Jump to content

These protestors, though...


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Thanks Bernie, you do not have to take responsibility for everyone that voted or supports you, but Trump does?  Okay, that's not hypocritical of you...

 

 

Whoosh was the sound. You CAN control what happens at your rallies. You CAN'T control what people do outside of your guidance.

Edited by Andras
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 353
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 3/11/2016 at 3:39 PM, Leon Troutsky said:

Yep, but he never told them that they shouldn't disrupt Trump's rallies.  

Not to defend Bernie, but should he really have to tell them not to try and shut down a presidential nominees rally? Or anyone that is out exercising their free speech, agree with their message or not.

Should these people really need to be directed that this is not becoming or appropriate conduct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, silentbob1272 said:

Not to defend Bernie, but should he really have to tell them not to try and shut down a presidential nominees rally? Or anyone that is out exercising their free speech, agree with their message or not.

Should these people really need to be directed that this is not becoming or appropriate conduct?

Exactly, that's the point some other's on here are missing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, silentbob1272 said:

Not to defend Bernie, but should he really have to tell them not to try and shut down a presidential nominees rally? Or anyone that is out exercising their free speech, agree with their message or not.

Should these people really need to be directed that this is not becoming or appropriate conduct?

First of all, yes he should have to tell them to not disrupt Trump rallies considering that many of the protesters in Chicago were chanting "Bernie".  Second, there is not a First Amendment right to disrupt the lawful rally of another group of people.  What the protesters are doing can be a criminal offense, actually.  Maybe you meant that they shouldn't disrupt anyone who is exercising their free speech, but the way the post was written it didn't sound that way and I just wanted to clarify that.  [Some of the supporters of the protesters are claiming they have a free speech right to disrupt the rallies.]

The issue is about setting boundaries of public discourse and demonstrating leadership in communicating those boundaries.  Sanders supporters are disrupting Trump rallies...so Sanders has an obligation to denounce it and let them know they are not speaking for him.  He's refused to do that so far, and it's irresponsible on his part.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Andras said:

When people support a candidate that believes in suing gun manufacturers, is it any surprise that they will say a candidate should try babysitting every single voter outside of his control?

I definitely am not surprised by it. It's hilariously pathetic.

Nice strawman.  I said that Sanders should publicly speak against disrupting the rallies of another candidate given that his supporters have done that.  A public statement is not the same as "try babysitting every single voter outside of his control".

Not sure what the gun manufacturers thing has to do with this.  Quite a reach there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently it's "logical" to think representatives are responsible for what voters do and say.

Just like it's "logical" to think gun manufacturers should be held liable for gun violence.

It's not that hard to put 2 + 2 together there.

And don't even try to front like it's the right thing to do. To even accept any responsibility for it would result in a negative perception of his campaign. "Bernie supporters are radical!" would be the headline.

If you don't like the reality around you, which results in conflict, fix the ******* problem instead of asking a rep to babysit. AKA stop being a pu$$y.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, the board king would post just months ago how declining economies and cultures result in disobedience and clashes. Today, it's not the conditions that will control the outrage, all it takes is the wagging of a finger from the candidate to set it right.

Good election cycle. Many hacks and hypocrites are exposed.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Andras said:

Apparently it's "logical" to think representatives are responsible for what voters do and say.

Just like it's "logical" to think gun manufacturers should be held liable for gun violence.

It's not that hard to put 2 + 2 together there.

And don't even try to front like it's the right thing to do. To even accept any responsibility for it would result in a negative perception of his campaign. "Bernie supporters are radical!" would be the headline.

If you don't like the reality around you, which results in conflict, fix the ******* problem instead of asking a rep to babysit. AKA stop being a pu$$y.

If the representative sets a tone of opposition to the bad behavior, then they are not responsible for what people do who might also be supporters.  But when they fail to set that tone, or even encourage that behavior, then they are absolutely responsible for those actions.

Also, I don't support lawsuits against gun manufacturers, so still not sure where the **** that's coming from.  I'm also not a huge fan of Clinton.  Maybe you have me confused with GAfan?

Who said "accept responsibility"?  I said that Sanders should come out and tell his supporters to not disrupt the rallies of other candidates.  If they continue to do that, then it's not on Sanders.  But until he does, and while he continues making comments like he did the other day, he is signaling to them that it's acceptable behavior and that he even condones it.

You seem to confuse "conflict" with abject f***ery.  You can have opposition to bad ideas without trying to silence the opposition.  You can have conflict in political discourse without punching people in the face.  I explained the point earlier in this thread, but you seem to have conveniently ignored those posts.

