jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (20 posts)

Political agitators?

  1. Don W profile image83
    Don Wposted 8 months ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IYrdm12uG0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVR0PimiRDA

    Seems to me, these are ordinary people who are angry and fearful about what might happen to their health care, and their constitutional rights..

    1. promisem profile image91
      promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Let's get real here. There are paid political operatives in both parties who try to stir up trouble for the other party. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

      But claiming that all of the protesters at the Republican town halls and anti-Trump marches are paid agitators is just plain silly.

      1. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        I agree, suggesting there are no paid organizers involved at all is as ridiculous as suggesting that everyone is a paid organizer.

        These events do put lie to the idea that it's only the media and political activists who oppose Trump's agenda though. Clearly ordinary people feel so strongly that they are willing to speak up and have their voice be heard. I dare Bannon to call these people enemies of the state.

        1. promisem profile image91
          promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Absolutely.

        2. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Question - postulate two groups of people  Group A has gathered to educate and be educated, perhaps to offer suggestions or solutions.  Group B has gathered to disrupt the actions of Group A, to prevent exchange of ideas and thoughts.

          Which, then, could be considered an "enemy of the state"?  Group A because we all know the state wants only slaves and nothing more from it's subjects?  Or Group B, that offers nothing but disruption and discord, never a positive suggestion or solution to anything?

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Of the footage I've viewed of the Senator Cotton town hall event (I've watched the whole thing*) I didn't see any of the people being "disruptive", unless for you disruptive means asking reasonable and relevant questions, and being vocal about their disagreement or disapproval.

            Are you seriously going to imply that people expressing their opinions, lawfully and peacefully, to an elected official, who has specifically organized an event to hear those opinions, are enemies of the state? Or does your "Group A" and "Group B" refer to something else?

            * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyFa4FIcDo0

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              "Being vocal about their disagreement or disapproval".  As in shouting down anyone else that wants to speak or in quietly stating that they disapprove and giving the floor to someone else?   Is the same question being asked over and over and over, or does each "protester" have a different question?  One could be constructive, one is disruptive.  One effectively stops any further communication, one is a most reasonable action (though it would be far better to supply an alternative rather than simply stating disagreement with proposals).

              I didn't start the "enemy of the state" - you did.  While neatly sidestepping the question of which group should carry that label - those that disrupt and destroy or those that attempt to build or solve.

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                I heard people loudly expressing their disapproval, but every single time, the volume lowered and the Senator (or person on the receiving end of the disapproval) was given the opportunity to respond.

                Given the number of people, the subjects under discussion, and the limited time, a low-key detailed debate would not have been possible (they were struggling to get mics to people as it was).

                In such a setting, a loud chorus of disapproval is a simple, yet effective way of communicating with the speaker. Of course, if someone was in a one to one meeting with the Senator in his office and was shouting like that, it wouldn't be appropriate. But in the context of a large town-hall style meeting, it was entirely appropriate, and quite useful. The people of Arkansas did not want Senator Cotton to be in any doubt what they are angry about and what they disapprove of. I think they accomplished that.

                Now he must faithfully relay the concerns (and anger) of the people he represents to the Senate, and act on those concerns when he returns, as he is paid to.

                I didn't start claims about "enemies of the . . ." That was president Bannon. Obviously the people can't be "enemies of the people", so I inferred that Bannon would consider them to be enemies of the state.

                And no I didn't "dodge" your question. I reject it, because it's a transparent attempt to create a hypothetical scenario that fits your agenda, but only works in reality if people make the same assumptions you do. For example, I don't consider the people at that event to be "disruptive", so I would not put them in Group B, as you clearly want me to.

                If you think people who hold their elected representatives to account, and voice their opinions vocally (and loudly) can be considered "enemies of the state", say that. Don't mess around doing mental gymnastics that ultimately says the same thing.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  It seems that we're talking about two different things, unless "the volume lowered" means after several minutes.

                  I haven't seen the tape, and inferred that it was similar to what Trump contended with when protesters showed up solely to disrupt his campaign meetings.  To prevent supporters from hearing him.  To not allow any real communication between Trump and supporters.  If I'm wrong, I apologize, but that IS the normal intent of protests - to cause disruption in order to get attention much like small children do with a temper tantrum.

    2. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

      http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/ … -protests/

      Here is some more ammo, Don from the state where the GOP is working to eliminate protests under extreme prejudice.


      Do you read the article about the congressman who deliberately excluded non GOP from his town hall meeting?

      http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-hea … r-in-ohio#

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Reading the first link, I was rather appalled.  Given that a solution really needs to be found to dissuade the violence that so often breaks out in "peaceful" demonstrations, it still seems like this is over the top.

