Riots at the Inauguration

[GMDino]

(01-21-2017, 12:58 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: These are people who don't have a message usually they just cause trouble and stir the pot. Actual protestors usually have signs and a message written on a shirt or something. Criminals show up in all black hoping not to be identified.

And has anyone CONDONED the violence?

Pretty much been condemned everywhere I've seen.

Kind of a non-story from that vantage point.

[McC]

(01-20-2017, 02:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not like the Trump supporters threatened armed insurrection if their candidate lost, or anything. Honestly, we were going to face unrest no matter the outcome of the election. Let's not try to pretend either side has a monopoly on stupidity. Either side would have protested, we saw it with Bush, we saw it with Obama. And there are always idiots that go to far and both sides like to plant people that will do just that trying to make the other side look bad. This election season just saw the two most disliked candidates in our country's history, and that breeds more vitriol than usual.

And all you've got is what might have happened.  Typical.  In other words, you're okay with what they're doing.  And bottom line, he was still sworn in.  He is and will be in that office for the next four years. 

And somehow, behavior that almost anyone would consider reprehensible under almost any circumstance is acceptable because they're pissed over who won the election.  This is the Democrats continuing their work of trying to destroy the country, which has been their agenda for the past eight years.  And all those brainwashed moron sheep are stepping right in line.  No wonder their party is nearly dead.  Let Rosie, Warren, Michael Moore and Madonna tell you what to do.  

[GMDino]

(01-21-2017, 02:41 PM)McC Wrote: And all you've got is what might have happened. Typical. In other words, you're okay with what they're doing. And bottom line, he was still sworn in. He is and will be in that office for the next four years.

And somehow, behavior that almost anyone would consider reprehensible under almost any circumstance is acceptable because they're pissed over who won the election. This is the Democrats continuing their work of trying to destroy the country, which has been their agenda for the past eight years. And all those brainwashed moron sheep are stepping right in line. No wonder their party is nearly dead. Let Rosie, Warren, Michael Moore and Madonna tell you what to do.

Again:

(01-21-2017, 01:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: And has anyone CONDONED the violence?

Pretty much been condemned everywhere I've seen.

Kind of a non-story from that vantage point.

Someone needs to chill and enjoy his boy being in power.

[Belsnickel]

(01-21-2017, 02:41 PM)McC Wrote: And all you've got is what might have happened.  Typical.  In other words, you're okay with what they're doing.  And bottom line, he was still sworn in.  He is and will be in that office for the next four years. 

And somehow, behavior that almost anyone would consider reprehensible under almost any circumstance is acceptable because they're pissed over who won the election.  This is the Democrats continuing their work of trying to destroy the country, which has been their agenda for the past eight years.  And all those brainwashed moron sheep are stepping right in line.  No wonder their party is nearly dead.  Let Rosie, Warren, Michael Moore and Madonna tell you what to do.  

Took you a day to come up with that retort, and you neglected to actually read my first response in the thread. I'll quote it here for you.

(01-20-2017, 01:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get so tired of the destruction and violence. The ***** dance party, that was good, harmless fun for the most part. There are ways to show your displeasure with what is going on, but it is much better to use that energy and passion productively. Protest today, march tomorrow, and then go home and work on behalf of the politics with which you agree. But when you destroy property, when you harm others, you damage yourself and your ideals.

[Dill]

(01-21-2017, 12:58 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: These are people who don't have a message usually they just cause trouble and stir the pot. Actual protestors usually have signs and a message written on a shirt or something. Criminals show up in all black hoping not to be identified.

Some of them, at least, were arrested.

It will be interesting to see who they are and what their motivations actually were.

[NATI BENGALS]

More people in DC today protesting than there was yesterday celebrating the Russian piss monger. Largest protest ever for an incoming president.

Hopefully old baby hands and the rest of the republican clowns take note. But i doubt it. They will continue to rape the middle class and enrich their wealthy pals while they try to shove their "religious beliefs" down America's throat.

[Dill]

(01-21-2017, 02:41 PM)McC Wrote: And somehow, behavior that almost anyone would consider reprehensible under almost any circumstance is acceptable because they're pissed over who won the election.  This is the Democrats continuing their work of trying to destroy the country, which has been their agenda for the past eight years.  And all those brainwashed moron sheep are stepping right in line.  No wonder their party is nearly dead.  Let Rosie, Warren, Michael Moore and Madonna tell you what to do.  

The agenda I am familiar with involves expanding healthcare, digging us out of a recession and preventing another, encouraging green energy, including "dreamers," protecting civil/voting rights, and dialing down US involvement in the Middle East. 

Is that what you mean by "destroying the country" or is there some other agenda of which I am unaware? Whom should we be listening to?

[McC]

(01-21-2017, 05:11 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: More people in DC today protesting than there was yesterday celebrating the Russian piss monger. Largest protest ever for an incoming president.

Hopefully old baby hands and the rest of the republican clowns take note. But i doubt it. They will continue to rape the middle class and enrich their wealthy pals while they try to shove their "religious beliefs" down America's throat.

Dude.  You have bought the lies hook, line and sinker.  

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2017, 02:41 PM)McC Wrote: And all you've got is what might have happened.  Typical.  In other words, you're okay with what they're doing.  And bottom line, he was still sworn in.  He is and will be in that office for the next four years. 

And somehow, behavior that almost anyone would consider reprehensible under almost any circumstance is acceptable because they're pissed over who won the election.  This is the Democrats continuing their work of trying to destroy the country, which has been their agenda for the past eight years.  And all those brainwashed moron sheep are stepping right in line.  No wonder their party is nearly dead.  Let Rosie, Warren, Michael Moore and Madonna tell you what to do.  

This is really the only issue I had with the statement and I suppose "Well they'd do it too" could be seen as mitigation. This is why I asked for examples of Trump supporters causing harm at Clinton events leading up to the Election. It's easy enough to say "They'd do it too." It becomes a little harder when asked to provide specific examples.

As to the last line. The reaction in Hollywood is funnier than the reaction in this forum.

[Belsnickel]

(01-22-2017, 08:59 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This is really the only issue I had with the statement and I suppose "Well they'd do it too" could be seen as mitigation. This is why I asked for examples of Trump supporters causing harm at Clinton events leading up to the Election. It's easy enough to say "They'd do it too." It becomes a little harder when asked to provide specific examples.

As to the last line. The reaction in Hollywood is funnier than the reaction in this forum.

It's not really mitigation, only pointing out that trying to claim the violence is just a liberal action is disingenuous. My saying that they'd do it too was based on statements by Trump supporters that there would be an armed insurrection if Trump did not win. It is very easy to say that the same thing would have happened were the outcome different, because of that. You can't be provided with specific examples, though, because the outcome wasn't the other way around.

And yes, the Hollywood reaction has been ridiculous.

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 09:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's not really mitigation, only pointing out that trying to claim the violence is just a liberal action is disingenuous. My saying that they'd do it too was based on statements by Trump supporters that there would be an armed insurrection if Trump did not win. It is very easy to say that the same thing would have happened were the outcome different, because of that. You can't be provided with specific examples, though, because the outcome wasn't the other way around.

And yes, the Hollywood reaction has been ridiculous.

Perhaps I missed it. Provide me with a link where Trump supporters threatened armed violent uprising against an authority or government. As for specific examples sure you could; as I can point to specific examples that happened at Trump functions prior to the election.

[Belsnickel]

(01-22-2017, 09:29 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps I missed it. Provide me with a link where Trump supporters threatened armed violent uprising against an authority or government. As for specific examples sure you could; as I can point to specific examples that happened at Trump functions prior to the election.

Here is just one of the many, many stories about this that occurred during the campaigns: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/15/donald-trump-warnings-conspiracy-rig-election-are-stoking-anger-among-his-followers/LcCY6e0QOcfH8VdeK9UdsM/story.html

And no, you can't be provided with examples because I am talking about violence in response to the outcome of the election. What drives the violence is different between the campaign trail and the post-election turmoil. The violence we saw on inauguration day wasn't a result of hurled insults between supporters, this type of event is different.

