1/4 of a million people protest the RNC before it even happens, peacefully.

  • News
  • Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date
  • Tags
    even
In summary: Apparently, that's what sparked the violence.In summary, 250,000 people protested the Republican National Convention today. The best part is, it was all totally peaceful.
  • #1
wasteofo2
478
2
I live in a Suburb of NYC, and I worked from 10-8 today, listening intermitently to the radio and cd's. From all estimates, over 250,000 people protested the Republican National Convention today, and it hasn't even started. The best part is, it was all totally peaceful.

I initially began listening to Air America, and they were playing it up, all excited, it's so great, everyone's uniting against Bush etc. and it sounded great, but I realized they might just be ignoring bad things that were happening.

So, to try to get the opposite side of the story, I turned on WABC, the station Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are broadcast on, Hannity's actual home station. Anyway, the woman who's show was on is named Monica Crowley, she loves Nixon, thinks he was a great President smeared by the Liberal media, hates everything liberal, characterized the protests as simply silly, and not consistant with mainstream American values. She thought that since we're at war, the mainstream American position was to not accept any criticism of Bush, and just believe whatever he says. So anyway, you get a basic feel for her, I expected to turn her on and hear everything bad that's happening in New York blamed on liberals, every theft, every vandalism, every injury, every piece of graffitti etc.

And yet, when I turned it on, nothing. She wasn't happy with the protesters, but there was no violence at all to report. Her guests were praising the protesters unabashedly, people on the street were saying how enthusiastic and pleased police were about how well behaved these protesters were, it was amazing. The worst thing she could find to report, and the topic of discussion for about 40 minutes, was a paper mache dragon carried by a group of protesters had been lit on fire, protesters were re-directed one block over, and put out a few minutes later. She tried to sensationalize it, saying that anarchists had burnt a dragon using some sort of incendiary device, but that was as far as she could go, because there was no violence.

This just seems amazing to me, 250,000 people are SO pissed off at George Bush and the Republican party, that they're beyond the point of insanity, beyond the point of violence. It would seem that when something's so bad as to get 1/4 of a million people to congregate to one specific place to protest, they'd be enraged, burning, looting, destroying, maiming, killing, all that stuff.

But not these protesters, these protesters are beyond the point of violence and insanity. They dissaprove of the Bush administration so badly that they are driven to complete and total clarity of what they must do. They're beyond irrational violnce, realizing that would solve nothing and only cause bad feelings for those who want change, they realize that what they must do is amass in GIGANTIC numbers, and peacefully protest with no incident.

This is just amazing to me, and has inspired me to find any way I can to get down there and join this.

Peace, love and freedom,
Jacob
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Good to see some people using their freedom to voice their opinions. Now let's just hope a large enough number of people do the same when it's time to vote. Ultimately, that is the only protest which will have an effect.
 
  • #3
Yep, free to roam the streets, not placed in cages as they were during the Democratic convention in Boston.
 
  • #4
Yeah, with the exception of the burning dragon (and subsequent police 'attacks') and the bike protestors who blocked streets, there has been nothing. And those two events were handled quickly and quietly.
The police are doing a great job, the protestors are doing a great job.

cspan is doing lots of coverage for people who want unedited, non commented footage of it all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
I'm not getting any news from SMH, since they now require registration.
 
  • #7
Adam said:
I'm not getting any news from SMH, since they now require registration.

That is odd. The link was good a little while ago, and now I can't even access directly from google's news page.
Basically the article is title "Protests off to stormy start with 300 arrests".
The following text then reiterates how bad things are going :smile:
 
  • #8
300 arrests out of 250,000? Wow. That's terrible.

Is this supposed to somehow imply that those who protest against Bush are just bad people?
 
  • #9
wasteofo2 said:
This is just amazing to me, and has inspired me to find any way I can to get down there and join this.

Peace, love and freedom,
Jacob

If you do get down there to join in, please, be careful...and stay alert. What appears to be a beautiful thing can turn ugly real fast.



