GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

[pErvinalia]

Just remember what I said: true progress doesn't come easy. Holding up a sign is rarely what's required to keep rank conservatism at bay.

[JimC]

So, does it take street violence then?

[pErvinalia]

It sometimes does take violence. At the very least it requires fairly major disruption. Sitting around discussing things ala liberalism does mostly fuck all. Which isn't surprising as liberals are usually amongst the priveleged class in society so "fuck all" is the kind of change most liberals want.

[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.

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"?

the signs that said "vote for Bernie" on them and the group chants of "Bernie Bernie! Bernie!" That was a clue.

I don't know that "all" of them were Bernie supporters.

But, protest does not entitle people to take over and shut down another person's rally. I guarantee if thousands of Trump supporters showed up at a Bernie or Hillary rally and wouldn't let the speaker speak because one after the other they got up chanting "Trump! Trump!" etc., or kept yelling at and antagonizing the crowd, you would point to the "lack of civil discourse" and tut tut, at a bare minimum.

Fuck, when it comes to the young, college age Bernie supporter, they'd be looking for their safe-space and saying that protesters at their rally make them feel "unsafe" and that somebody should do something about it. LOL. Yelling Trump Trump is probably a microaggression, if not a macroaggression.

[Forty Two]

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.

No, but rushing the stage is. Badgering and provoking and taking action to shut down the rally is actually fascistic.

[Forty Two]

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.

What if the fascist identifies as a social justice warrior?

[Forty Two]

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.

Free speech isn't quantitative. It's an individual right. If Trump were a black, trans, genderqueer, woman with a disability, would free speech have been violated by protesters disrupting the rally, planning to rush the stage, and shouting down the speaker at every turn?

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.

Yes, indeed. The juvenile approach is to shut down the hateful speech. To suggest that the rise of Hitler was a result of freedom of speech is really bizarre. To stop fascism from rising, we have to make sure people with fascist ideas can't say them out loud? LOL.

[Forty Two]

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...

That was a sad day for free speech, actually, when a government prosecuted a historian for writing unapproved stuff. That's no different than would be prosecuting Salman Rushdie for the Satanic Verses because it was anti-Islam.

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...

If a lunatic group takes to the streets demanding to rape women whenever they felt like it, it would be a very good thing to have happen. The film could be studied and the pro-rape persons identified. They'd very likely be pretty good suspects to look into.

But, indeed, counter protests are free speech. I agree with Rev on that. What isn't free speech is commandeering private property (a microphone or stage), or pushing/shoving other people. And, if they engage in fighting words while protesting to antagonize a crowd, then it's not going to be surprising if fights break out.

But, yes, when the Nazis march down main street, the proper response is to counterprotest.

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...

Bernie Sanders actually has a good rep with the NRA and he is very pro-gun ownership.

But, in any case, that is the point -- if Trump groupies showed up to a Bernie rally and got into the seats and just started disrupting the place, antagonizing Bernie supporters, egging them on and picking fights, and then shouting over and over anytime Bernie tried to speak, that would be a big problem. That's not the exercise of free speech.

[Forty Two]

Trump has broken 50% in a national poll -- https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/03/1 ... and-carso/

[piscator]

[laklak]

Thing is, The Donald isn't just appealing to core Republicans, they don't make up anything near 50% of the primary voting population. His popularity is crossing political lines liken no one I've seen before. You've got Union types supporting him because of his anti-immigration, protectionist stance, for instance. It's a real Rainbow Nation. He does even better in open primary states then he tends to do in closed primary states, and I don't believe that all the Democrats voting for him are doing it for strategic reasons. Some, I'm sure, but not all.

He could actually be POTUS. Imagine that.

[piscator]

Unions do not support Donald Trump.
Democrats do not support Donald Trump.

"Trump as President"? Mussolini in a different uniform. We'll end up hanging him from a light pole.

[JimC]

Unions do not support Donald Trump.
Democrats do not support Donald Trump.

Yes, but unionists and/or democrat voters may...

[piscator]

We'll put that to the test.

[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.

What if the fascist identifies as a social justice warrior?

That must be one of the mythical 'liberal fascists'...