THE DAY IS HERE! TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AcornEyes]

2 minutes ago, Quinnbeast said:

It's either illegal or they're not doing anything wrong in the eyes of the law. Freedom to protest is all part of freedom of speech, and should be valued.

The amount of people who protested by blocking off traffic is wayyy larger than 100 people.

 

Blocking off traffic is illegal and shitty.

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, Quinnbeast said:

It's still a totally inconsequential number of people with respect to the total population (voting or otherwise). Perhaps some of them didn't vote, and are just there for the lols. Have their voting tendencies been recorded and verified by the police?

You are going to confuse them. 

 

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, Quinnbeast said:

It's still a totally inconsequential number of people with respect to the total population (voting or otherwise). Perhaps some of them didn't vote, and are just there for the lols. Have their voting tendencies been recorded and verified by the police?

sure it is a minority (total pop) of a minority (voters) of a minority (angry democrats). BUT. That minority is actively destroying other peoples belongings and will most likely get away with it in the chaos. And it is ALL over the election of a leader that so far hasn't done shit to hurt them, and replaces a leader who, while a great speaker and inspiring guy, didn't really change a whole lot for the better.

[Quinnbeast]

3 minutes ago, AcornEyes said:

The amount of people who protested by blocking off traffic is wayyy larger than 100 people.

 

Blocking off traffic is illegal and shitty.

It is shitty. I agree with that. But, it's still not anywhere near representative of an entire political party.

[AcornEyes]

4 minutes ago, Prysin said:

sure it is a minority (total pop) of a minority (voters) of a minority (angry democrats). BUT. That minority is actively destroying other peoples belongings and will most likely get away with it in the chaos. And it is ALL over the election of a leader that so far hasn't done shit to hurt them, and replaces a leader who, while a great speaker and inspiring guy, didn't really change a whole lot for the better.

To add to that, he said arrests ignoring those that got away.

 

The number is not near 100 cited at all.

[Prysin]

8 minutes ago, Quinnbeast said:

It's either illegal or they're not doing anything wrong in the eyes of the law. Freedom to protest is all part of freedom of speech, and should be valued.

Demonstration is legal.

Voicing opposition is legal.

Posting opposing and or disagreeing political views are legal.

 

However what we are seeing is:

Rioting -> is illegal

Blocking highways -> are illegal

Vandalism -> is illegal

actively attacking police in uniform -> is illegal

 

[Quinnbeast]

5 minutes ago, Prysin said:

sure it is a minority (total pop) of a minority (voters) of a minority (angry democrats). BUT. That minority is actively destroying other peoples belongings and will most likely get away with it in the chaos. And it is ALL over the election of a leader that so far hasn't done shit to hurt them, and replaces a leader who, while a great speaker and inspiring guy, didn't really change a whole lot for the better.

You are of course perfectly entitled to blame them as people for their actions, and you're correct to do so. It's important to remember that they do not speak on behalf of anyone but themselves.

[AcornEyes]

5 minutes ago, Quinnbeast said:

It is shitty. I agree with that. But, it's still not anywhere near representative of an entire political party.

There are no facts or figures that show how many of them do in fact engage in illegal acts.

 

However it is painfully obvious that almost no Republicans illegally or in a shitty manner protest. On the other hand, an overwhelming amount of Democrats do.

 

That is the conclusion we can make with the data we have.

[AcornEyes]

1 minute ago, Quinnbeast said:

You are of course perfectly entitled to blame them as people for their actions, and you're correct to do so. It's important to remember that they do not speak on behalf of anyone but themselves.

Then who does? 

 

It's the actions of the population of a group that determine what the group stands for.

[You_are_a_cunt]

Y'all gonna be f****d.

 

 

OT: Offering to adopt an American.

[Prysin]

9 minutes ago, Quinnbeast said:

It is shitty. I agree with that. But, it's still not anywhere near representative of an entire political party.

I understand you may have certain views and or affiliations of the democrat party, and to be frank, i am not even a US citizen so i dont give a fuck who you align with. BUT

 

The democratic party, it's candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and other representatives of the political left in the US has NOT condemned these POLITICAL RIOTS. They have not at all tried to stop this from happening or trying to help unify the nation.

 

If the political party that, let us be frank, instignated these protests during the election campaigns, does not try to stop this bullshit now that the election is over, it means they are condoning the actions of their followers.

 

Excuse me for having to put this so bluntly, but however much you may disagree with the election result and or President Trumps politics, the fact remains that i have yet to hear from those who vote democrat actually condemn the RIOTS.

 

I am for demonstrations, but you can demonstrate without rioting.

[AcornEyes]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

I understand you may have certain views and or affiliations of the democrat party, and to be frank, i am not even a US citizen so i dont give a fuck who you align with. BUT

 

The democratic party, it's candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and other representatives of the political left in the US has NOT condemned these POLITICAL RIOTS. They have not at all tried to stop this from happening or trying to help unify the nation.

 

If the political party that, let us be frank, instignated these protests during the election campaigns, does not try to stop this bullshit now that the election is over, it means they are condoning the actions of their followers.

 

Excuse me for having to put this so bluntly, but however much you may disagree with the election result and or President Trumps politics, the fact remains that i have yet to hear from those who vote democrat actually condemn the RIOTS.

 

I am for demonstrations, but you can demonstrate without rioting.

Well said

[Quinnbeast]

3 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Demonstration is legal.

Voicing opposition is legal.

Posting opposing and or disagreeing political views are legal.

 

However what we are seeing is:

Rioting -> is illegal

Blocking highways -> are illegal

Vandalism -> is illegal

actively attacking police in uniform -> is illegal

 

If you mean that the media love the parts that create a good headline then yes, that's "what we're seeing". It's also what "we're intentionally being shown". How many orderly public meetings and peaceful protests make headline news? Approximately zero.

