Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems like whatever protest or march I see or hear about, everyone is always calling for 'non violence', saying that is the only way things will ever change, or how anyone will ever listen to what they have to say.
Obviously, Im not 'pro violence' ( Im a rather peaceful person actually), but its no secret, the history of the world is chock full of brutal violence, especially related to 'big changes', whether it refers to empire, regime, or political party, a good bit of the worlds CHANGE, has come out of brutality and war.
Maybe people just do not want to face facts about history, and admit that we are a brutal, violent race?
Its odd, I could be watching the nightly news, where they are discussing the US engaging other middle eastern countries, in an attempt to 'change things', while encouraging a friend to avoid violence during a protest for change...? LOL So which one is right?!
We always encourage 'non violence' today when a group wants change...but as a nation, brutal violence is the only method we know to be as effective as 'regime change' to oust some 'anti western' leader and install someone more open to US interests! I guess I just dont understand this?
Absent a mechanism for change, violence usually is a result to cause change. However, in the US, we have this thing called "voting" and thus a mechanism for change. Any violence is either apolitical and taking advantage of the situation, or political people who do not believe in the voting system and rather take the totalitarian route.
When the USSR fell, the protests (I was part of) that led up to it was relatively non-violent, we did not have any means to change policies by way of voting, it was a one party system, unchangeable pretty much from the bottom. So when I see even the peaceful protesters here, I am rather baffled what they are protesting, if they do not like something, merely go out and vote for something you do like. However, one common theme I see is a lot of these protests are happening in cities that have been ran by the Democrats for decades, yet not one single time all these people decided to vote for someone else or a different party? I just cannot wrap my mind around that one.
They are literally down to blaming things that happened 150 years ago, rather than blame the politicians and policies they themselves voted for.
Lastly, it is hilarious that the bulk of the protesters, and likely all the violent ones, are the demographic with the lowest voter turnout.
They are literally down to blaming things that happened 150 years ago, rather than blame the politicians and policies they themselves voted for.
Lastly, it is hilarious that the bulk of the protesters, and likely all the violent ones, are the demographic with the lowest voter turnout.
Voting is not dramatic enough for the underclass. They need to tear chit up to demonstrate their passion. Sort of the adult version of a temper tantrum.
Ultimately it allows the majority to be being bullied by a minority.
Absent a mechanism for change, violence usually is a result to cause change. However, in the US, we have this thing called "voting" and thus a mechanism for change. Any violence is either apolitical and taking advantage of the situation, or political people who do not believe in the voting system and rather take the totalitarian route.
When the USSR fell, the protests (I was part of) that led up to it was relatively non-violent, we did not have any means to change policies by way of voting, it was a one party system, unchangeable pretty much from the bottom. So when I see even the peaceful protesters here, I am rather baffled what they are protesting, if they do not like something, merely go out and vote for something you do like. However, one common theme I see is a lot of these protests are happening in cities that have been ran by the Democrats for decades, yet not one single time all these people decided to vote for someone else or a different party? I just cannot wrap my mind around that one.
They are literally down to blaming things that happened 150 years ago, rather than blame the politicians and policies they themselves voted for.
Lastly, it is hilarious that the bulk of the protesters, and likely all the violent ones, are the demographic with the lowest voter turnout.
I will admit, its strange that its still the same two basic political parties, You would think one, or both would have bitten the dust by now and replaced by a party that is more 'up to date'...I mean, if look at the democrats history, it was them, that was instrumental in groups like the KKK, its almost like the parties have flip flopped on the issues today, its even stranger to me, a completely new party has not risen up yet!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
