The Daily Gazette
The Locally Owned Voice Of The Capital Region
Advertisement
Promotions

Gazette Editorial

Protesters displaying disrespect for electoral process

Text Size: A | A

A lot of people were disappointed, and some downright depressed, about the outcome of Tuesday's presidential election. But here in America, we have a process for electing our president. And whether you like it or not, the process was carried out the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be. Fairly. Peacefully. Respectfully. And when the two candidates were done, they accepted the results, they accepted their respective fates, they wished each other well, and ...

You Must or Subscribe to Continue
subscribe to the Daily Gazette
Individual stories can be found and purchased from our Archives for $2.00

Enjoy this story? Share it!

Advertisement

comments

yoremop57
November 12, 2016
11:38 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

The people who are whining about the protestors are the very same that called Barack Obama a Muslim, a monkey, called his wife Michael and otherwise ridiculed this gracious and graceful family. They have no right to tell people to stop protesting.

cidbil
November 12, 2016
12:36 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Yep, just keep perpetuating the stupidity. "Hey they did so we will too." Ugh

ChuckD
November 12, 2016
2:18 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

A fair and balanced "Editorial" would also condemn the sudden spike in hate crimes and other abuses against minority members we're now seeing in schools and on the streets in the name of Trump.
Or maybe that's some weird kind of conspiracy theory too.

cuddihy518
November 12, 2016
4:51 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

The picture you show features a sign protesting hate, racism, and sexism that Trump openly displays. Yet the editorial somehow takes a leap to label them babies who can't accept election results.

Others have pointed out that Mr Trump's threats of not accepting election results, and threats to jail his opponent severely undermine the democratic process.

We can't let any of these things become the "new normal". These should transcend our political views, as they are an existential threat to our democracy.

You could do our community a service by helping us understand each others' views and by helping us protect the democracy we love. People marching with a sign promoting love, and respect of minorities and women are no threat.

Instead the Gazette chose to be inflammatory, and rather childish. I'm quite disappointed.

djbarney
November 12, 2016
9:07 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

The protesters had their say and they lost a free election. ChuckD for years we have had diversity programs, minority set asides and the flaunting of our immigration laws - did you really expect that this would produce no reaction? As for …58 tying up traffic with your signs promoting love and respect reflects a lack of connection between actions and deeds
Fred a friend of reason

reader1
November 13, 2016
3:22 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

A little puzzling that a newspaper, protected and fueled by the 1st Amendment, would condemn someone exercising their 1st Amendment rights. As contentious as this election was - you knew a significant amount of the voters for either side were going to be very upset. No excuse for any law breaking during the protest, including the disruption of traffic. In fact, I think that turns people from their cause.

RE: the "Not my President" signs and sentiments - there were plenty of those floating around after President Obama's first election. Wonder if DJ Barney was as upset about Sheriff David Clarke's "torch and pitchfork" comments? Or by the talk from some Trump backers about a civil war and taking out Hillary Clinton if she won.

It's speech protected by 1st Amendment. I'm just as upset about the election, but, the process has run its' course and we have to accept the outcome and hope that President Elect Trump has a positive effect on the country.

Will1960
November 13, 2016
7:09 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Reader1 yeah remember the massive revolt of protests in the street after President Obama took office? It never happened.

djbarney
November 13, 2016
7:24 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

RE Reader1 ; “Wonder if DJ Barney was as upset about Sheriff David Clarke's "torch and pitchfork" comments? Or by the talk from some Trump backers about a civil war and taking out Hillary Clinton if she won.”
1 Please read to the end of post – it was signed Fred, a friend of reason.
2 To equate a statement about how the world works with being upset is a failure in logic
3 Likewise. the equating trash talk to government mandated racially discriminatory programs is a failure in logic
Fred a friend of reason.

reader1
November 13, 2016
8:30 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Will1960 - Revolt of protests - so there is no longer a right to protest?

KKK, American Nazis have the right to protest and you're getting bent out of shape over people protesting the results of an election?

Most racially discriminatory, I assume you are referring to affirmative action, have been drastically reduced. Wasn't even a major issue during the campaign. I'm not interested in debating that issue or anything else - that was what the election was about. The protests are probably not just about the issues - but about the candidate. I doubt you'd have seen this reaction if Cruz or Kasich won. An inflammatory candidate is getting an inflammatory reaction.

yoremop57
November 13, 2016
10:25 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

cidbil, no need to respond with personal insults. In case you didn't notice (and you didn't), I only stated that they have as much right to protest as those that protested against Obama and his family. Don't respond to reason with unreasonable comments.

