Trump Rally Riot in Chicago

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's what Trump supporters want. Trump Supporter Explains Why She Made Nazi Salute

They want the Republican party destroyed. That's the main reason why he has all those supporters. I don't understand how they think that's going to help anything, but whatever. Can't change a person's thoughts once their mind is made up.
Yes. Trump is a terrible person. His supporters are terrible people, generally. (Not all, but a large number are.) One of my friends is going to vote Trump because he's lost all faith in the system and wants it to burn. That's the general sentiment. That's why a lot of people are voting Trump: It's a "fuck you" vote. By people who hate the system, by people who are terrified of the declining economy, by people who have been brainwashed for years to hate and loathe foreigners.

The irony here is that the very system (media, political party, et cetera) that they've lost faith in is demonizing the shit out of them. Rightfully so? Sometimes yes. Like Nazi lady, definitely. But it's only furthering the divide. You don't mend wounds by starting fights and resorting to cynical infantilism. The irony is every act of hatred against Trump and his supporters is further reinforcing their own beliefs in their hatred.

It's not unfamiliar to me. I've studied history. It happened in Germany too. Germans felt economically insecure, politically trodden on, and lost complete faith in the system after the economy crashed. The very people that could have won back tepid and uncertain Nazi supporters, before the full on brainwash hit, instead demonized and hated them, and attempted to suppress them with violence.

I'm just watching history repeat itself. Trump is a sad man craving attention. He knows how to play the manipulation game and stuff like this is only going to give him fuel to feed the engine of paranoid fear his supporters have.

You can't beat hatred with hatred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torsty
You can't beat hatred with hatred.
That's the problem. Most of these people don't want to beat hatred; they want it to live on.

There is a very small percentage of Trump supporters that are trying to buck the system, but the majority are buying into his "Let's build a wall, kick all the immigrants out bullshit.

Someone made a point about Trump's idea of kicking illegal immigrants out. He's not going to go through with it. Why? He's a hotel owner! You know that he's got a few of them working for him, and anyone who believes he doesn't, an that he isn't paying them far below the wages they should be making is deluding themselves. The man has ties to the mob for crying out loud.

What bothers me, as I'm sure it bothers the rest of us who have a working brain and are willing to think for ourselves is that these people don't seem to understand that hatred isn't going to get them anywhere. Violence isn't an answer, no matter how much they think it does. This is a country built by immigrants. Hell, Drumpf and his entire family were immigrants! We all our, unless you're a Native American.

So, walls and hatred aside, my biggest issue with Drumpf is the fact that he has no policies at all. Sure, everyone wants someone who's not a career politician, but there cannot be a person in office who has no fucking clue what they're doing. How would he handle the soldiers overseas? How does he plan to handle future relations with allies? What about our own systems that are broken? You hear that he's going to make the country great again, but I have yet to hear any sort of plan on how to make that happen, other than a bunch of flip flopping.

I'm not saying the other candidates are great, but at least I don't worry about the US being sanctioned by every damn country in the world with them in office. What's going to happen if he pisses off another country and everything that we export is destroyed or rejected? How do people think our economy is going to be when we're not shipping out products, and no one is sending anything over here? Next thing you know, we'l all be drinking Drumpf wine to go along with our Drumpf steaks because the only thing we can buy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovo
Liberal circlejerk alert.
 
  • Nice Execution!
Reactions: Hana and Windsong
Any group that uses violence regardless of their political leaning deserves to be punished there is absolutely no justification for violence against other group for their free speech. Saying otherwise is against the fundamental rights that people have. Violence and politics should stay separate. If you really call yourselves liberals then you should be the first to protect free speech no matter how much you disagree with it or call it hate speech. Speech does not take away anyone's rights, every opinion should be heard no matter if it's hateful or not.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Hana and Jorick
Liberal circlejerk alert.
It's probably not the best idea to make a statement to stir up trouble where it's been a rather peaceful discussion.
 
It's probably not the best idea to make a statement to stir up trouble where it's been a rather peaceful discussion.
Yeah I was being an edgy idiot. Check my previous post.
 
already said it. The violence is being caused by Trump's supporters. Not the protesters. If the supporters get violent, the protesters have a right to defend themselves. And vice versa. Peacefully protest and if your life is put in danger because of it, defend yourself and fight back.
Citation needed on Trump supporters causing the riots. Otherwise i'll assume it's false.
 
@Nydanna Agreed. More lamenting on the situation. Cooler heads need to prevail, but considering the level of damage and the sheer depth of distrust between various groups in the US right now, I don't imagine it happening anytime soon.

