Yesterday morning, up to 10 thousand people gathered in downtown LA to protest Trump's immigration policies. Protestors blocked surface streets between Union station and city hall, and for a period around noon spilled onto both sides of the 101 freeway at Alameda Street. For those not familiar with LA, that is just north of the East LA i…
Yesterday morning, up to 10 thousand people gathered in downtown LA to protest Trump's immigration policies. Protestors blocked surface streets between Union station and city hall, and for a period around noon spilled onto both sides of the 101 freeway at Alameda Street. For those not familiar with LA, that is just north of the East LA interchange where many freeways connect and except at 3am is gridlock.
There are plans to protest again today when people are actually downtown.
I hope they don't impede traffic; I am all in favor of the protests and the protesters but logistics matters for public awareness and sympathy; the worst tactic available is to make some poor schlub late for work because a freeway is blocked
I honestly don't care; impeding traffic is bad form unless they have some type of permit for that type protest; pretty sure that they don't allow such permits
Well it seems like the bulk of the Democratic party seems to think the best response is sitting around watching and hoping that when the price of eggs goes from $9 to $15 that people will get really really fed up with Trump.
Considering all the rallies Harris and Walz did last year did them and us no good though, there is only so much that can be done. At the end of the day, VOTERS decide. That cannot be stressed enough.
I do not believe that taking over the justice department, putting Musk and his 6, 19-24 year olds in charge of government contracting and disbursements, seizing power from Congress, and completely gutting competency from the government is what most people voted for.
Its not the point; Trump won the election; our side lost; strategy for the next election should not include stupidly and unnecessarily pissing off Joe Schlub by impeding his way to get to and from work
If there had been no rallies - or for that matter, low enthusiasm rallies* - the ultimate results may have been worse, and NV/WI/MI Senate seats may have been lost
* I know this is one of those asymmetric things; Reps can have low charisma candidates and unenthused crowds and still win.
I don't think it's logical to conclude that because someone lost by 1.5% of the vote, their rallies were pointless. If you had to know the future to do anything, you'd never do anything. Human history is full of progress, regression, generosity of spirit and barbarity. Do you think all the efforts of Reconstruction were useless because the Democratic Party and KKK annulled them for 50 years?
Okay, then let the stupid people of America feel that pain during a Republican president's time in office. Unless they get burnt, they are just going to grab the hot stove. Saying "we're going to lose our cheap sources of labor!" isn't effective. They need to feel it. Trump partly won on "finishing what Democrats wouldn't let him do" and the next neanderthal (or Trump himself trying for a third term) will run on that again if we step in, particularly if we step in too soon.
Too soon? They should wait until the country is fully under dictatorial rule? How many people were saying similar things in Germany circa 1933. Hitler was a clown, would screw everything up and lose the next election, right?
It's horrible politics; playing nice in politics has never been my repertoire; I am all about winning elections; pissing off potential allies and persuadable voters is not a winning strategy imo ;impeding traffic is bad form
Vietnam War protests were effective because they were persistent and particularly targeted Washington, DC areas for many months and years.
If these protests were all about stopping traffic, I doubt Vietnam war activism would have gotten that far.
Likewise with labor union protests - They don’t stop traffic and target the companies directly on site. And usually there are resolutions in these cases.
Don't you think Vietnam War protests were ultimately effective only because the public grew weary as the war became an undeniable quagmire? I think it's highly debatable that the protests themselves moved the needle. Recall that a majority of people polled approved of both the Daley crackdown at the Chicago Democratic convention and the Kent State massacre....and both of those happened after the public began turning against the war in pretty large numbers.
Valid question. I'd say while the Vietnam War protests didn't move the needle when they first happened, they did contribute to the awareness of the war during a time when the U.S. by contrast to today was more conservative. Even while the protests did get more disruptive and disbanded at times, protesting against the governments had to involve crowds of people in front of where the federal government is.
Same thing with the South Africa anti-apartheid movements around the world. When the original protests happened, they didn't immediately move the needle and it took many years before the US government under Ronald Reagan's leadership (thanks to Senator Dick Lugar & others) finally acted. This after persistent push
Protests themselves aren't necessarily assured to immediately change minds. However, they need to be focused even if at times they can get out of control a bit.
