Talk Elections

I think they will happen eventually, but I don't think they will right now.  But take into account that the Millennial generation is exceptionally hive minded... so once it starts, it will blow up quickly.  And you won't have the vehement opposition from their peers like back in the 60s.  You'll see people more likely to join in or at least sympathize with rioters, or at the very least, not condemn the point of the action.

To be honest, I sort of hope massive protests begin.  I don't want violence... but enough people in the streets protesting to get peoples attention. 

As I've already said elsewhere... when the next round of protests begin, it won't be crusty old guys in tri-cornered hats bitching about taxes.

You do realize you will likely end up with more right-wing (libertarian and conservative) protesters than left-wing ones?

If you see mass protests, it'll go beyond the type that identifies with political labels. I also predict that it'll be embraced by the left more than the right.

I don't think you understand just how peeved the right-wing is exactly. I also have been talking to dyed in the wool liberals, who are starting to question the federal government's role in society.

That said, R-W ones are more likely to be peaceful, although much larger in number than left-wing protests. L-W protests will tend to be smaller, much more violent, and completely pointless.

The only way the R-W will start to get violent, is if police or L-W protesters start getting physical with them.

If things continue in the direction they're heading, at the speed they're heading...

I mean, if you're not worried about this, and if you don't see how real a possibility it is, then you're really not paying attention. The riots happening in London right now don't just happen because some teenagers are bored or because the cops shot some guy. They can only really happen in a society that has been driven to desperation, that has lost all confidence in legitimate means of political discourse and turned to violent ones instead. And the economy is only going to get worse, and zero politicians, here or in Europe, are proposing actual solutions.

Obama gets up there and says that America will always be a triple A nation, and he looks like a total idiot. I'm sure he knows that he sounds like an idiot, the dude's intelligent and clearly has access to more information than most people. But he sounds like an idiot. The economy is in free-fall. There never was a recovery, which is why the "jobless recovery" meme was bull. The markets are now realizing this, and retreating like frightened animals into the one place they think is still safe.

Full-scale riots and mass protests probably won't occur until at least 2013 when a Republican is president and his/her economic policies just make things worse. By that point what remaining confidence in the political system there is will be lost.

Of course, if the system comes down, the federal government's role in society is about to become much, much larger.

As for protests, I just don't see the right wing being very effective at protest. Even at the height of the GOP 2010 wave, Jon Stewart could mobilize more people than Glenn Beck.

Plus, the fundamental issue is not the government's role in society, it's economic depression and inequality.

Fortunately, the United States seems to have escaped so far the use of staged riots as a pretext for looting.  Maybe it's because such looters would suffer a significant chance of being shot. So we'll have to wait until we have people who are angry enough to riot without the prospect of financial gain.

Keep in mind the ULTIMATE doomsday scenario, which I have considered since 2008. Even if the Federal government defaulted and could no longer pay for Social Security or Medicare, you would soon see overwhelming demands for new government social programs to provide a safety net.

If America is anywhere close to being what I hope it is, sooner rather than later. But more needs to be done than that. Our government has been sticking both middle fingers at us and laughing for far too long. Our country is an embarrassment. I also hope you guys are right in that it's apolitical. The very last thing anyone in Washington needs is a side to unequivocally take at the expense of reason. What I'm most sick of is a President that I have a feeling agrees with most of us and yet bites his tongue and plays the game anyway. I can't decide whether he'd actually grow some balls if he's reelected or if he really is just a career campaigner. Something's gotta give, regardless. Anyway, now I'm just rambling. Essentially, it needs to happen and it needs to be big.

Sure it will, they'll just be joining in the fun. What do they have to lose, their non-existent pension?

I also get this feeling that Obama does agree with "us" and he's probably frustrated with himself for f**king up so grandly.  But I don't foresee a change.  He's not playing the game.  The game is playing him.

My God you are irritating.

The Tea Party protests were huge and there were different types, some outright hostile to Glenn Beck.

I'd love to live in New York, but unfortunately I do not. DC is pretty cool though.


Don't you have some thread in the Forum Community to post in about what song you're currently listening to?

