Liberals Protesting Democracy

[Lexicus]

But you did say "in the opposite of democracy people don't go out and vote," which is demonstrably and glaringly incorrect. Whether people go out and vote, or don't, is not necessarily a good indicator of the existence of democracy.

Like I said, he doesn't understand democracy - apparently thinks it's synonymous with elections or electoral politics.

 

[AlpsStranger]

A Democracy can break without ever cancelling/cheating an election. The electorate can be broken.

Trump worries me a bit less on issues that affect me personally than someone like Ryan would. He's a wildcard on healthcare. His populist streak means he might actually keep a lot of the stuff I depend on ( but it's impossible to say. )

Climate change, foreign relations, immigration, etc. These are the bigger issues.

 

[civman110]

So, call in the national guard and open fire? Is that included in your "any means"?

That would be unnecessary even if they are idiotically protesting and rejecting the election results, however if people were to arm themselves and oppose the democratically elected government then that would be a different story. At that point they are no longer civilians, but I don't foresee that happening.

I do however, foresee a lot of police with riot gear.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

But you did say "in the opposite of democracy people don't go out and vote," which is demonstrably and glaringly incorrect. Whether people go out and vote, or don't, is not necessarily a good indicator of the existence of democracy.

What is a good/best indicator then?

 

[Zkribbler]

Notice how conservatives:
(a) believe the First Amendment can be use to denigrate religious and racial minorities but does not protect political expression different from their own.
(b) ...when lacking facts, simply make them up. There're no surveys, interviews, etc. indicating these protestor are all liberals. Liberals make up a minority of the electorate, but the majority of the electorate voted against Trump. So odds are, that plenty of moderates and conservatives were out protesting the election of the most unqualified person in US history being "elected" President.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

By any means necessary.

I would never support such a thing even if they are idiotically protesting and rejecting the election results, however if people were to arm themselves and oppose the democratically elected government then that would be a different story. At that point they are no longer civilians, but I don't foresee that happening.

I do however, foresee a lot of police with riot gear.

So, have the police assault them, and if they defend themselves they "are no longer civilians" so THEN you get to have the national guard mow them down? Is that your "any means"?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What is a good/best indicator then?

I like results. If the nation moves generally in the direction favored by, and for the benefit of, the majority I call that a good sign. Clearly democracy in the US is broken, and chances of it getting fixed appear slim.

 

[civman110]

So, have the police assault them, and if they defend themselves they "are no longer civilians" so THEN you get to have the national guard mow them down? Is that your "any means"?

You don't kill unarmed civilians, but if they were to arm themselves and shoot cops then yes, I would gun every single one of them down.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

So odds are, that plenty of moderates and conservatives were out protesting the election of the most unqualified person in US history being "elected" President.

Give me a break. Have you forgot the name of G.W.Bush?

 

[warpus]

Actually, that only applies in countries that have some sort of district system. It certainly doesn't apply to the world's largest democracy - India.

I tried to look this up and this is what I found

The President of India is elected for a five-year term by an electoral college consisting of members of federal legislature and state legislatures.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You don't kill unarmed civilians, but if they were to arm themselves and shoot cops then yes, I would gun every single one of them down.

Who said anything about arming themselves and shooting cops?

I want to make sure I have this straight...you favor...

Cops in riot gear approach crowd and inform them they are criminals.
Cops then get to use whatever force is necessary to subdue these criminals...beat them with sticks and if in the course of this bodily contact a hand goes near an officers gun the owner of that hand gets shot for "trying to grab my gun."
If this melee is inadequate it is obvious that the police are overmatched so we now have "no longer civilians" and the national guard gets to "mow them down."

Is that accurate?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Give me a break. Have you forgot the name of G.W.Bush?

Nope...but the idiot side of America has outdone themselves. Trump makes GWBush look fully qualified by comparison.

 

[civman110]

Who said anything about arming themselves and shooting cops?

I want to make sure I have this straight...you favor...

Cops in riot gear approach crowd and inform them they are criminals.
Cops then get to use whatever force is necessary to subdue these criminals...beat them with sticks and if in the course of this bodily contact a hand goes near an officers gun the owner of that hand gets shot for "trying to grab my gun."
If this melee is inadequate it is obvious that the police are overmatched so we now have "no longer civilians" and the national guard gets to "mow them down."

Is that accurate?

I already clearly explained to you my position and I'm really not interested in role playing whatever fantasy you have going on here.

So, to clarify:

People who arm themselves and shoot cops should be gunned down.
People who arm themselves and attempt to overthrow the government should be gunned down.
If someone puts a police officer in a position where their life is at risk then that officer is legally and justifiably allowed to use lethal force.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Nope...but the idiot side of America has outdone themselves. Trump makes GWBush look fully qualified by comparison.

Trump is many things but not an idiot. Unless you want to claim that in present USA you can fight the establishment of the party you are a candidate for and most of the mainstream media and win the election while being an idiot in which case I still would have to conceede that this must be a great man among the rest.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So, to clarify:

People who arm themselves and shoot cops should be gunned down.
People who arm themselves and attempt to overthrow the government should be gunned down.
If someone puts a police officer in a position where their life is at risk then that officer is legally and justifiably allowed to use lethal force.

