Jump to content

These protestors, though...


Recommended Posts

Just now, Andras said:

And you won't "break down barriers" with "please" and "thank you."

Countries much older and wiser than this one learned a long time ago that to defeat an issue or movement, you actually have to confront it. Save the hippy BS.

WTF are you talking about?  You make these vague, obscure posts that don't advance a specific point or idea.  Be specific about what you're trying to say.

"You have to confront a movement to defeat the idea so publics can overcome the obstacles blocking the path of progress for their future."

^^^That's what you sound like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 353
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

Sir Troutworth, the sooner we all realize that Andras is intellectually, morally, physically, and spiritually (even though he's an atheist) superior to literally every person here, the better off we'll be. 

I think the problem is that Andras mistakes ambiguity for intelligent discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

I hope you've supported Obama these past 7 years, or that if Hillary becomes president you will support her. 

It would be a shame if you didn't practice what you preach. 

He has not and he won't.  I assume he will response with some "witty" remark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

WTF are you talking about?  You make these vague, obscure posts that don't advance a specific point or idea.  Be specific about what you're trying to say.

"You have to confront a movement to defeat the idea so publics can overcome the obstacles blocking the path of progress for their future."

^^^That's what you sound like.

Not very enlightened for a Berner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You defeat aggressive movements with direct conflict. Not every idea or movement is worthy of discussion. That's something the hippies running things today will never understand.

It's only natural for conflict to rise out of oppression or societal decay. That's exactly what these confrontations are. There's no point in denying it or acting surprised. It is what mankind has always, and will always, do.

Every culture that tries to legislate their way out of problems found themselves stuck in the middle and starving.

What the wimps of the world never grasp is that direct action and only direct action will make a mark on the history books. Anything else is just a dash.

"OMG the protesters are being like soooo immature."

A wimpy culture being governed by wimps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/breitbart-spokesman-resigns-over-trump-aide-assault-this-****-just-sucks_us_56e33acfe4b065e2e3d607b7

Even the Breitbart people are saying that Trump is creating the climate that creates violence at his rallies.  Sadly, it took one of their own reporters getting assaulted for them to come to that conclusion, but they are acknowledging it nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trickle down economics got us here (among many other things).  Selling that lie for 30 years and so many promises broken by both parties.  Now all that anger and frustration is coming to roost.   

when you push aside poor at risk people for so long what do you expect?  We sent jobs overseas and didnt re-educate anyone.  Look at the textile and coal towns for further proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/breitbart-spokesman-resigns-over-trump-aide-assault-this-****-just-sucks_us_56e33acfe4b065e2e3d607b7

Even the Breitbart people are saying that Trump is creating the climate that creates violence at his rallies.  Sadly, it took one of their own reporters getting assaulted for them to come to that conclusion, but they are acknowledging it nonetheless.

Breitbart is establishment and will be called the liberal media in 3... 2...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andras said:

You defeat aggressive movements with direct conflict. Not every idea or movement is worthy of discussion. That's something the hippies running things today will never understand.

It's only natural for conflict to rise out of oppression or societal decay. That's exactly what these confrontations are. There's no point in denying it or acting surprised. It is what mankind has always, and will always, do.

Every culture that tries to legislate their way out of problems found themselves stuck in the middle and starving.

What the wimps of the world never grasp is that direct action and only direct action will make a mark on the history books. Anything else is just a dash.

"OMG the protesters are being like soooo immature."

A wimpy culture being governed by wimps.

There is a time and place for direct action, but I don't remember past movements trying to silence opposing voices.  MLK and the civil rights movement didn't try to shout down racists.  They confronted the racism with their own protests.  They added their own voices to the debate instead of trying to remove the voices of the other side.  You might point to the civil disobedience, but even that was about inclusion instead of censoring.  They sat at restaurant counters to be included.  They did not try to exclude others from doing the same.  

There is an inherent arrogance in what the protestors are doing, which is what I pointed out in the OP.  In an open society, who gets to decide whose voice is worthy of being discussed?  You?  Me?  Some college kid who feels real strong on an issue?  The majority acting as a mob?  Or a vocal minority that is organized?  Please tell me specifically how the decision about what is and is not "worthy of discussion" in a society gets made.

Or perhaps, in an open society, every viewpoint is free to be expressed and people can decide for themselves about value of that viewpoint.  If someone doesn't like what Trump is saying, they are free to express their opposition via a protest outside of his event.  Or they can hold their own rally to oppose it.  But they don't get to decide unilaterally that his ideas are unworthy of being discussed.  They don't get to censor him and his supporters.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, it's not "wimpy" to value an open society where people are free to express their beliefs, however disgusting their ideas might be.  

And unilaterally deciding that someone's idea is not "worthy of discussion" and should be banned from public discourse is not "strength".  It's self-indulgent egotistical arrogance.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Worzone said:

I'm so disappointed in my fellow citizens. This is anti democracy.this is against the fabric of who we are.  I feel like I'm watching my country come apart at the seems and no one cares because they have lined up by party and race and have no interest in discussions unless "I get everything my way and I will not compromise on anything and you will shut up and listen ."  Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist bigot that is hitlers 2nd coming with an agenda to destroy the nation. 

I'm about checked out with this madness because people are starting to get hurt and it's going to get worse. We have the greatest racial divide in our country since the 60s and this worthless president and all these worthless candidates are using it as an election tool rather than trying to heal it. I'm honestly ashamed of us as a nation right now. 

It's terrible about that racial divide that was created in the 60's, we could have been on a brighter path this whole time if not for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leon Troutsky said:

There is a time and place for direct action, but I don't remember past movements trying to silence opposing voices.  MLK and the civil rights movement didn't try to shout down racists.  They confronted the racism with their own protests.  They added their own voices to the debate instead of trying to remove the voices of the other side.  You might point to the civil disobedience, but even that was about inclusion instead of censoring.  They sat at restaurant counters to be included.  They did not try to exclude others from doing the same.  

There is an inherent arrogance in what the protestors are doing, which is what I pointed out in the OP.  In an open society, who gets to decide whose voice is worthy of being discussed?  You?  Me?  Some college kid who feels real strong on an issue?  The majority acting as a mob?  Or a vocal minority that is organized?  Please tell me specifically how the decision about what is and is not "worthy of discussion" in a society gets made.

Or perhaps, in an open society, every viewpoint is free to be expressed and people can decide for themselves about value of that viewpoint.  If someone doesn't like what Trump is saying, they are free to express their opposition via a protest outside of his event.  Or they can hold their own rally to oppose it.  But they don't get to decide unilaterally that his ideas are unworthy of being discussed.  They don't get to censor him and his supporters.  

 

So well said.  My thoughts exactly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think that Bernie Sanders made a huge mistake by not directly telling his supporters to not disrupt Trump rallies.  He didn't say it outright, but it sounded like he was defending the protests if not outright encouraging them.  

Think about this from the perspective of Trump supporters.  You get up in the morning to get to the stadium early.  You stand in line for hours to get into the stadium and get a good seat.  You wait hours more to listen to your candidate speak.  After 8-10 hours of waiting - possibly giving up a whole day's pay from work - some jack holes disrupt the event to the point that you cannot even hear your candidate speak.  Anybody in that position would correctly be very angry about it.  Responding with violence isn't acceptable, but it is a very predictable consequence of that situation.  

So in that regard, the protesters who try to prevent supporters (who have been waiting literally all day) from hearing their candidate by disrupting the event are also responsible for the clashes that occur at these rallies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mdrake34 said:

I hope you've supported Obama these past 7 years, or that if Hillary becomes president you will support her. 

It would be a shame if you didn't practice what you preach. 

