2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI hate protestors. it's so....unAmerican
Jeezus. This is looking like the bashfests that went on about those "anti-Americans" protesting the Iraq War.
Look, I think some of the protesters have gone too far. Acted inappropriately according to my own compass of productive/unacceptable. (We all have one of those compasses that has its own set point.)...Some of them even piss me off.
But Jeezus, all this talk about the "awful left" and the "left is dead" and the "Bernie movement has destroyed itself."
This authoritarian "let's lock the doors to the Democratic Party unless someone passes a litmus test."
Sounds distressingly like Free Republic or Faux news.
Let's just jettison the goal of universal healthcare, just because some people are misbehaving.
Lordy.
Raster
(20,998 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Glad you are still here.
A voice of reason is always ...a voice of reason..
Like Mozart. Perfect clarity. Only the notes needed.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I would say the war protestors were protesting a terrible thing, the war, which was unnecessary. Whereas these people are protesting basically that they did not get the winner they wanted in the primaries and a bunch of trumped up claims of unfairness, none of which have ever seriously been supported by any real evidence.
think
(11,641 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Their overall intent was to disrupt the convention because they were selfish and like spoiled little kids who didn't get what they wanted so they were throwing a tantrum. I will guarantee that if Sanders had won the nomination and the speakers had been invited to support him, they wouldn't have protested anything.
treestar
(82,383 posts)No they are not. They are protesting because they didn't get the candidate they want. They are just chanting this or that, war, TPP, etc.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)They are few, and I may suspect other motives in the mix, but "no more war" is a damfine message.
My biggest complaint about Clinton's acceptance speech is that, despite knowing in advance about this chant, she didn't use the word "war" or talk about finally ending our endless fake wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I make allowances for her needing the goodwill of the sitting president who likes things as they are, and perhaps last night was too soon to expect her to break with him. But you must realize that when we say "too soon" about wars that began thirteen years ago, we have fallen down an insane and insanely deep rabbit hole.
I was most pleased to hear her tout the diplomatic success of the Iran deal. That gives me hope.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)He promised to be better at using them but seriously... He is not totally anti war. These poor uninformed people.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)But all over everyone else's. People believe what they want to.its stunning to watch.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)"No more war" that really only meant "until there's some reason to start another" would also be a defensible stance.
If all it really meant was "no Clinton," that's a murkier affair.
anamandujano
(7,004 posts)it is counterproductive. Do you really think Trump is not going to start a war or two whether on purpose or accidentally?
They have had their say again and again. Why is that not enough? More importantly, why are you railing against us for expressing our dismay. They are rude, thuggish and handing the press gift after gift.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)To them it's the future of the country.
Agree or disagree, I don't care. But if Trump happens to become president, will you have the same attitude towards protesting him or his policies?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The right to be a raging, sanctimonious asshole doesn't include the right to interfere with others' free speech rights.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)If you want to be a "...raging, sanctimonious asshole..." then MY free speech rights say I can call you on it. That goes for being a racist, fascistic asshole too.
It really bugs me when people think that all viewpoints, no matter how heinous, should be heard without an pushback. Preventing pushback interferes with free speech rights too.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)express itself to the voters as it chooses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
That first amendment right includes the right to prevent hecklers from interfering with that expression.
it has every right to prevent hostile hijackers from derailing its convention
treestar
(82,383 posts)I would not go to the RNC to do it though.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)TDale313
(7,820 posts)Can't think of a better place to protest than a convention.
They are speaking out. They have the right and good reason to do so. I find the dismissive and nasty attitude of some to real, truly important issues because it disrupts their victory party to be disturbing.
SirBrockington
(259 posts)A tantrum for some
With the majority being professional disruptors, anarchists, or paid republican operatives (see Florida Recount).
k8conant
(3,030 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)These dopes don't seem to get that.
Bernie gets it. They apparently do not.
Tonight will not be an effective time to use this tactic. All they will do is anger the very people they hope to ultimately attract.
