A new viral rap song that encourages the assassination of Donald Trump and calls for riots if he wins the presidency is being celebrated by the music media.
Entitled ‘F**k Donald Trump’, the track was performed live in front of 20,000 people at the Coachella music festival this past weekend by hip-hop artists YG and Nipsey Hussle.
The lyrics for the song openly invoke death threats against Trump and vow to stage violence if he takes the Oval Office.
Here are some choice excerpts;
All the niggas in the hood wanna fight you
Surprised El Chapo ain’t tried to snipe you
Surprised the Nation of Islam ain’t tried to find you
Have a rally out in L.A., we gon fuck it up
Home of the Rodney King riot, we don’t give a fuck
You built walls? We gong prolly dig holes
And if your ass do win, you gong prolly get smoked
F**k nigga, f**k you!
For your pleasure:
The rest is here
Having listened to so many speeches by Donald Trump I can honestly say these people must not WANT ”job competition without the huge influx of illegal workers,” ”jobs brought back,” and ”welfare and food stamps cut back.”
They want the dole.
They want their lifestyle of dependency.
And, they must not realize that ”el chappo” did put out a hit on Trump.
It was the reason he began to be protected by Secret Service.
Before that, however, he was already wearing a bulletproof vest and, in places where he could do so legally, carrying his gun.
If it’s viral, it’s viral like a disease, of which there are many. Standards seem to be on the decline across the entire spectrum.
This is what comes of aiming for the lowest common denominator rather than aiming above it. Each round, the lowest common denominator becomes lower still.
With him losing State after State now saying its a rigged system, what is he going to do when he finds out he hasn’t met the standards for rule 40B?
The only candidate that has is Cruz.
He will have to go to the very people he is bashing in his speeches for a waiver.
@Greg: No, this is what comes from the left routinely excusing such behavior (and it is always the left behaving thus). You just blamed Trump for violent hate speech aimed at HIM.
Let’s see how many boycotts are organized against these thugs for violent, racist hate speech… three things the left always pretends to disagree with. How about boycotting the venue where they performed? All businesses should pull out of California until they denounce and ban this group from ever performing again.
It’s hard to boycott somebody you’ve never heard of to begin with, and probably never would have were it not for the this intentionally outrageous provocation. An angry reaction is precisely what they want. It increases their credibility among their target audience of like-minded nitwits. They would love a boycott because a boycott equates with getting attention. They shouldn’t be given the satisfaction of provoking outrage. If they’re publicly mentioned at all, it should only be to dismiss them from serious consideration as the idiots they are.
@Greg: I guess it’s also difficult mount some protest when you lack the principles to be honestly outraged over it. The characteristics of the left are to attack minorities, women or whomever disagrees with their ideology in a way they pretend to find objectionable when they pretend it is directed at one of theirs.
Thus, there is no outrage over the disgusting assault on Palin by the idiot rapper Banks nor is there any over this attempt to incite racist violence against Trump. You on the left just think it’s cute.
@Bill: Actually, Sanders is advocating that minorities should not be held to “white” standards. Obama has advocated that minority students that misbehave should only be disciplined in accordance with the percentage of that minority within the community. Cam Newton during the super bowl hype kept stating that everyone needed to get use to the black culture. He failed to understand that what people were criticizing was his violation of “foot ball” culture, not his black culture. (If you noticed, his offensive line didn’t block as well when Cam was showboating.”
Liberals by holding minorities to lower standards create the environment for minorities to fail.
Such people seem to be given far more coverage by the right than they get from the left to begin with. You’re pretty much giving them exactly what they want, because you think their behavior can be used to tar brush your opponents.
YG and Nipsey Hussle are not speaking for the left. They’re idiots. Ignoring idiots does not mean you’re endorsing them. So far as I know, these guys have never said anything sufficiently intelligent to warrant the trouble of a rebuttal.
@Greg: Give up, Greg. You, like every other leftist, simply feel such obscenities are just fine as long as it is directed in the proper political direction (the ends justifies the means). Just remember, this disqualifies you from complaining about Trump not denouncing Duke emphatically enough to suit you, Romney’s binders with women’s resume’s in them or any of the other phony-ass transgressions you love so much to blow out of all proportion.
