Witnessing more of the same today. Windows smashed, cars set on fire, people attacked, celebs dropping the F bomb on national broadcasts, inciting further violence ...they even threw stuff at the people attending the presidential ball last night. I've never seen people lineup and throw crap at people attending a governmental event. Dont Libs preach tolerance?
Why do Libs riot ?
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
Mostly just young people who don't know what it's like to lose I think. I've lost in all 3 presidential elections since turning 18 so I'm used to it
Seems like they've been rioting for the better part of two years. Their reason/excuse just change. They do appear to be comprised mostly of young people. However, middle aged to older people seem to be organizing and/inciting much of this behavior. I'm not sure I've ever seen speakers on a national stage use the type of language I saw today.
Do they not understand that this type of behavior is one of the reasons why the lost the Midwest? One of the reasons why they have the least amount of power today than at anytime over the last 50 years?
Do they not understand that this type of behavior is one of the reasons why the lost the Midwest? One of the reasons why they have the least amount of power today than at anytime over the last 50 years?
It's always a good idea to generalize about millions of people based on the actions of a few.
A few? There are thousands there. More telling imo is that not one Lib speaker at any of these events in the last several days has come out and condemned and demanded these actions stop. Granted I haven't obviously heard them all but the ones I have are deftly silent as to the actions of the people at their protests.
I don't know why I responded. You've clearly made up your mind and aren't looking for any honest discourse.
Wasn't my intent to offend you but you didn't address my question? Obviously all Libs or even most aren't rioting. Didn't mean to imply the same. However these types of events seem to be a reoccurring theme over the past several years. My question was why do people on the liberal side seem to have more of a propensity to riot or even protest ? Moreover, why are many of these events being funded and organized? What is the endgame? Do they believe it's beneficial?
The crowd attacked a Starbucks and Bank of America. Both were Clinton donors.
I guess I'm just old fashioned but I don't think there is a good reason for rioting and I don't think the rioters do either. Nobody on here would think it was if it was happening on their street or they somehow got caught up in it.
I guess I'm just old fashioned but I don't think there is a good reason for rioting and I don't think the rioters do either. Nobody on here would think it was if it was happening on their street or they somehow got caught up in it.
Sounds reasonable....but aren't the people with the money and organization behind these things intelligent ? I get that the 20 year old is an idiot. However, the wealthy 70 year old? The politicians who don't condemn these events? It's the people behind the scenes which confuse me.
Until you can mentally separate the protesters from the rioters, then there's no way for me to answer. You're begging the question.
Last edited:
Ok....I'll play. Is "why are their so many instances of rioting by rioters at organized liberal protests?" Is that acceptable ?
You're getting warmer, but you still fail to acknowledge that property damage also occurs at conservative protests. Like most things, this isn't a conservative/liberal problem. You're just framing current events based on your own beliefs.
There was hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage on my street on November 10th. It's very real to me.
Ehh I'm not in the "liberals like to riot" camp, but there is a trend the last few years that is almost entirely one sided. Even most of the violence at Trump rallies wasn't committed by Trumpers. I do think it's possible things might have gotten crazy if Trump had lost though.
Surely you're joking with this analogy? You have to go back almost a year to a group of ranchers protesting grazing rights? That is the only example I could find in the last few years of what might be considered a conservative group. Do you deny that riots have been increasing in both numbers and damage during the past two years. The Trump election protests are simply the latest round. Remember, Libs have a well funded and professional organization coordinating protests. Conservatives evidently have a few country folk who raise some cows who took over a building one one occasion
. For the record I view any rioting and destruction of someone's property as a criminal and disgusting act....regardless of who does it. We need to be a more tolerant people and start listening to each other rather than shouting. I am sorry to hear of your loss.
Here's a summary of riots in the U.S. It's fairly self-explanatory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States
Last edited:
Wow, I am sorry to hear that. That is disgusting. There is no reason for you or anyone on your street to suffer from something you had no control of. Regardless of the ideology either way, a protest is marching, signs, speeches, chanting and expressing yourself to the media. Massive property destruction is simply criminal behavior.
I agree 100%. The protest organizers condemned the behavior and started a gofundme that ultimately raised 56k. The new mayor increased police presence for this weekend and kept the protests confined, which was a big part of the problem in November.
I think you're acknowledging my larger point here. When you bring together a group of emotionally-charged people in a disorganized setting, there's going to be some fraction of knuckleheads that turns destructive, regardless of ideology. Like West Virginia fans burning couches.
