Will There be Riots in Oakland, Cincinnati, LA, ATL, etc if Obama Loses?

[RakuraiTenjin]

I think very much so. There will be accusations (unfounded or not) that "OMG ELECTION IS STOLEN" etc

I think you'll see violent riots in heavily black areas very much like the 1992 LA Riots if Obama loses.

If you aren't familiar with the LA Riots, see these videos-


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0hQuf0287g




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBHByk6FkVI&feature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKTw-UHalZc&feature=related

 

[staticprimer]

You're assuming black people always riot if they don't get their way?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

No, I'm saying that if Obama loses it will be filled with a LOT of controversy that can spark riots especially in ghettos just like the Rodney King verdict did in 92. Think about it.


And it's not just "rakurais crackpot idea"

Police all over are preparing for this if it might happen.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-riots-if-Barack-Obama-loses-US-election.html


"Law enforcement officials say the intense public interest and historic nature of the vote could lead to violent outbreaks if people are unhappy with the results, encounter problems casting their ballots or suspect voting irregularities. "


Watch the videos (especially the last one where the gunfight breaks out) and imagine that in every major city. Brooklyn, Detroit, Philly, Chicago, Pittsburgh, LA, San Fran., Oakland, Atlanta, etc

What if that does happen but then perhaps it leads to a nationwide civil unrest not just in the major cities. Imagine a sparked civil war. Crazy stuff, but I'm just throwing out ideas. The possibility of riots is high though, whether they'd turn into something else is speculation.

 

[mechanicallizard]

it is concerning. watching cnn yesterday there were a few people complaining that when they
pressed the button to vote for obama, the machine picked mcain instead. if obama loses,
people could very well be 'up in arms' over the matter.

 

[CptStern]

I hope so, I need a new tv

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I hope so, I need a new tv

LOL you got the right idea man.

If riots break out here I'm at least going to get myself some nice things.

It's just like that guy they asked who was stealing shoes in the video "I DONT CARE!" lol I kind of have the same attitude as him. That merchandise was going to be taken or burned either way once the dominos of a riot starting crashing down, might as well be me who gets it.

 

[Raziaar]

... at this thread.

... at RakuraiTenjin pinpointing on the aspect of black people, particularly black people in ghettos rioting if the election turns south.

 

[CptStern]

LOL you got the right idea man.

If riots break out here I'm at least going to get myself some nice things.

It's just like that guy they asked who was stealing shoes in the video "I DONT CARE!" lol I kind of have the same attitude as him. That merchandise was going to be taken or burned either way once the dominos of a riot starting crashing down, might as well be me who gets it.

I also really want to throw rocks/molotov cocktails at cops but didnt think it worth mentioning

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

... at this thread.

... at RakuraiTenjin pinpointing on the aspect of black people, particularly black people in ghettos rioting if the election turns south.

And? What are you going to say to me if it happens? I'm not saying "LOL THOSE BLAX ARE CRAZY"

I'm saying that a long culture of a feeling of persecution can lead to this, and it's highly likely.

If the Rodney King verdict could lead to the 1992 LA Riots, think about what will happen if it is perceived that Obama had the election for PRESIDENT stolen from him?

Whether or not it is true if he loses people are going to believe it was stolen.


This is the first time a black man is running for President and might win. Al Sharpton and all those others don't count because they really had no chance, and everyone knew that. This is a FIRST in history and it can lead to violence if he doesn't win.

 

[CptStern]

you're missing the point of obama and his run to the oval office: even I'd riot if McCain stole the elction and I'm canadian (and dont believe much will change anyways). It's so obviously one sided at this point that even a fool would yell foul if mccain won ..I wouldnt be surprised if people of all races were involved in any riots stemming from a mccain win

 

[Eejit]

Yep, even the Cherokee would be pissed!


Suddenly, scalpings.

 

[VirusType2]

you're missing the point of obama and his run to the oval office: even I'd riot if McCain stole the elction and I'm canadian (and dont believe much will change anyways). It's so obviously one sided at this point that even a fool would yell foul if mccain won ..I wouldnt be surprised if people of all races were involved in any riots stemming from a mccain win

What I was thinking. ^

maybe a civil war would be good for us.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Well Republicans should've rioted when Ron Paul was silenced by his own party.

That was the death nail of the Republican party for me.

McCain to me is the lesser of two evils, but I'm still casting a write in for either:

Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, or Ron Paul.

It doesn't take a vote away from McCain because my states electoral votes will go to him anyway, but if enough people write in the candidates for freedom we can make a statement, and also if enough people do they can get federal funding.

Yep, even the Cherokee would be pissed!


Suddenly, scalpings.

lol bad analogy, the natives were the ones getting scalped back then


edit: nevermind just looked it up I guess both sides did

 

[No Limit]

Well if Obama loses then that will mean the election was in fact stolen (assuming Obama doesnt eat a live baby on national tv in the next week and a hald).

