Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Seaward wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
It's a shame we'll never know how trumpers would have handled the loss.

Meanwhile, we do know that it's a shame how many Clinton supporters are handling the loss.

Define "many", and how do we know who they supported?

Look on the news.

So there 'a a bunch of angry people protesting, using the slogan "Not Our President". How does that establish anything other than the fact that they're not happy with Trump being president? For all we know, this could be a bunch of Sanders fans, or primarily a bunch of people who didn't vote but doesn't like Trump. Or it could be Clinton supporters. Or, which is probably more likely, a mixture of the above. It certainly doesn't reflect well on anti-Trump people in general, but just offhandedly assuming that it's due to Clinton supporters is a simplification.

Do note that looting is still despicable and that I'm not trying to defend the donkeycaves who do it.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The Left always says the Right is going to do something, but its always the Left doing the actual looting.

You're exalted.

"...its always the Left doing the actual looting." Bundy and the heavily armed militia occupation for the win, Alex. You want to make broad, inaccurate, sweeping comments then do so when reality can't slap your position across the face. Now myself, I would make what I think is the more accurate assessmentt that it's neither "...the Left..." or "...the Right..." engaging in these actions, but fringe anarchist elements that really don't represent anyone but themselves and their own agenda.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

But when Hilary says "no fly zone over Syria" we take her at her word and we're going to re-enter the cold war?

Why is taking Trump at his word just "you silly lefties, over reacting to hot air" but it's all serious and going to happen for anything Hilary said.

First, persona; Trump is a performer, Hillary is a politico of whom even her own staff has said should loosen up/be less deliberate/go off the cuff.

Second, her entire record suggests she's never found an armed conflict she didn't like. Then go look at her donor list, and these are all people who benefit from making lines on maps move around. Ignore all of the social issues for the moment, what's the difference between HRC and John McCain? Serious question here. By contrast, Trump owns real estate all over the world; actual physical assets. He has a disincentive to literally blow up his own stuff. Hillary by contrast seems to have literal incentive for the opposite.

 Frazzled wrote:
The Left always says the Right is going to do something, but its always the Left doing the actual looting.

It's not always the left, are you really going to claim all african americans are leftist liberals? Everyone in the military are leftists? in the past it's never been about politics it's been about oppressed groups that encompass both sides.

the navy riot in chicago also comes to mind. It seems all to failure, after being demonized and targeted unfairly by the police, a riot ensues.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1979/06/25/page/1/article/500-sailors-riot-at-great-lakes/

As unpleasant as they are, they do get results and oddly enough things usually get better afterwards.

Our founding fathers showed the way when they rioted along the docks and destroyed public property by dumping the tea into the ocean. Then things got better for america

the protest going on yesterday is just weird, yes they're hillary supports, yes there's many of them, but there's no real point to it. Unless they want to arm themselves and overthrow the government, then maybe the could get the right to join in, there's just no point to it. The right has always dreamed about an armed rebellion, but they're just not doers I guess, all talk, no action. After this nearly 2 year long emotional race I think they're just going through the 5 stages of grief, they moved past denial and are on anger right now, and today will be bargaining "yes officer, if you let me off with a warning I'll go home and knock it off"

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

So there 'a a bunch of angry people protesting, using the slogan "Not Our President".

Define "a bunch."

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
There are more deplorables and gullible people than polls and analysis anticipated. The deplorables love him for obvious reasons, the gullible people somehow thought that a billionaire who was born into wealth and privilege and has a history of screwing over middle-class workers is somehow the champion of the masses who will give them their jobs back. So it turns out that if you yell racism and zero-substance nationalism loud enough you can win an election despite having policy positions that range from "not possible" to "sheer raving lunacy".

Add to this the evangelicals turned out in favour of Trump 81 to 16, because they've have basically submitted themselves to whomever the Republican party put up as a candidate, for reasons that I can best describe as a shared commitment to form a collective delusion. Reading my cousin and his friend's facebook discussion on why they all agree Trump was interesting because he was a billionaire but also a man of the people, and man who was publicly shallow but privately so generous... it kind of gave me a scientology vibe.

