Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,083
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 10, 2016 11:25:09 GMT -5
Much like there was protesting after Obama was elected. America was born in protest. It is enshrined in the First Amendment. Violence is wrong. Non-violent protest is the American way. There's a big difference between protest and tantrum throwing though. The rise of the latter is what I dislike about recent elections/referendums.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 10, 2016 11:37:46 GMT -5
I call Bovine Scatology on this. If Trump supporters were burning Hillary in effigy, beating Hillary-resembling pinatas, burning trash on highways, throwing rocks and fireworks and Molotov cocktails, or exhibiting any of the other behaviors that CNN has reported, the outrage over it would be deafening because they are treasonous, racist, sexist Nazis who just couldn't accept a woman in the White House. But because it is anti-Trump, it's just a protest by some sore losers who have no agenda or biases whatsoever. They're given a pass, avoiding any real criticism, because it's understandable to be outraged to the point of violence since Trump won. I mean, he's a horrible person, as are all those who voted for him, so these types of actions are justified, right? On a related note, something that I've noticed a fair bit of recently, is the rise of the foot-stamping, crybaby, political sore losers after any big political event. I first noticed them in the 2015 General Election here in the UK, where there were anti-Conservative/anti-austerity marches that turned into ugly clashes. Then again, after Brexit, those on the remain side acted appallingly towards those who voted leave, while going on marches and setting up online petitions to re-hold the referendum because they didn't get the result they wanted. Here again, we see it happening in the U.S., with anti-Trump protests and violence. What is wrong with these people? I mean, I get that they're dissapointed that their side lost, but that's life, I'm afraid ...that's democracy. Suck it up, buttercup! I was gutted when the Labour party got such a kicking at the 2015 election and I'm gutted/worried now that Trump is the new American President. But you just have to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and accept that the majority of people within the current voting system got the government that they wanted, no matter how slim the majority was. That's how democracy works. It's not perfect and it's certainly not going to please everyone all of the time, but the alternative to that democracy is a whole lot scarier. I think these people who are out in the streets, wringing their hands, protesting and rioting, should grow up a little bit and stop acting like spoilt, overly-entitled brats. The time for mobilising and getting out to do something proactive about the election result was, you know, before the election, not after! Agree totally. It's all just symptomatic of what appears to be a general sense of rather childish entitlement pervading just about every area of society today, from the most serious to the most trivial. People need to grow up.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Nov 10, 2016 11:40:01 GMT -5
Much like there was protesting after Obama was elected. America was born in protest. It is enshrined in the First Amendment. Violence is wrong. Non-violent protest is the American way. Until they shift their protests from "Not my president!" to "Down with the Electoral College", they're just rebels without a cause.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 10, 2016 11:42:36 GMT -5
Much like there was protesting after Obama was elected. America was born in protest. It is enshrined in the First Amendment. Violence is wrong. Non-violent protest is the American way. But what is the point of protesting against the result of what was supposedly a democratic election? It just reflects badly on the ones doing the protesting. It's no different to rioting at a football match because your team lost, as far as I can see.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 10, 2016 11:43:25 GMT -5
Much like there was protesting after Obama was elected. America was born in protest. It is enshrined in the First Amendment. Violence is wrong. Non-violent protest is the American way. Until they shift their protests from "Not my president!" to "Down with the Electoral College", they're just rebels without a cause. I don't think anyone's protesting how the result was achieved. Though they're entitled to do that, too. They're just protesting the result. And why shouldn't they if they want to send a messsage that it isn't all chicken 'n' biscuits out here?
