CDZ The right way to deal with protesters

[JimBowie1958]

Bill Clinton faced protesters the other day as he was delivering a stump address to voters. Perhaps you have already seen the video, but if not....



Now this thread isn't about whether one agrees with his assertions about his policies. It's about the way in which he handled the protesters.

• He didn't throw them out of the rally.
• He didn't encourage folks to punch them.
• He didn't call them names.
• He didn't show up at a rally organized at his (his wife's) behest unprepared for what any fool could have anticipated would transpire.
• He did take them on directly himself.
• He did show that he knew more about what he was saying and what the protesters were saying than they did.
• He did make an effort to show them how and why they are mistaken in their claims.

That's not political correctness. That's called respecting folks who raise a point by directly taking on their grievance(s) and making the case that while they may have the grievances they do, they are misplaced insofar as they issue from his policies. That's what defending a position is. And that is not what Trump does with/to protesters who appear at his events, and that is one way for voters to know Trump doesn't truly have any respect for them, but he knows what empty promises and remarks to utter so as to appear to the small minded that he does.

Nice that it was only one loud mouth that wouldnt shut up. Had there been a few hundred inside there like Trump had in Chicago because the police FAILED to keep them out, Bills voice would have totally shut down before he would have been able to over-talk all of them.

These protesters are there to disrupt meetings and speeches in a destructive way, like when they shut down traffic on our highways or shut down classrooms.

They dont want to talk or reason together; they want to shut you down. And as more and more of the people in our nation think that this is an OK way to 'win', the more degraded our civil discourse becomes, and there are other similar tactics to shut down debate as well. For example, 'Wild goose Chases where people ask for links to even the most common facts and dont bother to respond when you provide the materials, or people who deliberately use Straw Man tactics to misrepresent what you say, thought the closer the similarity the better.

The Black Lies Matter people dont care about Black Lives. If they did they wouldnt hinder cops patrolling their streets and keeping blacks safe from street thugs. Their goal is to alienate the gullible into thinking that the cops are their enemy, an occupying force working for the racist white power structure to exploit them etc etc etc. They dont realize, nor do they care, that they themselves are tools being used to suppress the black community.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Trumps bombastic treatment of protesters is hurting him in the end IMHO.

It shows that he does not have the temperament to lead. Leading is not about yelling and being abrasive - it is about getting people to to do what is right and necessary. A trait that Trump does not seem to have.

That whole 'he doesnt have the temperament to lead' mantra is the flip side of the disrupter's lie that would not work without it. Congratulations on helping them to marginalize a good candidate.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Obama's been showcasing the right way to do this for over 7 years.

I agreed with you just to do so and since I did, I won't undo it. I don't actually know what Obama's done with protesters at his events. I do know I haven't heard anything about them in the news....at least none that come to mind.

Obama has delt with hecklers more than these disrupting types of morons who have no intention of the exchange of ideas. They think the whole political process is just a controling mechanism anyway, and in part they are right, but that is not all it is. IT is also the expressed will of the people who vote, no matter how deluded or ill informed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In the video, Clinton basically takes their own point and smashes them over the head with it using facts and rationality. Trump has taken a different approach by being bombastic and over the top with them. Rather than shutting them down though it makes him look childish or mean and amplifies their message.
.

But in the video the disruptor did not get shut down and she/he./it could still be heard trying to shout over him all through his point, so you dont really have a working example here, dude..

Everyone else that went there to hear Bill Clinton was getting an earful from a loud mouthed ideological nutball and they have a right to hear the person that they went there to hear, not the moron.

She should have been arrested and tossed in jail for disrupting a Presidential election gathering.

 

[FA_Q2]

In the video, Clinton basically takes their own point and smashes them over the head with it using facts and rationality. Trump has taken a different approach by being bombastic and over the top with them. Rather than shutting them down though it makes him look childish or mean and amplifies their message.
.

But in the video the disruptor did not get shut down and she/he./it could still be heard trying to shout over him all through his point, so you dont really have a working example here, dude..

Everyone else that went there to hear Bill Clinton was getting an earful from a loud mouthed ideological nutball and they have a right to hear the person that they went there to hear, not the moron.

Irrelevant. MILLIONS heard Clinton and seen the reasoned response to the one liner accusations. That is the real key with protesters in general - they do not have the ability to make a reasoned argument or one that has real impact. The very nature of what they are doing puts them at a massive disadvantage to the individual on the stage as that individual has complete control over the dialogue.

You may shut the protester down with Trumps aggressive manner so that the small crowd in front of you - the ones that are virtually guaranteed to vote for you anyway - can hear the message that they came to hear OR you can deal with it in a tactful and informative manner that not only makes you look like an intelligent adult but also has an impact on all those that will be sitting at home. Millions more than at the actual rally who are not necessarily already voting for you.

She should have been arrested and tossed in jail for disrupting a Presidential election gathering.

Where the particular protester ends up is entirely irrelevant and you seem to have missed the actual outcome of the response. You are unable to see the forest for the trees.

 

[FA_Q2]

Trumps bombastic treatment of protesters is hurting him in the end IMHO.

It shows that he does not have the temperament to lead. Leading is not about yelling and being abrasive - it is about getting people to to do what is right and necessary. A trait that Trump does not seem to have.

That whole 'he doesnt have the temperament to lead' mantra is the flip side of the disrupter's lie that would not work without it. Congratulations on helping them to marginalize a good candidate.

Helping them marginalize a good candidate? What a hoot. I am not helping them do anything - the message that has been sent and accepted by millions is crystal clear. He is a horrific candidate not only because the extremely liberal positions that he holds while running for the GOP but because he does such asinine things that may work for a small segment of the population but is a negative to the larger majority.

That works in the primaries but is antithetical to the general election.

The only thing that is really going to be interesting this election is how fast and hard he runs away from his current persona in the general.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In the video, Clinton basically takes their own point and smashes them over the head with it using facts and rationality. Trump has taken a different approach by being bombastic and over the top with them. Rather than shutting them down though it makes him look childish or mean and amplifies their message.
.

But in the video the disruptor did not get shut down and she/he./it could still be heard trying to shout over him all through his point, so you dont really have a working example here, dude..

Everyone else that went there to hear Bill Clinton was getting an earful from a loud mouthed ideological nutball and they have a right to hear the person that they went there to hear, not the moron.

Irrelevant. MILLIONS heard Clinton and seen the reasoned response to the one liner accusations. That is the real key with protesters in general - they do not have the ability to make a reasoned argument or one that has real impact. The very nature of what they are doing puts them at a massive disadvantage to the individual on the stage as that individual has complete control over the dialogue.

You may shut the protester down with Trumps aggressive manner so that the small crowd in front of you - the ones that are virtually guaranteed to vote for you anyway - can hear the message that they came to hear OR you can deal with it in a tactful and informative manner that not only makes you look like an intelligent adult but also has an impact on all those that will be sitting at home. Millions more than at the actual rally who are not necessarily already voting for you.

The media and the Trump haters like yourself are not going to have a change in heart because you bothered to hear the whole speech. They are there provoking people to get attacked so that their friends in the media can run with it as though it ws entirely Trump people doing it, which is a complete myth that you appear to be conceding, thank you for that much honesty.

And the media will always be able to get those sound bites, even if they have to engage in fraud to get them, like the guy who elbowed the Trump Protester who was asked what he thought we would have to do with ISIS and he said we would probably have to kill them all, and that was repeatedly shown out of context and implied to be his attitude about all the protesters. He never said any such things, but there will always be gullible idiots who think he did.

And these stump speeches are fairly much the same so hearing the ideas is not the main point, as the attendees having a right to hear a speech that they went to a great deal of trouble to get to is.

But it doesnt matter what you or I think as Trump is going to handle things in a way to benefit the people attending while other candidates handle it to appeal to 20th century media. I think the evidence shows Trumps take on it works better.

She should have been arrested and tossed in jail for disrupting a Presidential election gathering.

Where the particular protester ends up is entirely irrelevant and you seem to have missed the actual outcome of the response. You are unable to see the forest for the trees.

No, I see the forest and the trees. If Trump would have more of these people arrested and prosecuted as felonies he would have fewer people disrupting his rallies. Protesting is one thing, but sneaking in and disrupting is inexcusable and intolerable. The latter are an attack on the heart of the democratic process itself which is the free and reasonable exchange of ideas.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Trumps bombastic treatment of protesters is hurting him in the end IMHO.

It shows that he does not have the temperament to lead. Leading is not about yelling and being abrasive - it is about getting people to to do what is right and necessary. A trait that Trump does not seem to have.

That whole 'he doesnt have the temperament to lead' mantra is the flip side of the disrupter's lie that would not work without it. Congratulations on helping them to marginalize a good candidate.

Helping them marginalize a good candidate? What a hoot. I am not helping them do anything - the message that has been sent and accepted by millions is crystal clear.

No, you are a conduit for the 'lessons learned' part of the message, and without people like yourself, these disruptions would be pointless and they would cease.

 

[GaryDog]

How to treat protestors depends on how the protestors act. If the protestors become too disruptive (disturbing the peace) in a venue purchased by a particular candidate, they may need to be escorted out by the proper authorities. They have the right to free speech, but they don't have the right to shut down someone else's speech in his venue.

This is true. Technically speaking, they don't have any right whatsoever to 'express' themselves in a private venue. The real point here is not what they have the right to do but rather the image and message that the particular politician dealing with them sends in their interactions with them.

