Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pwnzerfaust]

They're protesting because they didn't get their way, essentially.

[wierd]

Pointedly--

Occupy Wallstreet had a more cogent demand.


Critical thinking:

Assume for a moment, that the US Government capitulates to the demand, and elevates clinton, in direct abrogation of constitutional law.

In 4 years, assume that another Trump rises to political prominence, and protests and riots from the OTHER demographic happen-- THere is now a precident set to capitulate.

Is that really what you want?

[Criptfeind]

Protesting that the future president of the united states is openly racist and xenophobic. Protests that he's surrounding himself with people that are openly homophobic. Protests against the electoral college. Protests against loosing. Maybe even protests against his policy plans.

I don't agree with all these reasons, but they are what come up off the top of my head as reasons I'd expect protests right now. And certainly some of them I do agree with and think are worth having, especially the social and policy things. It's worth making sure that the government doesn't think that people are going to accept some of the worse things they've been promising or implying. Otherwise they might actually fucking do them.

Critical thinking:

Assume for a moment, that the US Government capitulates to the demand, and elevates clinton, in direct abrogation of constitutional law.

In 4 years, assume that another Trump rises to political prominence, and protests and riots from the OTHER demographic happen-- THere is now a precident set to capitulate.

Is that really what you want?

I don't think Clinton should become President now, the die, as they say, is cast.

If a second Trump wins the popular vote in 2020 and looses the electoral collage, I think he should become president. (Although I don't think he will.)

[Frumple]

... y'know, if in some strange world things had flipped, the GOP won the popular vote but lost the EC for the first time, the dems were running an equivalent candidate (Though I'm not even sure how that would work. Torture camps for small business owners, mass exile of rural WWC people, somehow going full command economy?), and some subset of the GOP base was getting riled up more than usual, I'm not entirely sure many people would even notice. Protests are almost always pretty local, and given where R trends ahead, there's just... not many people around there. And no one really cares much regardless, most days. Couple dozen (maybe) people yelling outside a town hall know one's heard of doesn't tend to get as much attention.

Any case, who knows how the response would go. No one said much about the agitating and protest conservatives've kept up pretty consistently for the last eight years or so, after all, and the police/gov't/etc. tend to handle right wing people making a racket considerably more leniently. Fairly likely we wouldn't be hearing about riots at all from most sources, just maybe some shit about protests or concerned citizens or some crap.

Still, if the media coverage/response stayed roughly the same, reaction'd probably be fairly similar, just without the GOP supporters also voicing a fair amount of condemnation. Probably more dead people, too. Might even get a few lynchings come back, who knows.

Maybe someone with better understanding than I can explain it... I just can't wrap my head around it.

Some of it's EC related. Most of it, from what I understand, is protesting who got elected and the platform they ran on. Not necessarily that it was an R candidate, but that it was this one, that accepted/chose the VP they did, is drawing in the advisors they are, and made the campaign promises they did. Pretty strong narrative about not being quiet and docile in the face of hatred, from what I've seen. Going ahead and letting folks know that if trump goes through with some of his more egregious shit or doesn't keep pence and co on a short leash, people aren't going to just roll over and take it.

And ninja'd pretty much dead on. Damn cript, warn a fellow if you're going to be deploying cross continental mind reading.

[wierd]

Trump's opinions on race or religion are not something you can change by violence. 

Trump's legal election to the office of president, is as I just pointed out, not something that can be addressed via protest.

If Trump was in the process of creating policy, that is worthy of protest.
I can see a valid protest over his choices of appointments.

The fact that he has very dubious opinions, or the fact that he is now president via legal election, are not.

[Criptfeind]

The fact that he has very dubious opinions are not.

Why not? He's the president now. This is what he's said he wants and is going to do. It should be protested against and protected against until he's no longer the president, otherwise he might do it.

[wierd]

He is legally entitled to his opinions. It's the other side of the freedoms of speech and assembly.

[Wolfhunter107]

the other side of freedom of speech and assembly would be the protesters, weird. They're entitled to protest those opinions just as he's entitled to have them.

[wierd]

Note, I said it was indeed their right.

I simply said the protests are impotent.

[Criptfeind]

He's entitled to his opinions, he's even 'entitled' to press them into action if he so wishes. At the same time he needs to be reminded constantly that doing so is something that people don't want. You yourself have said people are also entitled to wanting their opinions and expressing them. And it's very important that they do so. And so here we are.

I simply said the protests are impotent.

That's like, your opinion man.

[wierd]

The alternative is dangerous precedent of capitulation to violent mobs.

I prefer rule of law, over rule of men.

[Frumple]

... not if you're talking about first amendment rights, right now, wierd. Legally, well...

the other side of freedom of speech and assembly would be the protesters, weird. They're entitled to protest those opinions just as he's entitled to have them.

... neither of those have anything to do with freedom of speech, actually (though assembly, somewhat). Freedom of speech ain't freedom from criticism in this country, it's freedom from having the government come in and throw you in jail for what you say (so long as strict scrutiny isn't passed, anyway). Just about no one's opinion of another citizen means sod all so far as 1st amendment rights go. Opinion of the government and the government's actions toward them, yes, but that's where it stops.

Though that is something trump stated intent to undermine, too, so :V

[Loud Whispers]

... neither of those have anything to do with freedom of speech, actually (though assembly, somewhat). Freedom of speech ain't freedom from criticism in this country, it's freedom from having the government come in and throw you in jail for what you say (so long as strict scrutiny isn't passed, anyway). Just about no one's opinion of another citizen means sod all so far as 1st amendment rights go. Opinion of the government and the government's actions toward them, yes, but that's where it stops.

Though that is something trump stated intent to undermine, too, so :V

So are corporations allowed to compile blacklists of individuals who espouse certain views ensuring that they are unemployable for all participating in that blacklist system

[Criptfeind]

So you're saying that Trump should do whatever the opposite of the majority of people tell him too or something? That peoples opinions shouldn't matter to policy makers? That it's "capitulation to violent mobs" to do what protests, even if they are peaceful, ask for, or even if you fail to do specifically the opposite of what they want?

You sure must just be steamed about the civil rights act.

[Angle]

So are corporations allowed to compile blacklists of individuals who espouse certain views ensuring that they are unemployable for all participating in that blacklist system

Do we have a system in place to stop that from happening? I mean, I'd say we should, though not necessarily a government based one, but at the moment I don't think we do. :/