Riots in the US?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So with the spot light shining on the unfortunate series of events that have been protesting turned riots, I had a thought. What would be the straw to break the camel's back in the US? When would the political protests transform into riots? Do you think we're a ways off? Are they just around the corner?

Personally, I'm of the firm belief that politically induced riots in the US won't come anytime soon, or in the near future. The citizens (as one myself) are far too comfortable in their first world lifestyle. That, and the federal government has us too scared to try anything. Sure, I'd love to help be a part of inducing change. But with America, well, Christopher Titus said it best -

Christopher Titus:
Everyone wants revolution, nobody's willing to pack a lunch.

Opinions opinions opinions. This is the internet, so let's hear 'em!

I'm not sure I understand the question, here. Do you want riots, do you think we should riot or...?

There were the Rodney King riots, the 'Occupy Wallstreet' thing could be considered a 'soft riot' (property damage, classes with police, etc).

The thing is, riots don't really solve much; particularly if the intent isn't to turn it into a coup or rebellion. We may bitch and moan about the American state of affairs, but at present there's nothing going on that can't be solved in congress or court.

Multi-Hobbyist:
So with the spot light shining on the unfortunate series of events that have been protesting turned riots, I had a thought. What would be the straw to break the camel's back in the US? When would the political protests transform into riots? Do you think we're a ways off? Are they just around the corner?

Personally, I'm of the firm belief that politically induced riots in the US won't come anytime soon, or in the near future. The citizens (as one myself) are far too comfortable in their first world lifestyle. That, and the federal government has us too scared to try anything. Sure, I'd love to help be a part of inducing change. But with America, well, Christopher Titus said it best -

Christopher Titus:
Everyone wants revolution, nobody's willing to pack a lunch.

Opinions opinions opinions. This is the internet, so let's hear 'em!

Politicians in Western countries are devious enough to shit on us sufficiently to make us angry but still ensure the vast majority has about enough of stuff to not want risking rioting.

Unless politicians do something reaaally stupid I don't think a riot is coming any time soon in the US.

senordesol:

The thing is, riots don't really solve much; particularly if the intent isn't to turn it into a coup or rebellion. We may bitch and moan about the American state of affairs, but at present there's nothing going on that can't be solved in congress or court.

That's an other issue. We have been given (we as in "citizens of democratic western states") the illusion change can happen but in reality it never does.

Personally I think plenty of nations should have to go through a coup, just as a reminder the political elite can't just shit on our face whenever they want.

senordesol:
classes with police, etc

Sorry, couldn't resist. I basically agree with you. I don't like rioting as a means of bringing about change. It's too easy for it to make things so much worse, one way or another.

Ukraine looks to have achieved something, but we wont know if its good or ill until after the election. If the opposition loses yet still refuses to let the President back into power... well that's not good.

generals3:

Personally I think plenty of nations should have to go through a coup, just as a reminder the political elite can't just shit on our face whenever they want.

And I say that doing that will only succeed in making this worse for us.

kiri2tsubasa:

generals3:

Personally I think plenty of nations should have to go through a coup, just as a reminder the political elite can't just shit on our face whenever they want.

And I say that doing that will only succeed in making this worse for us.

Sometimes you have to take risks to change things for the better. While plenty of revolutions turn things for the worse plenty also changed things for the better.

senordesol:
I'm not sure I understand the question, here. Do you want riots, do you think we should riot or...?

See:

Multi-Hobbyist:
What would be the straw to break the camel's back in the US? When would the political protests transform into riots? Do you think we're a ways off? Are they just around the corner?

Though, allow me to elaborate a little more so it's not straight copy pasta. By "riot(s)" I mean, full blown revolution. Bringing about change and sending the message that the public are indeed, fed up.

senordesol:
riots don't really solve much; particularly if the intent isn't to turn it into a coup or rebellion. We may bitch and moan about the American state of affairs, but at present there's nothing going on that can't be solved in congress or court.

