Trump lesson learned: don't **** with East San Jo.
On the other hand: some racist ******* with a "build a wall" shirt who wants to deport these kids' Abuelas and Tias getting smashed in his **** does not make me feel much sympathy. You dish out race hate and it comes back to bite you, that's just karma. Don't want to get ****** up in the hood? Try not being a racist douche bag.
We're talking about two different things here. A Klansman is wearing his robes and rallying with his friends at the town square. Some BLM types show up and start trouble. Is it morally correct for the BLMs to use violence? Absolutely not. But that is a separate question from "do I feel sorry for the Klansman who got beat up?" And the answer is no. No I don't. Same with the "build a wall" racist ********. You dish out race hate, I won't condone you being beaten, but I won't feel sorry for you either. All the vatos involved should be arrested and prosecuted. All the racist Wall ******** who talked mad **** and got beat down should be mocked and laughed at.
Your mutual comments about "not feeling sorry for" and "laughing at" people who are violently attacked for no legitimate reason are genuinely scary. This nation was founded on the precept that citizens have the right to express political views. Further, relative to flag burning - a tactic used frequently by the violent mobs who attack Trump - the Supreme Court has pointed out that challenging, potentially divisive speech is the speech that deserves protection.
Also, Vanguard's statements about "wearing a Klan robe" and "rallying at a town square" demonstrate the technique that Hillary has perfected: State many facts accurately, but misstate key facts to assert a position that seems logical but in fact is predicated on a lie. Specifically, those who were attacked were not wearing "Klan robes." Further, they were leaving a Trump rally, and were not even holding an event in public.
The more accurate version of events - and one you both think is hilarious - would be, "So some violent gang members break into a private political rally, and attack attendees who are expressing political views and who are engaged in no threatening or violent action." That is what both of you support.
And for the love of God, spare me the claim, "Well I said the violent attackers should be prosecuted." Seriously, what you say is literally no different than saying, "I get that Klansmen attacking peaceful African-American protesters is wrong, but those clowns went into a WHITE neighborhood to protest so I don't feel sorry for them at all. Oh, yeah, I think that those Klansmen should be prosecuted and all, but seeing those guys get knocked the **** out was hilarious. I mean, what did they expect? Lesson: Don't mess with the Klan."
Your statements put you on the wrong side of the issue. If we allow a violent group of protesters to suppress political speech - and saying, "Yeah, I understand why they did that, it was hilarious, don't mess with the vatos supports their violence - then we are in fact allowing a tactic first used utilized by the Brownshirts to take place.
The Sturmabteilung, literally Storm Department, functioned as the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). It played a significant role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Their primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies,
disrupting the meetings of opposing parties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung