Be very careful about embracing the "violence" rhetoric

[Prism]

The Nevada convention was, at worst, a fierce display of cantankerousness. Let's call it out of control grumpies. There was no physical violence, there was no permanent damage, and no one was hurt.

But the Establishment and the media keep referring to this as "violence".

The problem with this is, it feeds into Establishment narratives. Any time one diminished group gets out of hand, politicians and eager reporters like to go to the fore talking about how "violent" everyone in the protesting group is.

It may be useful now, if you oppose Sanders, but the adoption of this won't be useful when one day you may want something.

How many Black Lives Matters protests have been described as violent? Or Ferguson. Or Occupy. Or ACT UP. Or any marginalized group.

The people in power always, always, always want to depict protestors as out of control thugs who the state needs to crush in order to protect the rest of us who are law-abiding and decent.

I've already seen, here on DU, the verbiage. "Thugs". Would you like that word used against your cause? When African Americans protest the justice system, or Latinos and their fellow immigrants complain about our shitty immigration policies, or LGBTers march for equality, what will you think when reporters and politicians leap on cable news and the internet to call us thuggish and violent?

You won't like that one little bit.

So don't do it now, just because it benefits you at this specific point in time.

[tonyt53]

1. Okay, how about people throwing a temper tantrum form not getting their way?

You want violence? Show up in Philly and face the building traded unions that will all be there supporting HRC.

[Autumn]

3. Awesome. Lets do it!

You are so violent

[Prism]

4. And this is your version of democracy?

"Come to Philly. We can kick your ass!"

Did you not read my post? It seems like you're yearning for actual violence. I feel like you missed the point.

Oh, and welcome to DU

[bahrbearian]

9. You mean the Union Boss's like they will face anyone down? because the members aren't buying it.

[workinclasszero]

67. Union Boss's is right wing speech

Sad to see that crap here on a so-called democratic discussion board.

[840high]

78. According to you - everything is rw speech.

[eridani]

109. No union doing endorsements by polling its members has ever gone for Clinton

Just the ones where theleadership decides unilaterally

[jeff47]

11. So you complain about violence with a threat of violence.

Good job entirely annihilating your point so succinctly.

[Katashi_itto]

12. The Hillbot speaks.

[closeupready]

23. Send in the goons?

Wasn't that a Judy Collins' recording?

[Duckhunter935]

102. Wow another April account

All but advocating violence. Another coincidence of a Hillary supporter showing up just as Brock started paying.

[NCTraveler]

2. Nothing here is comparable to BLM and thier fight. Nothing. Not the narrative you are trying to sell

Additionally, Sanders own supporters are now trying to call the behavior of Sanders supporters a false flag operation. They can't even stand themselves.

[Autumn]

5. Only because it doesn't fit YOUR narrative of the day.

[NCTraveler]

21. What is my narrative of the day? nt.

[Autumn]

37. It's all over the place NC. Just look at any OP by a Hill supporter

[NCTraveler]

40. You made it clear you were singling me out personally.

What is my narrative of the day?

[Autumn]

43. If you don't know I can't help you. It's like you Hill's are looking into a mirror blindfolded.

[NCTraveler]

45. Deflection again. If you are going to make a comment be willing to back it up.

What is my narrative of the day? That is your claim and all you have done to this point is deflect. I know why you feel the need to continually deflect but it's more fun asking you.

[Autumn]

46. I'm not playing your game. The OPs by Hill supporters are all in GDP. There's your narrative.

Now I'm bored with this whatever it is with you so I'm off to enjoy myself instead of this nonsense with whoever has the duty.

[NCTraveler]

52. It's your claim you are running from. I understand why.

I don't get why you make the false claim in the first place, knowing full well you can't back it up.

What is my narrative of the day? That is your claim. You singled me out personally.