Honestly, I hope that Obama snaps. I hope that he has a mental breakdown where he loses his faith in his ability to compromise with the Republicans, with his ability to win reelection, and what he was taught growing up, and realizes that Summers, Bernanke, Geithner, etc etc f--ked him over and set up him up to be the fall guy for their theft. But it's probably too much to hope for.

I like how you say things no one else really wants to hear, and I think you're right here. I'd like to think Mitt Romney would instantly fix things, but I know that's not the case - it'll take years for America to recover. America should be pretty interesting around 2014...

Nah, I'm a better writer than he is. ;)

Liberals typically won't protest their own. Hence all the anti-war rioters have mostly died down.

Incidentally, they never died down for Richard Nixon.

I realize what I'm about to say may sound trite.  I don't mean to minimize the fact that times are tough in the U.S. and may remain tough for a while.  I even think a protest or two or a dozen might wake some people up.

But, during the day, I saw footage of thousands of starving children in Somalia whose mothers had walked for one month to bring them to aid camps, and a government hurling tanks and munitions at its own people in Syria.  9% unemployment sucks, and dropping markets do cause people genuinely understandable anxiety and all.  But there are lots and lots of people in the world who can only wish they had our problems instead of their own.

Some of the posts in this thread are completely unrealistic and borderline crazy. There aren't going to be any riots here and when it comes down to it, the country will be fine.

When Republicans and Tea Party conservatives begin implementing their policies and vision for America after taking complete control of the executive and legislative branches in January 2013, combined with a compliant Supreme Court.

Clearly I have no faith that Republicans will make the mistake of choosing a flake when they have so much at stake in winning the 2012 elections (and yes, I know it rhymes).  

What would people riot about?  Their love of Chinese products or their judgment at the polls every two years?

People will riot over their declining stock portfolios? People will riot over the prospect that Medicare benefits will be cut?  Over what? 

Neither riots, nor revolution.  It's a realignment.   Welcome to 1979!

They will riot over the fact that you have more than them and that you think that's just fine.  So, in the absence of the government taking from you and giving it to them, they will just go ahead and take it from you themselves.

Never underestimate the danger of an adolescent with nothing to lose.

lol...

More like 1929.

And considering who the GOP has up for offer... well, Reagan would be a marked improvement.

There may be riots amongst minority youth at some point in the next few years. White people, even the kids, won't riot though. They're still too well off.

Tea Party Movement started a couple of years ago.  I imagine if Obama gets re-elected, shocked idiots will react like shocked idiots.

This.

This, this, this, this, this.

A completely and utterly mad President is one of the only things that I can conceive of that could even begin to break free of this grey area, one way or another.

Another is large-scale rioting coupled with occupation of major urban areas. I'm talking occupation, People Power Revolution-style jamming the Washington Beltway/Fifth Avenue/Boston Common/New Jersey Turnpike/I-90 in Chicago/you get the idea with human bodies until something gives.

Haha. This is a civilized continent, you see. It isn't like Europe. Of course there won't be rioting.



Ah, right. Those violent Tea Partiers...that have yet to engage in rioting.

Maybe I am just naive to the attraction of rioting, but what would we actually be rioting for?

Quit looking into possible political motivations so much. If we do have lots of riots, it will be angry young people who like smashing and burning things.

I've been to one riot in my life, and it was because a bunch of drunk college students thought it'd be fun to start bonfires in the street and rip up fences. That was the entire motivation.

This just goes to show me why I will probably never riot. Destroying things for no reason at all.

In a sense it's a shame for lack of a better word because I have a nasty temper if rubbed the wrong way, but I'd have to actually be angry about something in particular.

What could be happening might make RWR look like FDR.

To make people pay attention.

You're right.  There haven't been riots in years here.  No American has the energy to get off the couch and riot anyway.

Well, riots are the only result possible as long governments refuse to face truth and accept to reform capitalism to restore tips to an equilibrum. Now, they are heavily tilted on the corporations' side.

The further it is unbalanced, the hardest the recoil will be.

We'll have to wait until 2013 to see massive protests. What happened in Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan was a nice prelude, imagine that on a larger scale against the federal government except instead of angry public workers leading the way, it will probably be younger university students and somewhat less partisan. Riots will probably happen along the way at some point but will seem on the outside to be non-political when in reality they will be directly linked to the economic implosion we will be experiencing.

