Red Mosquito

Self wrote:I don't get the push back against non-violent protests. I read shit about Trump supporters showing up in DC with guns if Hillary won, and now protests are stupid. Just accept it an move on.

That would also be very bad.

dimejinky99 wrote:Except spenno. Who wants to burn abbos fags and democracy.

*sigh*

It's like you guys don't get me at all.

Birds in Hell wrote:

Self wrote:I don't get the push back against non-violent protests. I read shit about Trump supporters showing up in DC with guns if Hillary won, and now protests are stupid. Just accept it an move on.

That would also be very bad.

dimejinky99 wrote:Except spenno. Who wants to burn abbos fags and democracy.

*sigh*

It's like you guys don't get me at all.

Your stand on aboriginal rights and marriage equality in Australia is what exactly?

dimejinky99 wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Self wrote:I don't get the push back against non-violent protests. I read shit about Trump supporters showing up in DC with guns if Hillary won, and now protests are stupid. Just accept it an move on.

That would also be very bad.

dimejinky99 wrote:Except spenno. Who wants to burn abbos fags and democracy.

*sigh*

It's like you guys don't get me at all.

Your stand on aboriginal rights and marriage equality in Australia is what exactly?

Seems a tad unfair to lump that all on Spenno

dimejinky99 wrote:Millions deported?

I'm not buying that. The state department or whoever it is would have to have millions of staff to carry out the deportations. Up to and including accompanying the deportee on the plane back to their country. Which is bigly expensive and time consuming.

I swear you get dumber by the day. Why would it take millions of people to deport millions of people? It's a fairly common thing. Please stop pretending you know more about the U.S. Than people from the U.S.

Strat wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:How wil he deal with the Native American population and what's going on with the pipe in particular

drill baby drill!

Yeah that protest is toast.

BurtReynolds wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Millions deported?

I'm not buying that. The state department or whoever it is would have to have millions of staff to carry out the deportations. Up to and including accompanying the deportee on the plane back to their country. Which is bigly expensive and time consuming.

I swear you get dumber by the day. Why would it take millions of people to deport millions of people? It's a fairly common thing. Please stop pretending you know more about the U.S. Than people from the U.S.

Why thanks for your usual empty insults. You can do better. My dad works for the UN and it takes 2 people for every one person to be deported to get them back to their home country. 2 state employees bringing one person back to their country of origin.
All on one chartered plane to the country of origin.

So without insulting you I'll ask again how you deport 3 million people efficiently and cost effectively?

I'm not telling you anything or insulting you. Just asking?

dimejinky99 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Millions deported?

I'm not buying that. The state department or whoever it is would have to have millions of staff to carry out the deportations. Up to and including accompanying the deportee on the plane back to their country. Which is bigly expensive and time consuming.

I swear you get dumber by the day. Why would it take millions of people to deport millions of people? It's a fairly common thing. Please stop pretending you know more about the U.S. Than people from the U.S.

Why thanks for your usual empty insults. You can do better. My dad works for the UN and it takes 2 people for every one person to be deported to get them back to their home country. 2 state employees bringing one person back to their country of origin.
All on one chartered plane to the country of origin.

So without insulting you I'll ask again how you deport 3 million people efficiently and cost effectively?

I'm not telling you anything or insulting you. Just asking?

Do I really need to explain why deporting 3 million people in 8 years is fairly easily done with the infrastructure we have in place? Do I have to tell you how law enforcement and immigration departments work? Do you think an immigration official is consumed every time they put an illegal on a bus back to Mexico? "Good job, Phil. Enjoy your retirement. Now we'll have to find a new guy to deport the next one in five minutes."

If you're gonna blather about shit you know nothing about from a continent away, at least have the humility not say moronic shit like "Your non US friends probably have a much clearer unbiased view." Have you paid any attention to how completely wrong your media has been lately?

BurtReynolds wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Millions deported?

I'm not buying that. The state department or whoever it is would have to have millions of staff to carry out the deportations. Up to and including accompanying the deportee on the plane back to their country. Which is bigly expensive and time consuming.

I swear you get dumber by the day. Why would it take millions of people to deport millions of people? It's a fairly common thing. Please stop pretending you know more about the U.S. Than people from the U.S.

Why thanks for your usual empty insults. You can do better. My dad works for the UN and it takes 2 people for every one person to be deported to get them back to their home country. 2 state employees bringing one person back to their country of origin.
All on one chartered plane to the country of origin.

So without insulting you I'll ask again how you deport 3 million people efficiently and cost effectively?

I'm not telling you anything or insulting you. Just asking?

Do I really need to explain why deporting 3 million people in 8 years is fairly easily done with the infrastructure we have in place? Do I have to tell you how law enforcement and immigration departments work? Do you think an immigration official is consumed every time they put an illegal on a bus back to Mexico? "Good job, Phil. Enjoy your retirement. Now we'll have to find a new guy to deport the next one in five minutes."

If you're gonna blather about shit you know nothing about from a continent away, at least have the humility not say moronic shit like "Your non US friends probably have a much clearer unbiased view." Have you paid any attention to how completely wrong your media has been lately?