Trump's victory has more to do with Hilary being a terrible candidate than with any favorable attribute that Trump might have. Hillary got about 60 million votes, that's about 10 million fewer votes than Obama got in 2008 and 7 million fewer votes than Obama got in 2012. Where did all those voters go and why didn't they vote for Hillary? Hillary lost states like Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin because of low turnout and that speaks volumes about the inability of Hillary to win over Obama voters and motivate Democrats. I don't see what Trump did that could explain the atrocious turnout for Hillary.

Precisely.

I've been watching the crowing from the right...congratulations on your candidate's victory...but is the election of a petty, vindictive, racist, demagogic, xenophobic, bullying sexual predator to the office of POTUS...in no small part on the backs of the uneducated and desperate, combined with what can only be described as a horrible campaign strategy from the HRC camp which manifested into voter apathy from her base...something to crow about? God, I hope not. Crowing about the Cubs winning the WS after 108 years, that's appropriate. This really isn't and if it is, then I think there's more than a bit of "birds of a feather" involved and that's deplorable.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Anti-Trump Rallies

It is their right to complain though. It's a free country after all.

You have the right to peaceful assembly and protest. I don't have a problem with that.

When you damage other people's property or otherwise affect innocent people's place of business that I have an issues, regardless of what you're protesting.

 kronk wrote:

You have the right to peaceful assembly and protest. I don't have a problem with that.

When you damage other people's property or otherwise affect innocent people's place of business that I have an issues, regardless of what you're protesting.

They're protesting the FEMA concentration camps for opponents of the regime and the black CIA ICE helicopters coming to deport everybody that we're sure to see under a Trump presidency.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Seaward wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
It's a shame we'll never know how trumpers would have handled the loss.

Meanwhile, we do know that it's a shame how many Clinton supporters are handling the loss.

Define "many", and how do we know who they supported?

Look on the news.

So there 'a a bunch of angry people protesting, using the slogan "Not Our President". How does that establish anything other than the fact that they're not happy with Trump being president? For all we know, this could be a bunch of Sanders fans, or primarily a bunch of people who didn't vote but doesn't like Trump. Or it could be Clinton supporters. Or, which is probably more likely, a mixture of the above. It certainly doesn't reflect well on anti-Trump people in general, but just offhandedly assuming that it's due to Clinton supporters is a simplification.

Do note that looting is still despicable and that I'm not trying to defend the donkeycaves who do it.

Well we can ascertain by brilliant deduction that its not Republicans and Libertarians.

Seaward wrote:
Yet he was the only one in the race talking to them. Plenty of others talked about them, but only to call them racist, misogynist, sister-fething hillbillies who were too stupid to vote for Clinton.

Again, believe me, I fething hope they keep doing exactly that.

It's also worth noting that Trump's victory can't be chalked up solely to that demographic - he won college-educated whites, too. He won white people. Across the board.

I agree that he was the only one talking to him. Most recent candidates either ignore them or insult them. You have Hillary's 'deplorables' comment, but don't forget about Obama's 'clinging to their guns and religion' comment from that race.

Trump 'winning white people' is true at a national level, but subject to regional differences, so don't get too excited about that.

I live in Chester County, PA. It's the wealthiest county in PA and one of the big suburban counties that are usually described as the key to winning PA. It's heavily white and Republican. And yet, Clinton won Chester County, something Obama didn't do in 2012. In fact, she won the four Philly suburban counties by something like 179,000 votes. So in fact here the college-educated whites -- including a lot of Republicans -- went for Clinton.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The Left always says the Right is going to do something, but its always the Left doing the actual looting.

You're exalted.

"...its always the Left doing the actual looting." Bundy and the heavily armed militia occupation for the win, Alex. You want to make broad, inaccurate, sweeping comments then do so when reality can't slap your position across the face. Now myself, I would make what I think is the more accurate assessmentt that it's neither "...the Left..." or "...the Right..." engaging in these actions, but fringe anarchist elements that really don't represent anyone but themselves and their own agenda.

Bundy didn't loot. He hid in a cabin with a bunch of other men and a barrel of lube.