[Autumn]

55. It must be too hard for you to look for the violent Bernie supporters crap posted by hill supporters

maybe you have all the right ones on ignore, so feel free to ignore it. It comes in waves. Violent, sickening, you know how narratives go. Bernie Bros, Hill bots, six of one half dozsen of the other don't take it personal We don't

[NCTraveler]

57. You are trying to get your key words in so desperately that you are making no sense....

and comically singling people out with no back up.

Well done on the labels. Seems to be your priority.

[Autumn]

65. I know you want me to link them but I won't, since one Bernie supporter got a hide

for posting the "sickening" links. I'm sure you knew that though. You can look for them on your own. I won't bother responding to you again.

[NCTraveler]

72. False flag!!!! False flag!!!!

It was a couple of days talking about how their actions weren't bad. Now that the talking points are in you all realize how bad you look and are yelling false flag. I love it. I actually said on Monday that once Sanders supporters realize how bad they truly look they will start yelling false flag. That flow shows one thing, Sanders supporters don't even like themselves.

"Now I'm bored with this whatever it is with you so I'm off to enjoy myself instead of this nonsense with whoever has the duty."

+1

I have no one on ignore. You love making incorrect assumptions about others.

[Autumn]

84. How wonderful!!!! A Phychic !!!! Will you give me the lotto numbers if I call your 800 #?

I'll send Hill a dollar when I win!

[NCTraveler]

86. I'm no "phychic"

I have been around for long enough to make pretty educated guesses. This isn't my first rodeo. As you can see, my guess on this one was one hundred percent accurate. It has nothing to do with being a "phychic". It's common sense.

When you are done with a conversation you are really done. lol.

[kiva]

7. Why isn't it comparable?

I'm thinking that protesting the subversion of democracy at a Democratic Convention is right up there with other causes.

[NCTraveler]

26. Look at the reason for the Furgeson protests. Tell me they are even close to equal.

Trayvon was hunted down in cold blood. There is systemic oppression in government aimed directly at POC.

Amazing you are claiming to be oppressed in such a manner. I wonder if any Sanders supporters got pulled over for driving while white on their way back home.


"subversion of democracy at a Democratic Convention"

No one has done any such thing. Sanders and Weaver are all over the country talking about subverting the will of the people while their supporters are threating death and physical harm to innocent people.

[Armstead]

32. Subverting the will of the people by convincing Superdelegates to change their mind?

That's a stretch.

I realize that the superdelegates are not likely to change their minds. Nor should those who are elected reps in states Clinton clearly won.

But trying to get people who decided to support Clinton from the beginning -- some when there wasn't even an opponent yet -- is not trying to subvert anything, except defeat a political opponent.....In some cases it is actually promoting it, if it causes those who gave knee jerk default endorsements to Clinton to actually think about the situation today rather than in early 2015.

And the tiny number of Sanders supporters who went over thje line with threats, etc. are awful -- but they are not typical and should not be used to typify this. That's just propaganda....Just like using the small contingent of anarchists who acted up during the Iraq War protests to characterize the whole anti-war movement as violent and anti-American.

[NCTraveler]

34. Yes.

Clinton is up millions of votes and hundreds of delegates. That is the will of the people.

[azurnoir]

63. Not in my state the supers 14 out of 17 are with Hillary in a state that went 62% for Bernie

and where he won every Congressional district including sadly my Congress woman who as up until has been quite admirable, however because she's running unopposed feels comfortably ensconced enough to hold a middle finger up to her constituents as a superdelegate

[NCTraveler]

69. I had no idea they were beholden to their state. This is a new one for me.

Because what you are selling has no truth behind it.

[azurnoir]

75. so elected officials are not beholden to their constituents?-

I only mentioned 1 super from who is an elected official 3 others are too that makes 4 out 17, what the non-elected ones do has no bearing but 2 of the elected ones flipped to Bernie leaving 1 other that would be Al Franken what he eventually does is yet to be seen, however your comment helps me understand Hillary supporters a bit more -thank you so much for that enlightening post

[NCTraveler]

77. Supers are not. Correct. You are the first to tell me you think their vote at the convention is. nt.

[azurnoir]

80. I think elected officials need to listen to the voices of their constituents so far in Mn 2 have

because when they do not when they favor their own personal preferences over that of their voters then it calls into question just how much they actually respect their own constituents - as I said up until now she has been admirable but it seems she's taking advantage of the fact she's running unopposed, the 2 that flipped did have Republican opponents and Franken isn't up for re-election until 2020 meaning he too can ignore the people of Minnesota

[NCTraveler]

85. I hope they would in their elected position.

I see no reason they should for the convention. It would be foolish to force them to do so. A little secret, if you had your way Clinton would currently be the nominee. No questions, It would be over right now. She would have met the threshold. Clinton would have the votes necessary.

Under a scenario that contained rules you would like, Sanders would be out.

[azurnoir]

88. No I assure she would not be - I am asking for the elected Democratic super from my state

to listen to the voters of this state when it comes to the convention - how you invented your reply I am really not sure

[NCTraveler]

90. Lets say that a rule was in place where the candidate who won a state recieved all supers...

in that state.

Where would Clinton and Sanders currently stand? You aren't going to like the answer. No matter how hard you try to subvert the will of the people you argument doesn't work. This is your little mind experiment. Where would their total counts stand under your scenario.

[azurnoir]

91. It does not or should not need to be a rule elected officials should be beholden to the people that

elect them, it's point in fact no more no less

[NCTraveler]

96. This is your thought experiment. That is really all it is because it has no basis in reality.

In your experiment, where would the numbers stand? No rules except your own. So there, I have removed the rule aspect so you don't get hung up on it.

"It's a point in fact"

Flagrant abuse of the word fact.

[azurnoir]

97. It is no thought experiment on my part anyway it is fact at least in a Democracy

it really does not matter where the numbers would stand, my sole point was about elected Democratic official disregarding their constituents

[NCTraveler]

98. Your topic line makes no sense.

You have now said Supers should go with their state again. Where would the numbers stand? You are avoiding the results of your thought experiment for a very good reason. I understand your need to do so.

[Prism]

8. Democracy is everyone's fight

When you perceive democracy is being usurped, you protest. Just as BLM and others protest when their civil rights are being violated.

Again, be careful. This fight doesn't benefit you. Fine. But be wary of when you decide you're going to pick and choose what civil rights protests you want to support.

[NCTraveler]

28. I don't dismiss voter fraud or disenfranchisement.

I have many posts here about it.

I'm dismissing your very shady verbiage and context.

[Prism]

31. Well, we'll see

The next time a cause you endorse is called violent, I'll keep an eye out for how happy you are about it.

[NCTraveler]

35. Roger that. Keep a close eye out. Thanks. nt.

[BlueStateLib]

58. did you feel the same in 2008

[NCTraveler]

59. Feel the same about what? I have always been against voter fraud and disenfranchisement.

I have many posts on it. I'm sure I have many from '08.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. ACT UP protested the ongoing inaction toward AIDS while our government did nothing and the

death toll climbed toward 40,000. You dismiss that while supporting the candidate who had the outlandish gall and/or ignorance to claim Ronald Reagan was the first AIDS activist and a hero of the times when he was in fact the very exact villain we were protesting.
I reject this push to revise history.

[NCTraveler]

73. "You dismiss that "

Never have I dismissed that. You are being completely dishonest. You have now made no fewer than ten comments to me that I am in one way or another against equality. You then run off when asked to back it up. Every single time. Please show me where I dismissed what you claim. I know you won't because you can't.

[Bluenorthwest]

79. You dismissed ACT UP as not comparable to BLM right here in this thread.

The OP cited ACT UP and you said nothing he cited is comparable to BLM. I think they are extremely comparable, they do now what we did then. Same same. Why do you feel otherwise, as you loudly said that you did? Be specific about what YOU think instead of attacking me.

[auntpurl]

6. Out of control grumpies?

They made death threats. if you don't think that causes permanent damage, I submit you have never had a death threat made against you.