I think not. YG and Nipsey Hussle are not running for president. Trump is. Romney did. The standard of behavior that a president (or a presidential candidate) is held to is a mite bit higher than what can or should be expected of hip-hop “artists.”
@George Wells: Yeah, as if I needed it, more definitive proof that the most vile, racist and violent rhetoric is just fine as long as it is spewed from the left.
Well, considering that YOUR presidential candidates hold themselves to behavioral standards that are no better than the ones that hip-hop “artists” hold themselves DOWN to, it’s no wonder that you don’t get that the question isn’t partisan. I don’t hear Hillary telling HER followers to beat people up and she’ll cover their legal expenses, do YOU?
@George Wells: YOUR presidential candidates really indicating a plural, guess you are going to be as truthful as Hillary today
I THINK that you understood the point.
@George Wells: Explain to me, specifically, what any of them has said or done that would have legitimately provoked such a response.
No one has been told to beat anyone up. They have been told that if they protect themselves from aggressive leftist agitators their legal costs will be covered… and rightly so. Of course, Hillary or Bernie don’t have to issue directives. Soros is in charge of the muscle and we will never see a left wing denunciation of this fascist tactics. So, thus, Trump’s response (response, not provocation).
@George Wells: No George manspain it to me how my candidateS are. You know who I back so please link to facts if there are any. If your post was just poorly worded I can understand that.
So you are back to voting Hillary or just defending her. I guess if a huge fight broke out at her rally she might call the cops in 13 or 14 hours.
And we all know it would have been caused by a tape of a Trump rally her followers were watching on the internet.
@kitt & Bill:
Like I need to tell YOU how Trump has been inciting his crowds!
If you think he’s been acting presidential, WOW!
If his presidency would be anything like his campaign, we’d be in for a term of mafia-esque bullying that we haven’t seen in politics outside of Chicago during the Depression.
No, Kitt, Hillary isn’t my pick. IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE, I like/liked:
At LEAST one of them will be running for president, and the highest one of them on that list will get my vote.
Neither Trump OR Cruz will get my vote. I’ve already told you why.
@George Wells: You posted candidates with an S meaning more than 1. I say second or 3rd vote goes to Cruz, then its Crooked Clinton and Cruz, you vote Clinton?
@George Wells: Yes, you DO need to tell me, specifically (not the left wing, air-headed mantra of “he’s racist” or “he’s Islamaphobic”… what has he done or said?).
Well, let’s just see how that works for you…
What did you NOT understand?
My order of preference is posted.
Start at the top of the list.
Work down the list until you find a candidate that is ON THE LIST and also a nominee of either party. The first such candidate gets my vote.
I can’t make it easier than that.
@George Wells: Seems I might remember you once said you would vote for Cruz, but be a pancake.
Cruz? NEVER! Not in a million years. Let me list for you the most virulent anti-gay-rights candidates that got anywhere NEAR the GOP nomination:
(Catch that one?, Yep! He wanted a constitutional amendment putting an end to gay marriage, REMEMBER?)
(Yep, glad he evaporated… another end-to-gay-rights enthusiast.)
(You KNOW he was itching for ANOTHER fight with gays, and he had his Bible all charged and raring to go.)
Now, you cannot be sure about Rubio – he was sweet and all, and he flip-flopped on gay rights more than once, so who knows…
And Bush hedged and fumbled, dodging and weaving as he tried to court the crazy right but failed, so you can’t really tell about him…
Good grief, who knows. He came out today AGAINST the North Carolina Law that is essentially dead anyway, but that wasn’t expected, and a sure sign that his handlers have pushed him back to the middle so he has a chance to win the election in November, but…
I just can’t vote for Trump because he’s a crackpot. It’s that simple.
And admit it. The GOP STILL is waging war against gay marriage and gay rights. It opposes ANY proposed legislation that attempts o protect gays from discrimination. Until it stops that nonsense, it doesn’t get my vote. Bill worries that Democrats are ruining the Country, and that it’s MY fault. LOL! I told him the deal. It’s that simple.
@George Wells: Yeah, that’s what I figured. No basis in fact, just repeating the propaganda as if it were true.
Thanks for playing.
