imagine if the DNC had scheduled these primaries prior to or interspersed with the Super Tuesday "firewall' states. The complexion of the election would be entirely different. They who make the rules, rule.

[LPCustom69]

I see that the socialist, America haters are out in force.

[canathai8]

I see that the socialist, America haters are out in force.

I don't hate Americans

I merely slightly dislike their supremely inherent myopic tendencies

And a hundred U.S. flags at the local Seattle mall

Uzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Canadians know a ton about America

And they know sweet fk all about uzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

and rightly so

[Asheron]

You have the right to demonstrate and voice your opinion. You do not have the right to impede others in their right to free expression.

Socialists believe that free speach only applies to them. If you try to voice an opposing position the will always try to drown you out.

Really? I thought that what was happening was that socialists actually had something to say....spreading hate - a speciality of the right..... is regardless of freedom of speech, illegal in most countries........

Which would mean that you can't say anything because hate is the only thing you spread around.

[sirineou]

Sanders is feeling the Backlash , in Alaska it reduced his winning to 81% and in Hawaii and Washington to the high seventies.

Imagine if the DNC had scheduled these primaries prior to or interspersed with the Super Tuesday "firewall' states. The complexion of the election would be entirely different. They who make the rules, rule.

and that's why more and more people identify them selves as Independents,

[Publicus]

The "Stop The Hate" haters hate Trump enough to violate his right to speak, and other's right to listen. I agree with the article. The irony is not lost on the swing-voters. This will bite both the DNC and RNC in the behind.

The Constitution is entirely about the relationship between the people and the government that the people own and operate (ever more theoretically of course).

The Constitution hasn't anything in it about political parties, nor does the Constitution say -- obviously -- that only the person at any event who is paying for the microphone may speak.

Scotus has ruled that a corporation is a person and that money is free speech. The lesson here is that free speech is a competition as much as it is anything else. Trump moreover is the loudest voice in the room if not on the planet, and Trump is indeed in competition against all of the world, first and foremost the Free World.

As anyone with a basic knowledge of the First Amendment knows, only the government can violate a person’s free speech or assembly rights. The amendment protects citizens from government intrusion in each of the freedoms it outlines. No where does it offer protections from other private citizens, businesses, corporations, etc. Furthermore, the First Amendment only offers protections for speech and assembly to the point of being able to engage in them without government hindrance/censorship; it literally says nothing about the consequences of speech or assembly.

http://www.peacock-panache.com/2016/02/trump-threatens-gut-first-amendment.html

In the instance of the Trump decision to cancel his recent rally in Chicago....

[P]rotesters across Chicago literally did not have the ability to affect Trump’s First Amendment rights. The only person or group that could have potentially done so was the city of Chicago if it forced him to cancel the rally. But that’s not what happened. He voluntarily canceled the rally in order to capitalize on the mass protests to drum up even more racist, xenophobic support from a base unafraid to salute their leader in front of a world that remembers a time not so long ago when another wildly popular leader held such a sway over people using similar antagonistic, exclusionary tactics.

ttp://www.peacock-panache.com/2016/03/protesters-violate-trumps-first-amendment-rights-22276.html

Forrest Gump had many endearing qualities included among his shortcomings and quirks but even he knew better than to run for Potus. Just goes to show how some billionaires who aren't all there upstairs are nonetheless actually smart.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Publicus

[Asheron]

The "Stop The Hate" haters hate Trump enough to violate his right to speak, and other's right to listen. I agree with the article. The irony is not lost on the swing-voters. This will bite both the DNC and RNC in the behind.

The Constitution guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The Constitution is entirely about the relationship between the people and the government that the people own and operate (ever more theoretically of course).

The Constitution hasn't anything in it about political parties, nor does the Constitution say -- obviously -- that only the person at any event and who is paying for the microphone may speak.

Scotus has ruled that a corporation is a person and that money is free speech. The lesson here is that free speech is a competition as much as it is anything else. Trump moreover is the loudest voice in the room if not on the planet, and Trump is indeed in competition against all of the world, to include the Free World.