So guess what, it won't just be black people in the streets rioting, my white ass will be right there behind them.

And as far as the Rodney King thing goes if I was black at the time I would have been pretty pissed too. After all the shit that black people have been through even as late as 1992 white america was still pissing all over them.

 

[speedbump]

There may be a riot 'r two whether Obama wins or loses, by the same ppl... in celebration of victory, or in anger over losing.

With all the ACORN hoopla, the argument of 'the Repubs stole the election' will ring-hollow, however.

 

[nurizeko]

What if that does happen but then perhaps it leads to a nationwide civil unrest not just in the major cities. Imagine a sparked civil war.

Perhaps civil unrest, even conflict is what America needs, either to put to death the old tired girl or to rebirth her.




But seriously?, I doubt it, all Obama losing will do for black Americans is confirm what they've always believed, that its the white man keepin' them down, and as long as they can blame all their woes entirely on race, they can live with their poverty, or thats my hypothesis anyway.

Then again, McCain is just terrible, and America is at a time where someone Like Obama seems to be what it needs to fix itself.

I think Obama losing could be something that winds up a lot of folk, black or otherwise.

it is concerning. watching cnn yesterday there were a few people complaining that when they
pressed the button to vote for obama, the machine picked mcain instead.

Blatant election stealing much, I know I'de be angry if Mc**** defrauded my country's general election.

 

[staticprimer]

There may be a riot 'r two whether Obama wins or loses, by the same ppl... in celebration of victory, or in anger over losing.

With all the ACORN hoopla, the argument of 'the Repubs stole the election' will ring-hollow, however.

ACORN was voter registration fraud, perpetrated by a few people who were trying to squeeze more money out of ACORN. They registered non-existent people because they were being payed per registration. Non-existent people can't show up to vote, thus this ACORN thing ultimately cannot effect the outcome of the election. Republican suppression of votes as was seen in 2004, 2006 and already this year can however.

 

[Raziaar]

you're missing the point of obama and his run to the oval office: even I'd riot if McCain stole the elction and I'm canadian (and dont believe much will change anyways). It's so obviously one sided at this point that even a fool would yell foul if mccain won ..I wouldnt be surprised if people of all races were involved in any riots stemming from a mccain win

Exactly my point. I ask WHY focus on black people... when I feel people would protest and potentially riot regardless of physical appearance.

I would be one of them.

There may be a riot 'r two whether Obama wins or loses, by the same ppl... in celebration of victory, or in anger over losing.

With all the ACORN hoopla, the argument of 'the Repubs stole the election' will ring-hollow, however.

Voter registration fraud and voter fraud are completely different. And in my opinion, both are despicable, but neither are officially approached by the democratic party whereas with the republican party, voter suppression is a tactic that is engaged.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Exactly my point. I ask WHY focus on black people... when I feel people would protest and potentially riot regardless of physical appearance.

I would be one of them.

I doubt you would really last long going out to try and riot with people in urban areas, you'd probably be attacked for being white. Sorry, it's just the mob mentality and I'm telling it like it is.


It didn't matter if you were against what happened to Rodney King or not in 1992 and you came into the area, why would it be any different in another riot?

Besides honestly guys, I know if there were riots in your cities most of you would keep your asses inside. How many of you have actually been in some crazy ass situations?

 

[lame-o]

I never saw those riot videos, and didn't know it was that bad in 1992. Over some black guy getting beat up by cops? Why are people so stupid? They don't want people to be racist so they go around killing white people? Holy shit I swear to god if this happens again I'll shoot rockets at them. Blacks in the US really do complain way too ****ing much, and although they may be right, the way they usually go about it really makes them look like savages.

 

[Raziaar]

I doubt you would really last long going out to try and riot with people in urban areas, you'd probably be attacked for being white. Sorry, it's just the mob mentality and I'm telling it like it is.


It didn't matter if you were against what happened to Rodney King or not in 1992 and you came into the area, why would it be any different in another riot?

Besides honestly guys, I know if there were riots in your cities most of you would keep your asses inside. How many of you have actually been in some crazy ass situations?

Oh, I see... All riots have to take place in minority dominated slums or urban areas. And even if they weren't, I would be attacked for my race.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Oh, I see... All riots have to take place in minority dominated slums. And even if they weren't, I would be attacked for my race.

They don't "HAVE TO" but in this case it WOULD be a race fuelled riot and yes, you most likely would be. That's why they're called "race riots"

That's just the way it is. I'm sorry it IS like that and it is sad, but it's the truth. you're not going to see suburbia erupt in riots. At most they'd get looting that spreads from urban centers.