And that's why America isn't yet at the melting pot point like these others are. Interesting view you have there, "solved in congress" but I could cry wolf against the American Congress any day.

generals3:
Politicians in Western countries are devious enough to shit on us sufficiently to make us angry but still ensure the vast majority has about enough of stuff to not want risking rioting.

I'll drink to that truth.

generals3:
Unless politicians do something reaaally stupid I don't think a riot is coming any time soon in the US.

And that's exactly what I see as well. It's sad that we have a ton of political fuck-ups that are small compared to bigger issues. But when you add up the total, it's far more than we'd like to admit to, evidently. Regardless, yes I think it's going to take a major issue before anything is done.

generals3:
That's an other issue. We have been given (we as in "citizens of democratic western states") the illusion change can happen but in reality it never does.

Personally I think plenty of nations should have to go through a coup, just as a reminder the political elite can't just shit on our face whenever they want.

Man, just reading my mind for the most part. Without willpower, change is just a word. As it is now, change CAN happen, but only by those with the power to do so. Beyond that, sheep in a pen. As for the thought that nations should have to face a coup, well, that's where we differ. I agree that risks must be taken, but humanity will HAVE to reach a point where war isn't fundamental to our nature anymore and we can all play nicely and live without issue. One day.

ClockworkPenguin:
I basically agree with you. I don't like rioting as a means of bringing about change. It's too easy for it to make things so much worse, one way or another.

Ukraine looks to have achieved something, but we wont know if its good or ill until after the election. If the opposition loses yet still refuses to let the President back into power... well that's not good.

And I couldn't agree more. Violence is a last resort. But at the current rate of which the American federal government is granting itself all the power it needs, with politicians selling out to any highest bidder, and capitalism reaching the peak of it's corrupting greed, I'm convinced it's going to be our last resort that gets anything done.

Multi-Hobbyist:

ClockworkPenguin:
I basically agree with you. I don't like rioting as a means of bringing about change. It's too easy for it to make things so much worse, one way or another.

Ukraine looks to have achieved something, but we wont know if its good or ill until after the election. If the opposition loses yet still refuses to let the President back into power... well that's not good.

And I couldn't agree more. Violence is a last resort. But at the current rate of which the American federal government is granting itself all the power it needs, with politicians selling out to any highest bidder, and capitalism reaching the peak of it's corrupting greed, I'm convinced it's going to be our last resort that gets anything done.

Hmm, but if you want a revolution, system change through violence, then you're going to run into the problem that there is no 'the people versus the elite'. Any given system will have supporters amongst 'the people' and any revolution will in reality be a civil war. And if you can get enough support to win a civil war, you have enough support to win an election. And elections don't kill a shitload of people and leave long lasting bitterness.

Also, if you're concern is about powerful interests bankrolling the political system in exchange for fixing the agenda, well civil war will only amplify that. Violence is expensive.

Multi-Hobbyist:
Snip

Again, I'm not sure what you're asking for nor what you mean by 'things don't really change'.

Things have been changing very rapidly in this country over the last decade. ACA was passed, gay marriage is allowed in more states than ever, and the Bush wars are finally drawing to a close.

If you're looking for a complete shift in the political paradigm; then a lot more suffering is going to have to take place before people are willing to start dying and killing for that.

if something like the rodney king thing is anything to go by it could start at any time and turn parts of cities into complete no go warzones. the last thing the us needs is riots with the level of gun ownership

Anyone who thinks widespread riots / a popular coup would help the United States is naive at best. "Power to the people" sounds great until you realize the people are generally a bunch of ignorant, prejudiced idiots fueled more by emotion than rational thought.

Anyway, it's a moot point because while protects might happen, a popular coup has no chance of occurring. Life is too comfortable for too many people to risk the political and economic instability that follows a revolution. And honestly, if you think our Congress is shitty, you should take a look at the congresses/parliaments of nations where this sort of thing happens...