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 10, 2016 11:44:17 GMT -5
And Forrest Lucas, oil baron, foe of animal rights and is a candidate for Secretary of the Interior (National Parks, offshore oil drilling, fracking, wildlife refuges, endangered species and the like), part of Trump's goal of having a more business-friendly cabinet. Can't wait! Is there some reason 'business friendly' has to equal 'short sighted and destructive'? Why not offer incentives for the things we do want to happen? I think Fracking is really, really scary, and I'm afraid it's going to take LA becoming an island or some similar catastrophe for people to realize it The simplest answer is that the quickest, dirtiest and least regulated way is usually much cheaper in the short run and that businesses are rarely about the long run -just the opposite of society. Solar energy is not a pipe dream; even with our current low-efficiency systems, we could supply a lot of our energy needs with what the sun pours in for free, day in, day out, on our planet. Yes, it would cost a fortune... but so did the Iraq war, and that was money utterly wasted rather than invested in the future. The big barrier is however not the price itself, but rather the competitiveness of solar energy. There's no way solar can compete with oil, gas and coal in terms of profit in today's economy. Because of that, we have a huge infrastructure geared for coal, oil and gas production. We also need sources of oil, which means fracking, which means drilling in National parks, which means more access to cheap oil. It will also mean, later on, polluted water tables, more earthquakes, and a devastated environment. But, hey, profits, right? The truly sad part is that it's not even about jobs. As many people could work in the solar energy industry as in the coal and oil business if we just changed the status quo. We could even make certain regions (Death Valley, say) become extremely valuable as hubs of electricity production. But for that, we need the people (and their elected representatives) to stand up to the Koch brothers and to make it more and more expensive to use coal and oil. Making it cheaper for people to use solar energy is also a good idea. Heck, in Germany a substantial amount of the country's power is provided by private solar panels installed on people's roofs. That's the way we should go.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 10, 2016 12:03:28 GMT -5
Until they shift their protests from "Not my president!" to "Down with the Electoral College", they're just rebels without a cause. I don't think anyone's protesting how the result was achieved. Though they're entitled to do that, too. They're just protesting the result. And why shouldn't they if they want to send a messsage that it isn't all chicken 'n' biscuits out here? Because it just makes them look like poor losers? Incidentally...why would you want biscuits with chicken? Cheese, yes...
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 10, 2016 12:08:11 GMT -5
Is there some reason 'business friendly' has to equal 'short sighted and destructive'? Why not offer incentives for the things we do want to happen? I think Fracking is really, really scary, and I'm afraid it's going to take LA becoming an island or some similar catastrophe for people to realize it The simplest answer is that the quickest, dirtiest and least regulated way is usually much cheaper in the short run and that businesses are rarely about the long run -just the opposite of society. Solar energy is not a pipe dream; even with our current low-efficiency systems, we could supply a lot of our energy needs with what the sun pours in for free, day in, day out, on our planet. Yes, it would cost a fortune... but so did the Iraq war, and that was money utterly wasted rather than invested in the future. The big barrier is however not the price itself, but rather the competitiveness of solar energy. There's no way solar can compete with oil, gas and coal in terms of profit in today's economy. Because of that, we have a huge infrastructure geared for coal, oil and gas production. We also need sources of oil, which means fracking, which means drilling in National parks, which means more access to cheap oil. It will also mean, later on, polluted water tables, more earthquakes, and a devastated environment. But, hey, profits, right? The truly sad part is that it's not even about jobs. As many people could work in the solar energy industry as in the coal and oil business if we just changed the status quo. We could even make certain regions (Death Valley, say) become extremely valuable as hubs of electricity production. But for that, we need the people (and their elected representatives) to stand up to the Koch brothers and to make it more and more expensive to use coal and oil. Making it cheaper for people to use solar energy is also a good idea. Heck, in Germany a substantial amount of the country's power is provided by private solar panels installed on people's roofs. That's the way we should go. There was a big push to get people buying into solar energy in Britain not long ago-a lot of houses near me have roof panels. But people started buying these quite expensive panels because of incentive schemes to reduce their energy bills which the government then decided were too generous, so the incentive has become considerably less...
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 10, 2016 12:08:33 GMT -5
I don't think anyone's protesting how the result was achieved. Though they're entitled to do that, too. They're just protesting the result. And why shouldn't they if they want to send a messsage that it isn't all chicken 'n' biscuits out here? Because it just makes them look like poor losers? Incidentally...why would you want biscuits with chicken? Cheese, yes... So what if they look like sore losers? This isn't a game of checkers. For a lot of people, particularly those who rely on Obamacare for insurance, this is literally a matter of life and death.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 10, 2016 12:21:23 GMT -5
Because it just makes them look like poor losers? Incidentally...why would you want biscuits with chicken? Cheese, yes... So what if they look like sore losers? This isn't a game of checkers. For a lot of people, particularly those who rely on Obamacare for insurance, this is literally a matter of life and death. I understand that, but if the majority of voters go one way rather than another, whatever their reasons, that's democracy. Perhaps they'd be better off criticising the large percentage of their fellow citizens who didn't bother to vote.