If you think what I'm saying is wrong you need to take a look at past social injustices and what has resulted. Riots aren't amazing organized acts of protests, they're anger fueled by mob mentality that brings out the highest levels of violence and people's deepest hatreds come out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_race_riots#Modern

 

[No Limit]

A race riot is only a race riot if there is only one race rioting. If this election is stolen it will be all the races that will be rioting. You need to stop talking, you have been given enough rope in this discussion to hang yourself, which you are about to do.

 

[Raziaar]

They don't "HAVE TO" but in this case it WOULD be a race fuelled riot and yes, you most likely would be. That's why they're called "race riots"

That's just the way it is. I'm sorry it IS like that and it is sad, but it's the truth. you're not going to see suburbia erupt in riots. At most they'd get looting that spreads from urban centers.

If you think what I'm saying is wrong you need to take a look at past social injustices and what has resulted. Riots aren't amazing organized acts of protests, they're anger fueled by mob mentality that brings out the highest levels of violence and people's deepest hatreds come out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_race_riots#Modern

Why on earth would you classify riots from an Obama election failure and a McCain win as race riots?

How do you even extrapolate race riots from that? Because Obama is black, it has to be a race riot? What if Obama was white? And what if the black population still vastly supports that white Obama as they do this black Obama?

Would it still be a race riot?


What if Bill Richardson won the primary? And failed against McCain?

Would it be Latino riots?

 

[Tagaziel]

I hope so. If it gets thrown into a civil war, even better.

Haven't watched a good war movie in years.

 

[nurizeko]

If you think what I'm saying is wrong you need to take a look at past social injustices and what has resulted. Riots aren't amazing organized acts of protests, they're anger fueled by mob mentality that brings out the highest levels of violence and people's deepest hatreds come out.

And of course black Americans are the only people who will feel completely defrauded of their rightful president come election results. *rolls eyes*

I hope so. If it gets thrown into a civil war, even better.

Haven't watched a good war movie in years.

At least Fox and CNN wont have to waste money and time getting to some third world shit hole, they can just drive a couple of blocks down to the local ones.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Why on earth would you classify riots from an Obama election failure and a McCain win as race riots?

How do you even extrapolate race riots from that? Because Obama is black, it has to be a race riot? What if Obama was white? And what if the black population still vastly supports that white Obama as they do this black Obama?

Would it still be a race riot?


What if Bill Richardson won the primary? And failed against McCain?

Would it be Latino riots?

Most of the Latino population in America is not eligble to vote so that point is moot.

And yes, this WOULD be a HOT racial issue. People will see this particularly as an injustice because he is black. open your eyes and see what's going on. obama is the first black candidate with a shot ever. If it is felt that the election is stolen from him there WILL be race riots.

Now if there's no feelings of a stolen election this won't happen. Like I said this is if people feel it's stolen.


James Carville, a strategist for former President Bill Clinton and advisor to his wife Hillary''s 2008 presidential campaign, hinted Democrat supporters could be angry if Obama lost, given his lead in the polls.

“If Obama goes in and he has a consistent five-point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very dramatic out there,” Carville was quoted as saying.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IitJiABjwW8

 

[SIGbastard]

They are virtually tied right now. I know it's the cool thing and all to claim Republicans just steal elections and all, but just like claims in past elections there will be little to back the stolen election conspiracy idea that the sore losers will put forth.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

They are virtually tied right now. I know it's the cool thing and all to claim Republicans just steal elections and all, but just like claims in past elections there will be little to back the stolen election conspiracy idea that the sore losers will put forth.

I don't think there will be any "stealing" going on.

HOWEVER, whether or not the people that would start rioting would believe that is the question. It doesn't matter what you and I would believe.

If McCain wins I guarantee you more than half of the left will be calling it "stolen"

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Well Republicans should've rioted when Ron Paul was silenced by his own party.

That was the death nail of the Republican party for me.

Haha, you mean to say that the Bush administration literally laying waste to the economy, our civil liberties and starting two wars didn't "kill the nail"? It took them denying a libertarian disguising himself as a republican to make you have doubts? The Republican party has been a joke for a while now. They've ruined their conservative status and cemented their reputation as uncontrollable spenders of federal tax dollars. This shouldn't be new to anyone.

By the way, these "riot fears" are racist fear mongering dribble.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Haha, you mean to say that the Bush administration literally laying waste to the economy, our civil liberties and starting two wars didn't "kill the nail"? It took them denying a libertarian disguising himself as a republican to make you have doubts? The Republican party has been a joke for a while now.

First of all, it is not the Bush economic doctrine that led us into the economic situation we are in now.

you need to read this article-


"This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor ? which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house ? along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout! "


Second, I agree with you on the civil liberties issue.

The Libertarian party never put forth a candidate with vigor or charisma like Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a man who with the support financially of the Republican Party could easily defeat Obama. Instead he was silenced by his own party.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Your argument, and the author's argument are inherently flawed. It doesn't take much investigation to reveal this. How about your party's biggest cheerleader for deregulation conceding this?