Rightwingers don't appear to have the history of rioting and disorganized violence that left wingers do (they're violence is organized ). Its happening as we speak in Oakland.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
I've been watching the crowing from the right...congratulations on your candidate's victory...but is the election of a petty, vindictive, racist, demagogic, xenophobic, bullying sexual predator to the office of POTUS...in no small part on the backs of the uneducated and desperate, combined with what can only be described as a horrible campaign strategy from the HRC camp which manifested into voter apathy from her base...something to crow about? God, I hope not. Crowing about the Cubs winning the WS after 108 years, that's appropriate. This really isn't and if it is, then I think there's more than a bit of "birds of a feather" involved and that's deplorable.

The crowing might change in the months to come. There is little reason to think that his relationship with GOP leadership will be chummy. I don't think he's even really a conservative.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The Left always says the Right is going to do something, but its always the Left doing the actual looting.

You're exalted.

"...its always the Left doing the actual looting." Bundy and the heavily armed militia occupation for the win, Alex. You want to make broad, inaccurate, sweeping comments then do so when reality can't slap your position across the face. Now myself, I would make what I think is the more accurate assessmentt that it's neither "...the Left..." or "...the Right..." engaging in these actions, but fringe anarchist elements that really don't represent anyone but themselves and their own agenda.

Bundy didn't loot. He hid in a cabin with a bunch of other men and a barrel of lube.

Rightwingers don't appear to have the history of rioting and disorganized violence that left wingers do (they're violence is organized ). Its happening as we speak in Oakland.

"Bundy didn't loot"?

Loooooool. Look into the damage to Malheur. Oh, also?
They used construction equipment to remove/damage the fences around the property for the purposes of letting cattle come through a protected sanctuary for wildlife.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The Left always says the Right is going to do something, but its always the Left doing the actual looting.

It's not always the left, are you really going to claim all african americans are leftist liberals? Everyone in the military are leftists? in the past it's never been about politics it's been about oppressed groups that encompass both sides.

the navy riot in chicago also comes to mind. It seems all to failure, after being demonized and targeted unfairly by the police, a riot ensues.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1979/06/25/page/1/article/500-sailors-riot-at-great-lakes/

As unpleasant as they are, they do get results and oddly enough things usually get better afterwards.

Our founding fathers showed the way when they rioted along the docks and destroyed public property by dumping the tea into the ocean. Then things got better for america

the protest going on yesterday is just weird, yes they're hillary supports, yes there's many of them, but there's no real point to it. Unless they want to arm themselves and overthrow the government, then maybe the could get the right to join in, there's just no point to it. The right has always dreamed about an armed rebellion, but they're just not doers I guess, all talk, no action. After this nearly 2 year long emotional race I think they're just going through the 5 stages of grief, they moved past denial and are on anger right now, and today will be bargaining "yes officer, if you let me off with a warning I'll go home and knock it off"

Founders were radicals in case you didn't notice.
You're trying to compare a navy event? Wow, thats what we call reaching for a lifeline. Face it. Nonsports riots in the US have been been overwhelmingly leftwing in the last 50-100 years.

I exclude sports as I don't know how you would determine that makeup.

EDIT: Where you are correct is organized violence. Although the Ayers crowd dropped dozens of bombs, the unabomber did what a dozen himself etc. reactionaries took the cake with Oklahoma, and were experts in church bombings/burning and KKK related terrorism in the 1960s. So I should be specific and speak of riots.

 Frazzled wrote:

Founders were radicals in case you didn't notice.
You're trying to compare a navy event? Wow, thats what we call reaching for a lifeline. Face it. Nonsports riots in the US have been been overwhelmingly leftwing in the last 50-100 years.

I exclude sports as I don't know how you would determine that makeup.

So let's talk about armed standoffs with law enforcement.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/moscow-had-contacts-with-trump-team-during-campaign-russian-diplomat-says/ar-AAk7Qne?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=ASUDHP


Please let everybody know when the "Feth, I've been duped!" revelation sets in.

Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

So there 'a a bunch of angry people protesting, using the slogan "Not Our President".

Define "a bunch."