As anyone with a basic knowledge of the First Amendment knows, only the government can violate a person’s free speech or assembly rights. The amendment protects citizens from government intrusion in each of the freedoms it outlines. No where does it offer protections from other private citizens, businesses, corporations, etc. Furthermore, the First Amendment only offers protections for speech and assembly to the point of being able to engage in them without government hindrance/censorship; it literally says nothing about the consequences of speech or assembly.

http://www.peacock-panache.com/2016/02/trump-threatens-gut-first-amendment.html

In the instance of the Trump decision to cancel his recent rally in Chicago....

[P]rotesters across Chicago literally did not have the ability to affect Trump’s First Amendment rights. The only person or group that could have potentially done so was the city of Chicago if it forced him to cancel the rally. But that’s not what happened. He voluntarily canceled the rally in order to capitalize on the mass protests to drum up even more racist, xenophobic support from a base unafraid to salute their leader in front of a world that remembers a time not so long ago when another wildly popular leader held such a sway over people using similar antagonistic, exclusionary tactics.

http://www.peacock-panache.com/2016/03/protesters-violate-trumps-first-amendment-rights-22276.html

Forrest Gump had many endearing qualities included among his shortcomings and quirks but even he knew better than to run for Potus. Just goes to show how some billionaires who aren't all there upstairs are nonetheless actually smart.

Bold: No it isn't.

Italic: You don't seem to understand that whomever is for instance renting a house/arena or something like that where there is a gathering also has the right to refuse others to speak in that place and they can and almost surely will remove you from the house/arena if you do not obey the rules.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Asheron

[Publicus]

The "Stop The Hate" haters hate Trump enough to violate his right to speak, and other's right to listen. I agree with the article. The irony is not lost on the swing-voters. This will bite both the DNC and RNC in the behind.

The Constitution guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The Constitution is entirely about the relationship between the people and the government that the people own and operate (ever more theoretically of course).

The Constitution hasn't anything in it about political parties, nor does the Constitution say -- obviously -- that only the person at any event and who is paying for the microphone may speak.

Scotus has ruled that a corporation is a person and that money is free speech. The lesson here is that free speech is a competition as much as it is anything else. Trump moreover is the loudest voice in the room if not on the planet, and Trump is indeed in competition against all of the world, to include the Free World.

As anyone with a basic knowledge of the First Amendment knows, only the government can violate a person’s free speech or assembly rights. The amendment protects citizens from government intrusion in each of the freedoms it outlines. No where does it offer protections from other private citizens, businesses, corporations, etc. Furthermore, the First Amendment only offers protections for speech and assembly to the point of being able to engage in them without government hindrance/censorship; it literally says nothing about the consequences of speech or assembly.

http://www.peacock-panache.com/2016/02/trump-threatens-gut-first-amendment.html

In the instance of the Trump decision to cancel his recent rally in Chicago....

[P]rotesters across Chicago literally did not have the ability to affect Trump’s First Amendment rights. The only person or group that could have potentially done so was the city of Chicago if it forced him to cancel the rally. But that’s not what happened. He voluntarily canceled the rally in order to capitalize on the mass protests to drum up even more racist, xenophobic support from a base unafraid to salute their leader in front of a world that remembers a time not so long ago when another wildly popular leader held such a sway over people using similar antagonistic, exclusionary tactics.

http://www.peacock-panache.com/2016/03/protesters-violate-trumps-first-amendment-rights-22276.html

Forrest Gump had many endearing qualities included among his shortcomings and quirks but even he knew better than to run for Potus. Just goes to show how some billionaires who aren't all there upstairs are nonetheless actually smart.

Bold: No it isn't.

Italic: You don't seem to understand that whomever is for instance renting a house/arena or something like that where there is a gathering also has the right to refuse others to speak in that place and they can and almost surely will remove you from the house/arena if you do not obey the rules.

The post presumes an absence of understanding, which is an error that reveals the Self. My post for instance references the Scotus rulings that corporations are people and that money is free speech. The rulings are rooted in a jurisprudence that codified property rights from deep in to history.