Rioting and protesting are stupid, they serve no purpose. If you want change you need a revolution. You have to go where the seat of government is (be it on the city/state/national/etc. level), kill everyone, and then declare a new government. Just wandering the streets and breaking windows doesn't actually "do" anything.

I'm not saying we or anyone else need a revolution, just saying that is what it takes for drastic change.

cthulhuspawn82:
Rioting and protesting are stupid, they serve no purpose. If you want change you need a revolution. You have to go where the seat of government is (be it on the city/state/national/etc. level), kill everyone, and then declare a new government. Just wandering the streets and breaking windows doesn't actually "do" anything.

It seems it has done something in Ukraine...without going all purge on the current government. Just what it has done, well, we'll see. But I'm going to say that it doesn't matter, riots or revolution, they both fall victim to that "And now what do we do?" trap once it goes through.

generals3:
While plenty of revolutions turn things for the worse plenty also changed things for the better.

Plenty? How many revolutions (not wars of independence, mind), made things better for the people involved, unless the system there were under was really bad to begin with?

Sure, the US has flaws, but it's not worth kicking to pieces and trying to glue back together again.

thaluikhain:

Plenty? How many revolutions (not wars of independence, mind), made things better for the people involved, unless the system there were under was really bad to begin with?

Sure, the US has flaws, but it's not worth kicking to pieces and trying to glue back together again.

Wars of independence are revolutions as well. Does it really matter at all whether or not the regime you're ousting has its HQ in your country or not?

And let's not forget a revolution doesn't have to be violent and bloody. It will be as much as the government wants it to be. And let's be honest if they're willing to shed a lot of blood they most definitely had to be ousted.

Armed revolt, not riot, is much more likely. But unless like a million people with guns do it, they're likely to be quickly mowed down or arrested. The Secret Service and the National Guard are very good at that.

The revolutions in America, Chile (the "Miracle of Chile,") and the ones fought against communists are the only ones that were really "successful" in the long run, and maybe the French Revolution.

Questions like this can be answered easily by math. There is a population of over 300 million men, women, children, and elderly in the U.S. If 1% of those people were to take to the streets, under a singular banner, with a singular goal, with all the arms the 2nd Amendment provides, sure a coup could happen. This is what the Republicans call a "2nd Amendment Solution". They openly encourage these acts while at the same time saying "That's not what I meant, so don't shoot me." But with the luxuries provided within our borders, our government has done an excellent job of appeasing the masses while simultaneously milking us for all we have. How very Roman of us. It's like the old story about the frog in the stewpot - if you drop the frog into a pot of boiling water, it'll jump right out. But if you drop the frog into a pot and slowly bring the water to a boil, it will sit there and cook to death. It would take something superbly extreme to cause an uprising of the magnitude suggested. Especially when the sheer landmass involved is taken into consideration, with states using their own resources and not just the federal government to quell such a revolt. What that is I could not begin to imagine and would not want to if I could.

Remus:
But with the luxuries provided within our borders, our government has done an excellent job of appeasing the masses while simultaneously milking us for all we have.

What, you don't have anything? Like, at all? Citizens of USA literally have...nothing, because everything they had was "milked" from them?

This is news to me.

Hell, you guys'll riot if your favourite team doesn't win a playoff game; it's almost like you do it as a form of entertainment sometimes.

You people seem to like blaming politicians. It's not like they just pop out of thin air. How politicians act is based entirely on how society has taught them to. While the idealism of having a riot that ends corruption is nice, just how will it work?

Say you have a riot in every major US city tomorrow. All politicians actually resign. Is anything solved? What shining beacons of purity can we all trust to become leaders? What reason do we have to believe they will be any more fair? How will this fix the economic situation?

The best thing you can rebel against is your insecurities. Get rid of your limitations, achieve your goals and if possible make a name for yourself. Then your voice may be heard by more then just those who are close to you. Otherwise politically you are just along for the ride, outside of voting of course.