More than thirteen people.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Seaward wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
It's a shame we'll never know how trumpers would have handled the loss.

Meanwhile, we do know that it's a shame how many Clinton supporters are handling the loss.

Define "many", and how do we know who they supported?

Look on the news.

So there 'a a bunch of angry people protesting, using the slogan "Not Our President". How does that establish anything other than the fact that they're not happy with Trump being president? For all we know, this could be a bunch of Sanders fans, or primarily a bunch of people who didn't vote but doesn't like Trump. Or it could be Clinton supporters. Or, which is probably more likely, a mixture of the above. It certainly doesn't reflect well on anti-Trump people in general, but just offhandedly assuming that it's due to Clinton supporters is a simplification.

Do note that looting is still despicable and that I'm not trying to defend the donkeycaves who do it.

Well we can ascertain by brilliant deduction that its not Republicans and Libertarians.

Even assuming that there are no Republicans or Libertarians that oppose Trump, are the only three American political camps "Republicans, Libertarians, and people who supported Clinton"?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The Left always says the Right is going to do something, but its always the Left doing the actual looting.

You're exalted.

"...its always the Left doing the actual looting." Bundy and the heavily armed militia occupation for the win, Alex. You want to make broad, inaccurate, sweeping comments then do so when reality can't slap your position across the face. Now myself, I would make what I think is the more accurate assessmentt that it's neither "...the Left..." or "...the Right..." engaging in these actions, but fringe anarchist elements that really don't represent anyone but themselves and their own agenda.

Bundy didn't loot. He hid in a cabin with a bunch of other men and a barrel of lube.

Rightwingers don't appear to have the history of rioting and disorganized violence that left wingers do (they're violence is organized ). Its happening as we speak in Oakland.

"Bundy didn't loot"?

Loooooool. Look into the damage to Malheur. Oh, also?
They used construction equipment to remove/damage the fences around the property for the purposes of letting cattle come through a protected sanctuary for wildlife.

Dude you can only hang in a cabin with a bunch of guys and a barrel for so long.

*You might have missed where I recommended something called napalm. Hanging from the nearest tree would have worked for me too. If its good enough for Washington its good enough for me.

Just a few more days of the left's "waaagghhh" and I think Cali's drought might soon be over.

Praise Kek!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What you say makes good sense, however if the ability to pass useless ineffective unjust laws was restored, would it be a good thing?

In one sense, to demonstrate the uselessness of such laws may be worth the effort of passing them.

When did we restrict the ability to pass useless ineffective unjust laws? We do that all the time at the local, state and federal level.

I mean the ability has been restored in the sense that the checks and balances of a separate presidency, senate and congress are now all in the hands of the Republicans, energised by an extreme wing of the party. There have been plenty of useless laws passed at state level, by Republican state governments, which generally get struck down by the Supreme Court. Even that check and balance miught go Republican in the next two years.

All the checks and balances are still in place. Trump still needs Congress to support any legislative effort and getting that support won't be easy. He openly feuded with Republicans like McCain, Rubio, and Cruz during the campaign and he had a nasty public dispute with Paul Ryan the House Majority Leader. The Republicans were having interparty squabbles and problems in the House before Trump got elected, see the ouster of Boehner and Ryan's issues with whipping the party in line. The Republicans in Congress aren't going to just blindly support Trump's legislative agenda whatever it turns out to be.

Again, it's important to remember that Obama was in an even stronger position than Trump when he took office in 2008 with a Democratic supermajority in Congress and he struggled mightily to get the ACA passed and then had a simple majority in Congress for years and didn't pass any noteworthy legislation.

There's also the Democrats in Congress to contend with, there are 48 Democratic senators that can do a lot to impede or thwart Republican legislative efforts.