Learn here and now this poster understands and comprehends property rights entirely. Property rights are the obvious centrality to everyday life and to one's world view. Free speech is predicated in property rights. To think the 'enemy' is uninitiated or inexperienced in respect ot property rights is a presumption, and presumptions are a highly dubious venture.

Peaceful disobedience to the law goes back millennia. Those who choose to engage in it are almost always highly conscious of the laws and they are moreover prepared to accept the legal consequences. In addition to the fact being a common knowledge, this poster also speaks from personal experience.

When too many on the political right fringe presume the progressive/liberal 'enemy' adores Stalin, Marx, Hitler and also their like, the marginals invariably fall off the edge of their flat earth (created 4700 years ago). They hard drive while overheating all the way.

Civil disobedience and we speak here of a peaceful civil disobedience on the private property paid for by Donald Trump is a violation of civil law. Which is why it is called civil disobedience (not private disobedience). It violates the code of civil law that protects the (rented) property, not the property itself (that the government is created to protect by the rule of law).

It is in fact the voice of the people on the one side of the argument against the voice of corporations as people and against money as free speech.

(See how much you made me write ? And the post is condensed from ca 1968 Notes To Myself! )

[keemapoot]

^Sorry Pub, not to get all lawyerly on you or anything, but most states, including Ohio, have statutes against Criminal Trespass. It is a crime, not civil matter.

Criminal trespass is defined as knowingly entering or staying in a house, in a building or on a piece of land belonging to another person without his permission. It is classified as a fourth-degree misdemeanor if no violence is involved. Criminal trespass that involves violence, or a threat of violence, is classified as a first-degree misdemeanor. In either case, a judge may waive prison and fines and instead sentence the offender to probation or community service.

As of 2014, the penalty for criminal trespass in Ohio is a jail sentence of up to 30 days and a possible fine of $250. Aggravated criminal trespass carries a jail sentence of up to 60 days and a possible fine of $500.

Source: Ask.com - the definitive legal source.

[lannarebirth]

Sanders is feeling the Backlash , in Alaska it reduced his winning to 81% and in Hawaii and Washington to the high seventies.

Imagine if the DNC had scheduled these primaries prior to or interspersed with the Super Tuesday "firewall' states. The complexion of the election would be entirely different. They who make the rules, rule.

and that's why more and more people identify them selves as Independents,

Yeah, I hear what you're saying but here's the thing though. I've always been a registered Independent. In order to even vote in the Primary or participate in the Caucus I had to change my party affiliation to Democrat. Otherwise it becomes a fait accompli of two bad nominees before you ever even get a chance to participate.

http://observer.com/2016/03/the-countless-failings-of-the-dnc/

Edited March 27, 2016 by lannarebirth

[Scott]

Posts with oversized graphics have been removed. They mess up the formatting on the thread and make it difficult to read.

[Publicus]

I think Oliver Stone will be the one to make the movie. I fancy the title could be "Trump, the wind of change". I suppose the sad thing is after this election circus how can the US top it next time? .

Perhaps Geo Lukas could make the movie about Trump, "Passing the Wind."

Trump is already gone with the wind.

He's been reaping the whirlwind from his first Mexican rapist.

[Publicus]

Mr Trump gets a lot of flak around here too…but it only boosts his stock with the silent, angry majority.

Trump is still speaking to his base and base it is. Over heated, over wrought, over everything and over the top especially. The right has jumped over the moon.

He doesn't know how to speak to the moderate broad center of the electorate that is the middle, ranging from the center to a rational distance either side of the American political center, i.e., center left over to center right.

Up to now his "style" (or a complete lack of it) has turned off the vast and broad centrist American political middle. The "style" has focused on the most visible gripes and whinges of the fringe, i.e., immigration, political correctness, get tough, win win win until we vomit, xenophobia out to all four corners of the world, Muslims of course; bombs away on women and children etc etc. His expressed first impressions running for Potus have been negatives all the way.

