GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

[Forty Two]

So? That's exactly what a protest is (among other things). I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Well, no, not exactly. If Trump supporters showed up to a Bernie or Hillary rally by the thousands and shouted down the attendees and antagonized them by yelling slurs and insults, pushing and shoving, and then rushed the stage to take over the mic, I doubt very highly you would respond with "So? That's exactly what a protest is..." Because, well, it's not. A protest can be a march down the street, or picketing an event, or even holding up signs or voicing a view, etc.

It's a fine line between speaking one's mind, and purposefully interfering with other people.

That's why Buffalo Springfield wrote:

"What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly saying, "hooray for our side!""

Rather than:

"What a field day for the heat
A thousand people disrupting a ticketed rally
Hurling insults, and pushing people
Mostly saying, "storm the stage and take the mic!"

[Forty Two]

Fivethirtyeight.org predicts:

Florida - Trump 90% chance of winning -- that's 99 delegates. winner take all
Illinois - Trump 64% chance of winning -- 69 delegates -- probably split proportionally
Missouri - Trump is slightly ahead of Cruz -- 52 delegates -- probably split proportionally
North Carolina - Trump 94% chance of winning - 72 delegates - definitely proportional
Ohio - Kasich has 80% chance of winning -- that's 66 delegates (but, Trump is the only other candidate with a chance of winning, so Cruz and Rubio get nothing from Ohio no matter what). winner take all
Northern Marianas Islands - Trump ahead - 9 delegates - winner take all

So, Trump is poised for substantial gains.

[JimC]

I have issues with protests which are clearly designed to prevent other people from having a meeting etc. Placards and noisy protesting outside a venue to make a point, sure, but deliberately trying to shut down the opposition's political process is undemocratic.

[pErvinalia]

So? That's exactly what a protest is (among other things). I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Well, no, not exactly. If Trump supporters showed up to a Bernie or Hillary rally by the thousands and shouted down the attendees and antagonized them by yelling slurs and insults, pushing and shoving, and then rushed the stage to take over the mic, I doubt very highly you would respond with "So? That's exactly what a protest is..." Because, well, it's not. A protest can be a march down the street, or picketing an event, or even holding up signs or voicing a view, etc.

It's a fine line between speaking one's mind, and purposefully interfering with other people.

What? Almost all protests cause some disturbance of some kind. That's the point. I really don't know what point you are trying to make. If Trump supporters turned up to Bernie's rallies and carried on, then yes, I'd call that a protest. What else would you call it??

By the way, how do you know these are all "Bernie's supporters"?

[pErvinalia]

I have issues with protests which are clearly designed to prevent other people from having a meeting etc. Placards and noisy protesting outside a venue to make a point, sure, but deliberately trying to shut down the opposition's political process is undemocratic.

Bollocks. Protesting a fascist isn't undemocratic.

[JimC]

I have issues with protests which are clearly designed to prevent other people from having a meeting etc. Placards and noisy protesting outside a venue to make a point, sure, but deliberately trying to shut down the opposition's political process is undemocratic.

Bollocks. Protesting a fascist isn't undemocratic.

Protesting isn't. But deliberately trying to stop a meeting, or to stop someone speaking, is the sort of authoritarian left action that should be condemned as arrogant and a threat to free speech and free assembly. Stage noisy, trenchant protests as much as you like, but, except in very extreme cases, letting the other party have no chance of speaking is plain street thuggery.

[laklak]

Bollocks. Protesting a fascist isn't undemocratic.

It is if you're a Democratic Fascist.

Hey, if you can be a Democratic Socialist then why not a Democratic Fascist?

[pErvinalia]

I have issues with protests which are clearly designed to prevent other people from having a meeting etc. Placards and noisy protesting outside a venue to make a point, sure, but deliberately trying to shut down the opposition's political process is undemocratic.

Bollocks. Protesting a fascist isn't undemocratic.

Protesting isn't. But deliberately trying to stop a meeting, or to stop someone speaking, is the sort of authoritarian left action that should be condemned as arrogant and a threat to free speech and free assembly. Stage noisy, trenchant protests as much as you like, but, except in very extreme cases, letting the other party have no chance of speaking is plain street thuggery.

Yes, we mustn't disrupt the fascists.

[JimC]

We must not interfere with the rights to free speech, which includes the whole gamut of political opinion. This does not mean that they can have a free ride - noisy effective protests that simply stop short of shutting down their meetings are fine.

[pErvinalia]

Rich people like Trump will never have their free speech restricted by a direct action protest at a campaign event. That's simply ridiculous.

[JimC]

Rich people like Trump will never have their free speech restricted by a direct action protest at a campaign event. That's simply ridiculous.

If he (or anyone) is stopped from speaking at a particular event, then that is a restriction of free speech. You can't qualify the restriction by saying that it doesn't apply to "privileged white men" or the like because they have other opportunities.

I think here you have to take a leaf from Voltaire's book, and thoroughly detest Trump (and protest against him) while defending his right to speak...

I thought on that political graph thing, you didn't put yourself on the "authoritarian left" quadrant...

[pErvinalia]

Rich people like Trump will never have their free speech restricted by a direct action protest at a campaign event. That's simply ridiculous.

If he (or anyone) is stopped from speaking at a particular event, then that is a restriction of free speech. You can't qualify the restriction by saying that it doesn't apply to "privileged white men" or the like because they have other opportunities.

As an overall measure of free speech, of course you can.

I think here you have to take a leaf from Voltaire's book, and thoroughly detest Trump (and protest against him) while defending his right to speak...

That's simply naive and frankly a juvenile approach to the world. You'd give Hitler his free speech? Fuck that. Major progression has only ever happened with major disruption. That's the reality of the world, not some sophist approach to silly ideological liberal positions.

[JimC]

I think here you have to take a leaf from Voltaire's book, and thoroughly detest Trump (and protest against him) while defending his right to speak...

That's simply naive and frankly a juvenile approach to the world. You'd give Hitler his free speech? Fuck that. Major progression has only ever happened with major disruption. That's the reality of the world, not some sophist approach to silly ideological liberal positions.

As I said earlier:

Stage noisy, trenchant protests as much as you like, but, except in very extreme cases, letting the other party have no chance of speaking is plain street thuggery.

So, I already said that there could be cases where the primacy of free speech can be trumped... (apologies... )

For example, governments themselves have quite reasonably denied the right to speak of some extremists like that anti-semitic holocaust denier, whose name I have forgotten...

And if a lunatic group took to the streets demanding to rape women whenever they felt like it, it would be quite appropriate for Dykes on Bikes to sort them out with gusto...

But, however you might detest a given politician, saying you have the right to stop a campaign speech sets a very dangerous precedent. Do we want to see a gang of NRA thugs breaking up a Bernie Sanders election speech...

[pErvinalia]

You don't think Trump is extreme?

[JimC]

You don't think Trump is extreme?

Not to the extent of attempting to silence him on the campaign trail. Plenty of right-wingers would regard Bernie as equally extreme, and unless they remembered their Voltaire, feel justified in trying to stop him speaking. That path leads to elections that are blood baths...