Is disturbing the peace, "peaceful protest"?

[Elijah John]

Here is a quote from Maxine Waters which seems to represent the sentiments of others, including Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, Eric Holder, and others like Donna Brazile, who decribed the tactics of harassment as "demoncracy in action".

Maxine Waters: “If you think we’re rallying now, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Already, you have members of your Cabinet that are being booed out of restaurants who have protesters taking up at their house, who say, ‘No peace, no sleep. No peace, no sleep.’ God is on OUR side! On the side of the children. On the side of what’s right. On the side of what’s honorable. And so, let’s stay the course. Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.

Kirstjen Neilson, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell have all been harassed and verbally assaulted at restaraunts. Pam Bondi was harassed while out at the movies. Susan Collins recieved an envelope of ricin at her home and thousands of coat-hangers. She was also verbally assaulted in the halls of Congress. Jeff Flake was harrased in an elevator. Joe Mansion was harrased while trying to give an interview.


For debate,

1) is God on those who engage in such tactics? (As Waters claims?)

2) If freedom of movement is a civil right, is Maxine Waters advocating the infringement of the civil rights of those who do not agree with her?

3) Is Maxine Waters engaging in "hate speech"?

4) Isn't disturbing the peace still against the law?

5) Is Maxine Waters practicing the Golden Rule? How would SHE like it if protesters made it impossible for her to shop, get gas, and go out to eat? And for that matter, get any sleep? Are the "protesters" practicing the Golden Rule?

6) Are the tactics of harassment covered by the right to free speech?

7) Is "disorderly conduct" still a crime?

8) Isn't "inciting civil unrest" still a crime?

9) Is disturbing the peace, "peaceful protest"?

10) Do such tactics help the cause of those who engage in them, or hinder?

Please address any combination of the above.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I can understand the frustration of those who think the world is not yet 'good' and 'right' and 'just', and prevented from such an outcome by conservative thinking. I can condone the lawful tactics of those who seek to make it good and right and just, whether conservative or liberal.

Outside these parameters, clearly, there is room for debate.

Best wishes 2RM.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by 2ndRateMind]

"Lawful tactics". Wouldn't it be a better world if protest consisted of appeals to reason and attempts at persuasion instead of intimidation? Campaigning and voting??

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 2 by 2ndRateMind]

"Lawful tactics". Wouldn't it be a better world if protest consisted of appeals to reason and attempts at persuasion instead of intimidation? Campaigning and voting??

Unfortunately, it seems, voters are more likely to be swayed by appeals to emotion than appeals to reason. Or Hillary, not Trump, would now be the leader of the free world.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by 2ndRateMind]

"Lawful tactics". Wouldn't it be a better world if protest consisted of appeals to reason and attempts at persuasion instead of intimidation? Campaigning and voting??

Unfortunately, it seems, voters are more likely to be swayed by appeals to emotion than appeals to reason. Or Hillary, not Trump, would now be the leader of the free world.

Best wishes, 2RM.

That's debatable. Some of us voted for Trump in spite of his flaws, not because of them. We agree with his positions and policies even if we don't always like his personality. Positions like respect for law and order, pro-life, appointing concervative judges, protections for freedom of religion, etc, etc.

Trump was my last choice among the good selection of Republicans. But when compared to Hillary, my choice for Trump was clear.

And now Hillary too, has embraced the tactics of incivility, and by extention, tacitly endorsed the tactics of verbal harrassment. "We cannot be civil, with a party who wants to destroy everything we hold dear", and "maybe we can return to civility when we regain power".

That is like a child throwing a tantrum when they do not get their way.

Ain't it funny Hillary, that's exactly how we conservatives and Republicans feel about what you Democrats are attempting to do to society. Destroy everything WE hold dear. Only the vast majority of us do not stoop to your level in advocating civil unrest and disturbing the peace, and harrasing people in their day to day life.

I am convinced that all this "resistance" and civil unrest by the Democrats is because they just could not accept the results of the election. They are poor sports and are acting like spoiled children.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 2 by 2ndRateMind]

"Lawful tactics". Wouldn't it be a better world if protest consisted of appeals to reason and attempts at persuasion instead of intimidation? Campaigning and voting??

Unfortunately, it seems, voters are more likely to be swayed by appeals to emotion than appeals to reason. Or Hillary, not Trump, would now be the leader of the free world.

Best wishes, 2RM.

... We agree with his positions and policies even if we don't always like his personality. Positions like respect for law and order, pro-life, appointing concervative judges, protections for freedom of religion, etc, etc.

Trump was my last choice among the good selection of Republicans. But when compared to Hillary, my choice for Trump was clear...

