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.
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.