If Obama is re-elected, I don't see much protesting action occurring. The potential for race riots will still be there though.

Yes, I am beginning to agree with Lief, Beet and SamSpade on this.

If it was tried by public workers, the rest of the public would rise up and lynch all of them.  Okay. that is hyperbole, but they'd support firing them all.

Public workers are not popular.  (I say this as a former public worker.)

I really cannot believe how totally out of touch the people on this board are with the American people.



Yes, I am beginning to agree with Lief, Beet and SamSpade on this.
[/quote]

I'm talking about peaceful protests, not riots...

That wouldn't make any difference.  I know people that now work for the City of Philadelphia who won't admit to it, simply because they don't want the comments.  I was a state worker in the 1990's, and as soon as I said, "I'm a welfare caseworker," all I'd get was comments about why I didn't through more people off the lists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XlUsoM4ruQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XlUsoM4ruQ)
Were you in a coma when this was happening?

Arguing with J. J. is like deciding you don't like the color of your house so you scream at your house to change its color instead of getting it painted. It also has about an equal chance of resulting in anything productive.

J.J. is wrong again! Are public employees incredibly unpopular? The answer, as polling shows us (http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/blog/2011/03/new-poll-americans-overwhelmin.shtml), is a clear no!


That's just one poll though, he surely says. Let's check another. This poll is just a poll of California (http://obrag.org/?p=36292), but that's a pretty big state!


Here's a Pew poll (http://people-press.org/2011/02/17/labor-unions-seen-as-good-for-workers-not-u-s-competitiveness/) that asked specifically about public employee unions. Let's see what they have to say!


This CBS News poll (http://www.scribd.com/doc/49741474/CBSNewsPoll-Unions-022811) doesn't specifically ask the question, but it does ask a bunch of questions about public employees, and in all of them the respondents seem favorable, even going so far as to support raising taxes instead of cutting benefits/salary for public employees! If that's not proof that the public absolutely hates government workers, I don't know what is!

Even this conservative think tank, WPRI, found in its poll (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/another-poll-wisconsinites-disapprove-of-walker-want-him-to-compromise.php) that teachers and public employees are very popular:


Well, that's enough yelling at my house for it to change color for today!

Have you tried calm dialogue instead of yelling?

And, even the recalls don't seem to be working too well.  We government workers are not popular.

Lief, there is a world of difference between worker having a right to unionize and being popular.

You get some segments being popular, police, fire, the military, and to some extent teachers.  The guys at the Social Security Office, DMV, Welfare Office are not.

Jumping in at the fourth page without reading the entire thread....

Whenever austerity to comes to America and a large segment of the population moves from being disenchanted to openly hostile because they aren't getting a job, a place to live or a steady supply of essentials (food, water, basic consumables).

If an army marches on its stomach, that's doubly true for a population. People won't riot over their 401Ks, they'll riot went the rule law is widely disrespected from the top to the bottom of a society (it already is in many ways), add to this the magic ingredient of hunger and then we get civil unrest.

If the Teabaggers get into office, they'll be going after food stamps.  How dare people have food on their tables!  If they just had decided not to be poor and to find all those magical jobs that are just a little too elusive... then they'd be able to eat with their own money!

I see race riots approaching all over the country, between African Americans and Latinos in LA in particular. My dad feared race riots if McCain pulled a upset in 2008, so I might be expecting violent riots if Obama is defeated.

There's a difference between America and Europe that make riots less likely here: guns.  America is loaded to the brim with them.  For this reason riots that can go on for weeks with no way of private citizens to defend themselves from looters and moochers will most likely not occur here.  Americans are the most armed citizenry in the world and it's the best safeguard against crap getting out of hand.

Could race riots happen, yes.  But it would most likely be confined to heavily minority areas.

I agree, the LA riots in 92 are the best example.

Hopefully.  That is welfare for farmers (and now farming corporations).

()

lulz @ J.J.

You missed the first line of the poll:

A recent statewide poll, commissioned by the California Federation of Teachers,...



