• Schools Begin Closing on Election Day Due to Fear of Violence
    45 replies, posted
[quote]Rigged elections. Vigilante observers. Angry voters. The claims, threats and passions surrounding the presidential race have led communities around the U.S. to move polling places out of schools or cancel classes on Election Day. The fear is that the ugly rhetoric of the campaign could escalate into confrontations and even violence in school hallways, endangering students. "If anybody can sit there and say they don't think this is a contentious election, then they aren't paying much attention," said Ed Tolan, police chief in this seaside community, which decided to call off classes on Election Day and put additional officers on duty Nov. 8. School officials already are on edge because of the shootings and threats that have become all too common. They point to the recent firebombing of a Republican Party office in one North Carolina county and the shooting-up of another with a BB gun as the type of trouble they fear on Election Day.[/quote] [url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/351b6fec59a8427092346ae9eb34c31a/fearing-election-day-trouble-some-us-schools-cancel-classes]AP[/url]
We're honestly a country that is boiling and eventually were going to burst sadly
Oh god
Watch this election just blindside us with a US civil war.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51261110]Watch this election just blindside us with a US civil war.[/QUOTE] I don't think that will happen but I have a feeling that home grown terrorism will rise. That type of activity has been on the rise and it is alarming. But I think this might be the actual thing that will set these people off.
Wait, schools aren't closed everywhere on election day already? My polling place is an elementary school and our county's schools are all closed anyway.
[QUOTE=Xubs;51261123]"US civil war" of a bunch of idiots from various backgrounds (and some even just wanting to cause shit for the sake of it) with some molotovs, guns, bare fists, and knives making trouble for a single day at various polling booths across the country, mostly in and around locations with high populations and strong bipartisan demographics, so mostly swing states pretty much either you're using hyperbole or you don't know what the term "war" actually means[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong, but Trump's supporters are pretty stoked on their guns aren't they? So yeah, the term war would apply if there is anything like a proper faction that starts causing shit.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51261110]Watch this election just blindside us with a US civil war.[/QUOTE] The chances of a civil war happening because of this election is virtually non-existent. The chances, in general, of a civil war happening again is extremely, [I]extremely[/I] minuscule. Many people tend to forget (or rather, choose to forget) that the US Civil War wasn't a spontaneous event, but rather a product of growing and growing dissension from both the North and the South which started when even the Constitution was first ratified. The sectionalism seen during the period between the early republic and the antebellum periods was extremely obvious, as well as potent, in a whole slew of economic, social, and political issues that arose. There's no signs pointing to a civil war. It's simply fearmongering. [QUOTE=GetBent;51261131]Wait, schools aren't closed everywhere on election day already? My polling place is an elementary school and our county's schools are all closed anyway.[/QUOTE] It's dependent on the school districts. Your county probably has one homologous school district, so that's why there's no school where you live.
Come election day, I'm going to have an overnight bag packed. I don't think I'll need to (I hope I don't need to), but I'm going to be ready to bug out of town if things start to look bad. Smack-dab in the middle of downtown is the kind of area riots start in; even though most of the Trump supporters live out in the countryside, it will probably be safer in the suburbs.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51261139]Correct me if I'm wrong, but Trump's supporters are pretty stoked on their guns aren't they? So yeah, the term war would apply if there is anything like a proper faction that starts causing shit.[/QUOTE] Not only are they very much unorganized, but this sort of stuff didn't happen in previous elections, and there have been people talking about civil war for years. They said Obama was gonna take all the guns away and people called for civil war back in 2008. Are they any more serious now? Doubtful. There will surely be some violence, but not on the scale of anything war-related. Not to mention most people own guns for hunting purposes and can no way compete with trained professionals in the US military.
[QUOTE=Omilinon;51261156]The chances of a civil war happening because of this election is virtually non-existent. The chances, in general, of a civil war happening again is extremely, [I]extremely[/I] minuscule. Many people tend to forget (or rather, choose to forget) that the US Civil War wasn't a spontaneous event, but rather a product of growing and growing dissension from both the North and the South which started when even the Constitution was first ratified. The sectionalism seen during the period between the early republic and the antebellum periods was extremely obvious, as well as potent, in a whole slew of economic, social, and political issues that arose. There's no signs pointing to a civil war. It's simply fearmongering.[/QUOTE] But this is looking at it after the fact? How do we know that one day it won't be "the election of 2016 was the final straw before all out hell broke loose, bringing on the US's second civil war?" I just mean, aren't those the specific causes of THAT civil war, and not representative of every single civil war? There's definitely been more than one civil war in the world, and each with their own reasons.