It makes me want to hug a ferret and hope it will get better. Because it looks like y'all are going to have a few truly shit years. Whether it's by the censorship spewing progressive extreme or by the thinly veiled ubermenge racists among the Conservatives. The loud mad shouty fuckers have a chokehold on your politics on both sides. It's not good.

Hugging ferret now. :ferret:
 
The Republicans aren't a racist party at all and this is coming from a non-white centerist. In fact many Republicans were abolitionists. Most Republicans today just want to be realistic about borders and prevent illegal immigration into the United States along with dismantling the welfare state.

I hate it when people take a few loonies in the republican party as representative of the whole party. This is like taking the few rad fems and SJWs are representative of the liberals. The few racists and KKK members are just a vocal minority in the party with no real power. The democrats on the other hand has historically been a racist party and have been associated with the KKK for more than decades. In the 1950-1960s southern democrats have opposed Civil Rights reforms and anti-discrimination laws against blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, and Catholics. The southern democrats are also responsible for the Negro Presidency which is sumed up in this wikipedia article:

After the Reconstruction era came to an end in 1877, however, the former slave states subverted the objective of these changes by using various strategies to disenfranchise their black citizens, while obtaining the benefit of apportionment of representatives on the basis of the total populations. These measures effectively gave white Southerners even greater voting power than they had in the antebellum era, inflating the number of Southern Democrats in the House of Representatives as well as the number of votes they could exercise in the Electoral College in the election of the president.

Edit: The major of republicans also voted for the civil right act of 1964 while many democrats opposed it. Which helped protect the rights of blacks, Latinos, women, and Catholics.

The disenfranchisement of black citizens eventually attracted the attention of Congress, and in 1900 some members proposed stripping the South of seats, related to the number of people who were barred from voting.[12] In the end, Congress did not act to change apportionment, largely because of the power of the Southern bloc. The Southern bloc comprised Southern Democrats voted into office by white voters, which comprised a powerful voting bloc in Congress until the 1960s. Their representatives, re-elected repeatedly by one-party states, controlled numerous chairmanships of important committees in both houses on the basis of seniority, giving them control over rules, budgets and important patronage projects, among other issues. Their power allowed them to defeat federal legislation against racial violence and abuses in the South.[13
 
Last edited:
The Republicans aren't a racist party at all and this is coming from a non-white. In fact many Republicans were abolitionists. Most Republicans today just want to be realistic about borders and prevent illegal immigration into the United States along with dismantling the welfare state.

I hate it when people take a few loonies in the republican party as representative of the whole party. This is like taking the few rad fems and SJWs are representative of the liberals. The few racists and KKK members are just a vocal minority in the party with no real power. The democrats on the other hand has historically been a racist party and have been associated with the KKK for more than decades. In the 1950-1960s southern democrats have opposed Civil Rights reforms and anti-discrimination laws against blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, and Catholics. The southern democrats are also responsible for the Negro Presidency which is sumed up in this wikipedia article:

After the Reconstruction era came to an end in 1877, however, the former slave states subverted the objective of these changes by using various strategies to disenfranchise their black citizens, while obtaining the benefit of apportionment of representatives on the basis of the total populations. These measures effectively gave white Southerners even greater voting power than they had in the antebellum era, inflating the number of Southern Democrats in the House of Representatives as well as the number of votes they could exercise in the Electoral College in the election of the president.

Edit: The major of republicans also voted for the civil right act of 1964 while many democrats opposed it. Which helped protect the rights of blacks, Latinos, women, and Catholics.

The disenfranchisement of black citizens eventually attracted the attention of Congress, and in 1900 some members proposed stripping the South of seats, related to the number of people who were barred from voting.[12] In the end, Congress did not act to change apportionment, largely because of the power of the Southern bloc. The Southern bloc comprised Southern Democrats voted into office by white voters, which comprised a powerful voting bloc in Congress until the 1960s. Their representatives, re-elected repeatedly by one-party states, controlled numerous chairmanships of important committees in both houses on the basis of seniority, giving them control over rules, budgets and important patronage projects, among other issues. Their power allowed them to defeat federal legislation against racial violence and abuses in the South.[13

If you want to go complain about racism then go to the democrats. Or you know stop playing the race card.​
You're forgetting one MAJOR flaw with the Republicans: They're stuck in the past. They preach family values (which is really their code for homophobia) and want religion to dictate law. Remember the whole Kim Davis debacle? Yeah she was being supported by the Republicans who called her imprisonment "criminalization of Christianity". Trump was the only Republican who didn't support her ironically. They're too traditional and need to let go of that bullshit that no one likes or cares about. Whenever someone bitches and whines about gay marriage, they're always a Republican.