I live in Oregon. It's the example that came to mind because the trials are still ongoing in my backyard.
You know what? They're rioting because there's literally NOTHING else they can do. They campaigned, they voted, their candidate received more votes, yet still there voices counted for next to nothing. If there weren't armed guards around the whitehouse, I'm pretty sure Trump would have been carried out of there during the first day by an angry mob.Surely you're joking with this analogy? You have to go back almost a year to a group of ranchers protesting grazing rights? That is the only example I could find in the last few years of what might be considered a conservative group. Do you deny that riots have been increasing in both numbers and damage during the past two years. The Trump election protests are simply the latest round. Remember, Libs have a well funded and professional organization coordinating protests. Conservatives evidently have a few country folk who raise some cows who took over a building one one occasion
For the record I view any rioting and destruction of someone's property as a criminal and disgusting act....regardless of who does it. We need to be a more tolerant people and start listening to each other rather than shouting. I am sorry to hear of your loss.
Here's a summary of riots in the U.S. It's fairly self-explanatory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States
The liberal party is upset that the ideas of social justice and equality made evident in the Declaration of Indipendence are not being upheld, and that they've been perverted by a group of people through gerrymandering, and harmful voting laws, and benefits given to the wealthy and powerful to squelch the voices of a majority of the country. I'm not even saying that all of this was done by the Republican Party. I'm just saying that there is social unrest in the urban areas which Trump magnified first in his campaign, then with his crony appointees.
Last edited:
ctt on crossfire is barely second to ctt on hoops.
Awful lot of millions peacefully marching today without violence.
Awful lot of millions peacefully marching today without violence.
Tea party rallies got very unfavorable coverage, and I don't remember any riots
The tea party got the coverage they deserved. A bunch of fools against stimulus programs that actually worked and were desperately needed. Self righteous know nothings. .
Then the liberal leadership needs to act like leaders and tell them to stop... this is Alinsky in action and just what the 60's radicals want and what they have taught their children...
Doesn't look like riots. Looks like typical protests like this http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...dnt-care-about-protest-signs-threatening-bush
Big difference here is, this is all after Bush took us to a needless war. The stuff the Republicans did with Obama was after a relatively moderate campaign between him and McCain, before Obama had even done anything. It's not like Obama was out there saying super controversial stuff when he was campaigning like Trump was (other than healthcare)
Cool pics but I don't see riots. 230 people were arrested and most will be charged with felonies from the riots stemming from Trump's inauguration. How many were arrested at Obama's inauguration for riot related offenses? Hell....how many conservatives have been arrested for riot related offenses at political events in the last ten years ?
Nobody cares.
In the immortal words of some of the great poets of our time: You Gotta Fight For Your Right to Party!
The republican party is the party of conservative tradition. The democratic party is the party of progressive change. It makes sense seeing as how they are the ones trying to bring about change, that they would have more and more varied protests. The more and more varied protests likely means a few more riots when the mob gets aggravated about no change. That's just in the makeup of the two parties.
It's not good that the Democrats do that, but this presidency elect is a protesting choice from whacked out voters who got extremely sick and tired of the changes they didn't want. Those changes were the ones that came through Obama, and the ones that came through changing times that started in the sixties.
Didn't I say this is a whacked out protest choice, taking back most of the changes made over the last 8 years? Them going over the line should never be liked, should never be accepted, but it should be expected in this situation. The party that's not about change will never protest and riot as much as the one that is about change.
It's not good that the Democrats do that, but this presidency elect is a protesting choice from whacked out voters who got extremely sick and tired of the changes they didn't want. Those changes were the ones that came through Obama, and the ones that came through changing times that started in the sixties.
Didn't I say this is a whacked out protest choice, taking back most of the changes made over the last 8 years? Them going over the line should never be liked, should never be accepted, but it should be expected in this situation. The party that's not about change will never protest and riot as much as the one that is about change.
I tend to agree. I did find it interesting that the voters in this last election who wanted change voted overwhelmingly for Trump and the Pubs. Often times the people trying to bring about change are the ones whose party is either out of power or those who feel the status quo isn't benefiting them regardless of political affiliation. (see blue collar workers).
Or, because the incumbent party is almost always at a disadvantage in the election cycle after a two term president. The only people to win it do it in livable memory were Bush 1.0, and Truman.
True...but I think it may run deeper than just a two term President. As I've said before....the Democratic party has the least amount of power at the state and federal level at anytime in at least the last 50 years. The decline at the state level began well before Obama. I suggest there's more going on here than simply a two term Dem President.