In the video, Clinton basically takes their own point and smashes them over the head with it using facts and rationality. Trump has taken a different approach by being bombastic and over the top with them. Rather than shutting them down though it makes him look childish or mean and amplifies their message.

A politician can either use a protest to reinforce their position and popularity or they can be taken down a notch by them. It is totally up to the politician how it ends up being perceived.

Part of Trump's appeal to his base is that is a strong alpha-male type of leader. It is to his advantage (with his base) to be seen as strong and decisive when he deals with disruptions caused by protestors.

Is part of his appeal having those stubby little hands and changing his mind on every issue literally on a daily basis?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Is part of his appeal having those stubby little hands and changing his mind on every issue literally on a daily basis?

Typical example of irrational Trump hatred for the universe to see.

Thanks dude.

 

[320 Years of History]

you seem to have missed the actual outcome of the response. You are unable to see the forest for the trees.

Not keen on the bit quoted above, but the rest of that post is spot on as far as I'm concerned.

MILLIONS heard Clinton and seen the reasoned response to the one liner accusations. That is the real key with protesters in general - they do not have the ability to make a reasoned argument or one that has real impact.

I don't know whether any of them are able to do so, but it sure seems like protesters don't arrive at the event they're protesting prepared to do so if they are able and there make for themselves the opportunity to do so.

Typical example of irrational Trump hatred for the universe to see.

As for the Trump aspect, hating or not hating him, whether anyone likes or doesn't like the the man, the candidate, the businessman, etc., none of that is the point. The whole discussion is about:

1. comparing and contrasting the way he routinely has dealt with protesters and the way Bill Clinton did in the video, and
2. if one is inclined to do so, opining on the pros and cons of the two approaches to dealing with protesters, and concluding on whether one is better than the other and why.

In the video, Mr. Clinton said, "I love protesters." And why shouldn't he, or any other stumper or presidential hopeful? Protesters present a fine opportunity to take on one's opponents directly -- the people, the voters rather than a political pundit -- take them on directly and show them where they are mistaken. If they are actually paying attention and the candidate (stumper) is on the top of their game, their mere presence gives on a chance to convert them on some level:

• From totally opposed --> willing to listen more closely even if still largely opposed
• From opposed but willing to listen --> neutral (still has doubts, but no longer opposed)
• From neutral --> mildly supportive
• Mildly supportive --> supportive

As a candidate, how many times will one have a first hand encounter with any given "regular person?" Most often, once is how often. Because a candidate or their advocate realistically only gets one shot, they have to make the most of it, and that's exactly what Mr. Clinton did. His behavior showed Clinton campaign themes all over the place:

• Tolerance and willingness to listen
• Deep knowledge of the subject matter pertaining to the issues
• Toughness combined with fairness
• Experience dealing with difficult situations
• Being prepared to deal with that which is plausibly and likely to occur

Mr. Clinton and his wife both know damn well that they almost certainly know the full details of whatever issue the protesters are "carrying on about" and know them more comprehensively -- inside and out, forwards and backwards -- than do the protesters. And Mr. Clinton showed that much.

Trump, on the other hand, hasn't really shown that he knows much other than how to control the media, toss insults, run his own company(s) that he's driven to bankruptcy court four times, and how to "play" bankruptcy laws to his favor. (Who else drives their companies to bankruptcy court four times -- 1991, 1992, 2004 & 2009 -- in the space of 20 years? And remember, Trump's companies are owned and operated by him and his immediate family, not by public stockholders.) Well, as useful as those skills be, they hardly prepare one to take on protesters who have valid gripes about substantive issues when one is an "issue lightweight" as Trump is. IMO, being the "issue lightweight" he is is the reason Trump has protesters removed rather than engaging them as Mr. Clinton did.

I give Trump credit for knowing better than to engage someone/people on issues of which he knows he's not fully or well informed. That said, insulting folks who may disagree with him or who may know more than he on an issue makes him look immature in multiple ways.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Trump, on the other hand, hasn't really shown that he knows much other than how to control the media, toss insults, run his own company(s) that he's driven to bankruptcy court four times, and how to "play" bankruptcy laws to his favor. (Who else drives their companies to bankruptcy court four times -- 1991, 1992, 2004 & 2009 -- in the space of 20 years? And remember, Trump's companies are owned by him and his immediate family, not by public stockholders.) Well, as useful as those skills be, they hardly prepare one to take on protesters who have valid gripes about substantive issues when one is an "issue lightweight" as Trump is. IMO, being the "issue lightweight" he is is the reason Trump has protesters removed rather than engaging them as Mr. Clinton did.

And I see nothing wrong with Trump asking the cops to 'toss them out' either. The disruptors have no RIGHT to be in a private gathering disrupting it. Tresspass at best, a violation of federal election laws at worst.