Not smart.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But the degree of intolerance against dissent is what I am referring to.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Heckling at a convention for which one was granted the extraordinary privilege of participating is just being a saboteur.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Most of them have never, and will never, vote for a Democrat in the first place. They are simply trouble makers like we had hear during the primaries. Their only goal is to make Democrats look bad, and that only helps Trump. They had their day to protest, now they are just being assholes. JPR would be proud of them so I guess thats why so many from that board are defending the here. I am wiling to bet if Bernie had won, and Hillary supporters pulled this shit, they would be outraged beyond belief.
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)As a Bernie supporter, that IS what I wanted.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I thought it was fully appropriate--any time there's a heated contest where people pour everything into it, they deserve to see their votes reflected on the floor, even if there aren't enough to win.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... this rather historic event.
And these folks will be actively working to prevent that from happening.
No one should be surprised if these folks are treated with disdain and then marginalized going forward.
Demobrat
(9,046 posts)how treating them with disdain and then marginalizing them is supposed to convince them to vote against Trump? Or do you feel that their votes are not necessary for Clinton to win? I do, but that's just me. Do you think her lead is wide enough that the votes of Sanders supporters are not necessary?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)There is no reason to spend 10 seconds trying to convince them.
Around 90% of Sanders supporters have already moved to support Clinton.
These folks are small in number, and were never going to help us anyway. They were probably always Trump supporters, libertarians, or Greens.
We don't need them.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)These are people who would never vote for Hillary under any circumstance. They're people who have never voted for a Democrat & never will. They're not really Bernie supporters at all, they just latched onto him during the primary as the anti-Hillary option. That's why they turned on Bernie when he endorsed Hillary.
Historic NY
(37,463 posts)You see CSPAN mics pickup lots of things.
http://rare.us/story/elizabeth-warren-heckled-by-we-trusted-you-chants-before-calling-trumps-wall-stupid/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3707580/Now-BERNIE-getting-shouted-desperately-tries-calm-supporters-telling-vote-Hillary-Clinton.html
'Do NOT engage in any kind of protest!': Bernie Sanders urges weeping fans to rally behind 'outstanding' Hillary Clinton
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Now you are coming up with this BS? I guess I am going to to clue in again Joe. Grownups don't act like spoiled children who throw tantrums when they don't get what they want. They may have been chanting different thing at different times, but their basic beef was that their guy didn't win and they thought he had been treated unfairly. Well, welcome to big leagues. I guess that they found out that politics is rough, contact sport, but the losers traditionally maintain their dignity, live to fight anther day, and don't act like spoiled children
Had they been delegates at the Republican convention and done the same thing they would have been thrown out on their butts on the concrete right after they were relieved of their convention credentials.
Democrats don't act like they did. But I doubt that any of them have voted for a Democratic candidate except Sanders in the last three or four election cycles and I doubt if they will ever again.
They worst thing is that they made a latrine out of their own nest. It is going to be a cold day in hell before most decent democrats will again support a far left candidate as a Presidential nominee if this is the kind of self centered ideological purists that come in as part of the package deal.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You are confused.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... are not intolerance against dissent. They are reactions against those who think their dissent outweighs the rights of others to be heard at an event that specifically invited them to speak.
The real issue is that the disruptors are not accomplishing anything, other than making people completely unsympathetic to their cause.
In other words, it is disruption for its own sake, given that nothing will be achieved by engaging in it.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)The voice of reason, as always!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)SharonClark
(10,014 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)you'd feel the same way.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I do remember all the defenses of BLM disrupting Bernie during the early primary. How many of the defenders of that are now criticizing these protesters?
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)while knocking their wrists together is cool? This is a historic first in this country,how about the Bernie or Burn It Down crew just have some fucking respect for the majority who voted for her and take their loss with some grain of dignity. This isn't the "fault" of the majority of people on the convention floor or at home who are just supposed to bow their heads and take it or else be accused of being "authoritarian". Give it a fucking rest already.
