In the discourse, a heckler’s veto is a situation in which a party who disagrees with a speaker’s message is able to unilaterally trigger events that result in the speaker being silenced. For example, a heckler can disrupt a speech to the point that the speech is canceled.
How is Vance - despite his being a well educated idiot - not describing a heckler’s veto?
I’ve never heard this term before, but I think the key phrase is “party who disagrees with a speaker’s message.” Presumably, the people calling in bomb threats are on the same page as Vance, so they’re not hecklers, and any pressure on Vance to stop is an unintended side effect. If people were calling in bomb threats to Vance’s rallies, that’d be a heckler’s veto.
Ultimately, though, who the fuck cares. Jesus Christ, libs are insufferable.
How is Vance - despite his being a well educated idiot - not describing a heckler’s veto?
I’ve never heard this term before, but I think the key phrase is “party who disagrees with a speaker’s message.” Presumably, the people calling in bomb threats are on the same page as Vance, so they’re not hecklers, and any pressure on Vance to stop is an unintended side effect. If people were calling in bomb threats to Vance’s rallies, that’d be a heckler’s veto.
Ultimately, though, who the fuck cares. Jesus Christ, libs are insufferable.
Oh, okay, I wasn’t following the fact that the bomb threats were also coming from his camp.
Oh, I thought people were calling bomb threats to Vance so it was a heckler’s veto.
I was so confused reading this.