        Until the last paragraph, anyway:

        Sen. Andrea Dalessandro, D-Green Valley, had her own concerns.
        “I’m fearful that ‘riot’ is in the eyes of the beholder and that this bill will apply more strictly to minorities and people trying to have their voice heard,’’ she said.

        When we have to redefine "riot" to exclude violence in order to placate this politician, or when we need to give a "bye" to minorities for their misbehavior and destructive actions, well, that's over the top as badly as the proposed law is.

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Good that you expressed your point here, My problem is it looks like this bill has a political purpose beyond one of just restraining unlawful activities in the protests. All this nonsense about the young being paid and indoctrinated to participate in protests by sinister leftist forces, Rubbish....

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            LOL  Think about the typical age of who is protesting, and which political bent is doing the same.  Then declare it foolish to think that those young are being indoctrinated.

            And yes, there is almost zero doubt that there are paid protesters out there.  It is the wave of the future, just as pickets are paid by the union because union members won't stand out in the cold any more.

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

              "LOL  Think about the typical age of who is protesting, and which political bent is doing the same.  Then declare it foolish to think that those young are being indoctrinated."

              That is so Republican of you, when people don't align themselves with Right winged nonsense, they MUST be controlled by a sinister outside force. People think for themselves, Wilderness, and that is why the Arizona proposal will be dead upon arrival. I am not a teen and I think that Trump and his proposals suck, would it be so strange for me to find younger people that feel the same way?

              "And yes, there is almost zero doubt that there are paid protesters out there.  It is the wave of the future, just as pickets are paid by the union because union members won't stand out in the cold any more."

              Where is the PROOF that these protesters are paid (being the driving force behind protests) outside of the parroting of Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity?

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                No, you're not a teen.  Now how many people your age have walked alongside you on those protests you attended last year?  What?  They were 95% under 40 you say?  That's what I said too ("young" does not mean teen age).

                "Where is the PROOF that these protesters are paid"

                Here, let me quote myself: "And yes, there is almost zero doubt that there are paid protesters out there."  See the bolded parts?  They both indicate an opinion, not a fact.  Personally I would put the probability that there are zero paid protesters in the country at somewhere around 0.00005%, but that, too, is but an opinion.

                1. Credence2 profile image81
                  Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  No, not many older people, but does that mean that are content with the status quo? Not necessarily.

                  I participated in protests and marches against Nixon, the war and his Watergate coverups. Was I wrong, immature or naive? I don't think so.  So, I don't have that opinion of younger dissenters, today. As one ages, the spirit is strong while the body weakens. So, it is not for a lack of interest, because there were a few of us out there. We can't compete with the energy and time available for younger people to get involved. But if Trumps attacks Social Security and Medicare, we get AARP working and march on Washington with our walkers and canes.

                  Of course, there are probably payment of a few, here and there. But, to make this far less likely instance the centerpoint of conservative arguments against the protests and protestors is a bald faced lie.

      2. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Was it a townhall meeting or a private fundraising dinner? It would be slightly different if it was the latter but still shocking. If it was the former then isn't that unconstitutional?

        Although it's difficult to be certain, I do wonder how many people in those videos above are even Democrats. I suspect quit a few of them are conservative voters unhappy with what the Republicans are doing with health care.

        1. ptosis profile image86
          ptosisposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Agree. Saying that they are paid protesters is a complete lie to discredit anything other than total blind adoration of voting citizens.

          " Donald Trump’s supporters are hurt by his policies, Donald Trump has already gutted financial regulations such as the Dodd-Frank Act. These protections were put in place to help prevent another financial disaster such as the Great Recession of 2008. Trump and the Republican Party have also removed guidelines that force retirement fund managers to work in the best interests of their clients. These acts are a gift to Trump’s plutocrats and other gangster capitalists who he claims “can’t borrow money. . It has been estimated that at least 43,000 people will die annually from lack of adequate health care if the ACA is repealed  ban on Muslims entering the United States. This will affect health care professionals — many of whom work in underserved white rural and Rust Belt communities. Trump’s Muslim ban is quite literally making his most enthusiastic voters sick." -   http://www.salon.com/2017/02/24/first-i … de-to-pay/

          https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/69/6a/8c/696a8c6206f6ed68b6362af5ac743112.jpg

        2. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

          I believe that it was a town hall and as such as aminimum should be open to all this Senators constituents regardless of political affiliation. I can see removing agitators or even those that are not served by this Congressman, but everbody else....

          The GOP reps are finding that there are plenty of Republicans that are now griping as they have no assurance that Trump is not going to sodomize them in addition to those minorities that They were more than content to see 'get theirs'.

          As usual, Trump and the Republicans have endless excuses to explain this phenomenon, non of which holds water.

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image82
    Kathleen Cochranposted 8 months ago

    I have one, and only one question for protesters.  Did you vote?  If you didn't, you threw away the chance you had to state your opinion.  Protesting now is too little, too late.

 
working