[QUOTE=MR-X;51261122]I don't think that will happen but I have a feeling that home grown terrorism will rise. That type of activity has been on the rise and it is alarming. But I think this might be the actual thing that will set these people off.[/QUOTE] it's kinda funny how the people with the most irrational fear of terrorism (trump supporters) are the ones most likely to become terrorists in two weeks
[QUOTE=drake90001;51261293]But this is looking at it after the fact? How do we know that one day it won't be "the election of 2016 was the final straw before all out hell broke loose, bringing on the US's second civil war?" I just mean, aren't those the specific causes of THAT civil war, and not representative of every single civil war? There's definitely been more than one civil war in the world, and each with their own reasons.[/QUOTE] Because it just doesn't make any sense that a civil war would ensue after this election, in the same vein that if people thought there'd be a second English Civil War after Brexit. Simply put, there's no defining long-term causes that would create war nationwide. Riots and idiots? Of course. An entire civil fucking war? Incomprehensible. Of course there's been more than one civil war around the world, but that doesn't really mean much in one country's specific instance. You have to understand how much of an undertaking it would require in order to divide the country to result in actual war. The US Civil War is in fact the best thing you could compare it to, because that's exactly the amount of effort it would need to section off an entire portion of the population. Trump is genuinely a populist fool, there's no possible way he could ever even come close to orchestrating sectionalism in the country enough to create a significant, violent conflict.
There won't be a civil war. At most there will be riots for a week.
I still think hardly anything will happen.
Lmao people really think Trump supporters will cause a civil war/riot. At worst a few shitheads will vandalize some property. I thought we went over the fear mongering bullshit in the last thread.
[QUOTE=Omilinon;51261156]Many people tend to forget (or rather, choose to forget) that the US Civil War wasn't a spontaneous event, but rather a product of growing and growing dissension from both the North and the South which started when even the Constitution was first ratified. The sectionalism seen during the period between the early republic and the antebellum periods was extremely obvious, as well as potent, in a whole slew of economic, social, and political issues that arose.[/QUOTE] And that's not going on right now? The US has been slowly tearing in half since 9/11. Probably earlier than that, but that was the seed of fear that's been growing since and wedging an even bigger and bigger divide between the right-wing and (our version of) the left-wing. Call it fear-mongering, but I'm not sure there's much to monger at this point. Our country has been working itself into a hysteria, especially as 2016 has gone on.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51261338]There won't be a civil war. At most there will be riots for a week.[/QUOTE] Ofcourse not, these guys are all sheltered americans that never been in an warzone and watch movies like the purge and think some regular yet heavy political dissounce means that our country is going to fall apart. Theres been way more worst things relating to the government that we should have riot or atleast of had major civil disobedience yet we just sat on our asses and did nothing. If anything all these fearmongering news stories are more encouraging to violence as it hypes up the idea of wilding out. Notice all those major police shooting protests that turn into riots was HYPED TO THE MAX by the media? But the low key ones never became anything?
[QUOTE=Jouska;51261386]If anything all these fearmongering news stories are more encouraging to violence as it hypes up the idea of wilding out. Notice all those major police shooting protests that turn into riots was HYPED TO THE MAX by the media? But the low key ones never became anything?[/QUOTE] Addendum: this is what I mean by the country working itself into a hysteria.
