If they didn't, I don't think they'd get so much attention in the media and online. Some protests bring attention to causes and issues that might not have otherwise received attention; others serve as a means of bringing people together with similar grievances and allowing those people to vent those grievances. Protests that get violent, however, only serve to damage communities and portray the protestors in a negative light (thus making whatever issue they were protesting about seem unimportant).
Sure they do. And, the more violent, the bigger the change they bring.. Oh, it's not a popular belief. Nobody wants to admit it.. But, it's so.
Here's an example.. It used to be, in Ferguson, Mo, when there's a cop killing, the district attorney can levy charges himself if he wants to. But, if he wants to cover it up, he'll send the case to the grand jury, where he can quickly quash it.. Then, when he faces the press, he can shrug his shoulders and say, the people have spoken..
But, SINCE the RIOTS in Ferguson, the district attorney, very quietly announced that they won't DO that anymore.. Now, you can SAY that change was coming anyway. Or you can say the RIOTS did it.
excon
This post was edited by excon at January 20, 2017 6:54 PM MST
The same change could of happened with peaceful protests. What about cities like Newark that took decades to recover from the riots? What about the cost? The destruction, burned homes, businesses, people fleeing?
Martin Luther King had peaceful protests and gained a lot, Violent protesting and destroying property will gain nothing, and anyone ignorant and stupid enough to do it deserves to be shot on sight. they are criminals and people could die as a result of their stupidity. Period.
The protestors in Ferguson originally said they were impoverished and there were no jobs in their community. Yet they destroyed dozens of businesses in their rioting. Most were small mom and pop, privately owned businesses. They didn't have the insurance they would need to rebuild. They destroyed what little livelihood there was. And several larger companies moved out as well. There is a chain of convenience stores that closed their doors after being set on fire. They stated they did not feel it was safe for their employees and relocated them to nearby stores. That meant that one of the few places that sold gas was now closed. So those that did have jobs would have to buy gas else where. Say good by to money going into your community. They also drove down the property values of those who lived there.
The economical damage they did to the community cannot be outweighed by one political victory that could have been handled by peaceful protests and through proper political channels.
I haven't seen any protests lately. I've seen alot of rioting and idiots that need to be arrested or tear gassed though. Once you start breaking in store windows, looting, setting cars on fire, etc it is no longer a protest. It's rioting and domestic terrorism. Throw the book at them. At least now Obama can't commute their sentences.
That depends on media, media is too powerful, it is the media which decides which protest must become 'news'. A few protests for a good cause often go unnoticed if media doesn't bring it to public!
Protesting works. Rioting does not. It just alienates those that riot. Why should anyone help those that are willing to destroy where they live? why help those who have no problem hurting others? No one wants to invest where there is a high likelihood your investment will be destroyed.
They mean something to some people. Others view them as an opportunity to do steal and do violence and detract from the issue at hand. I'd not be surprised if sometimes these individuals are paid to do so by those who disagree with the real protestors.
Depends. Some do and some don't. The NDAP protests are pretty meaningful and powerful. Yet many protests these days are unorganized and full of people looking for excitement or any reason to rage and often don't even have much of an idea what they are protesting against and for. So many of them have very vague goals and little in terms of cohesive objectives or objections. Too many are seemingly based on " You're P.O. and I am P.O.. Let's join forces and we will figure out the whats and why's after." That's why so many start off seemingly strong but soon fizzle out with different factions within the protests cannibalizing each other.
First, do you think that LBJ didn't seek reelection because of protests? And do you think that Nixon was an improvement from LBJ?
Secondly, do you honestly think that protests would dissuade Trump from seeking reelection? I think it would encourage him even more. I am also 100% sure that violent protests will provide fuel to increase the support of his followers and add to the divide among Americans that Trump desires. Even if it were proven that Trump supporters are actually behind the violence, they wouldn't believe it or even care.
Couple things.. I DO believe LBJ didn't want to face his demonstrators, and that's why he quit.. Plus, I didn't say Nixon was an improvement.. I said he was a major CHANGE from LBJ, and he was. And, no... I don't believe protests will force Trump to DO anything.. He believes he's right, and NOBODY will ever change that belief..
But, they MIGHT force the congress to IMPEACH this orange blot..
Thanks for responding. I wasn't alive then, and know that my opinions of him were formed based on what people who influenced me thought of him. You didn't say either way, which is why I asked.
I don't think that protests are grounds for impeachment, are they? Do you disagree with my assessment that violent protesting will further enforce the Trumpites' belief that he is RIGHT about "total allegiance" to America and serve to promote popularity for his autocratic style?
I do think that he'll be impeached, btw. IF we survive long enough!
excon 