12th February 2017, 5:42 PM
On the one hand, yeah, violence is wrong and I definitely do not condone it. Just because people are terrible doesn't mean you should beat them up.
Still... I saw this, and there is some truth to it:
![[Image: l0XTQ8V.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/l0XTQ8V.jpg)
I still agree with the liberal side there, violence is wrong, and freedom of speech is one of our most important rights as Americans. Still, you DO need to keep people like those from getting in a position where they can (violently) abuse that opportunity. As the First Amendment goes, if it's just talk, let them talk, but if someone takes a negative action they need to be stopped. It is usually possible to do that without violence, and stopping Trump sure looks possible without any, though... so yeah, hitting someone who isn't physically threatening anyone? Don't do that. Do protest Trump and do whatever we can to stop him by legal means. Anything beyond that should only be considered if there was some kind of pro-Trump military coup or something... though with how much he's angering pretty much everyone who isn't a diehard supporter of his, I do not think such a thing is at all likely, thankfully.
The Executive Branch is currently actively acting against minorities, women, etc. with much of their ability. The Legislative Branch is paralyzed with indecision, not sure what it should do; Republicans really want to accomplish their (bad) aims so they're not openly opposing Trump, but they don't all actually want to discriminate as much as Trump does either. And the Legislative Branch is apparently still sane and functioning, as we saw with how they stopped the immigration ban. So yeah, at least one branch of government still functions, right now at least... we'll see in the future.
Still... I saw this, and there is some truth to it:
![[Image: l0XTQ8V.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/l0XTQ8V.jpg)
I still agree with the liberal side there, violence is wrong, and freedom of speech is one of our most important rights as Americans. Still, you DO need to keep people like those from getting in a position where they can (violently) abuse that opportunity. As the First Amendment goes, if it's just talk, let them talk, but if someone takes a negative action they need to be stopped. It is usually possible to do that without violence, and stopping Trump sure looks possible without any, though... so yeah, hitting someone who isn't physically threatening anyone? Don't do that. Do protest Trump and do whatever we can to stop him by legal means. Anything beyond that should only be considered if there was some kind of pro-Trump military coup or something... though with how much he's angering pretty much everyone who isn't a diehard supporter of his, I do not think such a thing is at all likely, thankfully.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Or DO they? I've still got at least a small level of faith that the 3 branches of government will be enough to protect minorities from truly outrageous things. If it isn't... well then we'll see.
The Executive Branch is currently actively acting against minorities, women, etc. with much of their ability. The Legislative Branch is paralyzed with indecision, not sure what it should do; Republicans really want to accomplish their (bad) aims so they're not openly opposing Trump, but they don't all actually want to discriminate as much as Trump does either. And the Legislative Branch is apparently still sane and functioning, as we saw with how they stopped the immigration ban. So yeah, at least one branch of government still functions, right now at least... we'll see in the future.