My issue with protest movements like the Free Palestine movement (for the record, I'm for human rights for both Israelis and Palestinians) is that there's no real focused strategy. It's like the protestors go up to random Jewish synagogues, company buildings (i.e. Google employees protesting in front of the company), and private gatherings of anyone who is a noted Jewish professor as a means of trying to get Jews to be on their side (like the UC Berkeley law professor who had a private gathering with students and then a free palestinine supporter disrupted the meeting with a protest). Not exactly a way to really push Congress and the White House to act.
You're making sense to me. People can have their consciousnesses raised. But we do have to acknowledge that McGovern lost and there were a hell of a lot of people who supported U.S. intervention in Indochina to the end and remained angry about the withdrawal from Saigon for a long time.
After reading through all the comments on this thread, I see a lot of disagreement with you and yet none of it actually talks about what you’re talking about. Thanks for understanding that pissing off swing voters and negatively interrupting their personal lives isn’t a winning strategy.
Getting a protest/parade permit so people have advance warning what streets will be closed when is one thing, but spontaneously blocking roads is always counterproductive.
Traveling from Los Angeles to Alabama is a bit much to do a protest.
Democrats still primarily live in or near cities. Going to the city for a protest can be an afternoon activity for them; it doesn't require substantial planning from individuals. Cities also have infrastructure to protest at. In a way the purpose of these protests is to get attention and media coverage. Doing that in a city works.
Maybe, but that has been said about any and every protest that has occurred. Either the protest doesn't inconvenience anyone, in which case nobody cares because it has no impact. Or the protest inconveniences some people, in which case they're only annoying people.
As such I don't put much stock in complaints about protests.
Yesterday morning, up to 10 thousand people gathered in downtown LA to protest Trump's immigration policies. Protestors blocked surface streets between Union station and city hall, and for a period around noon spilled onto both sides of the 101 freeway at Alameda Street. For those not familiar with LA, that is just north of the East LA interchange where many freeways connect and except at 3am is gridlock.
There are plans to protest again today when people are actually downtown.
I hope they don't impede traffic; I am all in favor of the protests and the protesters but logistics matters for public awareness and sympathy; the worst tactic available is to make some poor schlub late for work because a freeway is blocked
I don't know how you can fit thousands of people in the Civic center area of LA without impeding traffic.
I honestly don't care; impeding traffic is bad form unless they have some type of permit for that type protest; pretty sure that they don't allow such permits
When we are potentially dealing with a fascist take over of the country, we may to occasionally have to not play nice.
Impeding traffic does zero to stop Trump and Elon. Might actually be counterproductive.
Well it seems like the bulk of the Democratic party seems to think the best response is sitting around watching and hoping that when the price of eggs goes from $9 to $15 that people will get really really fed up with Trump.
Considering all the rallies Harris and Walz did last year did them and us no good though, there is only so much that can be done. At the end of the day, VOTERS decide. That cannot be stressed enough.
I do not believe that taking over the justice department, putting Musk and his 6, 19-24 year olds in charge of government contracting and disbursements, seizing power from Congress, and completely gutting competency from the government is what most people voted for.
Its not the point; Trump won the election; our side lost; strategy for the next election should not include stupidly and unnecessarily pissing off Joe Schlub by impeding his way to get to and from work
He didn't win an election for dictator, and Musk certainly didn't, but pay attention to what they're doing and don't tell people to concede.
If there had been no rallies - or for that matter, low enthusiasm rallies* - the ultimate results may have been worse, and NV/WI/MI Senate seats may have been lost
* I know this is one of those asymmetric things; Reps can have low charisma candidates and unenthused crowds and still win.
Also Arizona.
I don't think it's logical to conclude that because someone lost by 1.5% of the vote, their rallies were pointless. If you had to know the future to do anything, you'd never do anything. Human history is full of progress, regression, generosity of spirit and barbarity. Do you think all the efforts of Reconstruction were useless because the Democratic Party and KKK annulled them for 50 years?
