Protesting - useful/gets things done or a waste of time?

[williamp]

Cold said:

Some things are worth protesting about.

They wrote that on the back so the little boy will hold it. I expect the "real" message on the front which the women are getting excited about will be somehting like "my vagina matters"

[Frimley111R]

I tend to think its a pointless waste of time but I guess that if large populations put pressure on their governments to add some political pressure if something is really wrong then I guess that's ok. But, so far he's hardly done anything, god knows what people are going to do if he does and lets not overlook the fact that most Americans voted for him. Of course it may be that the majority didn't or abstained but that's their own stupid fault if that's the case.

[Derek Smith]

Don said:

Protesting is a total and utter waste of time.

Changes nothing.

Voting, on the other hand, changes a lot. Do protest marches change how people will vote? I'd argue not much, if at all...

Voting, for me, has no effect. I live in an area where they would vote in a fat, objectionable, lazy, sexist slob if he wore a blue rosette. Daily Mails outnumber newspapers in WH Smith at a rate of 3:1. My vote changes nothing.

Historically, demonstrating has changed much over the years. There were political riots at the turn of the last century which changed women's right to vote, although not enough for equality. The British, especially the English, have used demonstrations quite effectively over the years.

Protesting is a right we enjoy in this country. To dismiss the current anti-Trump world wide protest as the great unwashed or rent-a-mob is wrong.

[caelite]

Tannedbaldhead said:

"Protests" and the can't pay wont pay campaign finished the poll tax.

I'd say that was a case of people doing more than just standing about with signs. Many protested with their wallets by trying to pull themselves 'off the grid' and out and out refusing to pay. I would say the latter was the real catalyst for change rather than a bit of sign waving.

[carinatauk]

Frimley111R said:

I tend to think its a pointless waste of time but I guess that if large populations put pressure on their governments to add some political pressure if something is really wrong then I guess that's ok. But, so far he's hardly done anything, god knows what people are going to do if he does and lets not overlook the fact that most Americans voted for him. Of course it may be that the majority didn't or abstained but that's their own stupid fault if that's the case.

This! the marching is just costing tax payers more money with the police cover, clearing up and wearing down the tarmac. It's all bks and not going to change fk all. As for Trump, it's none of our business, it's America's. We whinge enough when anyone sticks their nose into our business.

Why people need to think they are achieving anything I don't know; but then I am not left or liberalist to understand.

Live and let live, and focus on how we should deal with our own st, would be a good place.

[egor110]

Derek Smith said:

Don said:

Protesting is a total and utter waste of time.

Changes nothing.

Voting, on the other hand, changes a lot. Do protest marches change how people will vote? I'd argue not much, if at all...

Voting, for me, has no effect. I live in an area where they would vote in a fat, objectionable, lazy, sexist slob if he wore a blue rosette. Daily Mails outnumber newspapers in WH Smith at a rate of 3:1. My vote changes nothing.

Historically, demonstrating has changed much over the years. There were political riots at the turn of the last century which changed women's right to vote, although not enough for equality. The British, especially the English, have used demonstrations quite effectively over the years.

Protesting is a right we enjoy in this country. To dismiss the current anti-Trump world wide protest as the great unwashed or rent-a-mob is wrong.

Surely as the old majors and blue rinse brigade die off then a new generation replaces them who might see things differently and vote accordingly?

Or as in the brexit vote maybe they'll be so wrapped up tweeting/facebooking why brexit is bad they couldn't quite manage to actually get out and vote.

[jammy-git]

Frimley111R said:

lets not overlook the fact that most Americans voted for him. Of course it may be that the majority didn't or abstained but that's their own stupid fault if that's the case.

Technically he lost the popular vote.

[deeen]

Trump was elected in a democratic vote. Surely if you protest against that, you are protesting against democracy?

[eccles]

Don said:

Protesting is a total and utter waste of time.

Changes nothing.

Voting, on the other hand, changes a lot. Do protest marches change how people will vote? I'd argue not much, if at all...

I think the whole protest thing lets people think they've done something with minimal input, where as in reality joining a political party and campaigning to actually change the system takes time and effort.

One of my mothers friends is a serial protestor, she's done Greenham, Newbury bypass and more recently a fracking site. She's very forthright in her views and hates it if you challenge her on what she's actually achieved with all these protests.

[Biker 1]

Derek Smith said:

Historically, demonstrating has changed much over the years. There were political riots at the turn of the last century which changed women's right to vote, although not enough for equality. The British, especially the English, have used demonstrations quite effectively over the years.