RonniePudding
(889 posts)I think some may be enjoying it more than they are letting on. And blaming others because they're upset about interruptions to a nominating convention (which is not a protest) is another form of victim blaming.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)For some people, "freedom of speech" is definitely 'situational'.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)People should be able act like an idiots and try to disrupt some of the most important speeches of our lifetimes by extremely well respected public servants trying to convince the American people not to make the tragic mistake of putting Donald Trump in the White House.
I dont question the disruptivers rights to express their views, I question their judgement, I question their timing, I question their willingness to try to suppress the right of self expression of others, and I question their selfishness in believing that their personal resentment of the irreparable actions of others is more important than the needs of their country.
anamandujano
(7,004 posts)This is the highest stakes rolling that ever was. The fear of Trump being where he is now makes me miss W.
procon
(15,805 posts)Are Democrats yelling "lock her up" and holding their wrists together or is it the protesters who say they are voting for Trump, or Libertarians or the Green one? Who is shouting down speakers and disrupting the presentations... are those Republicans wearing delegates credentials and just pretending to be Democrats?
Yes, the primaries are intended for protests, debate and arguments, not the nominating convention. This is nothing but petty, self serving, sour grapes.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I don't associate this with being hard left. Most leftists are sane, rational people.
But, the people we were told we're supposed to welcome into our party are pooping on the carpet.
So, precautions will need to be taken.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's not a monolithic group.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in order to smuggle themselves inside.
the reasonable ones are behaving themselves as one would hope they would.
the ones who were chanting "Trump" yesterday? Beyond redemption.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)there's no screen at that level.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)they are funded.
Maru Kitteh
(28,350 posts)the nominee would have obvious benefits for the GOP.
And then there's the fact that a profile done of the BoB's at the convention revealed that the greater portion of them were "of means" so it's quite probable they needed no outside funding.
I don't have a link, sorry. Just a DU post (that did have a link) that I breezed through.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)I didn't hear the Trump chant.
unitedwethrive
(1,997 posts)The only way any of their ideas even have a snowballs chance in hell, is for Democrats to be elected up and down the ticket.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If these folks care about this country, they need to be thinking about November. If they weaken the campaign and Trump wins, they will be even further from their own goals. All IMO, of course.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But a little rock and roll is normal in a functioning democracy. I am just disturbed about the vehemence against all dissent that seems to be emerging.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But I admit I got a little hot under the collar when I heard a "protester" yell "Bullshit!" during a John Lewis interview. John Freakin' Lewis.
Too Far!
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)You appeared from you post to be a sane, reasonable person. However, now you are acting like an over indulgent parent who is defending his kid who is throwing a tantrum because he didn't get what he wanted and now you are having to deal with other adults who are tired of the antics of your child.
still_one
(92,552 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)But it wasn't the disruptions that bothered me.If they had been protesting all candidates, I'd have shrugged my shoulder about it.
It was the false message that Bernie is a racist that was being spread at the time that I was angry about.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Lol
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Read my response.
RonniePudding
(889 posts)Very hypocritical.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Coordinated groups have planned this disruption for weeks. I am very sad that the first female President has to be jeered. We will always have that as part of our memory of this event. I will always remember who laughed up their sleeve about it after screeching over BLM for months.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)stevil
(1,537 posts).
Maru Kitteh
(28,350 posts)2. What a wasted opporrunity -- two obnoxious people overshadow 15,000 supporters
Great way to bring about positive change.
You made no mention of "false messages."
Gooses and ganders, and all that.
obamanut2012
(26,201 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I guess all rude protesters aren't so bad after all, huh?
Lisa D
(1,532 posts)Thanks for the link.
melman
(7,681 posts)You were all for that and you're crying about this. I guess that must be interesting too.