I want whomever become POTUS to do the greater good for ll of us..  I did not vote for Obama, but I was willing to let him lead (support him) us with hope and change for the greater good.  Unfortunately, that hasn't happened.  The answer oh Hillary, yes, I would support her 100%.  I will do very well under her as I did under Obama but, like I have said in many threads this is not about me, I have had the fortune of doing very well in this country under POTUS's going all the way back to Nixon.  This is about those in the middle and lower classes that need help desperately.  

Just because I may complain about our POTUS policies doesn't mean I don't support him to do well for our country.

I expect your full support if it is Hillary or Trump...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are any Trump supporters out disrupting Bernie Sanders rallies?

Because if not, I'm going to suggest those doing the disrupting are wholly responsible for the violence.  Especially when they are physically linking arms to block access, etc.  Physical force is violence, even if it's couched as "nonviolent."  Especially when that physical force is used to block people from moving about freely.  

I can't stand Donald Trump and I hope he loses.  But at the end of the day, this is not a proper response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Are any Trump supporters out disrupting Bernie Sanders rallies?

Because if not, I'm going to suggest those doing the disrupting are wholly responsible for the violence.  Especially when they are physically linking arms to block access, etc.  Physical force is violence, even if it's couched as "nonviolent."  Especially when that physical force is used to block people from moving about freely.  

I can't stand Donald Trump and I hope he loses.  But at the end of the day, this is not a proper response.

That might be true for the the Chicago rally last night, but it's certainly not the case for previous protesters who have been attacked by supporters.  Disrupting the rallies is wrong, but it doesn't make those doing it responsible when Trump supporters elbow one of them in the face and later makes comment like "next time we might have to kill him".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

That might be true for the the Chicago rally last night, but it's certainly not the case for previous protesters who have been attacked by supporters.  Disrupting the rallies is wrong, but it doesn't make those doing it responsible when Trump supporters elbow one of them in the face and later makes comment like "next time we might have to kill him".  

Agree -- I should have indicated I was specifically referring to last night.  Yes, the physical violence against protestors prior to that, especially those who protest by yelling peacefully and not by putting hands on or impeding movement of others, is absolutely on Trump supporters, and because he encourages it, on Trump.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JDaveG said:

Agree -- I should have indicated I was specifically referring to last night.  Yes, the physical violence against protestors prior to that, especially those who protest by yelling peacefully and not by putting hands on or impeding movement of others, is absolutely on Trump supporters, and because he encourages it, on Trump.  

I agree with that.  And I really wish Bernie Sanders would come out and tell his supporters not to disrupt the rallies of other candidates.  They need to put a lid on this stuff before somebody gets seriously injured or worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I agree with that.  And I really wish Bernie Sanders would come out and tell his supporters not to disrupt the rallies of other candidates.  They need to put a lid on this stuff before somebody gets seriously injured or worse.

Agree.  There is no reason not to tell his people "protest, but protest legally and peacefully, and preferably outside the venue."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the result of frustration with America seemingly going back to the 1950s.

i would like to protest with a Jesus shirt on.  "Would Jesus behave this way?  Would Jesus be happy with your actions?" Or are you really a CINO?

(For the record I can be considered this)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lostone said:

Trickle down economics got us here (among many other things).  Selling that lie for 30 years and so many promises broken by both parties.  Now all that anger and frustration is coming to roost.   

when you push aside poor at risk people for so long what do you expect?  We sent jobs overseas and didnt re-educate anyone.  Look at the textile and coal towns for further proof.

the poor haven't been pushed aside....they have been turned into pets. they are exactly where our government (repubs and dems) want them. 

if they make a move to get ahead, they get cut off. they get told that their lives are completely out of their own control and that they are incapable of making decisions for themselves. the government has done almost everything it can to strip them of their dignity and humanity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I agree with that.  And I really wish Bernie Sanders would come out and tell his supporters not to disrupt the rallies of other candidates.  They need to put a lid on this stuff before somebody gets seriously injured or worse.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist commie, he loves ever minute of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...