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 09:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is just one of the many, many stories about this that occurred during the campaigns: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/15/donald-trump-warnings-conspiracy-rig-election-are-stoking-anger-among-his-followers/LcCY6e0QOcfH8VdeK9UdsM/story.html

And no, you can't be provided with examples because I am talking about violence in response to the outcome of the election. What drives the violence is different between the campaign trail and the post-election turmoil. The violence we saw on inauguration day wasn't a result of hurled insults between supporters, this type of event is different.

OK, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. You think you are justified in saying the other side would act violently and I say you are just making an assumption that has no basis in fact. Further you state saying the other side would do it too is not a form of mitigation. We can't agree on everything and we'll just mark this one up as another. 

[Griever]

(01-22-2017, 10:57 AM)bfine32 Wrote: OK, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. You think you are justified in saying the other side would act violently and I say you are just making an assumption that has no basis in fact. Further you state saying the other side would do it too is not a form of mitigation. We can't agree on everything and we'll just mark this one up as another. 

how is it an assumption when people were saying they were going to form armed militias and act if hillary had won?

[GMDino]

(01-22-2017, 12:09 PM)Griever Wrote: how is it an assumption when people were saying they were going to form armed militias and act if hillary had won?

Let's face it:  The right and the second amendment crowd is all talk and no action.  They want to have their guns to overrun the government because of, uh taxes I think, maybe gay marriage, who knows....but they never do anything.

Well they took over an empty building once, threatened to shoot anyone who came after them, then gave up when they ran out of Cheetos.

That's why I never worried about the NRA types.  I fully support their right to own guns and I fully know they'll sit in their meeting rooms and no do a damn thing except talk.

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 12:09 PM)Griever Wrote: how is it an assumption when people were saying they were going to form armed militias and act if hillary had won?

People say stuff all the time. There is not, nor has there been, any organized violence from Trump supporters, we cannot say the same for those that oppose him. To suggest Trump supporters would have formed an armed insertion if Hills would have won is nothing but an assumption or a case of naive folks taking a loud mouth supporter at his word. As for me; I will not assume there would have been an coup if Hills would have won. Given that shouldn't stop you, Matt, and others suggesting there would have been. They had plenty opportunity to cause violence at Clinton functions throughout the election cycle and did not. I cannot say the same for the anti-Trump open-minded folks.  

It just speaks to one's mentality when he or she says "They would have been violent too". And then suggest they are not trying to mitigate what happened.

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 01:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Let's face it:  The right and the second amendment crowd is all talk and no action.  They want to have their guns to overrun the government because of, uh taxes I think, maybe gay marriage, who knows....but they never do anything.

Well they took over an empty building once, threatened to shoot anyone who came after them, then gave up when they ran out of Cheetos.

That's why I never worried about the NRA types.  I fully support their right to own guns and I fully know they'll sit in their meeting rooms and no do a damn thing except talk.

See even Dino gets it. Lots of folks said they were going to leave the country if Trump was elected. I didn't expect, nor have I seen, as mass exodus. They were all just a bunch of cowards that did not follow through with their threats.

[*bfine32*]

On the subject of folks just running their mouths:

Madonna Wrote:YES I'm angry, YES I'm outraged, yes I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House, but I know that this won't change anything,"

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/madonna-blowing-white-house-article-1.2952443?cache=false%252525252525253fq%252525252525253dxss%2525252522%252525252525253c%2525252525252527%252525252525253bnhbc%252527a%25253d0

[GMDino]

(01-22-2017, 01:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: See even Dino gets it. Lots of folks said they were going to leave the country if Trump was elected. I didn't expect, nor have I seen, as mass exodus. They were all just a bunch of cowards that did not follow through with their threats.

Same as the "cowards" who didn't leave when Obama won, or when the ACA was passed, or when the ACA was upheld by the SC.

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 03:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Same as the "cowards" who didn't leave when Obama won, or when the ACA was passed, or when the ACA was upheld by the SC.

No doubt; although,It just seemed to be a bigger movement this go around. Of course there were many high-profile folks saying they were leaving, so probably just seems like more. The Obama movers were most likely just folks you knew on facebook