Maven
(10,533 posts)johnp3907
(3,737 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)R B Garr
(17,022 posts)galore. The rest of us see it for what it was. They just want to hate on Hillary and her supporters and mainstream Dems, but they cannot tolerate the same turned towards them.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Sore losers at best.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)The fury of some seems to be proportional to their rage against Sanders in the primaries
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Some of these protesters are a royal pain, but it is their right to protest, and they will soon be forgotten.
Much more important to keep all eyes and efforts on the prize - beating Trump and hopefully, beating him badly.
Tatiana
(14,167 posts)The rest of the country probably wants to hear her message as well. Follow her on the campaign trail.
But this is a historic moment. She deserves to be heard, uninterrupted.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)In fact, I think they would be in poor taste.
Just like I think Occupy Wall St. should have been more concerned with appealing to the mainstream.
But I'm just bothered by the degree to which all protest is being demonized this week.
Tatiana
(14,167 posts)We should be tolerant of it to the greatest extent possible, whether Occupy, BLM, or anti-TPPers.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)People here are, I think, simply protesting the shouting down of speakersany and all speakers whether they "deserve it" or not. Including those intoning a prayer or discussing civil rights. We are also protesting the intent of these busters to keep us from listening to these speeches and making up our own minds about them. Which means, we're protesting them trying to censor and shut up speakers.
And, frankly, why do THEY get to demonize anyone and everyone who speaks or is in favor of Clinton...but no one is allowed to do the same to them?
Look. Expressing our disagreement with what they're doing is not in any way the same as spraying them with firehoses or beating them up or jailing them. Even using the word "Demonize" for these rants against the busters is, I think, going too far. Expressing anger and annoyance at someone keeping you from hearing what you want to hear is, I think, justified protest. Along the lines of protesting any kind of censorship. Which this is. They are the ones trying to shut people up.
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)jalan48
(13,921 posts)Locrian
(4,522 posts)I get people not liking the timing of the protests, calling it rude etc.... But it's beyond that: it's like some people want a coronation or something. I'll take messy democracy and rudeness over that.
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)jalan48
(13,921 posts)Politicians are politicians, not saints.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)passed the far left litmus test. The big tent is great, but people in the tent have to actually be in the tent. If people want to pretend to join the tent for the sole purpose of disrupting and helping Trump, then no. They can protest all they want, just not inside the Democratic Convention.
I don't think we should let Rush Limbaugh fans into the convention to stir up crap, why should we let Jill Stein fans in to do the same thing?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)single payer? Should they be respected and allowed to speak without booing?
What do you think would happen if mainstream Dems behave as childishly as the far left, and booed everyone who didn't agree with them on anything?
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)of Rights that on the actual political spectrum of philosophies are the actual center and center/left.
In the spectrum you push if the right only went as far as the left there wouldn't be anyone more conservative than about Ben Nelson or so. It is a figment used to make center right the other side of the divide.
There is no Cruz or Trump analog on the left of national politics.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Jill Stein is trying to get Trump elected. That's the horseshoe theory in action right there.
hurple
(1,307 posts)They can be asked to leave because they're disrupting the enjoyment of those who WANT to be there.
If these asshats were acting this way in a movie theater during a show, would they be allowed to stay? If they were acting this way in a Broadway theater during a performance, would they be allowed to stay?
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)but this is a bit different, I think. We got permits and didn't shout people down at their own venues. There's a constructive way to protest, and then there's shooting yourself in the foot.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But expanding that to say "the left" are just a bunch of whiny privileged white people who should be totally ignored because some of them are jerks who act up is a different matter.
I protested the Iraq War by standing on a street corner on 10 degree weather. I was kind of annoyed at those who did more drastic things, but I realized that's America.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Tonight is a HISTORIC EVENT. The first woman presidential nominee accepting her party's nomination. There will be women (and men of course) in that audience who've been waiting for this moment THEIR WHOLE LIVES. Women who are 50, 60, 80, 100 years old. Women who were born before the right to vote. And it will be marred by these incredibly self-absorbed people.
NO. I do not accept "a little protest is good for America" in THIS context. Just NO. I've been waiting for this my whole life!