 

[FA_Q2]

you seem to have missed the actual outcome of the response. You are unable to see the forest for the trees.

Not keen on the bit quoted above, but the rest of that post is spot on as far as I'm concerned.

Why? It is exactly what he has done - focused on a small detail while completely failing to see how a response like the one in the video supplied has a much better outcome. Making a statement like:
"Everyone else that went there to hear Bill Clinton was getting an earful from a loud mouthed ideological nutball and they have a right to hear the person that they went there to hear, not the moron."
Ignores entirely what Clinton gains from properly reacting and how his response effects the big picture. Instead it focuses on the immediate impact - some people at a particular event are not getting what they went there for.

 

[JoeMoma]

How to treat protestors depends on how the protestors act. If the protestors become too disruptive (disturbing the peace) in a venue purchased by a particular candidate, they may need to be escorted out by the proper authorities. They have the right to free speech, but they don't have the right to shut down someone else's speech in his venue.

This is true. Technically speaking, they don't have any right whatsoever to 'express' themselves in a private venue. The real point here is not what they have the right to do but rather the image and message that the particular politician dealing with them sends in their interactions with them.

In the video, Clinton basically takes their own point and smashes them over the head with it using facts and rationality. Trump has taken a different approach by being bombastic and over the top with them. Rather than shutting them down though it makes him look childish or mean and amplifies their message.

A politician can either use a protest to reinforce their position and popularity or they can be taken down a notch by them. It is totally up to the politician how it ends up being perceived.

Part of Trump's appeal to his base is that is a strong alpha-male type of leader. It is to his advantage (with his base) to be seen as strong and decisive when he deals with disruptions caused by protestors.

Is part of his appeal having those stubby little hands and changing his mind on every issue literally on a daily basis?

Welcome to USMB "Little Marco"

 

[320 Years of History]

Why? It is exactly what he has done - focused on a small detail while completely failing to see how a response like the one in the video supplied has a much better outcome.

It is. I just think that folks who make an earnest effort to support their central claim deserve more than what amounts to an unexplained assertion that they are wrong. JimBowie1958 is not among the crowd that just tosses out empty assertion after empty assertion, occasionally being rude or vulgar when doing so, and thus deserves better than "You are unable to see the forest for the trees."

She should have been arrested and tossed in jail for disrupting a Presidential election gathering.

Where the particular protester ends up is entirely irrelevant and you seem to have missed the actual outcome of the response. You are unable to see the forest for the trees.

I just feel that out of respect, one should go farther than summarily telling another they are mistaken. Some folks don't deserve that degree of respect, but I think JimBowie1958 is not among them. (FWIW, I think the same of you.) I understand that's just my view, and recognizing that is why I chose to tick "agree" but also point out my thoughts re: the one bit of your post with which I did not agree. Think of it as my saying "I agree with you in very large measure, but not 100%."

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why? It is exactly what he has done - focused on a small detail while completely failing to see how a response like the one in the video supplied has a much better outcome. Making a statement like:
"Everyone else that went there to hear Bill Clinton was getting an earful from a loud mouthed ideological nutball and they have a right to hear the person that they went there to hear, not the moron."
Ignores entirely what Clinton gains from properly reacting and how his response effects the big picture. Instead it focuses on the immediate impact - some people at a particular event are not getting what they went there for.

You are viewing the event as though what primarily matters is what the press does with it. The Old 20th century press is increasingly irrelevant today.

More impact comes via word of mouth now as people share on social media, read blogs and discuss it as I thought we were doing here.

The person who went to all the trouble to go to the meeting is not just 'little people' and they have a right to have their interests respected by the people in charge of events.

While Bill Clintons response was nuanced, accurate and reflected the Truthful facts back at the heckler, the attendee also has a stake in a peaceful meeting too. If leadership keeps overlooking the little people when Marxist nutballs do their shout downs, then the little people will start taking matters into their own hands, as some have done already.

 

[320 Years of History]

You are viewing the event as though what primarily matters is what the press does with it. The Old 20th century press is increasingly irrelevant today.

More impact comes via word of mouth now as people share on social media, read blogs and discuss it as I thought we were doing here.

Were it so that the words that come out of most people's mouths were consistently accurate, literally and contextually, it'd make sense to place more weight on them. The "blind" leading the "sighted" is rarely a good tactic.

Majority rule is a great thing when the majority are well informed, competent and objective. In most other situations, majority rule is a prescription for doom. I'll neither be a lemming nor allow myself to be thought of and/or treated as one as a consequence of the ill-/misinformed masses' "Suzy One Note" and other specious approaches and ways of viewing and "making sense" the world/nation in which we exist.

 

[jwoodie]

The main defense of the protesters is that the message being protested is particularly offensive.

What an intellectually bankrupt position to take.