Portland, Ore.—More than half of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland didn’t vote in Oregon, according to state election records.
At least sixty-nine demonstrators either didn’t turn in a ballot or weren’t registered to vote in the state.
KGW compiled a list of the 112 people arrested by the Portland Police Bureau during recent protests. Those names and ages, provided by police, were then compared to state voter logs by Multnomah County Elections officials.
Records show 34 of the protesters arrested didn’t return a ballot for the November 8 election. Thirty-five of the demonstrators taken into custody weren’t registered to vote in Oregon.
I agree with you Cathoholic. This seems like rent-a-mob stuff, or maybe just anarchists seizing an opportunity.
It doesn’t make psychological sense for people committing such acts if they didn’t even bother to vote. The only way it possibly makes sense is if these people are anarchists with the desire to find any reason to “protest” (riot).
To explain the other half- sometimes all it takes is one person to start something to get the others set off in their anger. They see someone else seemingly acting out in what they believe is the same rage they are feeling and they feel justified all of a sudden and join in when they see others acting out.
What’s wrong with this? If they didn’t vote because they were disillusioned with the system, it makes sense that they should protest.
The whole “you don’t get a voice if you don’t vote” nonsense is dangerous and just legitimizes a broken system. What if you don’t like any of the candidates that are running that have a chance of winning? The USA is barely a democracy.
If they voted elsewhere, why is this problematic? It’s normal for people to travel to big protests. It happens all the time, with or without George Soros funding anyone. If you aren’t aware of this you should become more politically active.
Anyone with a brain is disillusioned with the system, but when only 57% of eligible voters even bothered to vote, why are they throwing a temper tantrum after the fact? They may as well be picketing themselves and protesting the cruelty of existence.
Sure, you can not vote for a corrupt system as a form of protest, but you can’t do that and protest at demonstrations; it’s asinine.
I think not voting is a legitimate choice, I would have loved the option of a ‘none of the above’ on the ballot. If my idiot Senator Boxer wanted to propose something that might gain traction, that would make far more sense (and would be far scarier to the powers that be on both sides of the aisle) than changing the electoral college system.
The US isn’t any kind of a democracy. It’s a republic if we can keep it, if we can keep it from bankruptcy/financial ruin from us voting ourselves largess from the public treasury.
I don’t have an issue with protests, they’re a legitimate way to try and communicate and make a point. Tea Party had protests, no violence and left things cleaner when they left. I do have a problem with violence- since taken far enough the response will have to be violent to get it back under control. Violent protests are attempts at intimidation vice cooperation, or persuading anyone about the legitimacy of their position. It is an abandonment of reason to going to direct threat/extortion. Give me what I want or else.
Reason is out the window.
The problem is that these protests are being pushed as ‘grass roots’ bursting locally across the nation. Which is far different than the same group/groups of folks bought and paid to show up being bussed around to cause trouble, burn/destroy and then move onto the next town. ANSWER/WWP are communist organizations that have been around awhile. I mention it because most major media outlets don’t point that out, don’t point out the link which is readily apparent since it’s on a lot of the professionally printed signs. (nothing against that, it’s just not on the handwritten ones that I’ve seen).
Which brings us full circle since you then make the same argument at critics that the folks above you are making about the protestors.
If they were actually concerned about the election they should have been more politically active working to get their candidate nominated and elected.
(If it was Sanders, than by holding the DNC accountable for their colluding with Hillary’s campaign. Superdelegates, delegates decided by coin flip…)
“None of the above” would be an example of voting, though. You’d vote for new candidates. What if you have no faith in the ability for them to call attractive new candidates?
Why do so many Americans believe this? No offense, but it’s a little silly. The USA is a democracy, it’s a representative democracy. The whole eligible population vote for people to represent them in making legislation. A republic is just a country without a monarch, it is not mutually exclusive with being a democracy. A country can be a democratic republic, as many countries are (such as the USA).
Sometimes you can’t persuade your opponent through reason, and disruption and violence are the only method. Plenty of popular movements throughout history that are now considered to be for a good cause were violent or disruptive. We’re taught to venerate reason as if that solves all issues, but this just legitimizes the status quo and works against our own interests.
Take the North Dakota Pipeline protests, for example. If many of those protesting had moved away when asked, as they were legally supposed to, the protests would be over in no time and no impact would have been made. The disruption however of refusing to move and resisting the police as they tried to forcibly tear down protest camps has a significant impact. You can’t reason with the state when their reasons for performing a certain task are entirely economic, and a lot of rich people are financially invested in it. A similar recent example would be the French labour laws.
What is wrong with groups like ANSWER? Who are they funded by and what makes them so offensive? Also, what’s wrong with communists being at protests? I don’t think ANSWER is explicitly communist either, even if they have many communist members.
Why is it wrong to protest against an elected candidate? If someone incredibly offensive was elected legitimately, would that be okay? Would it be wrong to resist Hitler if he were elected legitimately? What if they feel the problem wasn’t with the activism for their candidate, but the fact that their candidate was not given a fair chance? What if they are anarchists and oppose the system of government the USA has entirely?
I can just see so many legitimate reasons people may want to protest, even if it is against an elected candidate. In reality very few people actually voted for Donald Trump, a man who is particularly repulsive and unlikable, and I can see why people would want to protest his election.
I had this same debate with my husband last night. He thinks if you didn’t vote, you have no right to protest.
And while I understand his point, I almost didn’t vote this year because I was so extremely unhappy with the candidates. I’m really sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils instead of someone I actually believe in. I have voted third party before but this time I didn’t even like any of the third party candidates.
A part of me feels sick that voted for who I did. And it was basically a protest vote. It’s funny because my husband told me that all the guys at work said they weren’t voting for the candidate, they were voting against the other one. I just find the whole thing depressing and wonder what’s the point.
With the electoral college the way it is, people that support the minority party in their state feel like their vote doesn’t count anyway, because the EC is going to give it all to the majority party. And that’s on both sides. It doesn’t matter if you’re in CA and a Repub or you’re in Idaho and a Dem.
I think there is just too much to do over a supposed mandate by the winner or claims that the loss is a rejection of the other party. A lot of people couldn’t stand either one of them.