Yeah, and YOUR favorite clown figure came out today AGAINST the North Carolina Bathroom Law. And YOU defend him! And YOU defend the North Carolina Bathroom Law! Does your brain hurt yet?
If Trump wins the White House (won’t happen, but…) you’ll get what you deserve – another 8 years of a Democrat sitting the Oval Office. Don’t say I didn’t tell you…
@George Wells: I don’t defen him but I don’t call him a racist just because I disagree with him, like some lemming moron that wants to say the same thing all their fellow leftists are saying.
You say you would NEVER vote for Cruz because of his views on gay “marriage”, yet you happily voted for Obama when he had the same view as Cruz’s. Maybe you wanted a free phone… I don’t know. I guess if you had a brain, it would hurt.
No, I happily voted for Obama when he had already supported gay marriage BEFORE he flipped that position so he could get elected and then flipped once again. He flipped on a few issues from time to time, but he was NEVER a Republican. Cruz was and is. Obama was a better politician than Cruz ever was. (Read that as a skilled liar, as all good politicians are.) And Obama got elected president – twice – something Cruz will never accomplish. The gay community knew that Obama would come through for them, something that wasn’t ever going to happen with a GOP president, and will not ever happen under Cruz.
I know that this is something that you can’t grasp, but if your most principled enemy also happens to be your most inflexible enemy, then you go with anybody who isn’t, and that would be Barrack. Cruz was never in Obama’s corner, and Cruz was never in the gay corner. Gays were right about BHO, and we’re right about Cruz. And, of course, you’re batting zero…
@George Wells: What a shock; Obama lies about his positions until they become more popular
Here, ABC demonstrates how Obama will simply say anything required to get a vote.
No, you happily voted for Obama because you prefer liberalism to a healthy America. All Cruz proposed was the protection of states against the Supreme Court overturning their referendum. You hate Cruz for his conservatism for his stance on gay “marriage” is no different than Obama’s (depending on who Obama was pandering to at the moment). Obama has been the worst President in history and YOU supported him, you say, for one narrow issue, something that has now expanded into an attack on individual privacy.
Obama may at one time have voiced opposition to same-sex marriage, but he never acted on it. On the other hand, Ted Cruz DID.
Ted Cruz’s Constitutional Amendment, as copied from TEDCRUZ.ORG:
I don’t hate Cruz. I just won’t ever vote for him.
Ah, so as long as you are being lied to, you just love it. For the record, that IS what marriage is.
That is state’s rights. That’s how the Constitution is set up. It’s what it’s for. Cruz happens to be whom I favor. Thanks for providing another really good reason why.
Yeah, Cruz! The steamed Senator from Texas!
Texas, the state with the most reasons to secede from the Union.
I wonder if they DO, will they take Teddie with them?
Now ain’t THAT some $hit!
Why didn’t YOU tell THAT to the Supreme Court?
Would have saved us all a whole lot of trouble!
If only we could just pretend that the people living today don’t count, and that what the Founding Father’s wanted us to do is the only thing that matters.
This is exactly what the gaystapo is doing. You USED to claim you wanted your privacy… now you want to invade everyone else’s privacy for the sake of trying to infect the rest of society with your warped view of “marriage” and an asexual existence. Too damned afraid to let the electoral process decide, a fascist minority has to intimidate those afraid to have a label applied to them into submission.
I am not one of those.
That’s rich! Since when has the “electoral process” resulted in something good? The “electoral process” didn’t come up with the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The “electoral process” didn’t free the slaves. The “electoral process” never declared a war and certainly didn’t win any.
Our Laws are not decided by the “electoral process” except in rare instances when legislators CHOOSE the option of ASKING voters their opinion before THEY decide what to do. Legislators write laws, not the “electorate”. The “electoral process” elects representatives and in rare instances recalls them, but it doesn’t have a law-making function, and it certainly doesn’t decide what is and what is not constitutional. You would give the “electoral process” a power it was not given by the Constitution.
I think you’d better look up the meaning of the word “asexual.”
Tit for tat.