Will the protesters change any minds in their favor? Doubtful. Did they protest the RNC? Doubtful. That makes their actions hypocritical, IMO.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)You have no right to protest private events (the DNC is not a public event). if u want to protest take to the street.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Right now respect for the establishment is nang, and the war machine is lush. Show some respect.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)maxrandb
(15,409 posts)to get out and vote and organize and work in the off-year elections, as they do to act like assholes at a dignified event, they may have actually achieved something politically.
Skittles
(153,321 posts)acting like a stupid selfish asshole is entirely another
demwing
(16,916 posts)Preferably one that's far away from the respectable folks? What the hell do they expect, inalienable rights?
Politicub
(12,165 posts)Maybe not, but they don't seem to be part of the reality-based community.
Most of the folks there probably believe we're on the path to universal healthcare, and don't see the need to burn down the house and erase the trail because we won't get it tomorrow.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)These continued attempts to elevate their status or legitimize their behavior are failing.
Hippies are awesome, this bunch...not so much.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)OKDem08
(1,340 posts)SirBrockington
(259 posts)You dont cut off your nose to spite your face
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)when a look in the mirror will do
it's been hard to keep my disgust in check
I can see how it might make one popular with the "cool kids"
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)I think that a lot of these protestors are assholes, personally, but I get very uncomfortable when people say that political dissent should be silenced.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)The nature of dissent is to cause discomfort.
I may not like the version it takes but I'll defend their right to do it.
Pen them up a mile away from the convention hall?
Nope.
Hillary's going to have to figure out how to reach these folks. Now is not too early.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,180 posts)Seriously! The desperate handwringing defensiveness is an embarrassment for DU.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)You appeared from you post to be a sane, reasonable person. However, now you are acting like an over indulgent parent who is defending his kid who is throwing a tantrum because he didn't get what he wanted and now you are having to deal with other adults who are tired of the antics of your child.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This is what makes DU sink into the mire.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)...who would seek to defend in any way shape or form the actions of those who did their best to disrupt the Democratic convention, especially given their totally selfish motives.
Whimsey
(236 posts)Extremist groups have their place. But not in the general election.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Often I even love a bad one. Then again, I've promoted riots and serious societal disruptions many times.
reflection
(6,286 posts)Thank you.
Response to Armstead (Original post)
Post removed
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)It is a human trait that, but not one of our better ones. Let's rise to the Age of Reason and discuss the issues. To do so involves expressing opinions, dissent, and all the rest.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Many of the posts about this sound very trumpian in tone.
I do not necessarily agree with the manner in the way people are protesting but they have the right to do so.
RandySF
(59,903 posts)So we can make sure a few dozen people feel good.
Gore1FL
(21,185 posts)I am amazed at the rampant calls on DU for silencing and removing people for being vocal for differing opinions.
The poutrage is real.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)It's so...un-American.' Most of us have been in protests. I have, many times. I think what many of us are discussing (and having healthy arguments about is the proper time, place and manner.
I'm for universal healthcare. I'm for peaceful protests outside the convention. Inside the convention, I'm for arguments about the party platform, floor fights (not fist fights, lol) prior to its ratification, vigorous arguments prior to the nomination of the candidates, all sorts of protesting activity. I'm for chants of universal healthcare, black lives matter, end the wars.
Booing speakers who have earned the right to speak - especially booing speakers who work hard for these very same causes - that's plain idiocy.
Seems to me that those applying the 'litmus test' are the ones booing speakers. Not the large majority of the left, not the speakers on stage, not the democratic party or convention.
Here's where I strongly agree with you: the left is not dead. I disagree with those who post stuff to that effect. I think it's evolving & learning, together. And I sure as heck hope that the folks who were booing civil rights leaders, labor leaders, women leaders are learning too.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)I'm protesting the censorship attempts by the busters. I think that's altogether American of me. Taking a page from the Busters here, I'm expressing myself loudly, angrily, and with rude name calling. If they can do it and be called protesters, I can do it and be called a protester.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)Thank you!
salin
(48,955 posts)Glad to cross your path. Like always, appreciate your voice.