Comparing the actions of volatile thugs (yes, thugs) to Black Lives Matter is incredibly insulting to BLM.

[MaeScott]

13. You don't know if there were agitators there just to slime the attending delegates.

It's been done before, see the civil rights demonstrators and occupy

[auntpurl]

19. They self-identify as Bernie supporters

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/pro-bernie-trolls-on-why-they-harassed-nevadas-democratic-chair-20160518



Now, if you want to argue that they shouldn't be considered Bernie supporters even though they identify themselves as such, I don't know how you'll do that, but have at it.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. Westboro Baptist self identifies as Christian but if you say 'Christians protested LGBT funerals'

DU's Christians take very swift offense to being lumped in with Westboro. Islamic State self identifies as Muslim, but most Muslims are not happy when the actions of IS are ascribed to Muslims as a whole.

Are these principles unfamiliar to you, auntpurl? Because really what you are doing is what Trump does, is it not? Find a bad apple and hold the bushel accountable?

[auntpurl]

81. No I'm not.

If it were one bad apple, this media shitstorm would not be happening. It's a group, and whether anyone wants them to or not, they became representative of the Sanders campaign because there were a bunch of them and they were representing Bernie at a convention. Lange received dozens of death threats. The atmosphere at the convention was made hostile and volatile because of dozens of Bernie supporters screaming and shouting, and mixed in with that screaming and shouting were sexist slurs against Barbara Boxer of all people. Why would I disbelieve Senator Barbara Boxer, a stalwart Democrat if there ever were one, when she says she felt frightened? It came across in the video like an angry mob.

[Bluenorthwest]

87. Westboro is a group. So Christians did those things? Islamic State is not one guy, it's lots of

self identified Muslims. Does that mean you and Don and apply to the group that which applies to the few?
You failed to address any of these points. So what are the metrics? How many priests caught harming children before it's 'Catholics'? You tell me. How many members of a minority need to commit a crime before all of us are guilty in your eyes, aunt? If you hold these ideas you need to share your specific parameters.

[auntpurl]

89. I most certainly do not think most Bernie supporters behave like that!

In fact, as I said below, I think most Bernie supporters are nonviolent and many are turned off by this display and are edging away from the campaign as a result.

What I am saying is that these...passionate Bernie supporters have become the face of the campaign for the moment. They are representing the Bernie campaign in the eyes of people observing it. Whether that's fair or not is beside the point; it's true.

And I do associate the group with the Bernie campaign in my own personal opinion - not ALL Bernie supporters, but the tone of the campaign. Being an ideologue is incompatible with compromise. Bernie has set the tone of saying it's revolution or nothing, and what happens when the revolution doesn't come? The only "logical" next step is burn it all down. I am willing to believe Bernie doesn't want violence, but with his tepid statement after Nevada, the more hotheaded of his supporters might not have got that message.

[Bluenorthwest]

92. They have not 'become' the face, you are actively attempting to paint that face on us

It is an aggressive attempt at negative characterization, this is the politics of personal destruction.

I note you yet again and once more failed to address any of the questions I raised. I have to assume you lack the ability to explain how you apply collective guilt to groups of people and why it is different when you do it than when Trump does it. So I'm going to go with it's not different at all.

[auntpurl]

94. I am personally trying to paint that face on you?

Honey, you've got way bigger problems than little old me. You've got every media outlet including all the lefty ones like HuffPost, Salon, Mother Jones, Wonkette, the Rude Pundit, and a dozen more disavowing Bernie.

You're right that I didn't engage in your strawman argument. Well noticed.

Dinner time. Have a good evening now.

[Prism]

17. The entire internet is a death threat

Have you read any part of it? A little known blogger with a tweaky opinion can end up with death threats. A YouTube poster gets death threats. The entire world is full of unhinged assholes. Acting as if this case is special and relevant is pointless. You don't think Sanders hasn't gotten death threats? Or Clinton? Or Trump? They do. Every single day.

Here's what adults do. We report it to the police. They investigate. And if/when they find the person, they throw their ass in jail.

