How long until riots begin in the U.S.?

[Ban my account ffs!]

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!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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.

[AUH2O Libertarian]

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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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.

[J. J.]

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!

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

[bgwah]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Meeker]

lulz @ J.J.

[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.

[bgwah]

[Lief 🗽]

[J. J.]

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.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

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.....).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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

[J. J.]

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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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?

[J. J.]

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

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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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)

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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.