G_j
(40,372 posts)people's disdain for anti-war protesters is chillingly surreal.
VOX
(22,976 posts)Look, while what's going on is a FAR cry from 1968, it's nevertheless uncool to draw attention away from 1) historical candidacy of a woman for president; 2) TRUMP. In other times, some demonstrating would be fine...but these are perilous times. There's a genuine fascist candidate who, if somehow elected, would bring real pain to minorities, women and American Muslims. I'm 67, and thought I'd seen it all, but Trump and the compliant media are bringing us too close to some seriously bad shit. It's not the time to make this or that point; it's the time to take that fucker down. All the energy in that venue tonight should be directed at -- if not electing Hillary, then beating Trump.
Lottie5
(12 posts)BigBoss26
(25 posts)ways of pushing a message/narrative/agenda than simply jumping up shouting at someone. But I do think it's interesting how selective this place seems to be about which groups are allowed to be disruptive and which groups aren't.
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)They have every right to be ratfucking trolls, and I have every right to say what I think about them.
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)The negative effects will mitigate soon enough, and the energy (dare I say 'fresh blood') roused up by principled dissent is part of what keeps the whole thing going.
Javaman
(62,540 posts)are absolutely disgraceful.
I am truly disgusted at the very very short memory people have displayed on this site.
it seems to be that it's only good when people protest against the repukes, but they are damned if they protest against our side.
truly unbelievable.
xocet
(3,875 posts)absolute betrayal and castigated as such.
This being noted, Trump embodies the definition of an authoritarian leader, and needs to be defeated.
Lastly, if you have not read it, Altemeyer's book (The Authoritarians) is quite interesting: it has been mentioned several times here at DU over the years.
R B Garr
(17,022 posts)outright "protests" would be tolerated. This is just not the reality we've seen for the last year, so let's get real.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)xocet
(3,875 posts)FairWinds
(1,717 posts)object to the Koch brothers and their bought and paid for DLC?
They are using the Dems to utterly destroy FDR's New Deal, and
take the country down the neo-liberal tubes.
But y'all get all riled at Bernie instead.
Hekate
(91,055 posts)Look. This was the DEMOCRATIC National Convention. A DEMOCRAT won. MAJOR heroes of the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT spoke. WONDERFUL Democrats spoke and thanks to Benedict Donald we had a bunch of IMPORTANT Conservatives speak. Our NOMINEE gave a SANE and PROGRESSIVE speech.
After a certain point it is the MATURE thing to do to LET OTHERS TALK, and those who are still aggrieved can TAKE IT OUTSIDE.
The rest of us want to listen to the speakers. The rest if us deserve to have the pleasure of this moment.
lark
(23,206 posts)I was watching MSNBC and did hear the booers mentioned negatively 1-2 times, and Brian Williams did mention the "far left is acting up" for boos after either cops of general spoke (forget which). I thought that was rather specious and uncalled for on Williams part. You really had to listen at that point to hear the boos, they were almost 100% drowned out by all the cheering happy delegates.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It was prompted by the virulence of the response against the protesters here.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)This is getting ugly.
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)are being derided for voicing their opinions or objections at the party's convention. As elected delegates, they went through multiple levels of participation to get to the national convention. These are the kind of folks that should make up the new generation of the party going forward. Look at the pictures of Hillary & Bill when they met, do you think they were silent in their youthful passions?
The party is successful now, but they risk a progressive future if they refuse to listen to or tolerate those that ask for more. It's the passion that makes the party strong and striving for higher goals.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)We went to represent the people who voted for Bernie Sanders and found the entire convention program preordained for Hillary Clinton. Before the roll call vote on Tuesday, a "regional whip" confiscated our hand-made Bernie signs but allowed the Kansas delegation behind us to have "hand-made" Hillary signs.