Hopefully, people in both political parties will better recognize that limiting executive power is good regardless of who is in charge. During Obama's presidency there have been numerous times when Democrats and pundits bemoaned the inability of the Obama to work around Congress to do whatever he wanted and serious talk about getting rid of the filibuster rules to prevent Republican obstructionism. Now that Trump is president I don't think we'll be hearing arguments from Democrats about how the filibuster should go away or that executive orders don't have enough power. Too many people have taken a very myopic view of politics lately and its dangerous for the country, people might want theirs side to have more power to change things but those same expanded powers would still be there when the other side is in the white house. We've overdosed on partisanship and its a problem that needs to be corrected.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Founders were radicals in case you didn't notice.
You're trying to compare a navy event? Wow, thats what we call reaching for a lifeline. Face it. Nonsports riots in the US have been been overwhelmingly leftwing in the last 50-100 years.

I exclude sports as I don't know how you would determine that makeup.

So let's talk about armed standoffs with law enforcement.

just don't break my heart at wounded knee.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The Left always says the Right is going to do something, but its always the Left doing the actual looting.

You're exalted.

"...its always the Left doing the actual looting." Bundy and the heavily armed militia occupation for the win, Alex. You want to make broad, inaccurate, sweeping comments then do so when reality can't slap your position across the face. Now myself, I would make what I think is the more accurate assessmentt that it's neither "...the Left..." or "...the Right..." engaging in these actions, but fringe anarchist elements that really don't represent anyone but themselves and their own agenda.

Bundy didn't loot. He hid in a cabin with a bunch of other men and a barrel of lube.

Hrm, they trashed the place and made use of the resources therein, running around with US Govt owned vehicles, including one guy being arrested off site with one of them, that's pretty "looty" to me, even if they didn't run off with the microwave and TV. They caused damage to property and made use of property and services that were neither owned nor purchased by them.

Spacemanvic wrote:Just a few more days of the left's "waaagghhh" and I think Cali's drought might soon be over.

Praise Kek!

Exalted.

Seaward wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
I suspect I know the answer, but I'm going to ask anyway.

Why for Trumps rhetoric are we reading between the lines "build a wall" apparently just means tough on immigration. But when Hilary says "no fly zone over Syria" we take her at her word and we're going to re-enter the cold war?

Why is taking Trump at his word just "you silly lefties, over reacting to hot air" but it's all serious and going to happen for anything Hilary said.

I can pretty positively state that the number of people who cast their vote based on the prospect of a Syrian no-fly zone is under 10.

Was just an example off the top of my head, I could have used "mexico isn't sending their best" vs "deplorables", still doesn't answer my question. Why for one candidate do are we brushing off the rhetoric, but for the other everything is taken at word?

@sourClams
Again we take her at face value because she's an experienced politico running for highest US office, but give Trump a pass because he's a performer?

As far as I know he doesn't own property in Syria so would be fine to bomb IS to smithereens and "take all their oil" (I forget the full quote, Peregrine provided the full quote earlier).

Again this doesn't explain why one is taken at their word, whereas the other taken at their word has been described (paraphrasing) as "silly lefties, he's full of hot air".

For me there seems to be a disconnect between the to positions.

*edit's maybe coming as on phone.

So has this been posted yet (there were 20 new pages since I looked on here yesterday).



Seem's to me there is one group of voters to blame, and it's not the "racists" as everyone likes to scream about.

 sebster wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
It's funny that you call him a RINO, Whem.

I think we just established that, according to the republican voters, he certainly is a republican and is in fact what they want in a president.

I gotta go with A Town Called Malus here, whembly. You might need to start coming to terms with an election that showed that Trump and the people like him are the core of the Republican party now, and people like you and Paul Ryan are strangers in a strange land.

Once again... in US politics... the term RINO, (Republicans In Name Only) was a pejorative term used to denote a Republican wasn't conservative enough.

Not that they weren't members of the Republican Party.

The whole irony, not lost on me, is that the Republican Party isn't the conservative party.

I agree it'd be more accurate to use CINO... but, in the 90's and especially in 2000's US politics, RINOism was bandied about...

Sauce yo:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RINO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only
http://www.conservapedia.com/RINO

 djones520 wrote:
So has this been posted yet (there were 20 new pages since I looked on here yesterday).



Seem's to me there is one group of voters to blame, and it's not the "racists" as everyone likes to scream about.