That is not a reasonable comparison, as all American adults have the right to vote, & a presidential election system that was apparently fit for purpose for all the previous 45 presidents, but not, it seems, this one. If the 'backlash' is anything like as big as the likes of the BBC claim, why didn't the electorate vote for someone other than Trump? Again, odd that all this protesting is taking place before the man has had a chance to knuckle down to his new job.
As for the protesting: something may or may not come from marches in Washington, but what on earth do protesters hope to achieve in a foreign country such as the UK?

[Hosenbugler]

Einion Yrth said:

Don said:

Protesting is a total and utter waste of time.

Changes nothing.

Voting, on the other hand, changes a lot. Do protest marches change how people will vote? I'd argue not much, if at all...

Quite possibly counter productive; seeing a bunch of screeching no-marks with dogs on string and poor dress-sense defacing public monuments and putting out shop windows does not draw me to support their cause, no matter how worthwhile it might otherwise have been.

I'm of a similar viewpoint. Alleged "protests" are very often a display of leftie thuggery, with scant regard for other people and property, the DC "protests" of the past few days being just one example of many.

[jjlynn27]

Frimley111R said:

.... and lets not overlook the fact that most Americans voted for him. Of course it may be that the majority didn't or abstained but that's their own stupid fault if that's the case.

It's not 'the fact'. It's something that you made up.



Why make something up and try to pass it on as a fact? Bizzare.

Edited by jjlynn27 on Sunday 22 January 09:29

[Goaty Bill 2]

D-Angle said:

egor110 said:

Polltax Riots seemed to have the desired effect.

Are protesting and rioting the same thing though? My first instinct is they aren't.

The protests and riots were only a part of it.
Millions of people had not paid, and many could/would not pay (mostly those on benefits).
There were so many people to collect small debts of <£200 from that there simply weren't the resources nor the will to see it through.

Imagine; you arrange a repayment plan with someone in receipt of benefits for £5/month. They fall behind by £15. How much will you spend to collect that £15? What are your realistic chances of collecting it?

Of course, the desire of Thatcher's political enemies to see her gone was probably the larger influence in the final result.

[Derek Smith]

egor110 said:

Surely as the old majors and blue rinse brigade die off then a new generation replaces them who might see things differently and vote accordingly?

Or as in the brexit vote maybe they'll be so wrapped up tweeting/facebooking why brexit is bad they couldn't quite manage to actually get out and vote.

You seem to be of the opinion that it is only pensioners who read the DM. That is, I'm afraid, not so. The middle-aged strip the racks of them in the main. It's scary.

Also, I'm of the 'blue rinse brigade' so I'll be off at the same time.

My representative is an oaf. Even the tory voters I know agree.

[bitchstewie]

I don't claim to know enough about the whole "Popular Vote" strategy in the US but one way I heard it explained was simply that with the system they have over there, if you're campaigning to win the electoral college which is all that matters, you "play the game" to win the points required.

Essentially they have a system where you can win the popular vote but still not be President - so what exactly does it count for?

[D-Angle]

Don said:

Protesting is a total and utter waste of time.

Changes nothing.

Voting, on the other hand, changes a lot. Do protest marches change how people will vote? I'd argue not much, if at all...

Indeed.
It has been said that while the Far Left have been protesting in town squares, everyone else has been protesting in the voting booth.

[eccles]

D-Angle said:

Don said:

Protesting is a total and utter waste of time.

Changes nothing.

Voting, on the other hand, changes a lot. Do protest marches change how people will vote? I'd argue not much, if at all...

Indeed.
It has been said that while the Far Left have been protesting in town squares, everyone else has been protesting in the voting booth.

Yeah, only lefties go out and protest!

[D-Angle]

eccles said:

Yeah, only lefties go out and protest!

I can't think of any large scale right/centrist protests in recent years, certainly not the waving placards in a town square type. Do you have an example that I'm forgetting?

[Randy Winkman]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Rubbish.

Nobody objects women having equality.

But they don't want equality, they want superiority.

"They" are millions of different people with different views.

[Randy Winkman]

D-Angle said:

eccles said:

Yeah, only lefties go out and protest!

I can't think of any large scale right/centrist protests in recent years, certainly not the waving placards in a town square type. Do you have an example that I'm forgetting?

I think that a trait of the right is that they are less inclined to get together with like minded people on a point of principle when they could be playing golf, getting their hair done, watching a box set of Game of Thrones etc etc