()
[/quote]

Liberal state, questionable source.

The question isn't, should we allow public employee unions.

Here is one that looked at public employee unions, which I found surprising:

   Do you think government employees should be represented by labor unions that bargain for higher pay, benefits and pensions ... or do you think government employees should not be represented by labor unions?

A full 64% of the respondents said "no."

That includes 42% of Democrats, and an overwhelming majority of Republicans. Only 49% of Democrats think public workers should be in unions at all.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Poll_Public_unions_a_hard_sell.html

I'd vote yes, btw.

()

Here is another one from that conservative bastion, the Washington Post:

   In the poll, a whopping 68 percent find it acceptable requiring public employees to contribute more of their pay for retirement benefits; 63 percent are fine with requiring these employees to pay more for their health-care benefits; and 58 percent are OK with freezing public employees' salaries for one year.

    But just 33 percent say it's acceptable -- and 62 percent say it's unacceptable -- to eliminate these employees' collective-bargaining rights as way to deal with state budget deficits.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/03/four_national_polls_show_stron.html

Two thirds are saying, "Bureaucrats, pay for own retirement and healthcare."

Even Quinnapiac got into the act:

Government workers are paid too much, 59 percent of Republicans say, while 6 percent say too little and 28 percent say pay is "about right." Pay is too much, 42 percent of independent voters say, as 13 percent say too little and 37 percent say "about right." While 31 percent of Democrats say pay is too much, 24 percent say too little and 38 percent say "about right." Men say workers are overpaid, not underpaid 44 - 11 percent, with 39 percent saying "about right." Women agree 41 - 19 percent, with 31 percent saying "about right."

Among voters in union households, 37 percent say pay is too much, with 22 percent saying too little and 34 percent saying "about right."

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1562

LOL at bgwah, and Lief, for using such silly sources.

()

I only skimmed the first page.

But driven to desperation? Please.

It started as a peaceful protest, then became violent. Now all the thugs are just using it as a means to wreak havoc on the cities across the UK. People like those who claim the thugs are driven to it just offer those thugs the justification they lack and crave to continue doing their idiotic deeds. Give me a break.

Who needs Al-Qaeda when you have these idiots.

Also, who the hell burns their own city? Don't they realize they are burning and destroying things they actually want? Don't they realize that the money to rebuild will come from them as taxpayers? Pure idiots.

This isn't politically motivated, and those who claim it is have no clue. This is just used as an excuse for the chavs to loot, and cause violence. If you want to put a political spin on it, it shows the utter failure of the welfare state as these kids are so pampered beyond belief, but never mind.

In essence, it's criminal opportunism.

Also, even if it was politically motivated, it won't happen in the US. Obama is almost 1 year away from being voted out of office. (Also, it's much easier to united a country like the UK than the US....note how their culture - sports, music, etc - works compared to the US.....).

if blacks start rioting while Obama is president, he can forget about 2012

No, you can forget about electing a black president for the next 50 years.

i dont think other black pols of the future would suffer because of Obama, but the King riots hurt Bush in 92 and they would destroy Obama's whole mantra of "hope and change"...in fact, large scale riots would certainly give him a primary challenger

yo, i's keeps forgettin you's a brotha, JJ  ;)

...JJ, do you a sizable section (>15%) of the black community would blame Obama if there were large scale riots like those of the Rodney King era?

I think it would depend how he handled it, though civil unrest by any group would hurt Obama.  I could see a situation where it would depress turnout in the poorer African American community.

thought about this for a while last night and how easy it is to use social networks to start a riot...after seeing what happened in London, this has to be keeping Obama up at night because I dont see what Obama could do in response that wouldnt cause a fatal blow to him in 2012...fair or unfair.

if it is perceived that his response is too harsh, he could lose the support of the youth vote.  if it is perceived that his response is not harsh enough, then he is seen as being even less in control of an America that is spiraling out of control - a la Jimmy Carter 1980.  In fact, the whole Obama ascension could be seen as one of the main facilitators that encouraged and unleashed the upheaval (fair or unfair)

We could be in for an interesting dichotomy. Riots are coming and the stadium revivals will also come as well. We may have seen the beginning of said stadium revivals.