Sorry Allosaur. Cruz said the Chicago protesters were reacting to Trumps rhetoric. As if the threatened violence was Trumps fault. I thought he should have condemned the protesters and defended Trumps first amendment right to free speech.

You are correct, it's not a first amendment issue. On the other hand since Trump had legally arranged for the facility, the protesters used force to deprive him of his rights. Certainly that should have been decried.

In 2012, Obama signed a bill into law that makes it a federal felony to protest or create a disturbance inside a restricted area, defined as any place of national significance or where a person under the protection of the Secret Service is located or temporarily visiting. This was in response to the Occupy stuff, where on a number of occasions, they got way too close and probably risking a bullet in the head from an agent.

It's perfectly legal to protest from say, across the street, but you cannot go into the event and whip out your posters... if anyone other than Obama was the President, we would see some charges flying for 1 year in prison (if unarmed) and 10 years if using an improvised weapon.

What is interesting, is that the Donald Trump thing in Ohio - the media made it look like someone threw something at him, which wasn't the case, it was a guy charging the stage from behind and trying to climb up on there. The Secret Service took him down. Turns out the guy was a frequent at Bernie rallies, had pledged his support for the ISIS cause online, and had many previous dust-ups with law enforcement. If you see the whole video, it actually looked like Trump was ready to take him on - he must have said something, and then the Secret Service held him back.

I don't disagree with the law, the people at the gathering have the right to speak and be heard, the 'bullying' is denying them their right, which is exactly what this Acorn/Occupy communist-sympathizer group does. They have the right to their signs & stuff, but it's on the public sidewalk across the street, not 'blocking' the street, or denying people the right to enter or exit. In short, it is peaceful protest, not this violent stuff.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012...

I love the photo-bomb circulating on Facebook right now, it says it all.... "Hey - We the Silent Majority - Lets Go and Protest a Bernie Rally!!!"... "Oh yeah, he holds them during the week, and we all have Jobs. Sorry."

Unfortunately true. And at this point I'm really disappointed in all of them. The constant mud slinging vs telling us their plans is just tiresome.

I have tolerated some wrong thinkers and a few crazies in the Gulch. I still think it is the best, most active Objectivist forum around. I'm sure you don't want to "purify" the Gulch through censorship. I'm saddened that you and K feel the way you do.

My question back to you is, where was the state action that was attempting to snuff out Trump's right to speak?

the GOP is ancient and about to fall. The hate Trump, even though he is bringing in the voters that the GOP needs. Strange. You would think they would be happy he has so much support.

Which is why Cruz is not a perfect candidate. He is pandering. Sad. This is the best we can do. But if he lives up to 50% of what he promises and so far has actually done, then no question, he's the best available.

Hillary is a power hungry evil person. She says whatever she thinks will help her. To hell with the rest of us.

Sanders is more honest, but he is power hungry too, and its coming out more and more

Cruz has a vicious and power hungry side to him. I can feel it underlying his nice-nice preacher-style speeches. It is unsettling to me. He talks about the constitution and defending it, but I am not sure he really believes what he says. He is also a bit too interested in enforcing (his) religion through government.

He's the only candidate that will defend the Constitution...he knows it best and he should not have to defend trumpy especially when much of trump's rhetoric is tantamount to yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
Of course, one could argue the he sets the fire.

IMHO, every one of the candidates, including hillary and bernie should have spoke up on this issue.

Now that makes sense. I cannot disagree with much that you say. I still believe, of all the candidates, Cruz is our best chance at reverting to our Constitution but I will not hold my breath either. We have been burned by so many.

Now can you explain the felony comment? A felony to simply protest or charge the stage?

Being more specific or providing a link to whatever this is about would have provided clarity.
Or is there a link I cannot reach and others can?
That has happened to me before.
Been a while, though.
Scanning responses, it appears to be about George Soros bankrolled Bernie babies disrupting Trump rallies.

Maybe because it's gone from a site of rational thinkers to just another on-line discussion board of political hacks and sock commandos. True, there are some flashes of brilliance now and again, but the impetus that was once the Gulch has been diluted at best, washed away at worst, by those who use this web presence much as "Anonymous" will use the organs of the press to further their irrationality.

Worse, if you state your beliefs, chances are a Mouch-analogue will come in and try to play internet gunslinger and shoot holes in it, or pick a fight with you to prove their illogical point, rather than contribute something well thought out, rational, and honest.

It began with what I call the "sex and religion wars" (where we had the religious V. atheist or gay V. straight posts) and it has devolved from there.

All we need now is for the spambots to move in and, like ivy and mistletoe will choke a mighty oak tree to death, kill what the trolls have begun.

