Is It Fair To Question The Democratic Party’s Values When It Has No American Flags Visible During Its National Convention?


Of course yes.

One of these things, is not like the others...

One of these things, is not like the others…

Opening night of the Democratic National Convention—that gathering of the historic institution created by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson to facilitate democracy by fulfilling the idealistic vision of the Founders, who bravely led the original colonies, represented by thirteen red and white stripes, to rise up against a hereditary monarchy and through courage, sacrifice and enterprise create the most successful and humanist nation ever seen on earth…you know, that Democratic National Convention?—showed no American flags on the stage, no red, white and blue symbolism, and an apparently flagless crowd.

Was the American flag actually banned from the convention? That can’t be…but it certainly looked like it.  The absence of any flags can’t be an accident, or unintentional.

What’s going on here?

Nothing good.

Nothing healthy.

In the eight years since Barack Obama was nominated…by the way, here is the scene of his second nomination, just four years ago…

Obama Accepts Nomination On Final Day Of Democratic National Convention

…the Democratic Party has morphed into an organization that is increasingly dependent on the pleasure and approval of anti-American groups. The supporters of illegal immigration, some of whom advocate returning the Southwest to Mexico; angry black liberation movement activists, who regard the United States as a racist nation and culture; radical internationalists, who believe the United States should not only behave like “other first world nations,” but allow itself to be governed by them; progressives whose view of the United States, nourished by indoctrination in the public schools and colleges dominated by far left faculties, is relentlessly negative; growing numbers of socialists, anti-capitalists, anti-law enforcement activists and fans of soft totalitarianism—-these are increasingly the voting blocs that the professional politicians who  run the Democratic Party feel they must pander to and satisfy.

Those politicians themselves? They have no principles, just a lust for power. In this they are exactly like the professional Republican politicians who have endorsed Donald Trump, knowing what he is ( a narcissistic, babbling idiot, in case you missed the last five years or so).  The Democratic power-brokers and Republican power-brokers are ethically interchangeable, like the Bobbsey Twins.

These groups that the Democrats feel they have to prostrate themselves before don’t like the Constitution, free speech or the separation of powers; they don’t respect or care about democracy, as the conduct of the Democratic National Committee revealed in the leaked e-mails proved; they don’t honor the sacrifices of veterans in foreign wars; and they view the history of the United States as nothing better than a parade of  genocide and discrimination. The United States flag is affirmatively offensive to the Democrats’ core constituencies, so the Democratic Party has apparently decided that so few of its members or supporters have a genuine love of country and respect for its history that the central symbol of both is no longer welcome at its national celebration.

Do you have another theory?

I’d love to hear it.

Flag worship and exploitation like the Republican Party and conservatives have been inflicting on us for decades is nauseating, of course, cynical and manipulative.  It is still far preferable to what the Democrats have apparently surrendered to, an actual rejection of the concepts and symbolism at the foundations of our nation. The flag symbolizes both, and symbols are crucial to culture, integrity, and continuity.

A national argument about what the flag, and the United States itself, should stand for is normal and healthy. A competition between one party that wants to “make America great again”—The Horror!—and another that not only doesn’t want America to be great, since it is a blight on civilization, but  doesn’t even want America to be America is neither normal nor healthy.

It’s a disaster.

Yes, this post also gets the This Will Help Elect Donald Trump designation, in part because the Democrats this week are a hair’s-breadth away from convincing me that as dangerous, reckless, unstable and embarrassing as Donald Trump will be as President, the Democratic Party and the people they pander to will be worse if they continue in power.

My late father walked with a painful limp for 60 years because he fought for a nation he believed in and loved. I have studied this nation’s history from many sides, and its ledger, despite copious debts and deficits, is in the ethical black, and more decisively so than the vast, vast majority of its fellow nations. If the Democratic Party wants to divide the public into two groups, those who reject the values of the United States of America and those who celebrate them, I will stand with the second group even if its titular head is a werewolf or a block of cheese…or Donald Trump.

The Democratic Party is exploring dangerous territory. I hope it comes to its senses, but I fear that it might be too late.

PS. Let’s see how many mainstream media journalists notice the missing flags, or care that they are gone.

PPS. If there is sufficient criticism, watch how the DNC will suddenly makes sure the flags re-appear, because forgetting to show the flag in a traditional celebration of American democracy is a mistake anyone could make.

UPDATE: Snopes, which is now apparently a full time apologist for the Democratic Party, posted its snotty dispute with the no-flag observation, compete with a couple fleeting moments where the flag appeared in digital form, a bunch of flags stuffed away somewhere, and a few individual Democrats in flag-themed garb. I assumed in the throng there would be some isolated flag displays, and it would have been really weird if no flag imagery intruded anywhere. The fact still is that the vast, vast majority of images from the convention last night, including on TV, was flag-free, unlike any previous convention of either party.

I googled “2016 Democratic National Convention” images. What I got included no flags.  This was true when I wrote the post, and just now, as I wrote this update. The images with flags were revealed to be from other venues. I tried the same research with “2016 Democratic National Convention first night” images. There are more dolphins than American flags.

Hmmm. Let’s try “2012 Democratic National Convention” images. Well, what do you know? Plenty of flags.

The analogy I made in a comment thread is valid here: this is like Democrats noting that there were “no black faces” in the Republican convention crowd. A rebuttal that finds a few scattered African Americans among the thousands doesn’t rebut the central point, and neither does Snopes’ spinning.