Demonstrating in support of immigration isn't going to do any good. Demonstrating against Trump power grabs, sure.
Crop-pickers not coming in to work makes a difference, especially when Mexican produce was just made 25% more expensive, to boot
Okay, then let the stupid people of America feel that pain during a Republican president's time in office. Unless they get burnt, they are just going to grab the hot stove. Saying "we're going to lose our cheap sources of labor!" isn't effective. They need to feel it. Trump partly won on "finishing what Democrats wouldn't let him do" and the next neanderthal (or Trump himself trying for a third term) will run on that again if we step in, particularly if we step in too soon.
Too soon? They should wait until the country is fully under dictatorial rule? How many people were saying similar things in Germany circa 1933. Hitler was a clown, would screw everything up and lose the next election, right?
Agreed but my point is solely about the proper tactics
I disagree with this entire post
It's horrible politics; playing nice in politics has never been my repertoire; I am all about winning elections; pissing off potential allies and persuadable voters is not a winning strategy imo ;impeding traffic is bad form
Vietnam War protests were effective because they were persistent and particularly targeted Washington, DC areas for many months and years.
If these protests were all about stopping traffic, I doubt Vietnam war activism would have gotten that far.
Likewise with labor union protests - They don’t stop traffic and target the companies directly on site. And usually there are resolutions in these cases.
Don't you think Vietnam War protests were ultimately effective only because the public grew weary as the war became an undeniable quagmire? I think it's highly debatable that the protests themselves moved the needle. Recall that a majority of people polled approved of both the Daley crackdown at the Chicago Democratic convention and the Kent State massacre....and both of those happened after the public began turning against the war in pretty large numbers.
Valid question. I'd say while the Vietnam War protests didn't move the needle when they first happened, they did contribute to the awareness of the war during a time when the U.S. by contrast to today was more conservative. Even while the protests did get more disruptive and disbanded at times, protesting against the governments had to involve crowds of people in front of where the federal government is.
Same thing with the South Africa anti-apartheid movements around the world. When the original protests happened, they didn't immediately move the needle and it took many years before the US government under Ronald Reagan's leadership (thanks to Senator Dick Lugar & others) finally acted. This after persistent push
Protests themselves aren't necessarily assured to immediately change minds. However, they need to be focused even if at times they can get out of control a bit.
My issue with protest movements like the Free Palestine movement (for the record, I'm for human rights for both Israelis and Palestinians) is that there's no real focused strategy. It's like the protestors go up to random Jewish synagogues, company buildings (i.e. Google employees protesting in front of the company), and private gatherings of anyone who is a noted Jewish professor as a means of trying to get Jews to be on their side (like the UC Berkeley law professor who had a private gathering with students and then a free palestinine supporter disrupted the meeting with a protest). Not exactly a way to really push Congress and the White House to act.
You're making sense to me. People can have their consciousnesses raised. But we do have to acknowledge that McGovern lost and there were a hell of a lot of people who supported U.S. intervention in Indochina to the end and remained angry about the withdrawal from Saigon for a long time.
After reading through all the comments on this thread, I see a lot of disagreement with you and yet none of it actually talks about what you’re talking about. Thanks for understanding that pissing off swing voters and negatively interrupting their personal lives isn’t a winning strategy.
thanks
Getting a protest/parade permit so people have advance warning what streets will be closed when is one thing, but spontaneously blocking roads is always counterproductive.
exactly the point I am making; good post
Why don't progressive go after the areas that actually voted for Trump, go on over to Alabama and block traffic?
How about we not block traffic?
Traveling from Los Angeles to Alabama is a bit much to do a protest.
Democrats still primarily live in or near cities. Going to the city for a protest can be an afternoon activity for them; it doesn't require substantial planning from individuals. Cities also have infrastructure to protest at. In a way the purpose of these protests is to get attention and media coverage. Doing that in a city works.
It's counter productive and it's not changing anyones mind.
Maybe, but that has been said about any and every protest that has occurred. Either the protest doesn't inconvenience anyone, in which case nobody cares because it has no impact. Or the protest inconveniences some people, in which case they're only annoying people.
As such I don't put much stock in complaints about protests.
Exactly