What we don't do is take the crazy asshole as dispositive of everyone, and then try to blame a movement on him.

I'm a gay man who has been posting online since 1996. You want to know how many replies I've seen to me saying, "Someone should kill you, faggot!" A lot. It's the internet. It disgorges all our society's crazy.

If you want to lose your shit over every crazy person out there, be my guest. If you want to lose it over only specifically crazy people in specific circumstances that only benefit you, well, you don't really mean it then, do you?

[auntpurl]

24. I take your point, but disagree.

One crazy is just one crazy, you're right. But a whole group of crazies all associated with the same movement and all directing their crazy at one person (or a couple of people) when that movement is a political campaign IS representative. We talk about Trump's thuggish supporters - because there are loads of them and they all act the same way. While Bernie's most...ardent supporters can't be compared to Trump's, there are too many of them to consider them isolated assholes.

[peace13]

25. You don't know who made those threats after the fact.

When they find them we can talk. There are many crazy people playing many sides. Funny how the only violence Bernie has experienced from his out of control supporters is having his office shot out. I guess one of us just got tired of pretending to have sniper fire and needed the real thing. Go figure!

[auntpurl]

29. As mentioned above, they self-identify as Bernie supporters.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/pro-bernie-trolls-on-why-they-harassed-nevadas-democratic-chair-20160518

How else do we determine who supports who? I didn't have to sign anything when I decided to support Hillary. I said I was a Hillary supporter, ergo I'm a Hillary supporter. I mean, I voted for her too, but unless these guys are willing to turn over their ballots, we kind of have to take their words for it.

[peace13]

33. Aaa....no.

People who make threats are not trolls, they are criminals and should be prosecuted! Charge them, they do not represent the campaign. As far as a chair being thrown. We know that is a lie so no work to be done there!

[auntpurl]

39. I never said anything about a chair.

People who make death threats are definitely criminals. But that doesn't mean that, as a group, because there are several of them, they don't represent the campaign. I don't mean official representation, I mean in the minds of people watching this mess. We talk about Trump's thuggish supporters - because there are loads of them and they all act the same.

[peace13]

70. Bernie's message is about peace.

Hard to equate that with any of this. Bernie supporters are world's apart from Trump supporters. Bernie supporters are more tuned into peace than Hill supporters, come to think of it. I did read at your link and it sounds like an idiot posting on FB who got some very ignorant people to jump on the wagon. I still think they should follow up and charge or warn those who made the threats. There is just no excuse!

[auntpurl]

74. You're right, there's no excuse for violence in politics ever.

I wish Bernie had come out a little more strongly for peace and nonviolence than he did in his post-Nevada statement. I found that tepid in light of the media shitstorm that was going on. He had a big platform at that moment to strongly condemn violence and he didn't do it.

I agree that Bernie's more volatile supporters are not like Trump's, but waaaay less bad is still not good. I've seen quite a few Bernie supporters edging away from their association with the campaign after Nevada - and I suspect it has a lot to do with what you just said - they are peaceloving and do not want to be associated with a volatile movement.

[apnu]

62. I'm not sure anybody on the floor made death threats

They made other aggressive statements and language.

The death threats, I believe, came later after Roberta Lange was Dox'd by online activists.

However, many people around DU shamefully think "violence" is only a physical act. This is wrong. Violence has other forms than hitting someone. DU members excusing the behavior of the people on the floor in Nevada are part of the problem.

If Lange and Boxer say they were afraid while on stage, I believe them. Having seen the angry outbursts from the floor, I believe them.

[auntpurl]

66. Oh no, I don't think so either re: death threats.

I was reading the OP's reference of "Nevada" to mean all the Nevada shenanigans, not just the convention itself. Apologies if I had that wrong.

As for the rest of your post, I entirely agree.

[apnu]

68. +1 TY!

[MaeScott]

10. Amen, Prism. Amen.

[Amaril]

30. I can only see 4

My IL overfloweth.