Pointer: The Daily Caller

170 thoughts on “Is It Fair To Question The Democratic Party’s Values When It Has No American Flags Visible During Its National Convention?

  1. Did you listen to Michelle Obama’s unambiguous declaration about this being the greatest country in the world? Did you hear the unanimous applause?

    As a broad sociological generalization, the value of symbols is far greater to Republicans than it is to Democrats. Think flags, statues, phrases, rituals, pledges. In general, the sacred is more meaningful to the right than to the left.

    So I don’t read as much as you do into the absence of flags; if that were true in the GOP, it’d be cause for much greater concern, but with the Dems I think you have to look more at the intent behind the symbolism. I don’t see bad intent here.

    • “unambiguous” is generous…. When she said “Don’t let anyone ever tell you that this country is not great. That somehow we need to make it great again. Because this right now is the greatest country on Earth.” I heard that as more a shot over the bow towards Trump than any real feeling that America is great.

      But it wasn’t a bad speech, and it hit a little bit of something for everyone. You have to question the sincerity though… Not because of the praise for the police, or that “America is Great” line, but because of all the things she said about Hillary.

      There’s the transcript,

      “When crisis hits, we don’t turn against each other, we listen to each other. We lean on each other. We are always stronger together. I am here tonight because I know that that is the kind of president Hillary Clinton will be and that is why in this election, I’m with her.”

      “You see, Hillary understands that the presidency is about one thing and one thing only. It is about leaving something better for our kids. That is how we have always moved this country forward — by all of us coming together on behalf of our children.”

      Do you believe she actually thinks that, or do you think that’s the expected boilerplate for this kind of speech? Personally, I’d have to gargle mouthwash for a week to get the taste out of my mouth.

      • Moreover, Michelle has to say that America is greater than ever, because doing anything else admits what a tragic flop her husband has been. Trust in national institutions is the lowest ever; the nation is divided by class, gender, generation, race and ethnicity, the rule of law is under attack, the economy is weak, the national debt has doubled in 8 years, US prestige is as low as it has ever been, and the nation is week abroad and frightened at home….and one of the two major parties is ashamed to show the flag. Great!

      • “Because this right now is the greatest country on Earth.”

        The operative words there are “right now.” It goes with her 2008 campaign line: “…for the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.” It was shameful before Barack, it is the greatest rght now because Barack has been here, but the greatness is at risk if you don’t elect Barack’s designated successor.

    • I think the DNC was going for a stark visual contrast to the GOP convention; they accomplished it, but in the wrong way. This was a well planned theater event with an “unexpected” consequence; on the other hand the Clinton’s are not political novices, this could be exactly what they wanted as a reaction so they can use it to further some pre-planned campaigning deflection smears. The Clinton’s and the DNC don’t do things like that without balancing the pro’s and con’s to figure out how they can use it to their political advantage.

      In my opinion; omitting the symbolic image of the United States of America was an intentional move to un-Unite the citizens and create division; as a close friend of mine says, division is a close personal friend of the Democratic Party. I remember seeing some of the first photos/videos of Obama coming from in front of the camera in the White House, there was this nice gold tapestry behind him with a gold pillar to his right and left making him look all regal but there were no flags present. This is just a continuation of the same.

      This is a Clinton coronation, not an election process.

          • In this sense, yes. You have to be really competent to maintain a web of lies, deception and intrigue. The kind of competence you rarely find in a bunch of flailing-around Democratic politicians.
            It’s the old rule of thumb: when faced with something fishy, assume incompetence rather than conspiracy. People just ain’t that competent at conspiracy, and that goes in spades for Democrats.

            • charlesgreen said, “You have to be really competent to maintain a web of lies, deception and intrigue.”

              I’m not too sure you realize it but you’re contradicting your own argument. The Clinton political machine is demonstratively competent in the specific things you mentioned, but somehow I’m presuming “FAR too much competence on the part of Democratic politicians”.

              Okay I get it now; I’m a conservative and therefore I’m wrong. Poke, poke, jab, jab. 😉

              • If they’re so damn competent, how come we keep reading about it on the front page of the papers? And why are her ratings so low on trust?

                • charlesgreen said, “If they’re so damn competent, how come we keep reading about it on the front page of the papers?”

                  I think you’re missing the point.

                  As an aside; isn’t the front page of the paper exactly where they want to be? In today’s political world; Trump had proven beyond a shadow of doubt that all publicity, regardless of content, is good publicity as long as it keeps their name front and center.

                  Propaganda is king in this election cycle.

                  • Are you & Charles Green missing that from the ashes of despair, division springs eternal?

                    And that’s where the democrat Party’s strength lies; create an illusion of crisis, then swoop in as the angel of redemption.

                    But even that’s ALL going to change, because HRC’s up for a makeover!


                    “ ‘A lot of people aren’t familiar with her accomplishments,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook told ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ as he previewed Tuesday night’s speeches.”

                    The supreme irony is that this is where the circular firing squad empties their high capacity magazines, the less people know about the “real” HRC, the better.

                    But the HRC crowd asked for this, practically begging for karma, with their understandable highlighting of the dysfunctional RNC Convention. Lo-n-behold; “Yang” boomeranged back pretty gosh darn quickly.

                    From “Clinton: The Wounded Candidate” in the current issue of “The Week.”

