Is violence the answer?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
36 Answers
Of course it is.
It worked in the French Revolution, the Russian onslaught in WW2, the treasonous rebellion of the colonies against their rightful British rulers, and that so-called “civil war” of yours.
“Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.” – George Washington
@seawulf575, violence is an irrational act, no matter how or who justifies their actions. In our country, everyone has the right and duty to protest, but no one has the right to interfere with the legal rights of others, including appearing in public. Preventing a woman from eating at a restaurant or going to an abortion clinic is equally wrong.
@ragingloli, the quote from George Washington does not distinguish between violence by governments against their populace or the populace against their government. Violence is an animal’s reaction whose purpose is controlling the actions of others. Whether directed by Generals, Presidents or mob bosses, violence is dehumanizing and wrong regardless of the rationalization behind it.
It is actually from Michael Ironside from the movie Starship Troopers.
Only if you are a twisted f**k.
My personal observation is that people who talk one way or the other about violence have no idea what real violence is. I think they should be careful.
Having said that, people who don’t like a president only have to wait a few years and they can vote for another. In this case two years. Might as well take your stock market returns for now, and get busy campaigning in 2020.
The US.has had plenty of inept presidents and it is still here and still going pretty strong. One unpopular real estate tycoon is not going to sink the ship anymore than would a Hollywood movie actor, a Texas oil tycoon, his son, a narcissistic Arkansas sexual predator, and law school teacher who was appointed to the Senate and orated his way into the presidency.
When you get right down to it the White House is sort of a clown car.
@Bill1939 if I could give you more than one GA, I would.
I essentially have the same opinion as @josie. People need to calm the f*** down. Americans are spoiled; they haven’t lived under a true dictator. They react in violence because Trump’s personality is grating. If you really don’t like Trump, then nominate someone who can beat him. Show that you’ve learned something from 2016 and the Trump presidency. Erupting in violence over bullshit (which both sides have done) only damages our institutions and weakens our country.
It depends. Tearing up Rump’s star doesn’t help. Doesn’t hurt either. Sometimes venting your anger and frustration on an inanimate object is good therapy. Beats killing the SOB who pissed you off.
We seem to have to live with these idiots. Of course fighting between McDonald customers and employees is always stupid. Fighting on and about Mr. Trump’s star is not warranted and more stupidity. It took a while but America has been dumbed down and the newest generation, in toto, of adults don’t seem to have the common sense of a cow. This makes citizens carrying weapons more likely and important than any time since the civil war. So along with the stupidity of law breakers we have citizen cowboys. Life is really good.
It’s almost never the answer. However, many men don’t know how to react to things they disagree with any other way. Unfortunately, women seen to be adopting this tactic now, too. This whole country is becoming increasingly violent and rude.
Since the Trump supporters took the first swing, I don’t think your characterization of the “anti-Trumpers resorting to violence” is accurate.
People are confronting injustice. That may seem confrontational, although it is the Christian thing to do, speaking truth to abusive power.
How can you tell who is who from the video @zenvelo?
This sort of street brawling is a problem, not the answer. Mass anti Trump protests in the streets by the majority of Americans who don’t support him might be more effective.
To many young, male, human primates just like to fight.
@Zenvelo actually it looked like an anti-Trumper. The anti-Trumper was getting all in the one guys face. Someone else stepped in between them to break it up. Then someone that had been standing next to/slightly behind the anti-Trumper ran up and punched the guy trying to bring peace. After that more and more anti-Trumpers were seen attacking the camera guy and others in that party. So yeah…it was the liberals instigating the violence…as usual.
I can’t begin to tell who is who.
It’s just overwhelmingly classless. Undignified. Ugly. Cheap. Redneck.
God I miss the Obamas.
Yet Trump “grabbing them by the pussy” is acceptable?
I guess so. His insults to women are acceptable too. Having sex with underage girls is fine. It’s all fine because he is rich.
@Dutchess_III yeah…when Obama was president, conservatives didn’t act like unruly children. bordering on animals.
The hell they didn’t! They passed around lies like it was Easter candy! Ridiculous, absurd lies at that.
Your peers
@Dutchess_III did they resort to the violence that is being waged by the left these days? Nope. And not everything you don’t want to believe is a lie, dear.
That was stuff that the conservatives were circulating.
There wasn’t as much violence because Obama was a calm, intelligent leader.
Trump is a buffoon who encourages violence.
@seawulf575 “I could give you more than one GA, I would.” Thank you.
Violence is born out of frustration and anger not being heard.
Trump is the manipulator and controls the general public’s responses.
What would happen if after one of his unbelievable remarks or tweets if no one responded?
Don’t give him the satisfaction of sucking the public’s energy especially anger.
He thrives on the attention and the false feeling that he is the puppet master of the world.
The media thrives on public viewers and Trump knows that as well. Again What would happen if people turned off their Televisions and digital devices and stopped reacting?
Trump’s ego would deflate quickly when ignored.I suspect that he would go into higher gear and do much worst if people ignored him. A silent protest? The best protest sign should read“I will not vote for Trump in 2020 Election” . As in Europe there signs of protest were seen on news casts world wide with “Dump Trump” thereby sending a messeage very effectively in two words.
@Dutchess_III
Good, that one.
Initially peoples first response id disgust or anger until some think on it more.
This is what I meant as Trump controlling, but actually manipulating emotions.
@Dutchess_III and @Inspired_2write I would suggest it is actually two-fold. Trump tweets some idiotic things…that is a given. But the media also blows things of proportion, urging anger and hatred. Take the travel ban for instance. The media continued to call it a Muslim ban even though not all Muslim-majority nations were on it, even though “Muslim” or “Islam” were never mentioned, and even though nations that are not Muslim-majority were on the list. Trump at one point mentioned something about banning Muslims. He’s the fool. But the actual order had nothing to do with Muslims, yet the media continued to blow it out of proportion.
@Dutchess_III yep…on the campaign trail he said that. That is what I just said. Here, let me restate what I just said: “Trump at one point mentioned something about banning Muslims. He’s the fool.” But if you read the entire statement in context, I state that the actual travel ban was not about Muslims…which is a fact. It didn’t include all Muslims, all Muslim-majority nations, and included some Muslim-minority nations. There was nothing about that travel ban that was about Muslims. But the media repeated “Muslim Ban” so many times that people like you buy into it and cannot accept any other reality, regardless of the truth.
Of course it was. He had no other reason to impose such restrictions.
How about imposing a ban on travel to our nation from nations that have threatened violence against us? That is what it was. That is why nations that have a history of supporting terrorist groups were on it as well as North Korea and Venezuela. And why nations like Indonesia were not on it. Think about it. If it was a Muslim ban, there are 50 nations that are Muslim Majority nations….50%+ of the population. They would all have been on there. And nations like NK or Venezuela would not have been on the list. But we had gotten to a position under Obama where we were taking people in from whatever nation with absolutely no vetting. ISIS actually admitted they were infiltrating soldiers in with “refugees” to spread their dissension around the globe. We had already had enough ISIS inspired violence and didn’t need any more. We also had Venezuela and NK publicly announcing that they would attack us. The really weird part to me is that anyone would fight against letting people into our nation without actually vetting them. That seems a recipe for disaster.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
