And America Continues to Show it's True Colors. . .

fuzzygobo

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Messages
5,596
Reaction score
5,072
I totally agree. Presidential campaigns have much more exposure. On a local level, it's harder to determine who is the ideal choice. Both parties claim "I'm the honest guy. I'll lower taxes, bring back jobs, educate our young people, get health care for our old people, while my opponent is a crooked schmuck!"
Meanwhile his opponent is claiming the exact same rhetoric.

Still, I'm looking for the answer, regardless of the election last year, what gives people the right to go out and riot? Especially if they didn't vote? Part of the blame comes from the lax leadership in some sanctuary cities, particularly Portland, Oregon. I don't want to see a Nazi state where nobody can walk down the streets without fear of police or government breathing down their necks.
However being overly permissive to the point of anarchy doesn't work either.
 

Censored

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
557
No one has a right to riot. Everyone has a right to protest as long as it's non-violent and is within the law. The trouble is peaceful protesters can be physically attacked by violent opposition and then if they fight back, they're labeled the aggressors.
 

Censored

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
557
One reason that you have to be a legal adult to vote is the importance of understanding the concept of shades of grey. Of course we're not going to like everything about the candidate we vote for. But the real world seldom consists of people who are all good or all bad. We need to work within the boundaries of reality and vote for the person who we believe will do the most good, or at minimum, will do the least harm.
 

jvcarroll

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
2,354
Reaction score
2,001
It's been a year since Trump got elected (has it gone by that fast?!).
The thing that still made me wonder...
people that protested, no, RIOTED when he got elected, but didn't vote.
If you supported Hillary or Bernie, and unfortunately things didn't go your way, I understand where your disappointment lies.

Like it or not, Trump did not overthrow Obama, he did not stage some military junta (like has happened a number of times in Greece). He was elected by American people, who registered and voted.

If you were over 18, and had every opportunity to register and vote (even writing in for Mickey Mouse), and did not exercise your right to vote, what gives you the right to smash windows and destroy property? Because Trump won? The election was very close, and a million or so votes for Hillary would've tipped the scales.
So if you didn't vote, and went out and rioted because Trump got elected by people who DID vote, shame on you.
People might argue if Trump lost, his supporters would've been doing the same thing. I'm not so sure. Trump might be whining how the Russians threw the election, but I'm not so sure his supporters would be the ones throwing bricks at cops (even police horses got attacked during the riots. That's pathetic).
The "riots" as you call them were not as you've described them. Is there some new one happening right now that I don't know of? Whether another sports team wins or another candidate wins, people will act crazy. Painting it as a partisan issue is fallacious. There were plenty of protests and you're gonna have some bad eggs. Protests are the most American thing in the world. That's how our country started. Protesters aren't necessarily contesting the election, just the fact that the candidate won by being xenophobic and racist while trying to thinly disguise his repugnant behavior as merely not being politically correct. Now people are going around acting like absolute racist, sexist jerks and claiming that what they're doing isn't bad, it's just not PC. That's garbage too. The truth is that Trump has very disturbing ties to China and Russia. His campaign, at the very least, considered colluding with Russia for this campaign of disinformation. Whether or not they did is still being investigated, but we know they thought about it. The fact that Trump won't even admit what Russia did speaks volumes. EDITED the tail end because I mistook this for being a post that came after mine.
 

jvcarroll

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
2,354
Reaction score
2,001
I voted for Trump, in spite of allegations/innuendoes/overwhelming evidence against him for all his sexual mishandling.
I was just as guilty as others for turning a blind eye to his improprieties in hope he could/would turn the country around.
As I stated not too long ago, I voted for him, now realizing that was a mistake.
If I could turn back time to November 5 last year, I'd still be at a loss who to vote for. Nobody would seem like a fit candidate. Bernie would've come close if the Dem's didn't kick him to the curb.

It's almost the same as being in denial about all the allegations against Bill Cosby. That man was such a pillar in my childhood (Sesame Street, Electric Company, Fat Albert, etc.) and readily condemned black men for treating women as sexual toys. Yet here he was...
The dilemna was having emotions for him, for all the good he has done over the decades, right next to all the facts. In spite of the facts, nobody wants to believe HE was capable of taking advantage of any woman, let alone fifty.
But Cosby will get his own through the due process of the courts (unless he is able to spend enough to buy off the jury. Sometimes things are so corrupt, you can buy justice. Even judges can be bought).

As for Trump, in good conscience, I can't excuse his behavior any longer. And if he ever does go to trial, either he'll part with a few billion to get off light, or some judge will make an example out of him and throw the book at him. Either way, I can't rationalize for his behavior any more.
I'm not so sure Bernie was the right guy either. He seemed like another straight, old, white dude yelling at the tv set and mansplaining things to everybody. I know a lot of fellow libs that hate it when I say that, but it's true.
 

Censored

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
557
I'm not so sure Bernie was the right guy either. He seemed like another straight, old, white dude yelling at the tv set and mansplaining things to everybody. I know a lot of fellow libs that hate it when I say that, but it's true.
I'll say one thing for Bernie. He supported Hillary 100% after he lost the primary.
 

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
40,651
Reaction score
12,811
No one has a right to riot. Everyone has a right to protest as long as it's non-violent and is within the law.
Unfortunately, not anymore. Again, our very own Colbynfriends and other disabled Americans like him have been arrested repeatedly this year for peacefully protesting the government trying to take rights away from them.
 

Old Thunder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
3,422
Since we were talking about sexism and how it needs to stop earlier, I would like to point out something.

Soviet Russia in the 1940s did more to break down the gender barriers than we did.

In 1942, during World War II, the Russians created the 588th Night Bomber Regiment. This regiment was made up of only women, all volunteers in their late teens and early twenties. At its height, it consisted of 40 two-person crews. The 588 was nicknamed the "Nachthexen", or "Night Witches", by the Germans, and they became the most highly decorated all-woman unit in the Soviet Air Force. They flew over 24,000 missions and 23 of the women were awarded the "Hero of the Soviet Union" title.

Granted, in the '40s America was already more progressive, but still, this is one time were the Russians really had us beat.
 

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
40,651
Reaction score
12,811
You know, I just had another thought: Trump keeps bragging about how he's bringing jobs back to America (when?), does this mean that now when we have to call a support line for someone, we'll finally get somebody in the same country instead of being transfered to someone in Mexico or India?
 

Old Thunder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
3,422
You know, I just had another thought: Trump keeps bragging about how he's bringing jobs back to America (when?), does this mean that now when we have to call a support line for someone, we'll finally get somebody in the same country instead of being transfered to someone in Mexico or India?
Such racist, much ism.
 
Top