I'll throw in a couple more AMENS.

[Hiraeth]

49. Throwing in TEN more AMENS. Can only see ten out of 44 replies.

[peace13]

14. How about...people getting angry when their rights are stomped on?

Seriously, do you understand what took place there? I guess YOU had to be there to make it real. People are tired of being jerked around when they take time off to support a process and the rules are changed right before their eyes!

[dana_b]

50. and we (Bernie people) are not the ones claiming "violence"

it's the Dem leadership and many Hillary supporters. It fits into their narrative of the "Bro" thing and then it makes it easier for them to bar us from the convention in Philly.

They are the "thugs" - they are trying to subvert democracy and silence protest. It's disgusting and shameful.

[peace13]

56. It would be sad to be like them.

It is sad to watch the floundering. This makes me wonder just how many Hillary supporters there really are. Watching the DNC come down on Brrnie and the rest of us is quite something!

[dana_b]

100. And then I believe that they will be audacious

Enough to want our votes for Hillary in November (if she's the nominee). That will be incredulous.

[peace13]

103. Agree!

[peace13]

27. Thank you for your commitment .

Everything about elections takes time, care and integrity!

[reddread]

36. they need violence just like they need private prison contributions.

they will have plenty of boots at the ready and headlines prepared well in advance.

[PufPuf23]

38. History shows that in the USA that the establishment can treat

opposition with violence and then blame the opposition for said violence, nothing new at all.

The media and name calling now may be a hint and warning about the future.

[mindwalker_i]

41. I've commented on the "Psyops" too

Creating and pushing the narrative that Bernie supporters are "Thugs" - just like the right-wing did of black people who got shot by police - is very disturbing. They are <insert raicial slur>-izing non-establishment people. It shows conclusively that Hillary and the DNC will do anything to keep the establishment in power and crush ideas about things that would help people over the powerful (banks, corps, etc). That they ignore actual violence by Hillary supporters is expected and also very telling.

The DNC is so corrupted, it's shameful. As such, I honestly hope they are ripped apart and destroyed so we can rebuild a party or group that does represent liberal/progressive values. The DNC is now the problem.

[YouDig]

42. Be careful about diminishing sexists chants and death threats.

The Bernie argument here seems to be that there were no chairs thrown, so that makes it all OK. Never mind that chairs being thrown were widely reported, in all the major newspapers, and confirmed by Roberta Lange on national TV, let's assume that the Bernie people are right, and that was all an anti-Bernie corporate media conspiracy.

There were still people yelling "bitch" at Barbara Boxer at the top of their lungs. If people were yelling the n-word at Obama? Or yelling anti-Semitic things at Bernie? Would people still be trying to play down the incident? I have no idea, but then I have no idea how anyone can look at an angry mob yelling sexist slurs at Barbara Boxer and insist that the problem was that she was saying bad things to the mob.

Boxer reported that she feared for her safety. She's not the kind to make things up, but the wide response is that she's just being a wimp. Roberta Lange reported that people chanted threats of violence at her, and again the response from Bernie is that she's inventing it all. Even the death threats that were on her voicemail, and that reporters confirmed came from Bernie supporters by calling them back and talking to them and confirming their identities, Bernie people are still writing it off as a David Brock conspiracy. And not just the crazy people on Reddit, Nina Turner even suggested that.

Don't play it down. What the Bernie delegates did in Nevada was extremely serious.

[Prism]

47. I don't believe you're posting sincerely

And I'll not waste any time addressing or engaging with you.

Enjoy your stay.

[YouDig]

48. Because I take death threats and sexism seriously, I can't be sincere. Well done.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. No it's the passive aggressive smarmy snark that does it.

nt

[YouDig]

83. Do you tell that to snarky Bernie supporters?

[Bluenorthwest]

93. I see passive aggressive smarmy snarkers as one giant group, they are the smarkers

and what they claim as political lexicon is a moot thing. It's just an excuse to be smarmy and snarky and make passive aggressive comments that would get strong responses in actual life. What you do does not actually assist Hillary, it harms her. Thus I don't see you as a Hillary supporter. If that's your objective you have failed.