Many Republican lawmakers on the oversight committee tried to blame the mortgage meltdown on the unchecked growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government-sponsored mortgage-finance companies that were placed in a government conservatorship last month. Republicans have argued that Democratic lawmakers blocked measures to reform the companies.

But Mr. Greenspan, who was first appointed by President Ronald Reagan, placed far more blame on the Wall Street companies that bundled subprime mortgages into pools and sold them as mortgage-backed securities. Global demand for the securities was so high, he said, that Wall Street companies pressured lenders to lower their standards and produce more ?paper.?

?The evidence strongly suggests that without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originations (undeniably the original source of the crisis) would have been far smaller and defaults accordingly far lower,? he said.

It's really not disputable. The argument that the crisis was somehow the result of EVIL PELOSI AND HER DEMOCRATIC SENATE GOONS blocking some kind of epic reforming legislation is laughable. How about years of next to no regulation under an administration who would rather spend federal tax dollars on wars and lining the pockets of CEOs?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Your argument, and the author's argument are inherently flawed. It doesn't take much investigation to reveal this. How about your party's biggest cheerleader for deregulation conceding this?



It's really not disputable. The argument that the crisis was somehow the result of EVIL PELOSI AND HER DEMOCRATIC SENATE GOONS blocking some kind of epic reforming legislation is laughable. How about years of next to no regulation under an administration who would rather spend federal tax dollars on wars and lining the pockets of CEOs?

Greenspan conceded cutting interest rates as a mistake. The issue is allowing subprime mortgages.

All this bailout does is slap a bandaid on an ailing system. Banks have not learned from their mistakes- credit is again being targeted to consumers with terrible credit ratings. We're in for an even worse crisis because the market was not allowed to correct itself.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Greenspan conceded cutting interest rates as a mistake. The issue is allowing subprime mortgages.

All this bailout does is slap a bandaid on an ailing system. Banks have not learned from their mistakes- credit is again being targeted to consumers with terrible credit ratings. We're in for an even worse crisis because the market was not allowed to correct itself.

If you'd read the article, you'd see that he conceded quite a bit more than that.

"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Also, I (nor anyone educated and left leaning) is claiming that the bailout is anything more than a band-aid. What are you trying to say? The bailout was approved by both parties. As for the market being able to "correct itself", I suppose we just fundamentally disagree here. It's the markets attempting to correct themselves, and minimal regulation that I believe caused this crisis in the first place.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

If you'd read the article, you'd see that he conceded quite a bit more than that.



Also, I (nor anyone educated and left leaning) is claiming that the bailout is anything more than a band-aid. What are you trying to say? The bailout was approved by both parties. As for the market being able to "correct itself", I suppose we just fundamentally disagree here. It's the markets attempting to correct themselves, and minimal regulation that I believe caused this crisis in the first place.

These banks failed and they should have been allowed to fold. It's capitalism. What we have now is a broken system where bankers see that they don't have to take responsibility for their actions.


The cycle of irresponsible lending continues.

 

[No Limit]

They are virtually tied right now. I know it's the cool thing and all to claim Republicans just steal elections and all, but just like claims in past elections there will be little to back the stolen election conspiracy idea that the sore losers will put forth.

A little delusional aren't we? http://www.pollster.com/polls/2008president/ (notice how Obama leads in every toss up state and has a 9 point lead nationaly?) The only way Obama could lose is if this election were stolen, period.

Most of the Latino population in America is not eligble to vote so that point is moot.

Wow.

 

[Raziaar]

Or if Obama supporters become complacent.

GET OUT THERE AND VOTE YOU MOTHER****ERS!

I'm voting tomorrow.

 

[Krynn72]

I think its got about the same as McCain supporters rioting if McCain doesnt win. And seriously, McCain has a 3.7% chance of winning the election. If he wins I will be very upset.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Wow.

Wow what? The majority of hispanics in the US do not have US citizenship. Sorry, that's just a fact. There's no twisting that. I'm sorry that's the way it is.

There are millions WITH citizenship, but there are millions more without.

Everybody on here seems so shocked at real world social facts.

 

[SIGbastard]

A little delusional aren't we? http://www.pollster.com/polls/2008president/ (notice how Obama leads in every toss up state and has a 9 point lead nationaly?) The only way Obama could lose is if this election were stolen, period.



Wow.

The associated press poll has historically been fairly accurate and they have Obama at 44% and McCain at 43%. They are basically tied. So no I'd say I am not delusional. They are basically tied right now. You can find polls that are vary huge amounts easily and cherry pick the ones you like. It really doesn't mean any thing. This race is still anyone's to win. I understand it is hard to wrap your head around the fact that the Obama Messiah may lose but that's just the way it is.