Since the protesters do not fall into any of these three groups I have no idea what this has to do with the subject at hand. It seems odd that the ...person...who started the thread is trying to hijack it.

But, back to it...what are these "any means necessary" that you advocate for? Since the protesters are not arming themselves, and aren't using their mighty god powers to move the blue chesspieces into harm's way you seem to be ignoring the question.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Trump is many things but not an idiot. Unless you want to claim that in present USA you can fight the establishment of the party you are a candidate for and most of the mainstream media and win the election while being an idiot in which case I still would have to conceede this must be a great man among the rest.

I never said idiot, and I didn't notice you saying it either. The question was about unqualified. I think it takes a lot more than raw intellect to be qualified, myself, else we would be best served just handing the job to the highest IQ we could find.

 

[jackelgull]

Since the protesters do not fall into any of these three groups I have no idea what this has to do with the subject at hand. It seems odd that the ...person...who started the thread is trying to hijack it.

But, back to it...what are these "any means necessary" that you advocate for? Since the protesters are not arming themselves, and aren't using their mighty god powers to move the blue chesspieces into harm's way you seem to be ignoring the question.

Look man, they're liberals - they're mere existence is a threat to cops and all good hard working Americans. Gun them down like the cancer on American society they are.

 

[uppi]

I already clearly explained to you my position and I'm really not interested in role playing whatever fantasy you have going on here.

So, to clarify:

People who arm themselves and shoot cops should be gunned down.
People who arm themselves and attempt to overthrow the government should be gunned down.
If someone puts a police officer in a position where their life is at risk then that officer is legally and justifiably allowed to use lethal force.

From Trumps wall to this condoning of the 17th of July 1953, you would make good socialists. Ulbricht would be proud.

 

[Bootstoots]

Liberals consistently have far worse and more extreme behavior. Just watch and see how badly they behave once Trump takes office. I'm not going to draw this faux moral equivalency between the behavior of liberals and conservatives. Take BLM for example, their behavior has been nothing short of abhorrent.

Obama was elected twice and you didn't see conservatives behave like this. I didn't see hordes of them marching in cities across the country. They formed the Tea Party, but they accepted the results of the election. They built a political movement. They left just wants to cry, be butthurt, and reject the election results. They don't build anything.

Well yeah, they are disproportionately young and in many cases believe their fundamental rights (even lives, in the case of BLM) are at risk. Those sorts of people are more likely to be disruptive at rallies than a population that is disproportionately old. I could certainly point to the worst examples of behavior at Trump rallies - a lot of the liberal media did just that and used it to paint Trump supporters as bigots who chant racist slurs. Of course nearly all actual white bigots who voted did support Trump - a quick check of Stormfront will confirm that - and they were probably more likely to turn up to Trump rallies than the median Trump supporter. But that doesn't mean that the typical Trump supporter supports white nationalism or neofascism or whatever.

You have to understand how propaganda works. If you take the worst examples of either side (in anything, not just politics) and present them as though they are typical, you build stereotypes that are used to drive wedges between people. The modern media and the internet are excellent tools for doing just that, and people have to see through it or we'll be stuck in an era of divisiveness and outrage forever. You, for instance, seem to think that the most obnoxious SJWs are typical liberals, and they're really not. It's just that those are the most vocal and most interested, and also (this is critical) you seek them out, because you really like arguing with them.

Of course?? Why because it didn't deliver you the result you wanted this election?

The electoral college is not going to be abolished because the alternative to it would break up the country.

Not at all - I would not be particularly happy about Clinton winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote. I'd see it as legitimate, but definitely a major reminder that the system needs to be changed. In fact that would probably result in a de-facto popular vote system: currently there's the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (see link), which would neuter the EC by binding all the states who have ratified the compact to always cast their electoral votes for the popular vote winner provided 270+ EV of states have passed it. It has passed a number of state legislatures, but so far only in blue states. If the GOP managed to lose the EC but win the PV, it would suddenly look very attractive to Republican state legislatures.

The view that the EC is an obsolete institution and that we should switch over to a national popular vote system has been supported by a wide majority of Americans for a very long time. I think it should be a system incorporating a runoff (preferably an instant runoff) if a candidate doesn't get a majority. I don't see any good reason that the US would be more likely to fall apart under a popular vote system than under the status quo. After all, nearly all countries that have a president (with power) do so by popular vote.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Obama was elected twice and you didn't see conservatives behave like this. I didn't see hordes of them marching in cities across the country. They formed the Tea Party, but they accepted the results of the election.

And then they kept asking for his birth certificate.
And tried to repeal Obamacare more than sixty times.
And kept abusing the filibuster.
And refused to confirm his nominee for the supreme court.
Republicans seem to have adopted the viewpoint that a Democratic president is illegitimate and his policies are unconstitutional because he is a Democrat.

If the other sides now engages in obstructionuism, mass protests, civil disobedience and the occasional act of technically treason and cospiracy...
Good !
Anything less would be unilateral disarmament.