cidbil
November 13, 2016
1:21 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Hmmm yoremop57, I just reread my post several times and I'm reasonably certain there isn't a personal insult in there. (and since the Gazette seems to be monitoring these comments again and hasn't deleted my comment I think I'm right about there not being a personal insult in the comment). If you took it personally then I apologize. That being said, I'll stand by the comment. It seems highly hypocritical, IMHO, to complain about the actions of one side, and then turn around and do the exact same thing. I'm not saying they don't have the right to protest (this comes from someone who HAS protested in the streets a number of times over the past 70 years of my life), I'm merely pointing out what in my mind is a hypocritical stance. Signed: An elderly reasonable human who despises hypocrisy and believes in compromise. In the world today there is far too much of the former and not enough of the latter. Peace out....

djbarney
November 13, 2016
11:03 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Reader1 would have us believe that affirmative action has been significantly reduced. If by this he means that it is now called minority set asides and diversity programs he is correct. I however think that the abandoning the ideal of equality before the law is a social policy that in the end cause us considerable problems. As a precursor of what can be expected consider the behavior of those who wish only the results of elections that they have win to be honored.
Fred, have a nice day - maybe my conjecture is wrong.

reader1
November 14, 2016
2:22 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Curious that your focus keeps returning to affirmative action when it really played no role in the election. Never mentioned in a debate, certainly wasn't discussed in any significant way during the campaign.

Personally, I don't care what you believe.

yoremop57
November 14, 2016
6:12 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

cidbil, "perpetuating the stupidity" is not an insult? Doubtless you would feel differently if someone said that to you. And pray tell, what specifically is hypocritical about my comment? Frankly my comment was pointing out the hypocrisy of others...

cidbil
November 14, 2016
6:54 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

yoremop57, no I don't think it's an insult, especially given the fact it was not directed at you. Had I wanted to single you out, I would have included your username in my comment. Once again if you took it as a personal insult I apologize.(Note: this is the last time I will offer an apology for something I did not intend.) I stand by my comment. When one side continues a behavior, ie; protesting because the other side did it when they lost, pledging support to those who wish to obstruct legislation, because the other side did it when they objected, it's hypocritical. I was annoyed when in 2008 the protests and obstruction started with the current President. And now I'm just as annoyed at the talk of doing the same for the President elect. Seems to me it's hypocritical and counter-productive. To be honest I didn't like the last President and don't care at all for this one either. I'll reserve judgement until the new guy has been in office for a bit. Should I decide after time that the guy sucks, then you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be in the "streets" voicing my displeasure. TTFN

djbarney
November 14, 2016
9:23 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Reader1: “Curious that your focus keeps returning to affirmative action when it really played no role in the ;election. Never mentioned in a debate, certainly wasn't discussed in any significant way during the campaign.”

Since Trump received considerable abuse for his racist immigration policy proposals you are dismissing what the voters have shown to be on their minds thus you are in error. In any case the criticism of racism by those who support government mandated racism is a reasonable subject for discussion. Fred – have a nice day.

reader1
November 14, 2016
9:49 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Affirmative action has nothing to do with immigration. Nothing, two separate issues.

There were several factors that caused an uproar over his immigration policies. First and foremost, his opening speech that categorized most illegal immigrants as drug dealers, murderers, and rapists does not square with the research in this matter. In short, most illegal immigrants are no more likely, some have shown them less likely, to be involved in crime. Many people are for taking a much harder line on immigration including no path to citizenship - none of them felt it necessary to use that inaccurate, inflammatory language.

RE: affirmative action, again, the Supreme Court, the final word in these issues has drastically reduced these programs. And, I am certain his SC appointees will further reduce, probably eliminate them. The few places they remain are in some college acceptance policies, and many of those are transitioning towards class (economic) based affirmative action. The issue seems important to you so you might want to read up on it a bit.

Again, people have a right to protest, as long as they do so within the law. I wonder what your reaction was to the talk of "civil war" and "pitchforks and torches" and the eventual President Elect refusing to state he would accept the results if he lost.

djbarney
November 14, 2016
12:42 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Reader1” In short, most illegal immigrants are no more likely, some have shown them less likely, to “be involved in crime. “ By federal law illegal immigrants are criminals.
If we are to understand and then communicate with each other would be helpful if we avoid self-contradictory statements. For liberals I suggest that they settle on the standard definitions of illegal and racism while suggesting and justifying new terms for wide spread use.
Fred, a friend of reason.

reader1
November 24, 2016
8:28 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

With respect to communication, you might start by reading my entire post. It was in reference to the President Elect's assertion that illegal immigrants were "bringing drugs, crime, and were rapists (although he supposed "some" were decent people). The obvious point being that, notwithstanding their illegal entry into the country, the picture the President Elect was painting of them was wildly off the mark. I'm certain most understood the point I was making. Arguing that they broke the law by entering the country is simply stating the obvious.

Advertisement