No one ever said that the Republican party was racist. Neither are the Democrats for that matter. Hell you forgot that Trump used to be a democrat himself. They both suck for different reasons. You were saying?
 
Traditionalism has its advantages, it's been proven that children from single-parent households do worse compared children from a two parent household. They are more susceptible to committing crimes, using drugs, dropping out of high school, and teenage pregnancy. Children from single parent households also have less economic mobility meaning that if you're born to poor single-mother rather than a poor mother and father you're more likely to stay poor. Traditionalism has encouraged the nuclear family which would've prevented the epidemic of single-parent households today. I am not a traditionalist myself but it's not an entirely unreasonable position to take there are very strong arguments to make for traditionalism. Society and children for that matter would benefit significantly if the divorce rate was not so high and the nuclear family was encouraged.

I agree with you that the Republican's position on gay marriage is unreasonable. Someone's religious beliefs should not become law as there is a separation of church and state along with marriage being a civil right. But many republicans are in favor of gay marriage which is around 40%.


Brovo said this which implied it:

"It makes me want to hug a ferret and hope it will get better. Because it looks like y'all are going to have a few truly shit years. Whether it's by the censorship spewing progressive extreme or by the thinly veiled ubermenge racists among the Conservatives. The loud mad shouty fuckers have a chokehold on your politics on both sides. It's not good."

and I recall racism being discussed earlier in the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Windsong
Traditionalism has its advantages, it's been proven that children from single-parent households do worse compared children from a two parent household. They are more susceptible to committing crimes, using drugs, dropping out of high school, and teenage pregnancy. Children from single parent households also have less economic mobility meaning that if you're born to poor single-mother rather than a poor mother and father you're more likely to stay poor. Traditionalism has encouraged the nuclear family which would've prevented the epidemic of single-parent households today. I am not a traditionalist myself but it's not an entirely unreasonable position to take there are very strong arguments to make for traditionalism. Society and children for that matter would benefit significantly if the divorce rate was not so high and the nuclear family was encouraged.
That's not how life works sadly. While the statistics are correct, life is NOT a Disney movie and everyone can't live happily ever after. Plus you're forgetting other factors like economic status, culture, environment, etc. Also not all people are raised by single parents by choice. I was raised by a teen mom and my dad was involved in my life until his death in 2007 (I was 12). It's not always divorce that causes single parent homes. It's death too. You can't help that. Plus I've seen more messed-up people from two-parent households than single parent ones. Plus there are many reasons why couples divorce and some couples are better off divorcing than just staying because of the kids.

Nuclear families aren't all that special. No matter what kind of family you have, environment is what matters most. THAT is what impacts single-parent homes. NOT the single parenting itself. I highly doubt society and children would benefit from shitty traditionalism. All I've seen from it is xenophobia so far.
 
I understand that I was also raised by a single mother myself. I am not saying that being a single-mother or father is a bad thing it's just that statistically children do worse. There are many individual cases where single parents worked very hard to help their children but generally they do worse. Secondly, there has been significantly higher rates of two parent households in the past while world wars, diseases, and bombings took place. We are living in one of the best periods of time in terms of health, economy, and wealth. The average person today has more wealth and possession that the nobility in the past. My point is that the past was way shitter than today and there was still more two parent household so it's not down to those factors you mentioned. It's down to men and women choosing not to live together and divorcing each-other which is resulting in this epidemic of single parent households.

It's simply not true to say nuclear families are not special there is sociological evidence that nuclear families are more child centered and adaptable compared to other family system. Here is a quick quote from this source which has the evidence I mentioned:

"Far from being weaker than an extended family clan, Berger shows, the ordinary nuclear family was able to adapt superbly to changing economic and political realities. In fact, the family arrangement so common to England helps explain why it and other nations of northwest Europe were the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, the launching ground for modern affluence. The young nuclear family had to be flexible and mobile as it searched for opportunity and property. Forced to rely on their own ingenuity, its members also needed to plan for the future and develop bourgeois habits of work and saving."

I'm not saying that the nuclear family is perfect, but it is true that it is much better then what we have now.
 
Last edited:
If what I have heard is correct, Trump has secret service bodyguards.

It is a federal law, that wherever the Secret Service is operating, for example a Rally in Chicago, you are not allowed to protest. Peacefully or violent, it doesn’t matter. (If I interpreted the law correctly. Some of that shit is tough as hell to read.)

So every rally that has protesters, they are asked to leave and escorted out. Even arrested sometimes. Even if they are just standing there, if they are protesting they are breaking the law and can be forced out.

