People bitch about protesting because they don't agree or care about the issue at hand. Nothing is going to change their minds. People bitched about the people in Ferguson rioting as much as they bitched about Kap taking knee during the fucking national anthem..... Hell they probably bitched more about Kap taking a knee than the riots. People who bitch about protesting can suck my dick.
This is the way it always struke me. Cant/won't attack the message so attack the way the message is delivered. It's like Republicans not liking the way climate change was presented to them.
Ok, but how does that apply to current events? What's the equivalent? Destroying a bunch of Chase ATM's as a form of protest?
Personally if I'm going to come up with some standard for legitimate protest, I think it should include arguably the most famous protest in the nation's history. That's just me, though.
First, this got skewed into some debate on what is legit or not legit protest. Im merely making an argument that currently the violences and property destruction hampers the effectiveness of the protests. If you think the Tea Party is relevant to today's climate, Im open to hearing it. I contend if something similar happened today, it would not help your cause. Im not saying the motives and and frustrations that lead to the violence and or prop damage are in any way illegitimate.
I guess my question is for those that think it does help, what's the end game? A Cuban style revolution?
I get that you can't think of an instance where it helps, but you're also not being neglected by society to the point that you feel you have no other avenue than to protest and riot and cause damage. At some point you have to stop and ask yourself "man, what is so bad that is causing this person to lash out like this? what is really going on here?". Instead of treating it like "yeah asshole, breaking that window is not gonna help you".
I feel bad that it's tiny. It's sad people don't have empathy and understanding for a life outside of what they've experienced.
So my experience from the women's march in Charlotte was that it was very polite. I remember telling people that afterwards the march seemed a little to civil obedient. What I have come to believe was at the crux of that was the police response. They were not out in significant numbers. They were not in riot gear (it was mostly bike cops in shorts). I think there is a movement in law enforcement to recognize that treating protestors as criminals escalates what could be a peaceful march into a violent riot. Meeting a peaceful protest with riot gear increases tensions and inflames the situation. You don't want violent riots? Don't treat peaceful protestors as criminals IMO.
Don't tell him to shut up. He loves the attention. Ignoring him makes him die a little on the inside.
i disagree here. look at the immediate police reaction to organized protests on police brutality. before any riotous behavior, they show up in riot gear
Sorry I wasn't clear. That is probably a minority movement. I mean to say that some law enforcement officials are recognizing that law enforcement actions often escalate peaceful protests to violence. The majority of law enforcement reaction currently is to meet peaceful protests with overwhelming force and creating violent standoffs.
Civic clubs are also getting a boosts in the wave of newfound activism. PTA meeting at the daughter's middle school probably had 200 parents there (and nothing remarkable about the meeting). In the past 40 would be the norm.
Hey guys. I'm just going to quietly resign. Please ignore the treason that I have definitely committed.
Stop. The more people that democrats can appeal to and make their pitch to, the better, unless you like being on the losing side.
Trump did do pretty terribly in Sun Belt suburbs (for a Republican) - Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc (which the article touches on). But I don't see these people voting Democratic down ballot anytime soon. Handful of districts in California that are toss-up or even lean D that are controlled by Republicans. Take some of those and win back some toss-up districts in the Upper Midwest - WI-8 (Green Bay), IA-3 (Des Moines), IA-1 (Waterloo/Cedar Rapids), IL-13 (Springfield), etc. Probably not enough to win back the House in 2018 but it's a decent start.
Im also not so sure how reliable a 'Romney base' will be when given a more traditional GOP choice against a democrat. But you have to start somewhere I guess.
Holy shit did y'all totally put words in Truman 's mouth. No one is saying we don't support an issue just because we have a disagreement with the extent at which there should be law breaking and what kind of laws should be broken. This boneheaded gate-keeping mentality has fracture countless progressive movements. The more radical members turn on the moderates and blow it all up. No one is saying that they should only be doing "acceptable" protests so your point is moot. There is a difference between civil disobedience and a full blown riot, violence against individuals, and other low class members property. I simply pointed out that it plays into the narrative that the protestors are just criminals. That was that point. I totally get why someone would want to riot. "...a riot is the language of the unheard." That does not mean its always the most effective method of disrupting society. Who said Truman or myself were not questioning the conditions that brought about the riot? No one is arguing for order. Civil disobedience is good. I have no problem with blocking road ways or chaining yourself to a police station. Well said. Although, I think something like the tea party could be effective in the right circumstance. Do you really think Truman or myself are so obtuse that we don't understand WHY they are rioting? I can't speak for Truman but I totally get WHY they are rioting. In fairness, while his point is stupid, the presidential election is pretty pointless. 55 out of 80 of the CA assembly are Democrats and 27 out of 40 senators are Democrats. They also have 2 Democratic US senators, and haven't have a Republican one since 1992, despite your views on Diane Feinstein. They have also had a Democratic governor since 2011.
The party of the sitting president historically struggles in mid terms. In addition, hopefully Wisconsin and Michigan open the floodgates on gerrymandering lawsuits. So maybe it will be enough.