BTW, I've heard from an eyewitness account that there weren't many pro-kerry signs...but there were quite a few go Nader signs... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #10
kat said:
If you do get down there to join in, please, be careful...and stay alert. What appears to be a beautiful thing can turn ugly real fast.

BTW, I've heard from an eyewitness account that there weren't many pro-kerry signs...but there were quite a few go Nader signs... :rolleyes:
Oh yeah, I'll be careful as I possibly can if I can get down there.

I'll bet those go Nader signs were funded by republicans :wink:
 
  • #11
And whatd'ya know, revised estimations put the number of people protesting on Sunday at 500,000, easily the largest convention related protest in history.

So let's see, George Bush's convention is the most heavily protested by hundreds of thousands of people, George Bush's war in Iraq is the single most protested event in the history of the world, George Bush's innaguration was the only one protested ever, George Bush's 2 tax cuts during 2 wars are the only time in American history, and likely in the history of tax-collecting governments, that taxes were lowered during a war, he's turned a record surplus into a record defecit, and on and on and on.

Man, that Bush, he sure does like setting records/standards, I wonder who'll ever live up to him.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
So Bush has no chance I assume.
 
  • #13
I don't know about that, I would hope not, but you never know. John Kerry might actually win despite his failure to either defend himself against attacks or bring up substantive issues which could draw attention away from his attackers. I'll report back after the debates with a conclusive answer.
 
  • #14
So let's see, George Bush's convention is the most heavily protested by hundreds of thousands of people,

Whoops, looks like George is in big trouble.

George Bush's war in Iraq is the single most protested event in the history of the world,

Hell, Kerry is a shoo-in with such a t-e-r-r-i-b-l-e President.

George Bush's innaguration was the only one protested ever,

George's chances of winning in 2004 never even got off the ground. Hell, in 2000 the writing was already on the wall.

George Bush's 2 tax cuts during 2 wars are the only time in American history,

Kerry can just quit campaigning — he's a lock.

and likely in the history of tax-collecting governments, that taxes were lowered during a war, he's turned a record surplus into a record defecit, and on and on and on.

George should quit now before being totally embarassed.

Now you tell us you HOPE he doesn't win.

I predict that after the convention is over, Bush is ahead in the polls. Bet?
 
  • #15
JohnDubYa said:
I predict that after the convention is over, Bush is ahead in the polls. Bet?
Declined. The current margin in the polls is smaller than the percentage of people who change their opinion depending on whose side they've heard most recently (at least by my immaculately researched seat-of-the-pants guess... :wink:)
 
  • #16
plover said:
Declined. The current margin in the polls is smaller than the percentage of people who change their opinion depending on whose side they've heard most recently (at least by my immaculately researched seat-of-the-pants guess... :wink:)
That is generally true, but strangely, after the DNC, there was no Kerry bounce...
 
Last edited:
  • #17
JohnDubYa said:
Sarcastic remarks about Bush being hated/an idiot/a failure.

Now you tell us you HOPE he doesn't win.

I predict that after the convention is over, Bush is ahead in the polls. Bet?
That's the thing, I'll actually bet you're right, and Bush will be a bit ahead in the polls. Likely within the margin of error, but probabally ahead. It's no big deal though, Kerry's a boring senator and Bush's a cowboy, people'll get more excited about Bush. Now, I'll make a simmilar bet; that after the deabtes, Kerry pulls ahead in the polls. Bush can be as "common folky" as he wants, but if kerry is as good in the debates as he was on the Dick Cavet show, Bush has no chance.
 
  • #18
Bush has already beaten Gore and Ann Richards in debates. Don't underestimate him.
 
  • #19
JohnDubYa said:
Bush has already beaten Gore and Ann Richards in debates. Don't underestimate him.
:laughing:
Watch out, he beat AL GORE!

