FLAIT

There's no doubt that Donald Trump is, among other things, a narcissist, demagogue and con man. If you combined the bigoted Pat Buchanan, the bombastic Morton Downey, Jr., the impetuous George Steinbrenner, and the egotistical "Ted Baxter" from The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and added the lure of a circus freak show, you would have Donald Trump.

But that said, I think he was treated unfairly by the media in regards to the violence prior to his March 11 rally in Chicago that had to be canceled. Let me explain.

I sincerely doubt that Trump's supporters went into the venue that night looking for a fight. But the protesters did. What did they expect would happen when thousands of them chanted and mocked Trump supporters? So it was the protester's intent to not only disrupt the rally, but create some kind of fracas, or worse. And that's wrong.

Just because protesters have a right to protest, they don't have a right to stir up trouble, or even disrupt a speech. Not even Donald Trump's.

There was a way I would have liked to have seen the presidential candidates respond to the incident in Chicago, and Trump's protesters in general. But instead of explaining it myself, I'm going to say it as if it was coming from Hillary Clinton in the days after it happened (but any candidate from either party could have said the same thing).

Students can't stand up in the back of a classroom and scream at a teacher; a cameraman can't shout at the top of his lungs while the news anchor is giving the news; an office manager can't be heckled while speaking to his or her employees; and a protester can't disrupt a politician while he or she is giving a speech. No one should be interrupted while they're speaking in front of a group, and that goes for Mr. Trump as well.

But there are better and more constructive ways to protest Mr. Trump than disrupting his speeches. First, go out and vote. Second, contribute and/or volunteer to another campaign. And third, run for office. Yes, use Donald Trump as motivation to run for office yourself - school board, city council, or even the state legislature or Congress. God knows, our country can always use smart, honest people running for office at all levels of government.

So if you're a Republican and revolted by Mr. Trump and his campaign, contribute or volunteer to Sen. Cruz's campaign, to Sen. Rubio's campaign (he was still in the race at the time), or Gov. Kasich's campaign. If you're a Democrat, contribute or volunteer to Sen. Sanders' campaign or my campaign. And/or run for office. That's a much more constructive way to protest Donald Trump than screaming at him from the balcony at one of his rallies.

Yes, not only should "Hillary" have said Americans could contribute and volunteer to other candidate's campaigns, but mention them by name. I know, I know, that would be political malpractice and would never happen because by mentioning their opponent's name, or party, it gives them "free advertising." But that's foolish and petty and makes them look like a typical politican. I always cringe when a politician goes out of his or her way and says, "my opponent" or "the other party" because it makes them look, well, foolish and petty and like a typical politician. And that's what's wrong with politics today (one of the many). There's nothing wrong with what I/"Hillary" said above. It's fair and honest. And we need a lot more of it in our politics. Hell, we don't have any of it!

"Hillary" continues:

I think the reason why Americans protest they way they do is because they have a First Amendment right to do so. But just because Americans have a right to protest, it doesn't mean you should. You also have a right to vote, contribute, volunteer, and run for office too!

Around the world, there are strict authoritarian governments that don't allow personal freedoms or civil liberties. So the only way their citizens can express their discontent and anger is with public protest and civil disobedience. And they pay a great price for it. But unlike the citizens of North Korea, China and the Mid-East who don't have any other option, it's almost as if Americans don't take full advantage of all theirs.

While civil disobedience and protests of the 1960's may have led to the Vietnam War ending sooner, and while there's certainly a time and place for organized public protest, blowing whistles, blocking traffic, heckling politicians and disrupting their speeches isn't just wrong and doesn't accomplish anything, it's counter productive. And Mr. Trump is a perfect example. The protesters at his rallies actually embolden him and empower him, and his voters. He needs and wants to be interrupted by screaming protesters so he can set the pugnacious tone that his voters are drawn to and find so appealing. In fact, half the hateful things Mr. Trump has said, and the tone he's set, has come directly in response to protesters interrupting his speeches; such as "I'd like to punch that guy in the face...." "In the old days, he would have been taken out on a stretcher..." "I don't care, I'll pay your legal bills (if you hit a protester)."

So there's three things going on here. First, there's the Donald Trump who attacks Muslims, immigrants, women and the disabled, and says "Mexico sends us their crime...drugs...and rapists..." Second, there's the protesters at his rallies. And third, there's what Mr. Trump says when a protester interrupts his speeches. Each one I believe is separate from the other two. But while they should to be thought of differently, they do have one thing in common: they're all wrong.

But for arguments sake, let's say Mr. Trump hadn't been heckled or interrupted while giving his speeches all these months. Not once. Then, he wouldn't have been given the opportunity to say half the things he's said. So had there not been any protesters at his rallies, he may not be as popular as he's become.

So while Mr. Trump has said many horrible things on his own, much of his incendiary rhetoric has come in direct response to the protester's interruptions. So don't give him the opportunity! In fact, I want Mr. Trump to speak, and speak as much as he can. Uninterrupted. Because the more he speaks, the more ignorant and foolish he looks.

Wouldn't that have been more refreshing and insightful for one of the presidential candidates to say? But since Trump is an easy target, and since it's...shall I say politically incorrect?...to attack or say anything negative about protesters exercising "their First Amendment rights," Trump got all the blame for what happened in Chicago while the protesters weren't blamed at all. And that's not fair. Whether it's Trump inciting violence with inflammatory rhetoric and giving his supporters a wink and a nod (or even the permission) to assault protesters, or the protesters interrupting and disrupting his speeches, or go into one of his rallies looking for trouble, they're all wrong.

I also think Donald Trump was treated unfairly when he said "I think you'd have riots," if he didn't get he nomination. Isn't that what every American was saying? I mean, if Trump went to the Republican convention with more than the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the nomination, or comes pretty close, but was denied the nomination, how do you think his delegates and supporters around the country would react? Heck, what if Bernie Sanders went to the Democratic convention with hundreds more delegates than Hillary (or dozens more, or even just a handful more), but she got the nomination instead? You think Sanders' delegates and supporters would take that lying down? Wouldn't you expect some kind of...shall I say riot?...in Philadelphia and around the country? So how do you think Trump's delegates and supporters would react if he was cheated out of the nomination?

This country has seen its share of riots: Rodney King in 1992 and Baltimore in 2015, just to name two. And while rioting is definitely wrong, they're all ignited by the same thing: an immediate flash of gross unfairness and injustice. Well, that's exactly what would be brewing in Cleveland if Trump goes to the convention with a lot more delegates than any other candidate but doesn't get the nomination (that could actually happen before the convention if Trump's allotted delegates are stolen at the county and state conventions). And every American, whether they're supporting Trump or not, knows that, believes that and says that. But when Donald Trump says it, he's "inciting a riot." No he wasn't.

Granted, there's plenty to attack Donald Trump for. But since he's created such an inflammatory and pugnacious atmosphere around his rallies and campaign, it's automatically assumed that when there is violence, it's all his fault and never the protesters who, at least in Chicago, were looking for it. And if he mentions "riots," he's "inciting it" or "calling for it." And that's not always true.

Hey, I'm just being fair and honest.