Why Are Most Protesters Leftists?

Madonna protesting that she wants to blow up the White House, and Ashley Judd's embarrassing speech - the left lost credibility today. They embarrassed themselves and got nothing out of it. This is of course on top of the 200+ arrests in DC yesterday. The left is desperate and flailing.

 

Liberals should be desperate. They have no authority. Even after 2 years, they still won't have any real authority.

One factor among many of the protestors is that it's their own doing for not participating in the process while cynically thinking the game is rigged.

If the situation were reversed, you'd have more Cliven Bundys, Ruby Ridges and Wacos.

But we shouldn't be playing the Guilt By Association game, should we?

 

I think anyone who tries to debate Bobby, Bigtexxx, or any other brain-dead tool is a complete fool

 

Regardless of orientation of protestors, at least its back to being REAL LIFE activity with actual feet to the ground, instead of internet trash talk, virtual world virtues, online troll fests and Twitter beefs

I think current day protestors actually romanticize "civil rights era" too much. The stories of standing up strong for your rights are moving and riveting to where it inspires to take stands yourself. What people dont take into account enough is there were TRULY UGLY NASTY PROBLEMS going on at the time, and REAL personal SACFRICE and endangerment on lives. People now flatter civil rights era by IMITATION of "empowerment" displays, and they like that reward of portraying "hero". But its NOT the same level of actual HORRIFIC problems to demonstrate on

That doesnt mean that protests arent necessary - they absolutely are. Just that demonstrators hopefully have enough awareness knowing they dont have the same level of SUBSTANCE and dont get caught up in being "saviors". But again, at least theyre not sitting on their ass

 

Shia LaBeouf sets up a 4-year public livestream where people can protest Trump by screaming "He will not divide us". Obviously, some Trump supporters show up to crash, which prompts Shia to assault them.

 

Once again, liberals have a 100% protest rate on Milo's tour around California, like every area he goes to, including an absolutely horrible showing in Berkeley (the start of the "Free Speech Movement" or whatever). Get your head out of your ***, it's embarrassing.

 

That's not fascism. That's just protesting. Saying you do not support someone who is saying something hateful is not the same as putting them in jail for having the idea in the first place. Liberals protest, just as conservatives do, when they feel they are being marginalized.
People that protest are free people, liberal or conservative.

 

I get where you're coming from but I also think it kinda de-legitimizes the issues today people do face. Regardless which way you voted and for what reasons you did, it was because you were hoping for a change in direction you feel is better for this country. It also means that there are real issues people everyday face that does bring an added burden to their quality of life that they'd like their President to address.

For example, whether making Medicare completely privatized or not is a good idea is a good one. To those dependent on it they receive affordable health care and prescription drugs which affords them income to place elsewhere on things like rent, food, utilities, and perhaps to save up a little every month for end of life costs such as burial, religious rights, coffin purchase, hospital bills, etc. If making Medicare privatized is successful, that initial worry during its transition will still bring about some valid concerns as to whether it'll severely impact those dependent on it. Once it's done and is successful then those worries go away. If it fails though, you bring the lives of many people to a much worse quality of life that likely creates personal debt which is then forked over to next of kin who are likely barely getting by themselves. If the debt is insurmountable for them, it could mean house foreclosure for them, and additional loss of personal property. Perhaps a declaration of bankruptcy which the government then must offer its services to anyways. Then you're stuck taking a personal philosophical approach of justifying hurting your fellow U.S. citizen's quality of life to trim the fat on our debt, which is also a legitimate concern. Exactly how many people have to suffer for making that risk of failure simply not worth it to even try? Who knows. But that's a real issue some Americans face that have protested on and I don't find it less of an issue than suffrage, or the Civil Rights Movement because it does personally impact them in significant life altering ways.

I know this doesn't speak for all Trump supporters, but I'm friends with some I respect and get along with as long as we don't get into politics. A few live in Lampasas which is just a small populated town of maybe 6,000 people. They hate the city and its traffic, the light pollution covering the night sky, less clean air, and higher crime rate due to population density, but don't have access to quality jobs unless they move to the city. They got IT certifications, and degrees in other fields I can't specifically remember yet what jobs could they get in a small town like that? Perhaps apply at Ft. Hood for a non-government official contract but those are few and far between and there's less businesses out there with competitive wages.

When they hear Trump speak of bringing jobs back to rural areas like that, it gives those people hope. Whether that hope is misguided based on a misleading message from Trump or not is irrelevant. What's important is it's a real issue that resonates with them. Could they perhaps not be so stubborn about living outside of Austin and go where the jobs are? Absolutely. That's my stance with it. But when you got a guy running for President that talks about bringing back jobs to rural small towns, it's going to resonate with that base. And the lack of quality jobs makes it easier for people in those towns to goof off with recreational drugs that turns them addicted. That's what leads to the rise of drug epidemic use with things like meth and heroin in smaller communities, which again is a real issue Americans face today. So when you talk about high crime in cities, that's going to resonate with folks like that who specifically choose to live in small towns because it's safer and are finding it less so with the rise of drug use and increase in suicides.

And again this is only an example in Austin, but since rent has escalated so much in this city, it's driving all the poor people out that are usually minorities further out past Pflugerville even and now into Hutto. Some minorities ultimately end up moving out even further from the city to places like Copperas Cove, Killeen, Burnet, and Lampasas. In mostly white towns like that, the sight of minorities moving further away from the city because they're being driven away due to high cost of living frightens them. They see a misguided correlation to higher drug use in their community and wrongfully associate that with the minorities that are simply moving away from the city because rent is too damn high and they're going where it's more affordable; rural communities. When really the reason for rise in drug use (IMO) is just a lack of quality jobs out there, and people goofing off with recreational drugs that ultimately turn them into addicts. And I know this doesn't speak for all Trump supporters but that's the viewpoint of some of friends that live out there that I'm almost 99% certain voted for him. But those issues are very real to them. And to downplay them is one of the reasons why Trump got elected. Do these issues play less on equal human rights for all U.S. citizens? Yes. So perhaps they're not as noble of issues to cling to. But they're still real issues that do affect some U.S. citizens that now feel they're receiving some representation under Trump. Again could be a misguided viewpoint but it's their viewpoint regardless. Thus ends this ramble.

 

delete