                    “ ‘Hillary Clinton, and her campaign team, should be freaking out,’ said Kelly Riddell in The Washington Times. Throughout June and July, the mainstream media told us ‘the presumptive Democratic nominee had this election wrapped up’—that her Republican presidential rival, Donald Trump, had no campaign strategy, no money, and no chance of winning in November.

                    “But a flurry of new polls suggests a dramatic turnaround since FBI Director James Comey blasted Clinton for using a private email server.

                    “Trump is now beating Clinton in the battleground states of Florida and Pennsylvania, according to Quinnipiac polls, while a New York Times/CBS News poll has the pair tied 40-40 nationally.

                    “The polling average has her lead shrinking to 2.7 points. Worse, Hillary has lost ground despite Trump’s struggles to stay on message, said Jonathan Tobin in

                    “A poll bump from the GOP convention could put Trump ahead. With four months to go, this race “is one that can be won by either candidate.

                    ” ‘This is still Hillary’s race to lose, said Michael Tomasky in BUT SHE’D BETTER NOT MAKE ANY MORE BIG BLUNDERS. (bolds mine)

                    This article posted before the DNC email debacle hit the fan, and hit the freakin’ fan it did; dead solid perfect at terminal velocity!

            • Charles, I like Hanlon’s Razor, and I think it has broad applications. And my intent when I started to write the post was indeed to say at the end, “if nothing else, the omission of flags is mind-blowingly stupid.”

              That said, I’ve planned conventions for large organizations. Every detail is checked, double checked, micromanaged, signed off on, debated and then checked again. It just isn’t plausible that the lack of flags was accidental. Someone must have said, “and, of course, we need some big Americans flags” and someone with power said, “Nope. Not this year. No flags.” AND nobody vetoed it. It is very fair to ask why. If there is a benign explanation, I haven’t heard one.

              • I suspect that the error was more of omission than one of commission. Is suspect someone made the plans for the dais and sent it around for approval and nobody noticed the lack of flags. Well . . . At least, that is what I hope happened. I will bet dollars to donuts that they will fix that little oversight this evening.


                PS: I love donuts. Yes, I do.

              • Jack said, “If there is a benign explanation, I haven’t heard one.”

                My explanation above that “I think the DNC was going for a stark visual contrast to the GOP convention” is about as benign as you’re gonna get.

                The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that it was a planned political theater event with a planned subliminal message to the voting public that being patriotic isn’t politically correct. Watch the rhetoric from the political left in the next month and see if I’m right or wrong.

      • I just texted with a North Carolina delegate (and state congressional representative) at the convention. I asked him why there were very few flags at this year’s DNC, compared with RNC and with past years’. Here’s what he had to say:

        “Hmmm…. I really don’t know…let me think about that one….I guess our rhetoric is more about “united” than “country.” But we are really weak on visual symbols for that. I guess our main visual symbol is our intentional diversity.”

        As to Zoltar’s view that “omitting the symbolic image of the United States of America was an intentional move to un-Unite the citizens and create division,” I don’t see anything remotely like that in his comments.

        And yes, you can say he’s in on the conspiracy and conning me, but really, how far does this have to go…

        • No, I think that’s useful input, and what he says isn’t inconsistent with my analysis. I will say that “united” has to be the most cynical word the Democrats could possibly use, since their tactic has been to divide, and then accuse the divided of diviseveness. The flag IS supposed to represent union (because–well, you know) so the explanation doesn’t really explain why it isn’t considered part of the message for Democrats.

        • charlesgreen,
          I’m not going to follow you down your path of talking about what the delegate said; it certainly doesn’t “prove” what you imply it does.

          charlesgreen said, “And yes, you can say he’s in on the conspiracy and conning me, but really, how far does this have to go…”

          Aaaa yes; I’ve seen it time and time again and here it is again, a “leftie” implying that a “rightie” is talking about wacko conspiracy theories and the extended implication of of course is that I’m in-turn a wacko. Well Contrary to popular belief and the assertion of charlesgreen, a group of individuals sitting around a table planning the DNC Convention (a political theatrical Clinton coronation event) is not thought of as a Conspiracy as implied, it’s an event used to further ideology and project the direction that the campaign will be heading. If you don’t think that the people planning this even didn’t weigh all the political pro’s and con’s of absolutely detail of the event then you are politically ignorant.

          I expanded on my thought “omitting the symbolic image of the United States of America was an intentional move to un-Unite the citizens and create division” above when I said “the more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that it was a planned political theater event with a planned subliminal message to the voting public that being patriotic isn’t politically correct. Watch the rhetoric from the political left in the next month and see if I’m right or wrong.”

          • “If you don’t think that the people planning this even didn’t weigh all the political pro’s and con’s of absolutely detail of the event then you are politically ignorant.

            I expanded on my thought “omitting the symbolic image of the United States of America was an intentional move to un-Unite the citizens and create division” above when I said “the more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that it was a planned political theater event with a planned subliminal message to the voting public that being patriotic isn’t politically correct. Watch the rhetoric from the political left in the next month and see if I’m right or wrong.”

            Do you seriously think the GOP “weighed all the political pro’s and con’s of absolutely [every] detail of the event” in the case of Melania’s unfortunate speech? Even if you believe, as does the Donald, that all press is good press, do you SERIOUSLY believe they planned that one?

            Do you SERIOUSLY believe the Dems planned Sara Silverman’s comment? That they planned Debbie Wasserman Schultz bombing in front of her own Florida delegation? Do you SERIOUSLY believe they planned the BernieBros continued disruption?