So keep that in mind. So Trump having protestors removed from his rallies isn’t him being an asshole. The secret service has the authority to do so and make it so.

I could be wrong. But that is what I have pieced together. I’m no lawyer.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: Allegretto
I understand that I was also raised by a single mother myself. I am not saying that being a single-mother or father is a bad thing it's just that statistically children do worse. There are many individual cases where single parents worked very hard to help their children but generally they do worse. Secondly, there has been significantly higher rates of two parent households in the past while world wars, diseases, and bombings took place. We are living in one of the best periods of time in terms of health, economy, and wealth. The average person today has more wealth and possession that the nobility in the past. My point is that the past was way shitter than today and there was still more two parent household so it's not down to those factors you mentioned. It's down to individual chose men and women are choosing not to live together and divorce each other which is resulting in this epidemic of single parent households.

It's simply not true to say nuclear families are not special there is sociological evidence that nuclear families are more child center and adaptable compared to other family system. Here is a quick quote from this source which has the evidence I mentioned:

"Far from being weaker than an extended family clan, Berger shows, the ordinary nuclear family was able to adapt superbly to changing economic and political realities. In fact, the family arrangement so common to England helps explain why it and other nations of northwest Europe were the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, the launching ground for modern affluence. The young nuclear family had to be flexible and mobile as it searched for opportunity and property. Forced to rely on their own ingenuity, its members also needed to plan for the future and develop bourgeois habits of work and saving."

I'm not saying that the nuclear family is perfect, but it is true that it is much better then what we have now.
You're forgetting that in the past, traditionalism was the norm. You know what else was the norm back in the past? Xenophobia which brings up my previous point. Times have changed and society/individuals along with it. Expecting people of today to act like the people of the 50s is unrealistic.

Most people I see who preach traditionalism these days are xenophobic asshats who are usually quick to demonize gay marriage, divorcees, single parents, or couples who don't marry for whatever reason. That is why I say traditionalism is bullshit and it doesn't solve anything. It only makes things worse. Yes it is down to the factors I mentioned because the last time I checked, single parents are individuals and each circumstance is different.
 
If what I have heard is correct, Trump has secret service bodyguards.

It is a federal law, that wherever the Secret Service is operating, for example a Rally in Chicago, you are not allowed to protest. Peacefully or violent, it doesn’t matter. (If I interpreted the law correctly. Some of that shit is tough as hell to read.)

So every rally that has protesters, they are asked to leave and escorted out. Even arrested sometimes. Even if they are just standing there, if they are protesting they are breaking the law and can be forced out.

So keep that in mind. So Trump having protestors removed from his rallies isn’t him being an asshole. The secret service has the authority to do so and make it so.

I could be wrong. But that is what I have pieced together. I’m no lawyer.
Then what's the point of having the 1st Amendment? Trump only has those bodyguards because he doesn't want opponents.
 
Then what's the point of having the 1st Amendment? Trump only has those bodyguards because he doesn't want opponents.
Your rights are only valid when you don't infringe on anyone's else. What they did was unlawful so their rights are nullified until they follow it.
 
Then what's the point of having the 1st Amendment? Trump only has those bodyguards because he doesn't want opponents.

Safety.

Think of all the rights the government has been taking away in the name of safety. The recent Apple case. The NSA and what Snowden released. The citizens of this country are oblivious to the rights being taken from them in the name of safety, for the most part.

Though as I said, I could be wrong.
 
Your rights are only valid when you don't infringe on anyone's else. What they did was unlawful so their rights are nullified until they follow it.

How is protesting infringing on people's rights? Last time I checked, it wasn't.
 
You're forgetting that in the past, traditionalism was the norm. You know what else was the norm back in the past? Xenophobia which brings up my previous point. Times have changed and society/individuals along with it. Expecting people of today to act like the people of the 50s is unrealistic.

Most people I see who preach traditionalism these days are xenophobic asshats who are usually quick to demonize gay marriage, divorcees, single parents, or couples who don't marry for whatever reason. That is why I say traditionalism is bullshit and it doesn't solve anything. It only makes things worse. Yes it is down to the factors I mentioned because the last time I checked, single parents are individuals and each circumstance is different.
I don't see traditionalism as xenophobic, traditionalism has applied to all races historically it's not just thing white people only do. And you've just proved my pointed traditionalism HAS supported the nuclear family.

And confirmation bias on that one. You need evidence to support your point because right now it's just anecdotal. And i've addressed what you said about factors people were dying in drove and dying of smallpox in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torsty and Windsong
Status
Not open for further replies.