I disagree with you.

People here riot all the time, but they seldom riot for the same reasons. There were riots in California and Florida over the Zimmerman verdict, for example, and at the same time there were smaller, more politically oriented riots elsewhere, that did not make the news.

The main reason we do not have NATIONAL riots is that the country is just so damn big, with lots of different areas having lots of different views. (A west coast democrat is most likely infinitely more liberal than an east coast democrat, while a Northern Republican is infinitely less conservative than a Southern republican), so while you may agree with the spirit of a riot, you may not agree with the riot itself in most cases.

Multi-Hobbyist:
So with the spot light shining on the unfortunate series of events that have been protesting turned riots, I had a thought. What would be the straw to break the camel's back in the US? When would the political protests transform into riots? Do you think we're a ways off? Are they just around the corner?

Honestly? Considering the ever growing gap known as income inequality, useless governments, corporations buying their way to political power and influence, and a hundred other reasons why things in the US are so much worse right now than you tends to be obvious to the general population, I'm surprised there haven't been riots/full blown revolt already.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much more obvious it needs to be that the government is corrupt, and that it and the wealthy shit on people every day before people decide that enough is enough and the political and economic situation in the US needs to change, and change drastically. As it stands though, such a realization may be inevitable since the situation is only getting worse, not better.

Large scale riots won't happen in the US until things get REALLY bad for a LOT of people. As in, Unemployment reaches 50%, the median wage is 20,000 dollars or Supermarkets start to literally run out of food. And even then, riots might still not break out depending on how efficient policing is, and the national mood at the time.

Riots are funny things - they have a momentum and a life all of their own. People can remain remarkably sedate even when experiencing terrible conditions, and yet riot suddenly due to one unexpected thing. I mean, take the Arab Spring riots. The people of Tunisia had been experiencing pretty bad rule for many decades, but it was one event, that no one could have predicted, that set the whole thing off (the death of a fast-food-cart salesman). Russians under Stalin experienced HORRIFIC living conditions, yet didn't riot due to the effectiveness of the State Security Apparatus. North Koreans aren't rioting for similar reasons.

Yet Riots broke out in Seattle over a stupid Hockey Game - you see? You can't predict these things with any sort of accuracy. Sometimes people can endure great oppression or horrible living standards and never raise a peep. Sometimes people who are quite well off can go on rampages over one issue that no one thought would trigger a riot.

I don't think riots are going to break out in the US for a number of reasons:

1) Compared to many parts of the world, life is still pretty good in the US, for the majority. A significant number of people in the US are disenfranchised, but it's not the majority.

2) There is an effective police force in the US - in fact, its one of the most effective in the world. You can see that as a good thing or a bad thing - but it knows how to quell riots, and the people know that as well.

3) A majority of US citizens still have hope that democracy can fix the issues. You may or may not agree with them, but a majority of them still think and believe that things can improve over time with hard-work and voting. I tend to agree with them, but you may think I am being naive.

generals3:

That's an other issue. We have been given (we as in "citizens of democratic western states") the illusion change can happen but in reality it never does.

Change can, and does happen.
But it only happens through the electorate, so until young people start voting en masse, or enough old people die of, to change the face of the electorate, things will not change.

World today is very different than it was 20 years ago (and not just because of technology), 20 years from now it will have changed further.
But the change is rarely fast, or even noticeable until after the fact.

generals3:

Personally I think plenty of nations should have to go through a coup, just as a reminder the political elite can't just shit on our face whenever they want.

Except they can shit on our faces, as long as enough of the electorate is willing to vote them in to do just that.
Problem is not just the politicians, but also the idiots who vote them in.

nyysjan:
snip

It has nothing to do with old people or young people. The problem is that most democracies have become Particracies were the power no longer lies with people but parties. How many things do politicians promise in election season and tend to "forget" once elected? There are plenty of numbers around about just how quickly people forget and politicians know those numbers and abuse them all the time to manipulate the people. Before elections their program seems to be filled with great ideas and than once they have their seats after elections suddenly their program is being used as toilet paper.

The only way to counter that is by voting for small parties. But for that they found a nice solution: implant the idea among the people voting for small parties is a waste of votes and they should vote for the big one which is ideologically the closest. And than the media also loves to help along by giving little to no coverage of the small parties (reducing awareness and thus likelihood of them making a big score).

And if that wasn't enough in Belgium they even decided to keep "new" parties out even if they make a big score. The NVA went from being an insignificant party to the biggest one due to general discontent. What was the result? More than 500 days without a federal government and ultimately a government was formed without them. The excuse being thrown at us? "They didn't want to compromise". Nono, what they didn't want to is throw their entire program, for which they were elected, away. And as the largest party they shouldn't have had to.

Multi-Hobbyist:
So with the spot light shining on the unfortunate series of events that have been protesting turned riots, I had a thought. What would be the straw to break the camel's back in the US? When would the political protests transform into riots? Do you think we're a ways off? Are they just around the corner?

Personally, I'm of the firm belief that politically induced riots in the US won't come anytime soon, or in the near future. The citizens (as one myself) are far too comfortable in their first world lifestyle. That, and the federal government has us too scared to try anything. Sure, I'd love to help be a part of inducing change. But with America, well, Christopher Titus said it best -

Christopher Titus:
Everyone wants revolution, nobody's willing to pack a lunch.

Opinions opinions opinions. This is the internet, so let's hear 'em!

To be honest they will happen sooner than you think if things keep going along the current lines. Truthfully observers in other countries have been predicting the US would tear itself apart this way long before now.

Right now we've got the country divided 50-50 with a few single digit percentages waffling either way between liberals and conservatives. Major elections are increasingly won by fairly scant (single digit) margins and the specter of a possible recount has been cast on almost everything.

We're currently seeing a situation where a middle ground is increasingly impossible, as what are being called "moderates" on both sides are what used to be extremists, and the extremists are crazy. To take the left wing for example for all it's claims of wanting a middle ground when it comes to the major issues that divide the country, things like gay rights, immigration, budget priorities, socialized health care are "non negotiable" that means despite all propaganda no real middle line is being drawn. Your not even seeing the left wing willing to really compromise on some of those issues in exchange for compromises on other ones. The fact that huge numbers of people will agree on that kind of stance and those principles, is the problem in a nutshell, and to be fair the same applies when it comes to the conservatives as well when it comes to other issues. No matter what side the media takes this ensures a more or less permanent deadlock, where the current movements are now about both sides trying to undermine the system, Obama and the left trying to find ways to basically ignore the system of checks and balances and go around The House (getting rid of the filibuster) in order to force things through without the intended level of support, and as of tonight we've seen retaliation in the form of the house being able to pursue legal action against the executive branch of the government. This is bloody unhealthy when you get down to it, and frankly we're likely to see our entire government wrecked in record time if this continues, the entire balance structure is already unraveling.

Inevitably, your going to see violent riots, or more likely in the US's case an outright revolutionary attempt when one side of this thing manages to win without REAL support from a *substantial* majority of people. This will lead to the losing side acting to "take back" the country, and honestly the military will probably fragment itself in such a case rather than siding with whomever is technically running the government at that point. Whether the revolution is by those with liberal principles, or a matter of right wing militias finally making the moves they have been threatening to and preparing for over the decades, doesn't really matter... everyone is pretty much screwed, and the US will likely never be more than a shadow of what it is now.

I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow, but it might happen with the next presidential election, or the one after that. Truthfully it's the endless deadlocks with a divided country that had been preventing things like this, but with more and more things trickling through (especially social policy) with only a minimal lead, it increases the chances that we're going to see riots, and eventual revolution. The problem also being (on the other side of things) that plugging that leak and simply going back to a deadlock could lead to the same kind of resistance, even if it's just repealing policies and "putting the genie back in the bottle" rather than anything truly new moving in the other direction.

I'm not going to argue this seriously at the moment, especially seeing as I think it stands fairly well even if a lot of people won't like it. The point is that I wouldn't start crafting home made riot armor, or preparing a bolt hole with enough supplies to last a few years, but I'd certainly keep an eye on things developing. Right now I think we could last a few more years, but beyond that if something doesn't seriously break one way or another, the pressure cooker is probably going to explode.

If I had to guess at this point (not that I'll argue it) about who would win a revolution, it would be right wing extremists (the guys even I tend to have problems with). The simple reason being that there are far more of them than anyone wants to give credit to, and already armies of these guys prepping for this kind of thing. With the US military fragmenting and going both ways, and probably not wanting to level the infrastructure, these are the guys that are probably going to represent the best armed, and best organized forces out there, and a lot of them have already been planning for years (if not decades) specifically how to attack civil and opposing military infrastructure in the case
of an event like this. 50 or so years ago the left wing would have held this distinction due to their own terrorist and militant movements, but for the most part they haven't been around due to their "victory" and pretty much the other side now holds that dubious distinction. What's more they never armed or organized on the level of some militia groups.

I'd also say that I think California would probably get it the worst, the reason being that it probably has the worst extreme militia problem in the country even if it doesn't realize it. Two or three of the biggest biker/white supremacist organizations in the world operate there, syndicates so large (we're not talking Sons Of Anarchy here)
that in practical terms the police and FBI basically have a truce with them. I've read and seen some things over the years about how some of these larger groups could potentially take down the entire state, including The National Guard. A lot of people won't believe this here, but well... let's just say it's been in everyone's interests given the national reaction overall, for everyone to get along. However if there was a major uprising of extremists, you'd probably see these guys rapidly overrunning the police and "clubs" like the Mongols and Outlaws (or whomever is out there right now) slicing up the state. This is all speculation on my part though. When I was working Casino security, let's just say a rumble between the Hell's Angels and Outlaws despite a "truce" at another casino was national news and we pretty much had everyone in the industry getting a tip. It never went anywhere, but the point was if those two organizations ever decided to REALLY go at it, it would be huge on a national level, and a lot of these massive biker gangs have their central HQs right there in California, and a lot of them (but not all of them, and I will not point fingers at any club) tend to be hugely Aryan, and futher affiliated with groups like Aryan Nation, and are in many cases the backbone of a lot of the big white gangs in prisons and such. It's not just about numbers (but they have a lot) but armament, and organization.

generals3:
The only way to counter that is by voting for small parties. But for that they found a nice solution: implant the idea among the people voting for small parties is a waste of votes and they should vote for the big one which is ideologically the closest. And than the media also loves to help along by giving little to no coverage of the small parties (reducing awareness and thus likelihood of them making a big score).

In truth, in a first past the post system, minor parties are a waste of votes.

And there are advantages to having strong parties, they are more likely to agree on what needs to be done. Australia recently had a government made of two rather different parties trying to work together, and their opponents won by a lot the next election.

thaluikhain:

generals3:
The only way to counter that is by voting for small parties. But for that they found a nice solution: implant the idea among the people voting for small parties is a waste of votes and they should vote for the big one which is ideologically the closest. And than the media also loves to help along by giving little to no coverage of the small parties (reducing awareness and thus likelihood of them making a big score).

In truth, in a first past the post system, minor parties are a waste of votes.

And there are advantages to having strong parties, they are more likely to agree on what needs to be done. Australia recently had a government made of two rather different parties trying to work together, and their opponents won by a lot the next election.