            Do you SERIOUSLY think we’ll see a leaked email saying “Let’s make sure we plan in great detail the subliminal message that patriotism isn’t politically correct.” If we don’t, then explain to me how they’re able to hide that particularly set of emails while tripping over all others. Or is that also part of the grand, hidden plan evident only to you?

            And how exactly will “watching the political rhetoric from the political left in the next month” have any bearing on whether you’re “right or wrong?” How’s that logic going to play out? What does that even mean?

            Sorry, I think this dialogue shows you lost in the crevices of your own internal-looking mindgames. To everyone else, the Democrats are, as they most generally are, a bunch of ill-tamed liberals for whom the phrase “herding cats” might have been penned. Any attempt to label it as “planning in every detail” is somewhere between paranoid and laughable.

            • “Do you seriously think the GOP “weighed all the political pro’s and con’s of absolutely [every] detail of the event” in the case of Melania’s unfortunate speech? Even if you believe, as does the Donald, that all press is good press, do you SERIOUSLY believe they planned that one?”

              Not fair: I have stipulated that the GOP, under Trump’s control, is now run by the equivalent of lemurs.

              • What charlesgreen conveniently ignores, or is blind to, is the vastness of the Clinton political machine and the stratagem that freely flows from within that political machine that controls events like the DNC Convention; the control tentacles run far and deep. Trump on the other hand is nothing but a narcissistic loose cannon of unethical propaganda and the GOP planners are just as you say, equivalent to lemurs.

                There’s really no reasonable political comparison between the two political opponents and the political apparatus that support/propel them; it’s comparing decades of political experience vs amateur political buffoonery.

    • Charles, a speaker can say anything. Michelle, its fair to say, had no input into the convention planning. She could have said Uruguay was the greatest country in the world, and that crowd would have cheered her.

      You still haven’t given a theory about why there are no flags at all, and the change from 2012. Not as meaningful to Democrats isn’t a new phenomenon, but that didn’t take the flags out of past conventions. Res Ipsa Loquitur.

      • That’s a fair question: I’m not sure I have a general theory about why there are no flags at all. All I can say is, it hadn’t even occurred to me, and I’ve been paying attention. And if it hadn’t occurred to me, then….

        That’s not a theory, I grant you, but it does explain a bit.

    • ” . . . with the Dems I think you have to look more at the intent behind the symbolism.”

      I don’t know that that is true. Last week, Laura Ingraham was pilloried by the Left/Liberals for her right-arm-extended wave to the crowd by the same people who shrug their shoulders at what they consider silly, juvenile, and unnecessary displays of US patriotism (which is generally equated with far-right nationalism). For the Left/Liberals, everything is about optics. Think back to the beer summit in the opening months of the Obama Administration. Who participated in the summit? President Obama, the officer, Professor Gates, and Vice President Biden. Why was Biden there? He wasn’t involved in the kerfuffle. He was there to show even skin tones and races.


      • Whether it’s “intent behind the symbolism” or just symbolism, again I ask: what possibly benign message is intended by not using the flag in a convention involving the nation, the Constitutional process, democracy, and the Presidency? I’m still waiting for an answer. What I am reading is deflections, rationalizations, denial and spin.

    • Oh not really, The democrats live on symbolism- Symbolic laws that can’t be enforced but signal social disapproval. Its not the symbolism that sets the Democrat Party of the United States apart it’s the indifference of the democrats to the united states as a constitutional republic and sovereign nation and the hostility toward the traditions and ideals that accompanied the creation and realization of the late-great country.
      “Snopes, which is now apparently a full time apologist for the Democratic Party,” -always has been- “on dune and headland dies the fire ” but some things never change

      • “The democrats live on symbolism.”

        Actually, no.

        Read Jonathan Haidt’s very objective book “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Disagree about Politics and Religion.” The basic thesis: left and right mean different things by “values,” hence they often end up talking past each other.

        He points out driving values for left and right: there are two for the left, and five for the right.

        Basically the left focuses on fairness and utilitarianism. Basically the right focuses on liberty, respect, community, loyalty, and tradition (I haven’t got all five right, but that’s close).

        In that ongoing debate, symbols–flags, dietary rules, slogans, pledges, iconic images, original documents, (think Ten Commandments, strict constructionist Constitution) carry more weight in the pantheon of values on the right than on the left.

        The problems arise when each side assumes the other side’s values are the same as their own. Rightists get upset when leftists appear to disrespect the flag, when to the left, it’s simply not top of mind. Leftists get upset when rightists appear to favor biased cops, when to the right, it’s simply a no-brainer about the need for civil order in society.

        And on goes the merry go round.

        As far as flags, I think you’re reading way too much into it at the DNC; it just wasn’t a top of mind concern to a largely leftist crowd, whose values put much more focus on fairness, inclusion, and diversity. If there’s been any response to add flags, it’s because right-leaning columns like this have pointed it out–not because of some heretofore-unrevealed conspiracy.

        • When do we address the absolute vitriol the left shows towards certain symbols, such as the Confederate flag?

          If symbols are so unimportant to them, generally speaking, why are they so vehement in condemning symbols they disagree with?

      • mariedowd asked, “Is it too late for a third party/alternate to emerge?”

        There are third party candidates out there already, a bunch of them; can any of them garner enough support to come anywhere close to winning, after looking at who they are, I’d have to say it’s probably not likely.

        • “probably not likely”= “no way in hell.”

          The best to hope for is that whichever of these awful people get elected are so clearly denied a mandate that they are crippled from Day 1. Voting for one of the fringe parties may help that happen.

          • Jack Marshall said, “The best to hope for is that whichever of these awful people get elected are so clearly denied a mandate that they are crippled from Day 1. Voting for one of the fringe parties may help that happen.”

            I’m not sure I believe my eyes! Is your viewpoint about voting for third party candidates shifting?

              • I actually hadn’t thought of it in the way you did above.

                Since I haven’t thought about it in that way, I’m curious what you think; if the only votes that Clinton and Trump got were those normal hard line partisans toeing the party line, what do you think the rough percentages Clinton and Trump would get in the voting booths? Both below 45%? Both below 40%? Both below 35%? Something else?

  2. charlesgreen is right, Democrats simply don’t treat flags and similar symbols as religious artifacts.

    Flag worship and exploitation like the Republican Party and conservatives have been inflicting on us for decades is nauseating, of course, cynical and manipulative.

    Yes, and while the right has this form of worship it simply wouldn’t occur to me to even notice if flags were there or not. It certainly wouldn’t occur to me to put a flag out without a specific reason to do so. Noting your source and lack of complaint last night, it didn’t occur to you to notice either. It took perpetually offended right-wing media to even put it on your radar so why are you so quick to assume that any lack of flags is out of fear of Democrats?

    PS. Let’s see how many mainstream media journalists notice the missing flags, or care that they are gone.

    Let’s assume none and none since playing flag-spotting is tantamount to looking for a reason to be offended.

    • Now THAT’s a convoluted argument. When the left-end media counts the black faces at a GOP convention, that’s considfered a legitimate observation, though I would not typically look for it. Hypersensitive observers find real issues. Typical conservative males see the Fox blondes in their short skirts, and think, gee, they look nice! Perpetually offended feminists see it and say—Whoa! Looks like a sexist and misogynist culture at FOX…and they were right.

      You’re hilarious…who cares that a conservative site’s reporters noticed that the Democrats suddenly don’t like the American flag—it was accurate reporting, and the left wouldn’t notice it. You played the left’s conservative media game: if only the right-leaning media reports it, it doesn’t count.

      The issue remains, what is a reasonable conclusion about a national institution that intentionally avoid the flag, and whose members don’t carry them either?

      Go ahead, I’m waiting.

      • The issue remains, what is a reasonable conclusion about a national institution that intentionally avoid the flag, and whose members don’t carry them either?

        (bolding mine)

        Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

        I didn’t notice, you didn’t notice. I don’t know what goes through your mind but it doesn’t occur to me to put up a bunch of flags. If someone had asked me if they should use them I’d shrug and say if it makes you happy go ahead, I don’t really care. If no one mentioned it… well.

        However you think of flags I don’t, and i can’t be alone in that. You want to know what runs through my head when someone mentions flags?

      • “national institution that intentionally avoid the flag,”

        Where do you get “intentional?” What the rest of us are saying is we weren’t noticing, it’s not top-of-mind—it wasn’t intentional.

        To you, it’s a conscious values slap in the face. To me, it’s mere oversight. There are different values at work here–not some bad guys avoiding flags and good guys calling them out on it.

        You are looking for intentional malice where none existed.

    • I don’t know that I buy that Democrats don’t treat flags as religious artifacts. The Left loves it some flags. Have you seen a Black Lives Matter rally? Flags all over the place. How about gay pride events? Rainbow flags abound. Last evening’s pro-Sanders protests outside the convention? Red flags, black flags, rainbow flags, and others were seen in full display. Union events? Union flags all over the place.


  3. Maybe they could put up a rainbow flag, a Mexican flag, a “Black Lives Matter Flag, and so on. “Divided we stand!”

  4. As a liberal American Democrat, I found the stage set not only lacking in patriotic symbolism but extremely, ostentatiously sterile. It looked more like a celebrity roast set than a patriotic political pep rally, which is what is should have looked like.

    Frankly, I have become more disturbed by those behind the scenes in the Democratic party, from top ranking advisors to the lowly minions making decisions like how to decorate for a “Party,” than I have been about the leadership of the Democratic Party, which is pretty disturbing all around.

    Still — Never Trump.

    • I think they have to be sterile; the DNC has spent so much time, energy and money pandering to minority groups, they can’t show any colour without 1) Offending the groups they’re forced to not include (Because they can’t include them all without looking ridiculous) and 2) Risking offense to one group by pandering to another. They’ve been playing both sides of so many conflicts they’ve lost track and it’s easier for them to just bleach the stage completely.

    • Wow… They found all six of them, then? Look at the 2012/2016 comparisons, the convention went from a sea of red white and blue to playing Where’s Waldo? But America is GREAT, the DNC thinks so right? Michelle said so.

      • So…way to move the goal posts? First complain that there were *no* flags on stage or in the audience. I was puzzled, because I watched, and remembered seeing several. And come to find out, my memory was correct, there were flags on display both on the big stage and in the audience.

        So then, as the original complaint has been proven to be utterly false, complain that there weren’t *enough* for your tastes? Ok then, fair enough. On Day One they didn’t plaster every available space and person with the flag.. Agreed. *shrug*

        • I saw the Snopes article on this. Of course, it was obvious that some attendees would have a flag, or a funny red white and blue hat. And “no flag visible” doesn’t preclude the rare flag graphic when there is a colorguard. The impression remains, and the question remains. The flag’s presence was drastically reduced from past conventions. Is that really just a design thing?

        • By the way, Snopes’ big discovery of a photo showing a workman or some one examining a line of flags somewhere as its “proof” shows that the observation about the lack of flags is true. You didn’t see that on TV, or during the festivities.
          The tell will be when Hillary and Kaine have their big moment. Of course, there’s plenty of time for the DNC to wise up and get some flags on stage, digital or otherwise.

          Snopes is mow just another partisan Factcheck sham, spinning for the Democrats. What a shame.

          • I think the photo of the workman touching the flags was there to show that those were real flags present, not just digital flags.

            As I’ve noted upthread, we are comparing only Day One of the DNC 2016 with all four days of DNC 2012. I’m sure they will pass out the flags to wave during Hillary’s speech, Obama’s or Bill’s. Probably all three. The partisan hysteria is, as usual, false, overblown, and premature.

            • Huh? Snopes had to dig to find a row of flags stuffed somewhere. The issue is visible flags, at the convention, and permanent flag graphics, which appear to have been also severely limited, and virtually invisible. Why is this a partisan complaint to you? It’s a values complaint. This didn’t come out of nowhere, and you know it. You know that America bashing and the the denial of US legitimacy is an increasingly infections refrain from the groups I mentioned. There have been news stories lately about students told that a flag pin or T-shirt is “controversial” or disruptive. This isn’t fantasy.

              • Who says that they had to dig? Snopes showed a few examples to counteract the claim that there were no flags. It didn’t show hundreds, it didn’t have to. An unrelated story I was reading today showed the Bernie Sanders speech against a backdrop of the flag. It was there, and it was not hidden.

                This is a is a patently partisan complaint. The usual “Dems hate America blah, blah, blah” trope trotted out yet once again. The fact is, there were flags on display last night, and there are bound to be more flags tonight, and the next night, and the night after that. So we’ve dispensed with the complaint that there were no flags. Now we are crying that there aren’t enough to suit some people. Well, for some people there would never be enough. It really doesn’t matter, the goalposts would just shift again. Perhaps the Democrats are tired of jumping through stupid hoops that Republicans set up. Good for them. You can be a fascist demagogue and wrap yourself in the American flag. You can be a true patriot and never display the flag, if you are living up to American ideals. Getting caught up in the symbolism, without parsing the substance, is a dumb exercise.

          • Jack,
            Just because Snopes HAS engaged in partisan fact-checking (which is debatable), doesn’t mean that’s all they do. I get it: “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, etc …”, but that would be like discounting everything on Wikipedia because you discover some of it is biased or factually incorrect. People have bias and people make mistakes — Snopes is human, but they’re far from a spin machine for anyone.

            • 1. It’s not debatable.
              2. They used to confirm or disprove hoaxes. Now they are in the realm of political analysis with partisan commentators who reveal themselves wit their tone. The comments about the Daily Caller are smears. It is has become as reliable in its reporting as any other web-based news service, when it isn’t showing gratuitous photos of semi-naked women.

              • Jack,
                As a lawyer, you should know that EVERYTHING is debatable. To say it isn’t means you’ve already over-simplified the matter. I don’t know enough about their more recent work to make a strong argument one way or another, but I do know they’ve been an invaluable resource for years and I’m not about to stop paying them mind simply because they occasionally wander into the political arena.

                They’re not necessarily biased; they’re just out of their depth.

                • That’s sophistry, Neil. Sure, we can debate whether Hillary is a #2 pencil, but that’s not a sane or reasonable debate with sufficient evidence on both sides. Quite recently, Snopes has dived into stories that disrupt progressive narratives and tried to show shade at them…not “checking” them, but just expressing skepticism. Once they have done that…and that was something they never did, the debate you allege is over. FACT: Snopes suggested that Jay Stalien didn’t exist or didn’t write his viral post, with no evidencewhatsoever. Why do that? You do that if you are a Black Lives Matter flack and find his sentiments threatening. FACT: Snopes did the same with the “racist brownie comment” story. This story also appears to have been accurate, and the only reason the Snopes writer cast doubt on it was to align the site with political correctness advocates. The Snopes headline also misrepresented the incident: it’s easy to prove a story false one you intentionally falsify it. It said, “Various accounts claim police were called to a New Jersey elementary school because a student was offended over “racist” brownies.” No, in fact NO account reported that. They reported that a kid was arrested because a student said that a comment he made ABOUT brownies was racially offensive. The student wasn’t offended by the brownies. Once, Snopes never published such biased, inaccurate junk. Now they do. That’s not debatable.

                  • Actually, the brownie story is a tad suspect. Despite how widely it was reported, even by the Huffington Post, I was not able to find any independent verification. None of the stories seemed to have followed up with the school or local PD. My own investigation turned fruitless as well, although the school simply said “We don’t comment on internal disciplinary matters.”

                    The snopes article surrounding it states they made efforts to check on the claims and were likewise unsuccessful. I agree, it’s idiotic that they would label it “false” when it’s simply “unverified,” but (on that one example at least) they have a point.

  5. The photos of Bill Clinton’s first convention feature a projected flag image virtually identical to the one the GOP used this year. I’m surprised no one accused them of plagiarism.

  6. Did anyone notice that the overall blue color of the stage and the circle of stars around the podium at the DNC Convention have striking similarities to the presidential seal?

    Let’s see what kind of discussion that fact starts.

    • 1. I talked about Snopes.
      2. Your second image is not from the convention.
      3. The third image is not a flag-like.
      4. Neither is the last.

      Hard to find the flags, isn’t it? Harder than Waldo.

      • Jack,
        “… no American flags on the stage, no red, white and blue symbolism, and an apparently flagless crowd.”

        The backdrop features red, white, blue, stars, and a liberty bell — those are pretty close. Moreover, I never said you were wrong (nor do I think you are) with regard to the main thrust of your arguments, only that you said there were NO visible flags, which is a misnomer — your headline is misleading. I understand it captures “mostly” the truth of what you’re talking about, but “no” means none, not very few.

        As far as the image not from the convention, I was trusting google on that one and I apologize.


          • What? I said vehemently that I agreed with his main points. My only qualm is with the use of the word “no” and “none” when that clearly isn’t the case. There was American symbolism all over the place, it just didn’t involve old glory. However, Jack was completely right: it was muted and intentionally so.

            Why? I can only guess. That’s all I’m saying. Also, I already apologized for the photo mistake and admitted the error — what are you still going on about?

  7. The Jumbo-like denials here are pretty funny…we see the same thing on Facebook. STRANGE! The Democrats had actual flags delivered to the convention today and placed on the stage! Why would they have to do that if there were flags there,as deery and Snopes claim? It’s a mystery!

    Have the democrats claimed that the Russians took the flags yet?

    • Or…they had more flags coming in to supplement what was already there? DUN DUN DUN!!!! This is just unhinged craziness.

      • No, its really not. The attitudes, values and biases of the party are seeping into every thing they do, and the “this is stupid” …”this is trivial” denial tactic eventually destroys itself through sheer repetition. A critical mass of supporters and the party voting blocs really don’t like the country as it is, and has been. It wants a socialist, anti-capitalist, race- and gender- favoring nanny state with a central-planning mega-government that lets despots and terrorists do what they want, and follows others instead of leading in foreign affairs. It takes no pride in US achievements and history, and regards the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and even the Rule of law as just obstacles to the greater good. As long as the flag stands for a different culture than this Bernie-Utopia, the Democrats will avoid it as much as they can.

        This episode was a symptom of the ethics rot in the party, and all symptoms should be noted to identify the illness.

      • They had more flags shipped in because they were dealing with crazy talking points from the right about there not being enough freakin’ flags at the convention.

        • Nice try. You know subsequent repairs can be damning evidence. Closing the barn door. They were caught. If it was a phony accusation, the flags wouldn’t be needed. I’d have more respect for them if they had the courage of their convictions.

          I really love the alternate defenses, though. 1. We have plenty of flags! 2. Shit, we better get some flags.

          • It’s not a “repair” Jack. It is their response to utter lunacy on the right. Easier to bring in more flags than to deal with the story.

            Gosh, I really hope they have at least one more red, blue, and white balloon than the RNC. Now that would be a story!

            • If you have sufficient flags for people to see you have flags, as opposed to people who don’t care about flags and don’t see any symbolic values in having them, then you don’t go out and get more flags. Since when has the Democratic Party changed anything in response to “baseless” “biased” conservative complaints? Never. On the other hand, when they are caught in their own biases and insensitivity and don’t want to be justifiably pilloried…then this is what we get.

              I predicted they would go out and get flags.

    • I already pointed out that the Snopes article was desperate and debunked nothing. Meanwhile, the party ordered an emergency delivery of flags for Day 2, and when an attendee was called on the scene by an intrepid contributer hear who knew him, and asked about the lack of flags, he didn’t say, “What? There are lots of flags!” but rather speculated on why they were scarce, being an honest sort. Unlike the new, partisan Snopes writers. And you, apparently.

      By the way, if you want to comment here, read the thread first. I don’t have time to explain the same thing twice because you don’t take the time to read what you’re commenting on.

      • Day 2 had no more visible flags than Day 1, with the exception of Streep’s highly amusing FU flag shirt that I’m sure was meant to make an ironic point. If the little flags everyone is apparently desperate to see get broken out at all at this convention, it will probably be during Hillary’s acceptance speech.

        I don’t think the Snopes article was in any way debunked. They showed flags that were displayed onstage, and in the audience. Some people feel that wasn’t enough, and they want more, but as far I know, the pictures were all real.

  8. Never mind Beth’s typical leftist defense that ultimately pushes blame back on the right. Beth, you ought to be happy if that’s the case, thank you right wingers for pointing out how idiotic we look and just unpatriotic enough to push away some iffy voters. Better get those flags up so we can try to squish some back under our umbrella.

    • This is just such BS. I don’t doubt either party’s patriotism. Both conventions are covered in red, white, and blue. And I applaud the use of digital flags — I’m sick of physical flags being disrespected and it is certainly wasteful to manufacture flags and then discard them. I hope the conventions move more to this practice.

      This story is beyond stupid.

      • Beth said, “This is just such BS.”, “This story is beyond stupid.”

        The story is NOT BS it is relevant whether you like it or not; you calling it “beyond stupid” is the true BS.

        • Well, I can’t argue with you about it Zoltar. It obviously means a lot to you. But I can sincerely tell you that I would have defended the Republicans if the story was reversed.

          • Beth said, “But I can sincerely tell you that I would have defended the Republicans if the story was reversed”

            …and the parts of your argument that I quoted would be just as wrong.

            • Zoltar – opinions can’t be “wrong” or “right.” In my opinion, the number of flags at a convention is pretty immaterial. I focus far more on what the speakers are saying and what is in the written platform. For me, that is far more indicative of someone’s values, or a party’s values. Symbolism is not as important to me. It doesn’t make me wrong. Further, if flags, flag pins, saying the oath with “under God,” is important to you, then fine. That’s your opinion.

              • “Zoltar – opinions can’t be “wrong” or “right.” In my opinion”

                My opinion is that your opinion is stupid.

                You graciously opined that had the flaglessness been called out at the RNC, you would have defended them just as fiercely. Two very pertenant things here: First off, it wouldn’t happen at the RNC. It DIDN’T happen at the RNC, and if you think that’s some kind of coincidence, I think you’re exceptionally naive on the issue. Second off: I believe you when you say “Symbolism is not as important to me” I think you give an articulate voice to an idea growing on the left: Fuck yo’ Flag. There’s been a growing rejection of symbolism on the Left. Nothing is sacred except for ideas (and opinions), intelligent or otherwise. More and more… The left has abandoned its symbols; its founders, its institutions, its soul…. and embraced the vapid thoughtlessness of lies and slogans. It’s hard as a conservative to reconcile that idea that this is a problem on the left with the rise of Trump… Who is a bastion of thoughtless slogans and bumper stickers. I don’t know if I’m being entirely honest with myself when I say that until relatively recently, Trump was very popular among Democrats, and he learned from the best and went with what worked. Regardless.

                Symbols are important. They exist as a shorthand for ideas, for obvious truths, for gut feelings that individuals share and so they can be used to more quickly traverse the often confusing interactions in life. They invoke feelings, passions, thoughts. That’s a peace sign, we know what that means, that’s a stop sign, we know what that means…. That’s a flag. We know what that means. We don’t need a convention to discuss at length what these symbols mean, but I suppose we could spend the time if we really wanted.

                Does the removal of the flag per se mean a rejection of the values inherent in the symbol? No. but I’m almost certain that a much larger proportion of the people in that room do reject those values than the people in the room in Cleveland. And to people who still care about symbols, the glaring omission is a symbol on it’s own.

                I hate comparing this excision of anything resembling nonconformity of thought and removal of symbols to Orwell, because I feel the comparison is overused, but it is also apt in this case. Newspeak was designed to remove the soul of language to the point where a person couldn’t dissent if they wanted to, because there were no words, no symbols, to use. Never before in the history of ever has such a large proportion of people actively pushed for fewer rights… Due process? Inconvenient. Right to self defence? Kills to many of our voters. Freedom of Speech? Fuck that, my feelings are hurt.

                It would be so much harder to assign malice to the absence of the flag had this party not been assaulting everything it stands for for the last decade.

              • Beth said, “opinions can’t be “wrong” or “right.””


                That may in fact be your opinion but your opinion on that point is actually wrong, as in not correct or not true. It only takes one example to prove you wrong; it could be my opinion (if I choose) to say the sun circles the earth, that opinion would be wrong; period, end of discussion on that point.

                Beth said, “In my opinion, the number of flags at a convention is pretty immaterial.”

                I see you’re now trying to move the goalposts. Immaterial does not equal BS or beyond stupid. Your choices of adjectives is what makes the two arguments I quoted wrong, as in not correct or not true.

                Please pay close attention to the fact that I did not quote or oppose the other sentences between the two sentences I quoted.

                Wanna dance some more?

                • No, I don’t want to dance with you. I generally like you, but your world is a little too black and white for me. I see more blurred lines and shades of grey, and you see every statement I make as a sort of gotcha!

                  • Beth said, “No, I don’t want to dance with you.”

                    Ditto. As a guitar player, suck at dancing anyway; I’ve always been on the other side of the speakers 😉

                    Beth said, “I generally like you…”


                    Beth said, “but your world is a little too black and white for me.”

                    In general I’d be more likely to point out the black & white things because that’s what jumps out at me. When someone says tree, I expect that they actually mean the tree and not the entire forest.

                    Beth said, “I see more blurred lines and shades of grey…”

                    In general that’s probably true, but please consider I have plenty of my own shades of grey too I just choose to try and limit them by being more black & white whenever possible.

                    Beth said, “you see every statement I make as a sort of gotcha!”

                    “Every statement”, really Beth? Blanket statements like that are almost always false and in this case it’s demonstratively false – one example opposing that would destroy the validity of that blanket statement. All that aside, any gotcha I detect is due to the language that is used. In general, I really don’t think you are being fair with that statement. I think the majority of things I comment on may fit well within that black & white category for me; but look at the number of times we’ve actually had discussions about those kinds of things in relation to the number of comments you’ve posted since I started participating here; there’s a huge swath of your comments that I don’t comment on at all for any number of reasons including times I agree with you.

                    The problem some people have with my style of pointing out the black and white things that jump out at me is that they think that the other parts of their comments are being attacked when in fact it almost always false, I usually quote the ONLY part I’m discussing. I try my best to focus on what I’m quoting and then say what I mean and mean what I say.

                    We’re different people, we think a bit differently on some things, I’ll continue to point out what jumps out at me and I’m sure you’ll do the same. We’re adults and we can take care of ourselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.