I will say, though, that it doesn't take any strength or courage to stand there and scream like a jacka*** at someone else's rally.  Chanting the same one-liner a hundred times isn't bravery.  It's actually pretty stupid and inane.  Calmly explaining the logical flaws or factual errors of the other side takes intelligence, on the other hand.  That's something that these protesters (who you seem to support) are lacking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nothing but a trap to paint Sanders' supporters as radical outsiders. Sell that **** somewhere else.

If there is an organized effort to protest, there is no one person that can make them stop.

Instead of trying to focus on the candidate as the cause or possible pacifier of the clash, focus on the issues behind the outrage(which is not the supposed sponsoring candidate here). Otherwise, it will continue to come off as biased rhetoric.

If it were Hillary supporters doing the same, the response would be different. Just like when BLM disrupted the Sanders speech. It was fine then but as soon as it came to Hillary's speech, it was denounced.

To ever go out to attack Sanders for not making a worthless statement, that would stop nothing, is clearly just an effort to attribute the clash to said candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase, "Be careful whose toes you step on today, they might be attached to the *** you have to kiss tomorrow" comes to mind. Address the cause instead of asking for a babysitter to dampen the symptom. If not, don't act shocked or verklempt when it shows up on your door.

Maybe a little less running around comparing Trump to boogiemen. Entertainment news may as well be releasing pictures with crosshairs over him. You reap what you sow. Don't give torches to the mob of dissatisfied citizens and act surprised when **** starts burning down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem some people are having with some of these questions stems from a misunderstanding about the nature of democratic governance.  Democracy is a process, not an outcome.  

The process occurs when policy alternatives are put before voters by parties, the voters make a choice about which party gets to govern (sometimes based on policy ideas and sometimes not), and the party gets to govern according to the policies they campaigned on.  Then a few years later, the public decides of that party gets to continue governing.

Part of that process is the free expression of political ideas.  People express their ideas about government and policy and the public considers those ideas.  Ideas are judged to be good or bad, reasonable or disgusting, or whatever.  But they are expressed and judged by the public at large.

Now, reality is that most of the public isn't ideological and isn't informed about politics.  Most people tune out of the news and so they don't hear a lot of the ideas.  And the basis for their vote is often raw party identification and other factors not related to deliberative consideration of policy exchanges.  But for those who do pay attention and tune in, that open access to all ideas is essential for the process of a democratic system of government.

The problem is that too many people today believe that democracy means they get what they want.  They want policies related to immigration, and someone like Trump is speaking about ideas they find disgusting, so they try to censor and shout down those ideas.  They want to prevent those ideas from being expressed in the first place because they oppose them.  They view democracy as an outcome...the "correct" outcome occurs or else the system is broken.  Outcome here means they get certain policies or their candidate wins.  Anything else is illegitimate and evidence of a broken government.  

The narcissism and self-indulgence underlying this view can actually be very dangerous.  I pointed out earlier the problem of deciding who, specifically, gets to make the decision about which ideas are "unworthy of discussion".  These protesters have no legitimacy to make that decision, at least no more than anyone else.  So Trump supporters could decide that Kasich's message is unworthy of being discussed and shut down his rallies.  Or myself and a handful of others could decide that Sanders' ideas are unworthy of being discussed and try to prevent him from ever speaking in public.  I'm sure Andras would find that perfectly acceptable and just accept the legitimacy of my group's censoring of Sanders' message.  

To sum up, in a democracy the process is more valuable than the outcome.  Sometimes that process produces outcomes we dislike.  Sometimes it results in outcomes that we want.  But ultimately, it's the process by which decisions are made that is far and away more important than what specific decisions are produced.  Because if we substitute that process with a demand that only outcomes consistent with our personal ideological beliefs are acceptable, we have placed our ideology as the ultimate authority that rules the country.  That is authoritarianism with ideology as the ruling entity, not the decision of the public which is the ultimate authority in a democratic system.

We desperately need to recapture an understanding about what democracy is and what it is not.  Because we're quickly losing the concept that the government is still legitimate even when the other side wins and even when the other side does things we thing are harmful to the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Andras said:

This is nothing but a trap to paint Sanders' supporters as radical outsiders. Sell that **** somewhere else.

If there is an organized effort to protest, there is no one person that can make them stop.

Instead of trying to focus on the candidate as the cause or possible pacifier of the clash, focus on the issues behind the outrage(which is not the supposed sponsoring candidate here). Otherwise, it will continue to come off as biased rhetoric.

If it were Hillary supporters doing the same, the response would be different. Just like when BLM disrupted the Sanders speech. It was fine then but as soon as it came to Hillary's speech, it was denounced.