If you are not HAPPY with how this worked out, perhaps it would be helpful for you to remember WHO began it all by wanting to control what was going on behind closed doors. It was YOUR intrusive “BIG GOVERNMENT” interest in everybody’s sex lives and YOUR claim that no right to privacy existed because there was NO such right spelled out in the Constitution – are you beginning to remember now? – that started this faithful ball rolling, and NOW you are complaining about where that ball has ended up?
I’d say that was pretty ironic, wouldn’t you?
From the words found in the Constitution, the SCOTUS has inferred both the right of privacy AND the right to a dignified life not hounded by religious zealots. Had religious extremists NOT criminalized homosexual behavior, and had they NOT fought against civil unions, and had they NOT pushed every conceivable measure to oppress and restrict the civil rights of gay people, none of this would have happened. There certainly wouldn’t be same-sex marriage today, had it not been for the toxic bigotry of the far right that caught the attention of – and earned sympathy from – the great slumbering giant that is Middle America.
YOU made it happen, thank you vary much, not a handful of noisy gay activists. They’d been around for decades, marching in parades and in drag, and they had accomplished nothing. But YOU called attention to them that they could not get for themselves, and YOU attacked them with so much vigor that the rest of America took notice, and they DIDN’T like what they saw YOU doing.
Yes indeed, I have to thank you.
We couldn’t have done it without you!
True, thanks to a hoard of selfish, greedy, lazy, ignorant voters who worry more about enriching themselves personally than the nation as a whole, we were saddled with Obama. However, this does not provoke me to discard the system.
The SCOTUS redefined a word to sate an appetite of a raucous minority. Period. As I said, the minority which will threaten violence cannot rely on the popularity of their idea and abide by a referendum… this we have seen. Sure, we can vote; who knows, they might win. But, when they lose (and lose they have) they just go and get the vote overturned, because when people want something different from what they demand, the people do not get a choice.
So, back to the left excusing racist, violent behavior; no surprise at all when such behavior comes from the left, as it always does (no, even when the left tries to convert a nothing into an incident, it does not qualify as the same) or when the left excuses, rationalizes, forgives and, by doing so, encourages such behavior because, not so deep down, this IS their mentality. The ends justifies the means, doesn’t it, George?
Should slaves have waited for a referendum to free them?
What is your obsession with referendums? They AREN’T written into the Constitution as an integral part of our governance. They AREN’T required to get legislation passed. The electorate ISN’T required to give its consent to court opinions on the constitutionality of laws.
Your attempt to replace the duties of our representative government with a plebiscite every time things don’t go your way is insane. Things don’t work that way, and you know it.
Yes, in some cases it does. Uncorking the genie stored in the nuclear weapon bottle was a terrible risk to take, and one that wasn’t worth the risk, save for its ability to end a terrible war that otherwise would have cost a million more lives as we would have had to invade Japan to effect its surrender. Equally troubling is when an electorate is faced with a choice between two astonishingly unappealing candidates for a job that cannot go unfilled, the probable Trump-Clinton contest being one such poison pill. Not every choice offers the prospect of a happy ending. So what?
@George Wells: Poor Georgie… not being able to equate gay unions to the traditional institution of marriage is equivalent to being held in slavery. Allowing people within a state to decide their own fate (at the risk of opposing a small but potentially violent minority) is equivalent to putting the world at risk of nuclear war. So goes the thought process in the gay-centric world. Reality not included… or welcome.
I’ll ask you AGAIN:
What part of America’s legislative process requires a plebiscite?
You would not allow people to decide their OWN fate. You would have them decide the fate of a minority.
The tyranny of the majority is what YOU want.
@George Wells: There is no REQUIREMENT, but if a state or locality wishes to conduct one in order to validate a rule or law for that locale, what is WRONG with it, aside from the risk of having the voice of the majority disagree with the voice of a radical minority?
Oh, that’s right… The left hates it when the democratic process does not further their anti-democratic ends.
I don’t recall ever hearing about rich bastards asking the electorate if it was OK for them to give themselves a tax break.
Neither party wants anything to do with referendums unless they know ahead of time that the public supports what they want.
Fortunately, our government does not turn on the fickle whims of the electorate.
@George Wells: Referendum should not be overturned by one judge. No doubt, if Proposition 8 had legalized gay “marriage” and a singular judge overturned the entire vote, you would have been screaming.