My 2¢...
Sus

This site used to take up a substantial part of my day - now, much less than an hour.

Sorry, by "you", I meant Cruz. If he doesn't like Trump as a person or candidate, he did his own reputation a disservice by not standing up for the ideals and freedoms he pretends to champion.

Instead of standing up for the First Amendment, and the correct answer which is you don't necessarily have the right to protest a private gathering, and it's a felony to do so anyway where secret service is providing protective services. Rights of one end where they infringe on the rights of others. This is a result of the everyone gets a trophy thing these brats were raised with.

His claim to fame is defending freedom in the courtroom, but there is basically one of those in each state, he was a paid attorney to do so. Thus, I can't see any proof that it is 'him' or his job to do that, and he certainly wouldn't have the flexibility to do as he pleases each day.

The Acorn/Occupy/MoveOn crowd has stepped across too many lines and the protester-in-chief refuses to prosecute them. It was disappointing to see Cruz worried about some whack-job votes instead of the correct answer, conservative or not.

When he speaks of matters related to the constitution, he's brilliant. Arguably the best candidate we've had in my lifetime as far as that goes. But he gives so many indications that he doesn't have the ability to put those stated beliefs in practice. ...at least during this campaign. It makes me wonder about his true character. Can anyone who makes a career out of being a politician properly put such beliefs into practice?

If that is the case we are totally doomed as a country. I will only hope that you are wrong and we will not know if he is not elected.

Cruz is a politician and as such he will do what he or his advisers believe is best and to admit he made a mistake about a competitor is out of the question. He is for the constitution verbally now but would not be if he were elected. He is no less a sham that ALL of the rest of them.

He actually argued with an NPR radio commentator about this. He did state that the liberal activists spend entirely too much time shouting people down on, for instance, college campuses. But he then went on to "blame the victim" [IE Donald] for this. The republican establishment just hates the Donald.....and they seem willing to piss away the election...and the next 2 or 3 supreme court justice nominations as a result.

Would you mind explaining your first sentence? I don't understand how it relates to my comment or your 2nd sentence. Thanks

Not sure why this question is being asked...

By not speaking, regardless of the motive, Cruz is exercising his free speech.

I love how quickly people vehemently condemn a 3rd party bystander for making a less than stellar rebuke/assessment of what happened between Donald and Bernie's hoards. And, when Donald sits up on stage and yells, "Lyin' Ted", none of these Holier-Than-Thous are at the forefront defending Ted.

2-faced hypocrites.

Ted had nothing to do with the event. All he could do was comment on what information he had at the time; would you be just as upset if he'd said, "Sorry, I can't comment on a situation I don't fully understand" ? I doubt it. I think those who are quick to throw Cruz under the proverbial bus are nothing but in-the-tank-Trumpsters who are just chomping at the bit to take down Cruz for any of the tiniest of transgressions.

1. CNN released the statement that Ben Carson was heading to Florida after Iowa. Ben Carson's own New Hampshire crew left en-masse to join Ted's crew in New Hampshire the day prior. Ben had no one to pick him up at the airport in New Hampshire after Iowa. Is it really Ted's fault for some in his group to repeat what CNN reported?

2. Even well after the matter, weeks later, Donald is STILL dragging around the phrase, "Lyin' Ted" to gin up ill will among voters. How is that engendering the kind of ethics you want to see in our President? Isn't Barry Hussein O bad enough?!?!? I can't wait for Trump to call for Beer Summit 2.0.

3. This seems to be the worst any one can do to Ted - mis-characterize some of his quotes. Has he mis-used his party credit card? Has he endorsed Common Core? Did he support Democrats in the past because he was 'playing the system' above his supposed core principles?

Where was Donald 1 year ago on the Cromnibus bill? Where was Donald during the Benghazi debacle? Where has Donald been all these years .. if he is so principled, how is it he could conceive to 'play the game' to get ahead in business? In fact, he was supporting the 'system' all these years. Oh, yes.. yes, yes, yes, Donald chased the Birther theory---to no end. Great. Golf clap for that effort, Donald. How did that propel the Conservative movement he's so proud of championing? How do you know his rhetoric is what it is? Ted has ACTED on his conservative principles. We've seen it. He hasn't missed critical votes.. he's even filibustered a few times. And, he's argued in the Supreme Court numerous times to stymy the Liberal Agenda.

His only shot was the South & the Bible belt, that didn't work, so he either has to completely change his rhetoric or go negative... Seems like he's going negative.

In my opinion, you can take a stance and defend our values and institutions, while being clear that you do not necessarily support someone's view. He was absolutely wrong here, and it blows a hole the size of Bernie Sander's bus being towed down the road in his claims of being the defender of liberty.