To ever go out to attack Sanders for not making a worthless statement, that would stop nothing, is clearly just an effort to attribute the clash to said candidate.

Blah blah blah, more strawman arguments and nonsense.

It was wrong when BLM disrupted Sanders.  It's wrong when they disrupt any rally.  The posts that I've made are general ideas, not a defense or an attack on any candidate.  Until the Chicago rally, I never made any connection between the protesters and Sanders.  But they were chanting "Bernie", so they connected their actions to his campaign.  That's why he need to denounce the disruptions.

Talk about bias, though.  You seem to support what they're doing.  If people were doing this consistently at Sanders' rallies and disrupting his speeches, I doubt you'd be all "well stop being a p**** and just accept these people are angry and are legitimate to shut down his rallies".  You're in the tank for Sanders and it's biasing your view on this.

You're seeing conspiracies where none exist.  All I'm saying is that Sanders should be clear that disrupting the rallies of another candidate is wrong and tell his supporters not to do that.  It's not "a worthless statement".  It sets the tone about what is acceptable action on Sanders' behalf.  If he made a simple statement and they continued doing it, then he is free of any responsibility.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Andras said:

The phrase, "Be careful whose toes you step on today, they might be attached to the *** you have to kiss tomorrow" comes to mind. Address the cause instead of asking for a babysitter to dampen the symptom. If not, don't act shocked or verklempt when it shows up on your door.

Maybe a little less running around comparing Trump to boogiemen. Entertainment news may as well be releasing pictures with crosshairs over him. You reap what you sow. Don't give torches to the mob of dissatisfied citizens and act surprised when **** starts burning down.

Now it's the news media's fault for covering the outrageous things that Trump has said about minorities and women?  And people are justified in shutting down rallies because of that coverage?  

You're really incoherent on this issue.  You seem to support and justify what the protesters are doing.  But you say it's not there fault, but instead is somehow the media's fault.  But politicians shouldn't speak out against it.  Because p****, or sumsht.  

Also, the phrase you quoted doesn't even make sense in this context.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Andras said:

Just curious, who is a supporter of the idea to suspend primaries and just let the bought political parties declare a candidate. So much for the exchange of ideas. That would simply be a viewing of forced ideas.

Not at all because alternative voices can still be expressed through independent candidates, third parties, or even within the parties via the nominating decision process.  If a group or its ideas get ignored, that group leaves the party and joins another one, or creates their own.  That's precisely the process we had until about 40 years ago.  The use of primaries to choose all nominees is a recent invention.

You whine about "bought political parties", but the candidates are just as bought.  The problem is money in politics, not political parties themselves.  Corruption is certainly a concern and we can discuss that.  But that discussion is irrelevant to the points that I've made in this thread.  It's just another logical fallacy that you're throwing around instead of addressing the specific points that I'm making...in this case a red herring.  

How nominees are chosen has no connection to the principle that ideas should be allowed to be expressed and supporters should be allowed to hear the person they showed up to hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To deny the part money plays in the parties themselves? LMFAO. Dude, you sit around here for years talking about the GOP is controlled by the "no new tax" pledge. You do not make it out of that gate without that forced idea.

There is hardly any difference between the parties now. To let them screen which ideas are exchanged on the air will be a final nail in the coffin of that process.

How FOS do you have to be to omit the allegiance to Hillary by Schultz? Of course you don't see a problem with stopping primaries and letting the parties choose. Surely they will clean themselves up and close those loopholes.

BTW, I literally lol'd when I saw you acknowledge the problem of money in politics, while also trying to state there needs to be other parties, while claiming the problem is candidates and not the parties. What prevents additional parties and campaigns? Funding. Without it, you don't get off of the ground. What else? The media. The amount of **** Ron Paul got was pathetic. The amount of **** Perot got was intense. "Just label them as a crazy uncle and move on." The amount of praise your candidate has received by the press is absolutely unwarranted.

What ensures the 2 party system? Giving them more control over which ideas are expressed. Neither of these problems will be solved by the pre-screened establishment candidates. It would be insane to expect them to hunt for their own heads. Would the party's pledged candidates open up the door for additional competition? Absolutely not. That would go against any logical nature.

Don't play the naive game. The corruption is much deeper than just individual candidates. The whole process is flawed.

Edited by Andras
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you like it or not, say hello to the dissatisfaction and irrational behavior you're seeing. It is the b@stard child of the current process. It is the result of finding entertainment in radical Trump comparisons. Don't sit around here and blame republicans for appealing to radicals when your "entertaining" rhetoric breeds more confused and angry radicals in response to the labels.

Edited by Andras
Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...