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Nov 10, 2016 12:28:32 GMT -5
So what if they look like sore losers? This isn't a game of checkers. For a lot of people, particularly those who rely on Obamacare for insurance, this is literally a matter of life and death. I understand that, but if the majority of voters go one way rather than another, whatever their reasons, that's democracy. Perhaps they'd be better off criticising the large percentage of their fellow citizens who didn't bother to vote. Exactly Hell, it was reported that there were large groups of blacks in Broward County, Florida who were pro-Hillary...but they didn't vote because "the lines were too long". LOL If you can't stomach standing in line for a while in what was one of the most important elections in the countrys history...then don't throw your hands up in the air and start rioting when the opposition wins out.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 10, 2016 12:28:51 GMT -5
The simplest answer is that the quickest, dirtiest and least regulated way is usually much cheaper in the short run and that businesses are rarely about the long run -just the opposite of society. Solar energy is not a pipe dream; even with our current low-efficiency systems, we could supply a lot of our energy needs with what the sun pours in for free, day in, day out, on our planet. Yes, it would cost a fortune... but so did the Iraq war, and that was money utterly wasted rather than invested in the future. The big barrier is however not the price itself, but rather the competitiveness of solar energy. There's no way solar can compete with oil, gas and coal in terms of profit in today's economy. Because of that, we have a huge infrastructure geared for coal, oil and gas production. We also need sources of oil, which means fracking, which means drilling in National parks, which means more access to cheap oil. It will also mean, later on, polluted water tables, more earthquakes, and a devastated environment. But, hey, profits, right? The truly sad part is that it's not even about jobs. As many people could work in the solar energy industry as in the coal and oil business if we just changed the status quo. We could even make certain regions (Death Valley, say) become extremely valuable as hubs of electricity production. But for that, we need the people (and their elected representatives) to stand up to the Koch brothers and to make it more and more expensive to use coal and oil. Making it cheaper for people to use solar energy is also a good idea. Heck, in Germany a substantial amount of the country's power is provided by private solar panels installed on people's roofs. That's the way we should go. There was a big push to get people buying into solar energy in Britain not long ago-a lot of houses near me have roof panels. But people started buying these quite expensive panels because of incentive schemes to reduce their energy bills which the government then decided were too generous, so the incentive has become considerably less... Ouch... My own government is guilty of many similar moves. Such schemes are not meant to be cost-effective right from the start, and our governments must accept that they will cost a lot. The reason it is all worth it is that once we get enough people on board, once we really do switch to a solar-based energy, we can have free energy forever. However, getting people to invest in such technologies and then sticking them with the bill is the perfect way to turn them off. (We had a certain tax break here a few years ago; it was for people who invested in local technology companies, and was meant to develop our Hi Tech sector. A few years later the tax break was cancelled... retroactively!!! You can imagine how hard it will be to get investors to fall for the same trick again.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Nov 10, 2016 12:29:26 GMT -5
So what if they look like sore losers? This isn't a game of checkers. For a lot of people, particularly those who rely on Obamacare for insurance, this is literally a matter of life and death. I understand that, but if the majority of voters go one way rather than another, whatever their reasons, that's democracy. Perhaps they'd be better off criticising the large percentage of their fellow citizens who didn't bother to vote. Or! We could just allow their right to protest. I think what a few of you are not getting because, maybe you just don't know, or it doesn't affect you so you just don't see it, but this election hasn't resulted with "sore losers" because it's as simple as their preferred candidate did not win, and d@mm*t, they might have to pay higher taxes now, or there might a few gun control laws set into place, or his foreign policy is a tad off. Trump has SAID thing to incite his supporters that are violent things. People FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES. This is a thing some of you shrug off and think is unimportant, or if you're Warmonger, you just mock it, but there are people who have already had racist things done to them, women who have been grabbed inappropriately because he said "it was his right". yes, this stuff happened before Trump, but his words, his leadership, has encouraged this behavior. And, frankly, I feel quite uncomfortable that this keeps being skipped over and treated like it's not there when posted about here, so it's not acknowledged, or if it's acknowledged it's mocked or argued, because I think it's awful that two women are posting in this very thread, and quite a few are treating this like it does not matter. We matter. But I'm not sure we do to some of you.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 10, 2016 12:30:56 GMT -5
So what if they look like sore losers? This isn't a game of checkers. For a lot of people, particularly those who rely on Obamacare for insurance, this is literally a matter of life and death. I understand that, but if the majority of voters go one way rather than another, whatever their reasons, that's democracy. Perhaps they'd be better off criticising the large percentage of their fellow citizens who didn't bother to vote. Actually, the most voters seem to have chosen Hillary... It's the electoral college that put Trump in charge. First Dubya over Gore, now Trump over Clinton. I find I agree with what Trump said four years ago : the electoral college should go.
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Nov 10, 2016 12:46:44 GMT -5
Warning : possibly NSFW non-PC language
Substitute Obama and Trump for Sammy Davis Jr and Archie Bunker
|
|