But here's the problem: voting for small parties is the only democratic way to punish big parties for pooping all over you. So if we follow the idea voting for small parties is a waste and bad than the big parties can do whatever they want and not be held accountable for it. (And that's why i always "waste" my votes)

generals3:
But here's the problem: voting for small parties is the only democratic way to punish big parties for pooping all over you. So if we follow the idea voting for small parties is a waste and bad than the big parties can do whatever they want and not be held accountable for it. (And that's why i always "waste" my votes)

That is a problem, yes.

Possibly if there were three big parties, things would be better, you couldn't have "not as evil as the one party" as a viable strategy anymore. Big enough to be solid, but small enough to leave room for competition.

thaluikhain:

generals3:
But here's the problem: voting for small parties is the only democratic way to punish big parties for pooping all over you. So if we follow the idea voting for small parties is a waste and bad than the big parties can do whatever they want and not be held accountable for it. (And that's why i always "waste" my votes)

That is a problem, yes.

Possibly if there were three big parties, things would be better, you couldn't have "not as evil as the one party" as a viable strategy anymore. Big enough to be solid, but small enough to leave room for competition.

Unfortunately not. We have a system where there are plenty of big parties. (well, 3-4 in each region) But that doesn't help. And the reason why? Because it's always the same parties who end up banding together. It's always the same governments we get, a coalition of socialists, centrists and liberals. And what is the most depressing is that all we get to see on the media is just one big acting scene. I know someone who's politically active and was even a candidate for a big party. What he told me made lose even more faith in democracy. He told us that while the politicians were pretending to bicker in front of the media it was already decided, behind the scenes, which party would get to have their candidate mayor in which town and so on. Everything was already agreed upon but as far as the people were aware they were still having a dispute because they didn't want to throw their program down the drain. All a nice little scam which is aimed at making the people believe the ones they voted for actually care about the electorate and what it wants.

Heck it wouldn't surprise me the least bit that republicans and democrats come along just great behind the scenes and laugh at the people who actually believe in their blatant overacting.

generals3:

nyysjan:
snip

It has nothing to do with old people or young people. The problem is that most democracies have become Particracies were the power no longer lies with people but parties.

It has everything to do with old and young people.
Parties only reflect the opinions of the people in it.
Old people are more likely to hold certain opinions, young people are more likely to hold other opinions.
Eventually young people will become old people, and then there will be new young people who hold opinions different from them.

The world changes slowly, but it could change fast, if people wanted it to, and cared enough to actually be active in politics.

There are the idiots who vote for a party, without knowing what the party stands for, but again, this is what people want, if they wanted change, they could affect it by voting differently in large enough numbers.

Well part of the problem is what rioting is associated with in the United States. Just about every 'riot' I can think of, involved people breaking into stores and looting.

Riots won't spread because the media will ignore them and the national guard will have carte Blanche to kick their asses. The most you can hope for is the government alleviating the tension with a slight redistribution of our endless resources

generals3:

thaluikhain:

generals3:
But here's the problem: voting for small parties is the only democratic way to punish big parties for pooping all over you. So if we follow the idea voting for small parties is a waste and bad than the big parties can do whatever they want and not be held accountable for it. (And that's why i always "waste" my votes)

That is a problem, yes.

Possibly if there were three big parties, things would be better, you couldn't have "not as evil as the one party" as a viable strategy anymore. Big enough to be solid, but small enough to leave room for competition.

Unfortunately not. We have a system where there are plenty of big parties. (well, 3-4 in each region) But that doesn't help. And the reason why? Because it's always the same parties who end up banding together. It's always the same governments we get, a coalition of socialists, centrists and liberals. And what is the most depressing is that all we get to see on the media is just one big acting scene. I know someone who's politically active and was even a candidate for a big party. What he told me made lose even more faith in democracy. He told us that while the politicians were pretending to bicker in front of the media it was already decided, behind the scenes, which party would get to have their candidate mayor in which town and so on. Everything was already agreed upon but as far as the people were aware they were still having a dispute because they didn't want to throw their program down the drain. All a nice little scam which is aimed at making the people believe the ones they voted for actually care about the electorate and what it wants.