Now that Trump has turned to specific issues of policy substance, such as nuclear, Nato allies, other allies over here, namely Japan, South Korea (Trump doesn't know Thailand exists so he'd toss the whistles), dissolve the EU, cancel the P5+1 Iran agreement etc the US body politic has begun to take notice. The American public had been catching Trump and his bombast in spots, but it is currently and actively giving him a good comprehensive first assessment. It's a serious problem for Trump, because the vast majority of Americans are presently recognising they're experiencing a close encounter of the third kind, which means it's going to have to be Independence Day for our majority side.

The bottom line is that Trump can only make things worse. The moderate middle readily recogises the fact. Out at the political right extreme fringe however, the USA could not be worse than it presently is, but, then again, to the marginals out there, nothing could be worse than a Trump trouncing at the polls. The trouncing will mean the end of America as they'd always known it. The end has in fact already happened, it's just that the official declaration of it is coming soon to a polling station near you.

[keemapoot]

Mr Trump gets a lot of flak around here too…but it only boosts his stock with the silent, angry majority.

Trump is still speaking to his base and base it is. Over heated, over wrought, over everything and over the top especially. The right has jumped over the moon.

He doesn't know how to speak to the moderate broad center of the electorate that is the middle, ranging from the center to a rational distance either side of the American political center, i.e., center left over to center right.

Up to now his "style" (or a complete lack of it) has turned off the vast and broad centrist American political middle. The "style" has focused on the most visible gripes and whinges of the fringe, i.e., immigration, political correctness, get tough, win win win until we vomit, xenophobia out to all four corners of the world, Muslims of course; bombs away on women and children etc etc. His expressed first impressions running for Potus have been negatives all the way.

Now that Trump has turned to specific issues of policy substance, such as nuclear, Nato allies, other allies over here, namely Japan, South Korea (Trump doesn't know Thailand exists so he'd toss the whistles), dissolve the EU, cancel the P5+1 Iran agreement etc the US body politic has begun to take notice. The American public had been catching Trump and his bombast in spots, but it is currently and actively giving him a good comprehensive first assessment. It's a serious problem for Trump, because the vast majority of Americans are presently recognising they're experiencing a close encounter of the third kind, which means it's going to have to be Independence Day for our majority side.

The bottom line is that Trump can only make things worse. The moderate middle readily recogises the fact. Out at the political right extreme fringe however, the USA could not be worse than it presently is, but, then again, to the marginals out there, nothing could be worse than a Trump trouncing at the polls. The trouncing will mean the end of America as they'd always known it. The end has in fact already happened, it's just that the official declaration of it is coming soon to a polling station near you.

It's patently obvious to most observers that the guy has little intellectual substance or understanding of global issues. However, his (desperate normal Republican) non-base supporters who've come over to his side are probably thinking that with the right coaching, studying, and advising of top experts he could get up to speed quick enough to fake it as a global political leader.

However, with a guy like this, who's used to shooting from the hip, bullying and blustering his way forward, and given the over-inflated size of his ego, even with top advisers, he will always go off-script, and when he does, he will inevitably expose his lack of depth and ignorance, again and again.

[Linzz]

+20,000 Republican convention wannabes have signed a petition for allowing loaded guns into the convention in Ohio in July.

It's all good you guys, gonna be a shootup where everyone can pull their guns and start shooting in an arena, that's how bright these Trump followers are.

May they all blast each other, total dumbasses, Darwin Awards all the way around.

Looks like you're ready to join them if your avatar is anything to go by

[slipperylobster]

Trump is God's gift to the Democratic Party.

True, but they have no one to run against him, except Hillary....ugh.

Being the lesser of two evils....I suspect God favors Trump.

Of course..all the morons, and menopausal women, gays...

sick, dump, lazy, blind, deaf and crazies....are democrats.

Lets see how many illegals they sign up.

What a joke...lol.......

democrats "ruin" the country...they cannot "run" it.

Edited March 28, 2016 by slipperylobster

[slipperylobster]

+20,000 Republican convention wannabes have signed a petition for allowing loaded guns into the convention in Ohio in July.

It's all good you guys, gonna be a shootup where everyone can pull their guns and start shooting in an arena, that's how bright these Trump followers are.

May they all blast each other, total dumbasses, Darwin Awards all the way around.

what utter nonsense.

Security would never let loaded guns into the convention..for obvious reasons...no matter how many petitions are sent.

Why do people believe the garbage?

[Linzz]

^Sorry Pub, not to get all lawyerly on you or anything, but most states, including Ohio, have statutes against Criminal Trespass. It is a crime, not civil matter.

Criminal trespass is defined as knowingly entering or staying in a house, in a building or on a piece of land belonging to another person without his permission. It is classified as a fourth-degree misdemeanor if no violence is involved. Criminal trespass that involves violence, or a threat of violence, is classified as a first-degree misdemeanor. In either case, a judge may waive prison and fines and instead sentence the offender to probation or community service.

As of 2014, the penalty for criminal trespass in Ohio is a jail sentence of up to 30 days and a possible fine of $250. Aggravated criminal trespass carries a jail sentence of up to 60 days and a possible fine of $500.

Source: Ask.com - the definitive legal source.

#42

"Learn here and now this poster understands and comprehends property rights entirely....

And the post is condensed from ca 1968 Notes To Myself!"

"The post presumes an absence of understanding, which is an error that reveals the Self"

Perfectly revealed

[hawker9000]

The mainstream media has previously made (and is continuing to do so) the mistake of dismissing this man, behind the plastic and well manicured facade there stands a madman.

He will win the Republican nomination to run as the Presidential Candidate, there is nothing this party can do to stop this.

He does stand a chance of defeating Clinton for the Presidency as his campaign will respect no norms or limits, there will be an endless stream of lies, innuendo, rhetoric and propoganda that the gullible American population will consume and accept as fact.

Hitler and Mussolini rose to power on the back of poverty, perceived social injustice and blind rascism. The "Land of the Free" has all of these conditions in abundance, we should all be afraid right now, very, very afraid...

So did Lenin and Stalin (who was every bit the monster that Hitler was BTW, just on the winning side...). So here we go with the Hitler/Mussolini thing already...

And the "be afraid, be very very afraid" chestnut as well.

Yeah. I'm afraid. I'm afraid lame comedy seems to be the in thing...

C'mon, dude - get some original material !

[Publicus]

^Sorry Pub, not to get all lawyerly on you or anything, but most states, including Ohio, have statutes against Criminal Trespass. It is a crime, not civil matter.

Criminal trespass is defined as knowingly entering or staying in a house, in a building or on a piece of land belonging to another person without his permission. It is classified as a fourth-degree misdemeanor if no violence is involved. Criminal trespass that involves violence, or a threat of violence, is classified as a first-degree misdemeanor. In either case, a judge may waive prison and fines and instead sentence the offender to probation or community service.

As of 2014, the penalty for criminal trespass in Ohio is a jail sentence of up to 30 days and a possible fine of $250. Aggravated criminal trespass carries a jail sentence of up to 60 days and a possible fine of $500.

Source: Ask.com - the definitive legal source.

#42

"Learn here and now this poster understands and comprehends property rights entirely....

And the post is condensed from ca 1968 Notes To Myself!"

"The post presumes an absence of understanding, which is an error that reveals the Self"

Perfectly revealed

Property rights are sacrosant so few have any doubt or a hesitation to say so. The rule of law protects property rights from which free speech derives. No property rights, no free speech. Look for a current instance the CCP China where government owns all property, immediately or ultimately, and where mind control over the mass population is the strict norm.

Almost all protesters and demonstrators who violate property rights, as in the instance of peaceful anti-Trump and anti-fascist protesters, consistently do so knowingly, consciously, well aware of their actions. And of the consequences in law.

Civil disobedience is the terminology that accurately describes the peaceful if sometimes loud anti-Trump protests to likely include anti-fascist demonstrators. Civil disobedience is termed "civil" because that is what it is. This is true regardless of which code of law might apply.

Citizens protesting at a political rally are not regarded by society as committed in "criminal disobedience," regardless of which law or laws they may be violating -- violating almost always consciously and usually carefully.

(It is not surprising btw that this needs to be laid out to most, but it is discouraging it needs to be noted to any specialists in matters legal.)

Engagement in a civil disobedience is thus a commitment to the law itself, the rule of law broadly and generally. Citizens engaged in a conscious civil disobedience are -- again, almost always -- also aware of the penalties and pains of the disobedience. That is, we are willing to accept the consequences in law, the rule of law.

It is the opposite of anarchy or nililism. Indeed, acts of conscious civil disobedience accept and honor the higher order of a society, i.e., the rule of law.

Lobbying the congress to change a law can be a successful route, but the route is best and most often travelled by private corporations such as Walmart, or private interest groups such as the NRA, or by rightwhingers such as in the instance of Obamacare. Lobbying Scotus in matters such as Citizens United is best done by citizens such as the Koch Bros. (George Soros rarely gets a law through the congress maximus.)

Civil disobedience which has a long history in Western civilisation does, above all else, recognise, respect and honor the rule of law. The whole of it is rooted in property rights which people have striven to establish and protect, since Magna Carta in particular. The line from Magna Carta to the competition of non-violent voices at a Trump rally is both a long one and it is direct. Regardless of which code of laws is deliberately being non-violently violated.

[Linzz]

#42

"Learn here and now this poster understands and comprehends property rights entirely....

And the post is condensed from ca 1968 Notes To Myself!"

"The post presumes an absence of understanding, which is an error that reveals the Self"

Perfectly revealed

Property rights are sacrosant so few have any doubt or a hesitation to say so. The rule of law protects property rights from which free speech derives. No property rights, no free speech. Look for a current instance the CCP China where government owns all property, immediately or ultimately, and where mind control over the mass population is the strict norm.

Almost all protesters and demonstrators who violate property rights, as in the instance of peaceful anti-Trump and anti-fascist protesters, consistently do so knowingly, consciously, well aware of their actions. And of the consequences in law.

Civil disobedience is the terminology that accurately describes the peaceful if sometimes loud anti-Trump protests to likely include anti-fascist demonstrators. Civil disobedience is termed "civil" because that is what it is. This is true regardless of which code of law might apply.

Citizens protesting at a political rally are not regarded by society as committed in "criminal disobedience," regardless of which law or laws they may be violating -- violating almost always consciously and usually carefully.

(It is not surprising btw that this needs to be laid out to most, but it is discouraging it needs to be noted to any specialists in matters legal.)

Engagement in a civil disobedience is thus a commitment to the law itself, the rule of law broadly and generally. Citizens engaged in a conscious civil disobedience are -- again, almost always -- also aware of the penalties and pains of the disobedience. That is, we are willing to accept the consequences in law, the rule of law.

It is the opposite of anarchy or nililism. Indeed, acts of conscious civil disobedience accept and honor the higher order of a society, i.e., the rule of law.

Lobbying the congress to change a law can be a successful route, but the route is best and most often travelled by private corporations such as Walmart, or private interest groups such as the NRA, or by rightwhingers such as in the instance of Obamacare. Lobbying Scotus in matters such as Citizens United is best done by citizens such as the Koch Bros. (George Soros rarely gets a law through the congress maximus.)

Civil disobedience which has a long history in Western civilisation does, above all else, recognise, respect and honor the rule of law. The whole of it is rooted in property rights which people have striven to establish and protect, since Magna Carta in particular. The line from Magna Carta to the competition of non-violent voices at a Trump rally is both a long one and it is direct. Regardless of which code of laws is deliberately being non-violently violated.

Thank you for a well laid out explanation with which I have no disagreement.

However if any group has a public meeting political or otherwise on owned or rented real estate and it is also accessed by people with a mix of peaceful protesters and those with an intention to disrupt the proceedings, then it must be perfectly legal for those disruptors to be forcefully ejected if they will not leave peacefully. This is where it gets murky and civil disobedience becomes anarchistic. If asked to leave any protest group should respect that request and in turn respect property rights. I do not believe they have a moral right to break that law because their perceived view of a higher morality of their beliefs supercede those property rights.