Though I get your point, but if you saw Kerry on the Dick Cavet show, you'd know he's not a bad debater himself.
 
  • #20
JohnDubYa said:
Whoops, looks like George is in big trouble.



Hell, Kerry is a shoo-in with such a t-e-r-r-i-b-l-e President.



George's chances of winning in 2004 never even got off the ground. Hell, in 2000 the writing was already on the wall.



Kerry can just quit campaigning — he's a lock.



George should quit now before being totally embarassed.
Well, well. He finally sees the light. Good for you!
 
  • #21
Groan.

As for Al Gore, I think he could Kerry a run for his money. During the debates, there will be a lot of focus on Kerry's Senate voting record that he won't be able to dodge. It will be interesting for sure.
 
  • #22
As for Al Gore, I think he could Kerry a run for his money. During the debates, there will be a lot of focus on Kerry's Senate voting record that he won't be able to dodge. It will be interesting for sure.

As well as his...yes...that's right...flip flopping. These damn media buzzwords. I just feel so unpure(not to mention unoriginal) after using them. :cry:
 
  • #23
Ive heard over 900 ppl have been arrested now. These maniacs shouldn't be allowed to protest ;)
 
  • #24
Yeah! Prevent political rallies!
 
  • #25
wasteofo2 said:
That's the thing, I'll actually bet you're right, and Bush will be a bit ahead in the polls. Likely within the margin of error, but probabally ahead. It's no big deal though, Kerry's a boring senator and Bush's a cowboy, people'll get more excited about Bush. Now, I'll make a simmilar bet; that after the deabtes, Kerry pulls ahead in the polls. Bush can be as "common folky" as he wants, but if kerry is as good in the debates as he was on the Dick Cavet show, Bush has no chance.
Prior to the 2000 Presidential debates, the major media was touting Gore masterful skills as a debater. President Bush pretty much put that myth to rest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
If Kerry comes off as a pompous ass (like pronouncing Genghis with a soft "g"), Bush will beat him like a drum.
 
  • #27
Robert Zaleski said:
Prior to the 2000 Presidential debates, the major media was toting Gore masterful skills as a debater. President Bush pretty much put that myth to rest.
Well the media is stupid, Gore's more boring and monotone than Kerry was in the primaries. Plus, Gore wasn't as viciously and personally attacked as Kerry was, so he won't have the emotion that Kerry will. Also, I didn't come to the conclusion Kerry was a good debater because the media said so, I saw a re-broadcast of the entire Dick Cavet Show where he was on.
 
  • #28
I fail to see how anyone could be more boring and monotone than Kerry.
 

Related to 1/4 of a million people protest the RNC before it even happens, peacefully.

1. What is the significance of 1/4 of a million people protesting the RNC before it even happens?

The fact that such a large number of people are protesting the RNC before it even takes place shows that there is significant opposition and discontent towards the policies and actions of the Republican Party. It also indicates a strong level of political engagement and activism among the population.

2. How were the protests organized and by whom?

The protests were organized by various activist groups, grassroots organizations, and individuals who are opposed to the RNC. These groups used social media, word of mouth, and other forms of communication to mobilize and coordinate the protests.

3. What were the main reasons for the protests?

The protests were primarily in response to the policies and actions of the Republican Party, including issues such as immigration, healthcare, climate change, and social justice. Many protesters were also expressing their opposition to the current administration and its policies.

4. Were the protests peaceful?

Yes, the protests were reported to be peaceful. There were no major incidents of violence or destruction reported during the protests. However, there were some minor clashes with law enforcement and a few arrests were made.

5. Will these protests have any impact on the RNC?

It is difficult to predict the exact impact of these protests on the RNC. However, they do bring attention to the issues and concerns of those who are protesting and can potentially influence public opinion and political decisions. Additionally, the presence of such a large number of protesters may also disrupt the RNC and its proceedings.

Similar threads

Replies
24
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
29
Replies
1K
Views
87K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
64
Views
16K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top