When our vote was announced during the roll call, two votes for Hillary from super delegates were included although those super delegates were not present.
According to
CALL
For the 2016 Democratic National Convention
Issued by the Democratic Party of the United States
cast on behalf of a delegation may
be challenged by communication to
the Convention Secretary by
telephone or other means by any
voting member of that states
delegation within ten (10) minutes
after the Convention Secretarys
announcement of the states vote.
The votes of that delegation shall
then be recorded as polled without
regard to any state law, party rule,
resolution or instruction binding the
delegation or any member thereof to
vote for or against any candidate or
proposition. The Convention Chair
may send a parliamentarian to the
delegation to conduct the poll. At
the discretion of the Convention
Chair, the roll call may continue
instead of waiting for the result of
the polling.
I tried to follow this procedure but, mind you, the party chair Belinda Biafore said she wouldn't allow it and I couldn't do anything about it. Also, the microphones are shut off unless the convention chair wants to hear from you. So the total stood at 18 Sanders 19 Clinton (11 pledged + 8 super) although Bernie won all 55 counties in West Virginia and Hillary even came in third in one county.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)Check your Facebook pages, and see the number of dedicated Sanders supporters who are saying they are ashamed, who are pledging their support to Clinton and begging the BoB's to not be stupid and destructive.
In other words, the protests (otherwise known as shameful behavior), have done precisely the opposite of what they had intended, if anything concrete other than disrupting actually was intended. No hearts or minds were captured. People were pushed away.
I am a believer in protests, and have participated in a number myself: I marched in the streets in New York as a college student against the war in Vietnam. I went to several ActUp events in the early 90s. I marched from Boston Common down Commonwealth Avenue with 50,000 others in opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I stood in the bitter cold in Federal Plaza in Chicago to protest gun violence after Sandy Hook. These were public protests that focused on critical single issues, and they stood on their own terms. But never--ever--did I use protest to participate in a disruption of an event dedicated to some other purpose, or try to shut down other people's right to speech.
I want to live in a civil society. Acting uncivilly is not the way to advocate for just causes, and certainly not the thing to do just because your candidate lost. Civil disobedience is sometimes necessary, but never EVER should it be done uncivilly. Did we take away nothing from the teachings (and successes) of Dr. King?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)group while disavowing that tactic you are contradicting yourself. I once took part in an action by ACT UP that interrupted Christmas Eve Mass at a Cathedral.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)ACT UP was extremely in your face and disruptive. At times, it offended even me and my family: we showed up at events are were harangued and scorned as "breeders." You remember the language. I was hurt, but I was not deterred. What Act Up accomplished was bringing something previously hidden out into the open. And for all the controversy that the movement of public outing created, it did do a service: it made the country realize how many celebrities, coworkers, neighbors, and friends were gay.
But, while a necessary first step, Act Up did not succeed in getting many laws changed. It wasn't until the marriage equality movement--very insider, very mainstream in most aspects--came along that politicians who could actually change things through the law came on board and the movement took a giant step forward.
If you want to influence people in the streets, that may be useful in the beginning. But to create real change, dialogue of respect, negotiation, and organized, respectful pressure in the halls of power is the necessary way to go in the end.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,896 posts)PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)Truthbomb activated and deployed. Well done.
nikto
(3,284 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Apples and oranges my friend, apples and oranges.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)Response to Armstead (Original post)
Post removed
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)To fight the GOP. Fuck them!
George Eliot
(701 posts)Protests are part of democracy. Look at the turnouts in Europe when rights or privileges are cut back. We Americans need to peaceably defend our democracy a whole lot more than we do. The fact is there will always be disruptors but they should alter our right to assemble and we shouldn't accept being fenced in several blocks from the events we are protesting. Instead of protecting the right assemble for everyone, we are not judging each other based on our politics or some other stupid thing. Protecting the rights of others means we are protecting our own rights as well.
Saying we are great doesn't make us great. Protecting the rights of all of us to express our politics without ad hominems and hate is what makes us great . . .