[YouDig]

95. So that's a "no."

[closeupready]

51. Correct.

[felix_numinous]

44. Document everything

and keep a weather eye out for provocateurs.

[puffy socks]

53. Yes

death threats, shouting, cursing and threatening to throw chairs and having to have people talk them out of it and take it away shows that Sanders supporters aren't the least bit violent.

The reason the Palace shut down the convention early was because of the behavior of Bernie's obnoxious , drunk bullies .

Trying to defend the indefensible isn't helping Bernie.

[Prism]

54. You rolled your eyes while telling the truth

"death threats, shouting, cursing and threatening to throw chairs and having to have people talk them out of it and take it away shows that Sanders supporters aren't the least bit violent"

You are correct. Dissenting speech isn't violent. If you think shouting, cursing, and picking up a chair are hallmarks of violence, you really must not like any civil rights protest that ever happened.

I'll cede death threats, but they're so common in the age of the internet, I don't get too het up about them. Report them to the police and let the assclowns be prosecuted.

I'd be interested to know, give your parameters of acceptable behavior, what protests for our rights and future you actually approve of.

[puffy socks]

105. Every bit justified away by so many Sanders supporters

Says a lot about them. None of it good.
Sad.... and so cult like.

Strange how these same Bernie supporters were throwing a tantrum over Town halls in 2009 because Tea Party patriots were shouting, cursing and threatening people. No Progressives were calling that "acceptable behavior" or "shouting, cursing, and picking up a chair " (he was going to throw that chair. it wasn't just picked up... but I love the silly attempt to dilute the facts. )
So funny how Sander's supporter's set of values changes when convenient.

[demmiblue]

64. Drunk bullies... hadn't heard that one yet.

[Scootaloo]

104. Wendell Pierce, is that you?

[FlatBaroque]

60. As I stated in an earlier OP, the violence meme is being pushed

in order to create the pretext for the violet suppression that will occur in Philadelphia. I think they think we are going to back down. They hinted at it with the minor display of force in NV. Power never relinquishes itself willingly. We will have to take it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. It also is designed to create the narrative that the D nominee...

... is a helpless victim against roving mobs of ultraviolent birkenstock-wearing superpredators who aren't afraid of even tipping harmless chairs over in their quest for democracy.

This is, apparently, the kind of president we want. A victim.

[Babel_17]

99. Stop making sense

[Actor]

101. Paul Ryan and company lick their chops.

[countryjake]

106. Thanks for this, Prism. Anyone remember the primaries of 1980?

I do.

Back then it was the supporters of Ted Kennedy who were called the "thugs" (goons even), and this by supposedly mild-mannered Carter supporters who resented our President being primaried. By the time that hot-mess got to the national Convention, both of those delegate groups resorted to accusing the Draft Muskie wing of being immature ideologues...starry-eyed white hippy kids who could never grasp the importance of any election who never vote anyway. One had to be an actual Party activist back then to witness so much of the inner-workings (and wild theatrics, plus the innate corruption of the entire process), being that there was nothing comparable to the social media that we have today, but that Primary Season was an eye-opener.

Caucuses and their ensuing Conventions were made for soapboxes and where influential orators, leaders, have been born and it does not bode well when those soapboxes are yanked away.

[mhatrw]

107. LOL at some of the responses here! It's TOTALLY DIFFERENT because it's not MY protest!

[QC]

108. Prism, do you remember how disruptive protest was great!!!!

during the Bush years, according to people here, but then became very wicked when that uppity lesbian challenged the First Lady, and then suddenly became good again when BLM disrupted a Bernie appearance?

Do you remember how many people here professed to admire Dan Choi until he protested outside the White House, at which point he became a meanie and those same people condemned him as crazy and ungrateful?

You've made a valiant effort here but you probably shouldn't expect intellectual and moral consistency from such people.