[Coaxialgamer]

Is ruining the climate worth pissing off SJW's? 

[AcornEyes]

1 minute ago, Quinnbeast said:

If you mean that the media love the parts that create a good headline then yes, that's "what we're seeing". It's also what "we're intentionally being shown". How many orderly public meetings and peaceful protests make headline news? Approximately zero.

Have you personally seen any peaceful protests?

 

It's all good to say that we don't see what the media is leaving out. But this is the internet, there's bound to be someone to report on it.

 

If you can compile the amount of demonstrations and protests vs riots (including illegal peaceful protests) to be supportive of your narrative you can change my mind.

[AshleyAshes]

 

'MERICA!

[Prysin]

2 minutes ago, Quinnbeast said:

If you mean that the media love the parts that create a good headline then yes, that's "what we're seeing". It's also what "we're intentionally being shown". How many orderly public meetings and peaceful protests make headline news? Approximately zero.

thing is, we can both agree that the media despises trump, and that through the whole campaign it was proven to be extremely biased towards the Clinton's (sorry Bernie, iz true).

Media ALWAYS report bad news, because they sell. However when it comes to the media reports one must distinguish between what they show us and what THE MEDIA says. And yes, i have CNN and SKY and BBC etc too... and they at no point condemn the RIOTS. They say its "terrible" and "chaotic"... but they do not condemn it......

 

WTF!!!

 

How can you NOT condemn destruction of innocent peoples property!? WTF are they thinking?

 

How can YOU, @Quinnbeast NOT condemn these riots? You actively try to dodge the negative and you seem hellbent on protect their "right" to RIOT.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Is ruining the climate worth pissing off SJW's? 

He aint gonna do shit for or against the climate. Even if he reduces government subsidies, private charities will take over due to the heavy political and social traction the global warming movement(s) has created

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

 

'MERICA!

Obama was/is a much more inspiring and engaging leader then Trump will ever be.

[Guest]

Keep out of our Canada plzzzz

[Quinnbeast]

4 minutes ago, Prysin said:

I understand you may have certain views and or affiliations of the democrat party, and to be frank, i am not even a US citizen so i dont give a fuck who you align with. BUT

 

The democratic party, it's candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and other representatives of the political left in the US has NOT condemned these POLITICAL RIOTS. They have not at all tried to stop this from happening or trying to help unify the nation.

 

If the political party that, let us be frank, instignated these protests during the election campaigns, does not try to stop this bullshit now that the election is over, it means they are condoning the actions of their followers.

 

Excuse me for having to put this so bluntly, but however much you may disagree with the election result and or President Trumps politics, the fact remains that i have yet to hear from those who vote democrat actually condemn the RIOTS.

 

I am for demonstrations, but you can demonstrate without rioting.

You're confusing me with someone else and/or doing a terrible job of reading between the lines. This is a forum, we're discussing a subject. Cast aspersions on me all you want, it doesn't change the flaw in your logic. Your claim that it should be the role of the democrats to condemn a hundred or so rioters is a lazy distraction that allows you to broadly pin the blame: isn't it exactly the role of the incumbent government to unify all of it's citizens?

[Prysin]

11 minutes ago, AcornEyes said:

Have you personally seen any peaceful protests?

 

It's all good to say that we don't see what the media is leaving out. But this is the internet, there's bound to be someone to report on it.

 

If you can compile the amount of demonstrations and protests vs riots (including illegal peaceful protests) to be supportive of your narrative you can change my mind.

peaceful protests are legal per US LAW.

[SteveGrabowski0]

LOL I bet none of those rioters voted for Clinton. I used to know some people like that (I briefly had a roommate who was one of the organizers of the biggest socialist group at my university and he'd bring the weirdest freaks around) and they would never vote Democrat. Someone like Bernie would be way too far to the right for them. A bunch of loser dropouts.

[Prysin]

2 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Keep out of our Canada plzzzz

you're just the hat anyway.... plenty of US inside of you already

[Quinnbeast]

11 minutes ago, AcornEyes said:

Have you personally seen any peaceful protests?

 

It's all good to say that we don't see what the media is leaving out. But this is the internet, there's bound to be someone to report on it.

 

If you can compile the amount of demonstrations and protests vs riots (including illegal peaceful protests) to be supportive of your narrative you can change my mind.

 

LOL. Well, I don't live in the US, so that's quite a big ask. I've seen dozens of peaceful protests (some in person) in the UK that were astonishingly absent from the media here. "Large group of people being perfectly decent" isn't sexy now is it? If you are genuinely interested then I'm sure you wouldn't mind having a look yourself.

 

Also, what's an "illegal peaceful protest" out of interest, other than a contradiction in terms?

[Prysin]

2 minutes ago, Quinnbeast said:

You're confusing me with someone else and/or doing a terrible job of reading between the lines. This is a forum, we're discussing a subject. Cast aspersions on me all you want, it doesn't change the flaw in your logic. Your claim that it should be the role of the democrats to condemn a hundred or so rioters is a lazy distraction that allows you to broadly pin the blame: isn't it exactly the role of the incumbent government to unify all of it's citizens?

Did you know that Anders Bering Breivik, the 2011 mass murderer in Norway, claimed allegiance with the Aryan Brotherhood and several other extreme right/ultra nationalistic groups.

 

Guess what?! ALL these groups publically condemned his actions and refused to be affiliated with this monster.

 

That was ONE FUCKING MAN, ONE MAN, condemned by groups who has thousands if not hundreds of thousands of members, many of which has murdered, raped or tortured people and yet they didn't want to be affiliated with this guy....  If you look at scale, it becomes the same thing. A minority acting on behalf (they think) of a majority.