I ninja'd that point a few posts previous but you have a chart and it's in color too so you win.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
There are more deplorables and gullible people than polls and analysis anticipated. The deplorables love him for obvious reasons, the gullible people somehow thought that a billionaire who was born into wealth and privilege and has a history of screwing over middle-class workers is somehow the champion of the masses who will give them their jobs back. So it turns out that if you yell racism and zero-substance nationalism loud enough you can win an election despite having policy positions that range from "not possible" to "sheer raving lunacy".

Add to this the evangelicals turned out in favour of Trump 81 to 16, because they've have basically submitted themselves to whomever the Republican party put up as a candidate, for reasons that I can best describe as a shared commitment to form a collective delusion. Reading my cousin and his friend's facebook discussion on why they all agree Trump was interesting because he was a billionaire but also a man of the people, and man who was publicly shallow but privately so generous... it kind of gave me a scientology vibe.

Trump's victory has more to do with Hilary being a terrible candidate than with any favorable attribute that Trump might have. Hillary got about 60 million votes, that's about 10 million fewer votes than Obama got in 2008 and 7 million fewer votes than Obama got in 2012. Where did all those voters go and why didn't they vote for Hillary? Hillary lost states like Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin because of low turnout and that speaks volumes about the inability of Hillary to win over Obama voters and motivate Democrats. I don't see what Trump did that could explain the atrocious turnout for Hillary.

Precisely.

I've been watching the crowing from the right...congratulations on your candidate's victory...but is the election of a petty, vindictive, racist, demagogic, xenophobic, bullying sexual predator to the office of POTUS...in no small part on the backs of the uneducated and desperate, combined with what can only be described as a horrible campaign strategy from the HRC camp which manifested into voter apathy from her base...something to crow about? God, I hope not. Crowing about the Cubs winning the WS after 108 years, that's appropriate. This really isn't and if it is, then I think there's more than a bit of "birds of a feather" involved and that's deplorable.

 djones520 wrote:
So has this been posted yet (there were 20 new pages since I looked on here yesterday).



Seem's to me there is one group of voters to blame, and it's not the "racists" as everyone likes to scream about.

I was hoping to see something like this chart. Thank you.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The Left always says the Right is going to do something, but its always the Left doing the actual looting.

You're exalted.

"...its always the Left doing the actual looting." Bundy and the heavily armed militia occupation for the win, Alex. You want to make broad, inaccurate, sweeping comments then do so when reality can't slap your position across the face. Now myself, I would make what I think is the more accurate assessmentt that it's neither "...the Left..." or "...the Right..." engaging in these actions, but fringe anarchist elements that really don't represent anyone but themselves and their own agenda.

Bundy didn't loot. He hid in a cabin with a bunch of other men and a barrel of lube.

Hrm, they trashed the place and made use of the resources therein, running around with US Govt owned vehicles, including one guy being arrested off site with one of them, that's pretty "looty" to me, even if they didn't run off with the microwave and TV. They caused damage to property and made use of property and services that were neither owned nor purchased by them.

Govertnment property-which they should have gone to jail for. But they weren't running around trashing businesses as in Oakland right now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The Left always says the Right is going to do something, but its always the Left doing the actual looting.

You're exalted.

"...its always the Left doing the actual looting." Bundy and the heavily armed militia occupation for the win, Alex. You want to make broad, inaccurate, sweeping comments then do so when reality can't slap your position across the face. Now myself, I would make what I think is the more accurate assessmentt that it's neither "...the Left..." or "...the Right..." engaging in these actions, but fringe anarchist elements that really don't represent anyone but themselves and their own agenda.

Bundy didn't loot. He hid in a cabin with a bunch of other men and a barrel of lube.

Hrm, they trashed the place and made use of the resources therein, running around with US Govt owned vehicles, including one guy being arrested off site with one of them, that's pretty "looty" to me, even if they didn't run off with the microwave and TV. They caused damage to property and made use of property and services that were neither owned nor purchased by them.

Govertnment property-which they should have gone to jail for. But they weren't running around trashing businesses as in Oakland right now.

Yeah, they "looted" their target. So Oakland/Ferguson/Baltimore, etc... they were protesting against the businesses?