Hmmm. I really don't think Trump gives two figs about any of these issues. I think he endorses them because it suits him to do so. When it no longer suits him, he will abandon them immediately.

It amazes me that many Americans still don't see that Trump is an ethics free zone, in it for his ego, and no other reason. I can only put that down to under investment in the state education system.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by 2ndRateMind]

"Lawful tactics". Wouldn't it be a better world if protest consisted of appeals to reason and attempts at persuasion instead of intimidation? Campaigning and voting??

Unfortunately, it seems, voters are more likely to be swayed by appeals to emotion than appeals to reason. Or Hillary, not Trump, would now be the leader of the free world.

Best wishes, 2RM.

... We agree with his positions and policies even if we don't always like his personality. Positions like respect for law and order, pro-life, appointing concervative judges, protections for freedom of religion, etc, etc.

Trump was my last choice among the good selection of Republicans. But when compared to Hillary, my choice for Trump was clear...

Hmmm. I really don't think Trump gives two figs about any of these issues. I think he endorses them because it suits him to do so. When it no longer suits him, he will abandon them immediately.

It amazes me that many Americans still don't see that Trump is an ethics free zone, in it for his ego, and no other reason. I can only put that down to under investment in the state education system.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I disagree, but we are getting somewhat sidetracked here. Do you have any opinions/answers to any of the specific 10 questions of the OP?

Trump is really a separate issue. The OP is not really dealing with the cause and motivation of the "resistance", but rather the effectiveness, the ethics and legality of the tactics of verbal assault and harassment employed by the Left.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

...we are getting somewhat sidetracked here. Do you have any opinions/answers to any of the specific 10 questions of the OP?...

...5) Is Maxine Waters practicing the Golden Rule? How would SHE like it if protesters made it impossible for her to shop, get gas, and go out to eat? And for that matter, get any sleep? Are the "protesters" practicing the Golden Rule?...

So, as I understand the Golden Rule, it is 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

It's a good enough rule of thumb, but I do not think it is definitive enough to govern all of human behaviour. For example, it falls over when there is a state of war. And, so long as there are bad people out there in positions of power, there will be wars.

And that is the point. Not everyone has the virtue to apply the Golden Rule in all situations and circumstances. Take the tobacco industry, as an example of a peaceful activity that has killed, is killing, and will continue to kill for the foreseeable future. So, if the owners and executives and shareholders of tobacco companies continue to suspend in such a major way their own application of the Golden Rule, they should not be too surprised if their defaulting behaviour is punished by lesser suspensions of the Rule in more minor ways. Like interrupting them as they dine out in expensive restaurants.

Spoiling someone's day is not really comparable to spoiling someone's life.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Here is a quote from Maxine Waters...

Maxine Waters: “If you think we’re rallying now, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet... God is on OUR side! ...

Nevertheless, and incidentally, I do start to object when someone attempts to conscript God into their ideology, and claims 'God is on our side!' The Nazis claimed the same thing. Hitler's elite SS troops had 'Gott mit uns' (God with us) stamped on their belt plates, even as they made their murderous progress through Europe, the Balkans and Russia.

The proper question to ask, and keep asking, and never stop asking, is: 'Are we on God's side?'

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

2) If freedom of movement is a civil right, is Maxine Waters advocating the infringement of the civil rights of those who do not agree with her?

I don't think so, Waters is talking about "tactics of harrasment and verbal assault" and not physical confrontation.

3) Is Maxine Waters engaging in "hate speech"?

No, I don't see anything that would likely provoke violence.

4) Isn't disturbing the peace still against the law?

It could be, depending on how serious.

5) Is Maxine Waters practicing the Golden Rule? How would SHE like it if protesters made it impossible for her to shop, get gas, and go out to eat? And for that matter, get any sleep? Are the "protesters" practicing the Golden Rule?

There is wiggle room here, would she like someone to mess with her in order to stop her doing something immoral? Sure.

6) Are the tactics of harassment covered by the right to free speech?

Up to a point.

7) Is "disorderly conduct" still a crime?

It is defined as one, but it's debatable shouting at people that they are unwelcomed counts as disorderly conduct as defined by law.

8) Isn't "inciting civil unrest" still a crime?

It is defined as one, but it's debatable shouting at people that they are unwelcomed counts as inciting civil unrest as defined by law.

9) Is disturbing the peace, "peaceful protest"?

It could be, depending on how serious the disturbance in question is.

10) Do such tactics help the cause of those who engage in them, or hinder?

Up to a point. On one hand it raises awareness, but too much of it risk the opponent gaining sympathy.