We have done both. Crying for you and laughing at you in equal measure.

I'm gonna call that one for Burt

Peaceful protest is pointless in most cases but perfectly acceptable. Blocking traffic, harassing people, and other forms of "nonviolent civil disobedience" that intrude on other people's rights are not. Maybe it's worth it to do those things, but it is illegal and it should be cracked down on if the public gets sick of it. You don't have the right to block streets and create dangerous situations for people, even if it's nonviolent.

To say nothing of the fact that doing it right now, in liberal cities, before he's even sworn in is hilariously stupid and counterproductive to their cause.

BurtReynolds wrote:Peaceful protest is pointless in most cases but perfectly acceptable. Blocking traffic, harassing people, and other forms of "nonviolent civil disobedience" that intrude on other people's rights are not. Maybe it's worth it to do those things, but it is illegal and it should be cracked down on if the public gets sick of it. You don't have the right to block streets and create dangerous situations for people, even if it's nonviolent.

To say nothing of the fact that doing it right now, in liberal cities, before he's even sworn in is hilariously stupid and counterproductive to their cause.

Man, i couldnt disagree more. This is how minorities have fought over the years to get the rights they do. By disrupting other peoples lives until it makes a difference.

Look, i get it, it sucks, its an inconvenience for privileged white people (all of us) but c'mon....This is how change can happen.

BurtReynolds wrote:To say nothing of the fact that doing it right now, in liberal cities, before he's even sworn in is hilariously stupid and counterproductive to their cause.

- Of course the protests are in liberal cities due to the fact that liberal cities are where protestors are largely located
- Of course the protest is taking place before he's even sworn in due to the fact that it's a direct reaction to the election

I'm wondering what your ideal protest would look like. "OK fam I know we're all upset right now but let's all get organized and meet up in Topeka Kansas on January 21st"

Disclaimer: I have no idea if Topeka Kansas is a liberal city

tragabigzanda wrote: The violence is part of a mourning process. The hope is that something more peaceful and coherent will coalesce, but for right now, the sheer impact of the protests is enough to send a clear message to those who need to decide how closely aligned with Trump they wish to be.

I have mixed feelings about this

I understand and sympathize with the idea of violence as a form of political expression (and the fact that historically it's led to actually getting things done).

But I am also suspicious of whether that's applicable in this regard, and have some cynicism regarding human beings and pack behavior

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Peaceful protest is pointless in most cases but perfectly acceptable. Blocking traffic, harassing people, and other forms of "nonviolent civil disobedience" that intrude on other people's rights are not. Maybe it's worth it to do those things, but it is illegal and it should be cracked down on if the public gets sick of it. You don't have the right to block streets and create dangerous situations for people, even if it's nonviolent.

To say nothing of the fact that doing it right now, in liberal cities, before he's even sworn in is hilariously stupid and counterproductive to their cause.

Man, i couldnt disagree more. This is how minorities have fought over the years to get the rights they do. By disrupting other peoples lives until it makes a difference.

Look, i get it, it sucks, its an inconvenience for privileged white people (all of us) but c'mon....This is how change can happen.

If you think it's worth it (and even violent rebellion is worth it sometimes), then ok then. But it's still illegal and hurt's innocent people. And no, it's not just white people (oh that tired white liberal refrain again), in fact rich white people are usually not the one's who suffer most by it. Nine times out of ten you accomplish nothing. For every MLK there is an Occupy movement, and many times it backfires.

And MLK marched through Alabama, not fucking Portland. At least go to where the people you want to challenge are. Shattering the window of a coffee shop in San Francisco when the nearest Trump voters are miles away accomplishes what exactly? But keep doing it and watch the country turn against you like what usually happens.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Peaceful protest is pointless in most cases but perfectly acceptable. Blocking traffic, harassing people, and other forms of "nonviolent civil disobedience" that intrude on other people's rights are not. Maybe it's worth it to do those things, but it is illegal and it should be cracked down on if the public gets sick of it. You don't have the right to block streets and create dangerous situations for people, even if it's nonviolent.

To say nothing of the fact that doing it right now, in liberal cities, before he's even sworn in is hilariously stupid and counterproductive to their cause.

Man, i couldnt disagree more. This is how minorities have fought over the years to get the rights they do. By disrupting other peoples lives until it makes a difference.

Look, i get it, it sucks, its an inconvenience for privileged white people (all of us) but c'mon....This is how change can happen.

The violence is part of a mourning process. The hope is that something more peaceful and coherent will coalesce, but for right now, the sheer impact of the protests is enough to send a clear message to those who need to decide how closely aligned with Trump they wish to be.

It's difficult to imagine the same degree of tolerance being extended to aggrieved and violent Trump supporters had Clinton won.

tragabigzanda wrote: The violence is part of a mourning process. The hope is that something more peaceful and coherent will coalesce, but for right now, the sheer impact of the protests is enough to send a clear message to those who need to decide how closely aligned with Trump they wish to be.

One million percent chance this quote doesn't exist if Hillary won and righties turned violent.