Heck it wouldn't surprise me the least bit that republicans and democrats come along just great behind the scenes and laugh at the people who actually believe in their blatant overacting.

That reminds me about a quote from el Rushbo back in November

RUSH: See, there is one of my favorite phrases, "the dirty little secret." When the Democrats get together and if any of them are honest with each other, they know that going into next year's elections they have a huge problem with Obamacare, major, major problem. They're looking at Virginia as Obamacare almost doing them in. Remember, there was a story in The Politico three days ago about Cuccinelli's stench of doom. Three days ago, The Politico, which today is writing about how Cuccinelli coulda won this thing if the Republicans had just been in there to help him. Three days ago, The Politico was talking about his campaign being the stench of doom, because you had that third-party ringer in there, that Libertarian third-party guy coupled with McAuliffe and all this Democrat money and the support of the Clintons.

Break transcript

RUSH: I got a note from a friend with a reminder, and this is an excellent point about New Jersey. It's just something interesting, a little factoid here to throw in the hopper, and it's something that nobody's talking about. It's Cory Booker. You remember Christie could have had one big election where he was on the ballot in his governor race and Booker was on the ballot in the Senate race.

In other words, the election yesterday, there could have the Senate race with Booker as the Democrat candidate. Instead, Governor Christie intentionally scheduled an extra election two weeks ago so that he and Booker would not be on the ballot the same day. And the reason for that is that Booker would have drastically increased the Democrat turnout, because he's way more popular in New Jersey than the woman that they ran against Christie.

The woman's name is Buono, B-u-o-n-o.

What is her first name? Do you know her first name? (interruption) Barbara? Eh. The broadcast engineer knows. The guy who pays the least attention to anything knows. I didn't mean that. I'm just trying to come up with an analogy. Of all the experts here, we didn't even know her name. That's how much of a nonfactor she was. So Christie, using the powers that he has, scheduled a separate election for Booker so that there was no vast, huge Democrat turnout during yesterday's election.
The Booker election took place two weeks ago -- and, of course, Governor Christie knew this, so he scheduled this separate election in the Senate race. He could do it because it was a special election, because, remember, Senator Lautenberg passed away. So that necessitated a special election, and Christie could schedule that whenever he wanted to. That way he didn't have to worry about a lot of Cory Booker supporters showing up yesterday.
h/t Rush Limbaugh http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/11/06/drive_bys_not_all_sold_on_election_results

A brilliant action by Christie to diminish turnout, not even a peep from the press or the DNC. 1 state GOP the other state DNC. An even trade.

Multi-Hobbyist:
When would the political protests transform into riots?

When the police get involved, to often you see heavy handed police tactics turn a passionate protest into a raging mob. Sometimes the authorities are the cause of the protest, like the savage 1985 Broadwater Farm riot in the UK.

After pulling a young man over for a "suspicious" tax disk (it was perfectly fine) they decided to raid his home and terrorised his 49 year old Mother to death, she died of heart failure in explicable circumstances (the accusation was that they pushed her around and threw her to the floor) and no-one was ever punished or charged for the killing.

A boisterous, passionate yet peaceful protest outside the local was soon turned into a full blown riot and subsequent siege of a social housing estate. Then some idiot of a Gold or Silver commander decided to send two police officers to escort a small group of fire fighters into the heart of the besieged estate without backup and didn't send help fast enough when the inevitable happened. One officer was torn to pieces by a mob and the rest of the group narrowly escaped while they where distracted, the whole thing was a damn mess and caused by the police from start to finish.

To top it all off they then tried to fit a bunch of people up for the killing of the police officer, they tampered with the evidence to get them convicted. The court of appeal freed them after the tampering came to light, the officer in charge of the investigation was cleared of perjury.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked