Riots outside Trump Rally in Orange County

Status
Not open for further replies.
BigBeauford said:
Terrorizing people with threats and breaking their belongings in order to dissuade someone from voting for a candidate is insanely anti-democratic. But they are heroes and stuff.
Click to expand...

True, I seriously don't understand people advocating for violence just because they don't like one candidate or people having the audacity to exercise their democratic rights.

I'm no Trump supporter of course but if you ask me this is not a constructive, civilized way of disagreeing.

Whoever those people are they should be ashamed.
 
Malfunky said:
Please, elaborate.

Like I said, I was there. The protestors were friendly. It was a multitude of different types of people sharing a community bonding over a single cause. We made sure people weren't harmed. If someone needed help, we offered it. If someone bumped into you, they apologized. It was chaotic. And yet we communicated.. We made sure children were out of the way. We held each other back when things got dangerous.

People got overzealous. They broke cop car windows. This happens a lot. Even after sports matches, like I mentioned. Why does it negate the rest of the protest?
Click to expand...

Because no one cares about your protest only the image it conveys afterwards - this message will be spun to illegals destroying property, and interupring free speech through violence. Again, people are severely underestimating trump in the general...
 
Christopher said:
Because no one cares about your protest only the image it conveys afterwards - this message will be spun to illegals destroying property, and interupring free speech through violence. Again, people are severely underestimating trump in the general...
Click to expand...

They have been underestimating him from the start. Look at where he is now vs what people thought he would.....World of a difference, to my dismay.
 
Christopher said:
To mine as well...it says more about our country as a whole tbh
Click to expand...

The rise of extremist nutjobs is not exclusive to the US. We have that in Europe in spades sadly.

Decades of careless mass immigration and contempt for grassroot people who never asked for their country to undergo such massive changes are responsible.
 
knkng said:
First off, why should I trust your reporting over what is being reported by multiple media sources? Am I to believe that you saw every single thing that happened? (But hey, perhaps you did, after all you seem to know the race, religion, sexual and political affiliation of everybody there according to your earlier post).

Second, no, I don't have a problem with the Ferguson riots because they were against a clear establishment (the police). However, I remember people were upset and disappointed at one point when a liquor store was broken into because it was opportunistic and counter-productive to what they were protesting.

Lastly, you're just all over the place with what you're saying. "Nobody was attacked, except for the few scuffles here and there." Um, what? In one post you condone violence, but then you say it's bad, but then only against the police, but also against the public to "take charge of the city." How does any of this disrupt the event, or spread your message to the people watching around the country?

To the bolded: You are the one who condoned violence by changing the parameters to meet your justification. "There is no such thing as violence against property." Well, yeah, you can't assault property, but you can still destroy it, and in this case it is completely counter-productive to the protest. And again with the nobility stuff; Trump is not in power, we have to work to ensure that it does not happen, not play into his politics. You keep talking like you're overthrowing a government, when what we're trying to do here is preventative.
Click to expand...

I don't think the media is contradicting anything I'm saying. What I'm doing is countering the notion in this thread that this was all just a "violent" protest. You said yourself here that you can't assault property, which is my main claim. So we agree on this.

I know what people were represented based on the signs they were wearing and carrying. Literally. Queer signs. Mexican flags. Lebanese flags. Hijabs. Anarchist flags. American flags.

These protests are also against an establishment: the Republican party's frontrunner Donald Trump. This is a fair target, don't you think?

I don't think it's a contradiction to say that nobody was attacked and that there were scuffles. People were injured in the crowds. Trump supporters got rowdy. Were yelling and throwing stuff from their cars. I almost got hit by a glass liquor bottle. Bernie supporters were getting rowdy, too. People were rowdy. People were being provoked. These were not exactly deliberate, targeted attacks. It was a result of the fervor on the ground. It was unfortunate. But it happens. On both sides. So is it fair to color the whole protest because of a few bad apples? That's what I'm saying. Is my defense of the protest at large in the face of a few aggressive acts really condoning violence?
 
These violent protests fuel Trump supporters on social media but I think they have very little negative effect on the average voter. Because most everyone detests him.
 
Malfunky said:
I don't think the media is contradicting anything I'm saying. What I'm doing is countering the notion in this thread that this was all just a "violent" protest. You said yourself here that you can't assault property, which is my main claim. So we agree on this.

I know what people were represented based on the signs they were wearing and carrying. Literally. Queer signs. Mexican flags. Lebanese flags. Hijabs. Anarchist flags. American flags.

These protests are also against an establishment: the Republican party's frontrunner Donald Trump. This is a fair target, don't you think?

I don't think it's a contradiction to say that nobody was attacked and that there were scuffles. People were injured in the crowds. Trump supporters got rowdy. Were yelling and throwing stuff from their cars. I almost got hit by a glass liquor bottle. Bernie supporters were getting rowdy, too. People were rowdy. People were being provoked. These were not exactly deliberate, targeted attacks. It was a result of the fervor on the ground. It was unfortunate. But it happens. On both sides. So is it fair to color the whole protest because of a few bad apples? That's what I'm saying. Is my defense of the protest at large in the face of a few aggressive acts really condoning violence?
Click to expand...

lol where have I heard this before.

I could change a few words in your post and write an empassioned defense of the police.
 
dapperbandit said:
lol where have I heard this before.

I could change a few words in your post and write an empassioned defense of the police.
Click to expand...

Well.. yeah. You can use in talking about anything. Cats. Sharks. People. What's your point?

The obvious difference is that the police have an institutional monopoly on violence and should have greater oversight.
 
Let's not forget that Trump's campaign has paralleled Hitler's rise to power. I don't trust Trump to appoint Supreme Court justices. If he has the Court in his pocket and the military supports him it's all over but the crying.
 
Trump means violence, whether that's in Chicago or SoCal, this won't help in the general at all. Not that it matters. He's the nominee even though a majority of GOP voters didn't vote for him and don't want him.

This election will be a landslide.
 
I have zero respect for any protester who engages in violence.
no matter the cause

use of violence only fuels the other side with the belief of proving them right.

these anti-Trump protesters are actually Helping Donald Trump, not hurting him
 
King Tubby said:
Here's an example. Protesting the police shooting an unarmed black man in your town or city. You put pressure on the local authorities, like the mayor and police commissioner, you draw media attention and make sure that a story that would otherwise slip through the cracks does not. Not sure what a counter-Trump rally accomplishes in either regard.

I'm going to dismiss it because of the likely outcomes of such a protest, few are likely to be productive towards your goals.
Click to expand...

But if my goal is to let it be known that this man isn't welcome, that the 8,000+ Trump supporters in the audience aren't the only collective voice of the city, am I not being productive by just being there? Again, you're dictating what protest must be, which is in direct contradiction to the very idea of protest.


Yes, this is a non-sequitur, because backing a losing candidate in one election is not the same as having no political autonomy. By this standard the only people who shouldn't protest are the ones who always back a winning candidate. This is absurd. It's more absurd for the fact that failing to push Bernie over the top has nothing to do with the ability to stop Trump from winning the general.
Click to expand...

If my choice is Bernie, and he loses, this particular aspect of my political autonomy is forfeit to the whims of the system. I must begrudgingly vote in "lesser of two evils" system, which is more of a coercive choice than an autonomous one. I'm using Bernie as an example even still because you have yet to provide a legitimate avenue for these people to express their voices as opposed to the spontaneous demonstration that happened here.

My parents are immigrants. These aren't just "oppressed people", they're speaking for me, and frankly I don't appreciate how they went about it. And I honestly find it rather presumptuous of you to assume that this is the "only option" when that is clearly not true.
Click to expand...

No, you're discounting political activity that you disagree with as an option. I'm saying it is legitimate, regardless of whether or not you think it's effective.
 
Malfunky said:
I don't think the media is contradicting anything I'm saying. What I'm doing is countering the notion in this thread that this was all just a "violent" protest. You said yourself here that you can't assault property, which is my main claim. So we agree on this.

I know what people were represented based on the signs they were wearing and carrying. Literally. Queer signs. Mexican flags. Lebanese flags. Hijabs. Anarchist flags. American flags.

These protests are also against an establishment: the Republican party's frontrunner Donald Trump. This is a fair target, don't you think?

I don't think it's a contradiction to say that nobody was attacked and that there were scuffles. People were injured in the crowds. Trump supporters got rowdy. Were yelling and throwing stuff from their cars. I almost got hit by a glass liquor bottle. Bernie supporters were getting rowdy, too. People were rowdy. People were being provoked. These were not exactly deliberate, targeted attacks. It was a result of the fervor on the ground. It was unfortunate. But it happens. On both sides. So is it fair to color the whole protest because of a few bad apples? That's what I'm saying. Is my defense of the protest at large in the face of a few aggressive acts really condoning violence?
Click to expand...

I don't want to go around in circles on every point here, so I'll just say that while I better understand where you're coming from now, I disagree with the conclusion you've reached.

Under different circumstances, such a protest might be reasonable, but right now everybody is selling an image. Ok, a few bad apples got into the crowd, as they often do. I can understand that. But now there's pictures of Latino youths standing over a smashed police car, and it plays into what Trump is selling. If you truly want to promote Bernie or Hillary then you must disassociate from the violence (and yes, it is violence). You must put other issues aside and promote the pros and cons of your candidate vs Trump. Sell your cause to the public.

This is not the time nor place for "fuck the police" or fighting 'the man'.
 
My takeaway from this is that violence and destroying property is OK if you REALLY disagree with a politicians shitty views.

In all seriousness this isn't a good look and just plays right into the hands of the bullshit narrative that some folk are inherently violent.
 
I can only imagine that naive and young people support violent protest. No grown adult that works and owns property will ever be good with it.
 
knkng said:
I don't want to go around in circles on every point here, so I'll just say that while I better understand where you're coming from now, I disagree with the conclusion you've reached.

Under different circumstances, such a protest might be reasonable, but right now everybody is selling an image. Ok, a few bad apples got into the crowd, as they often do. I can understand that. But now there's pictures of Latino youths standing over a smashed police car, and it plays into what Trump is selling. If you truly want to promote Bernie or Hillary then you must disassociate from the violence (and yes, it is violence). You must put other issues aside a promote the pros and cons of your candidate vs Trump. Sell your cause to the public.

This is not the time nor place for "fuck the police" or fighting 'the man'.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we were going to disagree from the get go. I'm an anarchist. But despite my political views peaking through in this thread, that's not what I wanted to talk about. I just wanted to try and let people know from someone who was actually there that, like at most protests, there were thousands of people out there who deserve to be considered for more than just the "image" presented by the uncritical eye of the media. Because you're right about the game we're playing here. Selling your cause and all that. But to me, it's cacophony. There is legitimate political activity outside the confines of our system, and tonight we saw a taste of it. Yeah, it was messy, unorganized, and dangerous. But this is what happens. And maybe once in a while people could try and not dismiss it outright.

Anyway, I'm out of the thread. Too tiring. But I liked your posts the most!
 
Mammoth Jones said:
My takeaway from this is that violence and destroying property is OK if you REALLY disagree with a politicians shitty views.

In all seriousness this isn't a good look and just plays right into the hands of the bullshit narrative that some folk are inherently violent.
Click to expand...

It's interesting how different news venues are reporting it. For example NPR called it "a few raging protesters" most reputable news organizations use language like "unruly" and "turned violent" but are avoiding the use of the word "riot".

And yet the OP specifically uses the word "riot" as well as many right wing news organizations.

In fact, the only instance of "riot" I can see in headlines are from places like Drudge and Hotair, even The Blaze calls it "violent protests" instead of a "riot".

Most people would be right to describe this as a peaceful protest that had a couple dozen idiots and the media seems to be portraying it that way for the most part.
 
Christopher said:
Innocents persons property needs to be destroyed? What on earth message does that send?
Click to expand...

That Trumps rhetoric incites small groups of otherwise peaceful people to violence. That he is divisive, and harmful to America and it's values.

Oh wait, you probably put this one the minorities instead of the powerful guy saying these awful things huh?
 
marrec said:
It's interesting how different news venues are reporting it. For example NPR called it "a few raging protesters" most reputable news organizations use language like "unruly" and "turned violent" but are avoiding the use of the word "riot".

And yet the OP specifically uses the word "riot" as well as many right wing news organizations.

In fact, the only instance of "riot" I can see in headlines are from places like Drudge and Hotair, even The Blaze calls it "violent protests" instead of a "riot".

Most people would be right to describe this as a peaceful protest that had a couple dozen idiots and the media seems to be portraying it that way for the most part.
Click to expand...

Of course. Expect it to be twisted and spun into every which possilbe way to support a preexisting agenda/bias.
 
Mammoth Jones said:
Of course. Expect it to be twisted and spun into every which possilbe way to support a preexisting agenda/bias.
Click to expand...

Which is why I don't really believe that incidents like this hurt or help either side, those undecided on either fringe will be swayed by the narrative spin on the left and right and those firmly decided will consume their media of choice which will reinforce the bias already in place about the groups involved.
 
E92 M3 said:
That's dumb, people are responsible for their own actions and should be in jail. Innocent people don't deserve to have their stuff trashed.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Anyone involved in the violence should be held accountable according to the local laws.

It's also appropriate and necessary to understand where the violence stems from however. This wasn't a random act of psychopathic destruction or mass hysteria.

Donald Trump is encouraging and inciting violence with his hateful speech. A small minority of his supporters are helping this along with their hateful speech.
 
Mammoth Jones said:
My takeaway from this is that violence and destroying property is OK if you REALLY disagree with a politicians shitty views.

In all seriousness this isn't a good look and just plays right into the hands of the bullshit narrative that some folk are inherently violent.
Click to expand...

Except that's not really the take away at all, is it?

More like if you go around the country inciting the worst possible people you could imagine to come out of their holes and be proud to be what they are, endangering anyone who doesn't fit into their backwards views at the same time, then SOME of those people you are endangering and talking down about are gonna show up and respond in violence.

Which is common sense.

"oh, don't do that, that's not helping your cause at all"

The man called their entire race rapists, and instead of being shamed and humiliated, his numbers went up.

This man has done nothing but run on peoples hate and fear, and instead of this hurting him, its done nothing but help him.

It doesn't matter if he wins or loses to these people. Not really. His very existence is a clear message that this country does not work in the idealistic ways you speak, a point anyone with their head on right can see by reading the damn news.

And you want them to play by the rules of a so called "modern society"? And you look down when they give in to the same urges that most of us fight back on a daily basis? Lmao, so many responses in this thread are just naïve. I'm not gonna say what they did was right, it wasn't. But that narrative you all seem so worried about?

Its gonna exist in the same way, with or without these people throwing rocks. At least now they can go home and lie to themselves about doing something about it.

Change the word "riots" with "protesters", and show and post pictures of the hundreds of people who were there probably not doing anything wrong, and suddenly this thread would be a different place, wouldn't it?

The narrative is whatever the hell you want to believe, and there's very little that's gonna change that in a world where all it takes is a slightly different perspective to paint a completely different picture.
 
marrec said:
Which is why I don't really believe that incidents like this hurt or help either side, those undecided on either fringe will be swayed by the narrative spin on the left and right and those firmly decided will consume their media of choice which will reinforce the bias already in place about the groups involved.
Click to expand...

As long as the media talks about the protest turning violent, or violence occurring during the protests, the average person will view the protest negatively.
 
1150x647
Click to expand...

.
 
Alligatorjandro said:
Everyone knows what they did was wrong but when you say things about people like trump does you can't expect everyone to to act rationally.
Click to expand...

Worst rationale ever right here.

marrec said:
Absolutely. Anyone involved in the violence should be held accountable according to the local laws.

It's also appropriate and necessary to understand where the violence stems from however. This wasn't a random act of psychopathic destruction or mass hysteria.

Donald Trump is encouraging and inciting violence with his hateful speech. A small minority of his supporters are helping this along with their hateful speech.
Click to expand...

It actually did look like an opportunistic act of violence. I have zero sympathy for violent protesters. We live in a modern and civilized society - problems aren't resolved with violence.
 
Alligatorjandro said:
What is the correct way
Click to expand...

Alligatorjandro said:
Stuff happens when you say things that trump has said
Click to expand...

Alligatorjandro said:
Well yeah

But people don't like being called criminals and rapists
Click to expand...

Alligatorjandro said:
Blame trump
Click to expand...


Damn, you are trying desperately to remove any culpability from the protesters who resorted to violence here. I think most people learn as children that "he called me names!" doesn't work as a great excuse when you act out in response. It doesn't work here either.
 
E92 M3 said:
It actually did look like an opportunistic act of violence. I have zero sympathy for violent protesters. We live in a modern and civilized society - problems aren't resolved with violence.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you to have sympathy, I'm asking you to question the root of the violence the same way I question the root of the ground-swell of white anger that has propelled Trump's rise.

You're being incredibly dismissive to simply say it was opportunistic, these things usually happen for a reason and that reason isn't "mexicans are violent".

Edit:

I understand if you are simply disinterested in the roots of the violence though, many people are.
 
Aaronology said:
Damn, you are trying desperately to remove any culpability from the protesters who resorted to violence here. I think most people learn as children that "he called me names!" doesn't work as a great excuse when you act out in response. It doesn't work here either.
Click to expand...
No I'm saying these people aren't doing this just because it's fun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Cream - Outside Woman Blues
1
410
HRK69 replied
TV for gaming outside
9
821
The Infectious Paradox replied
  • Poll
Orange juice or apple juice?
2
67
3K
CuckooBananaNuts replied
  • Locked
Trump will be dictator like Putin
30
2K
Korranator replied
Trump has declassified JFK files
2 3
144
10K
Lord Panda replied
Top Bottom