3 ms·

Definitely. The constant repetition of this stuff over the last few decades is what enabled Trump. The difference is mostly one of scale not kind. Except for t

by learc83 10y ago

Definitely. The constant repetition of this stuff over the last few decades is what enabled Trump. The difference is mostly one of scale not kind. Except for the major difference that the candidate himself has never said something like this directly, and that candidates have always graciously conceded defeat. If Donald Trump comes out on November 9th and says "I told you it was rigged. They stole the election from us.", I really don't know what will happen. I think it's fairly likely there will be at least some small-scale rioting. I think the best case long term scenario, if this happens, is the creation of a new much more openly racist and xenophobic political party that is too small to gain any real power. The worst case scenario is obviously civil war, but I think that is still extremely unlikely. Especially because Trump isn't the incumbent, so he lacks any actual power. If he were the losing incumbent, and Hillary was the challenger, I think most die hard Trump supporters would back a power grab. And the most likely scenario is that a slightly smaller Republican party gets pulled even further right.

mistersquid 10y ago
Historically in the US, disenfranchised whites do not riot in the way that disenfranchised/disempowered urban dwellers do. Typically they conduct what is today recognized as domestic terrorism: lynch mobs, church bombings, bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building, shooting congregants at mosques, killing worshippers at synagogue, etc. More recently, we even saw one example of disenfranchised whites occupying a Federal Bureau of Land Management building in Bend, OR. One notable exception is the 1921 Tulsa Race Riot where whites destroyed a prosperous black section of Tulsa. [0] Anyway, this is to say that the rioting for non-whites is very different than the resistance exhibited by whites. The socioeconomic reasons for such differences are too various to list, but as a very general statement, poor disenfranchised urban dwellers of color do not have access, mobility, motivation, or organization to attack the forces that undergird their civic misery. In this sense, riot is cathartic, reactionary, and self-defeating. The targeted violence that characterizes acts of US domestic terrorism may also come from similar feelings of disenfranchisement, but rarely, if ever, do they result in the wholesale destruction of the local environments of the aggrieved. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
- learc83 10y ago
  That's a good point. Low population density makes rioting impractical. I think it would be more accurate to say replace riot with violence in my preceding comment. When I wrote small scale rioting I was thinking more along the lines of small groups of people hunting specific targets. Vandalizing or setting fire to minority houses/churches/businesses.

by learc83 10y ago

mistersquid 10y ago

Historically in the US, disenfranchised whites do not riot in the way that disenfranchised/disempowered urban dwellers do. Typically they conduct what is today recognized as domestic terrorism: lynch mobs, church bombings, bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building, shooting congregants at mosques, killing worshippers at synagogue, etc. More recently, we even saw one example of disenfranchised whites occupying a Federal Bureau of Land Management building in Bend, OR. One notable exception is the 1921 Tulsa Race Riot where whites destroyed a prosperous black section of Tulsa. [0] Anyway, this is to say that the rioting for non-whites is very different than the resistance exhibited by whites. The socioeconomic reasons for such differences are too various to list, but as a very general statement, poor disenfranchised urban dwellers of color do not have access, mobility, motivation, or organization to attack the forces that undergird their civic misery. In this sense, riot is cathartic, reactionary, and self-defeating. The targeted violence that characterizes acts of US domestic terrorism may also come from similar feelings of disenfranchisement, but rarely, if ever, do they result in the wholesale destruction of the local environments of the aggrieved. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

learc83 10y ago
That's a good point. Low population density makes rioting impractical. I think it would be more accurate to say replace riot with violence in my preceding comment. When I wrote small scale rioting I was thinking more along the lines of small groups of people hunting specific targets. Vandalizing or setting fire to minority houses/churches/businesses.