[QUOTE=drake90001;51261293]But this is looking at it after the fact? How do we know that one day it won't be "the election of 2016 was the final straw before all out hell broke loose, bringing on the US's second civil war?" I just mean, aren't those the specific causes of THAT civil war, and not representative of every single civil war? There's definitely been more than one civil war in the world, and each with their own reasons.[/QUOTE] The US [I]is[/I] increasingly polarized. The divisions are very sharp, not on a state level as with the American Civil War, nor even on racial lines, but on a rural/urban divide. We do seem to be on a path that could end in another civil war... but this does not seem to be the time. While Trump has some very obsessive followers, most of his supporters don't even like him that much. His approval ratings are shit. The Republican Party apparatus has abandoned him. Trump himself is a very poor leader, and seems unlikely to organize a revolution because he hasn't been organizing his own campaign. And if Trump, the clear leader of the movement, isn't going to lead it into battle, who will? A Clinton victory is expected by pretty much everyone at this point. It wouldn't be some surprise "how on earth did she get elected?!?" thing, such that a complete corruption of the electoral system is obvious. It wouldn't be a "she wasn't even on the ballot in ten states, she got 40% of the popular vote, she still won, clearly our votes don't matter" like we saw in 1860. The polls show Hillary leading by so much that some very Republican states are in play. Arizona? Iowa? There's talk that Texas could turn blue. Friggen Texas! The media is covering it this way - Trump is the underdog. Clinton is winning. When election day ends with Clinton winning, it will be a non-event. More importantly... there is no sign of division in the military. And you would absolutely need at least a good fraction of the organized military to rebel in order to have a sustained revolution. I don't care how tricked-out your tacticool AR-15 "assault weapon" is, you might as well be shooting Nerf if you're going up against a Stryker, or an Abrams. And you won't even get to shoot back at a 155mm, or an Apache, or an F-15E. If you want to do more than hide out in the woods and shoot at cops and postmen from time to time, you need to get some real firepower, along with all the fuel and munitions it requires... and a full supply chain and maintenance crew. Even if Bubba and Ricky manage to shoot their way into an ANG airfield and steal a Strike Eagle, where are they going to get an ongoing supply of missiles, or bombs, or even 20mm ammunition? You can't buy that at Wal-Mart. And there are clear signs that most of the population isn't raring to go for a revolution. Remember the Malheur Occupation, earlier this year? Ammon Bundy? "Y'all Qaeda"? They thought they were going to inspire everyone to take up arms and revolt, and instead... nothing. Even in [I]that county[/I], people were overwhelmingly against them. And it's the same on the other extremist sides - the Dallas shooter wanted to spark a black-on-white revolution, which didn't even come close to happening. Rounding to the nearest 1%, nobody in America wants to be part of a revolution. Contrast to the lead-up to 1860. We had Bleeding Kansas - essentially a North-South proxy war preceding the Civil War. There were slave revolts - Southampton, Harper's Ferry. Vast swaths of the country didn't even have Lincoln on the ballot. Politicians at every level were ready for secession. There were signs - big ones. Smart people could see a potential civil war coming over the slavery issue even a century in advance. We are seeing signs now, but they're for a rebellion in decades, not days. And it's one that can be averted. Also important: foreign involvement. The South's leaders knew a straight-up war would not succeed. But there was a very wide perception that Europe, particularly Britain, was dependent on Southern cotton and would fight to protect them. That perception turned out to be false, but... we don't even have a perception of it right now. Who would send their armies to defend Wyoming and Alabama from the tyranny of Clinton? Russia, China? Even if they tried, the rebels probably wouldn't accept it. NATO countries will back the official government unless things start going very, very badly. Mexico couldn't help even if they wanted to - they have their own little internal conflict going on.
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;51261381]And that's not going on right now? The US has been slowly tearing in half since 9/11. Probably earlier than that, but that was the seed of fear that's been growing since and wedging an even bigger and bigger divide between the right-wing and (our version of) the left-wing. Call it fear-mongering, but I'm not sure there's much to monger at this point. Our country has been working itself into a hysteria, especially as 2016 has gone on.[/QUOTE] The thing about the Civil War is that the division was rooted along state lines, particularly in state governments and federal legislators, with a singular issue (slavery) dividing the country into distinct halves growing to the point that the Election of 1860 drove half of them to secede from the US and form their own country. Hell, there might've not even been a war if matters like the Confederates trying to keep a hold on US forts and the like gave statistical reason for the Union to fight back and defeat and ultimately reclaim them. Today the main dispute seems like just a mess of reasons along the political Left and Right, and even with the whole red/blue state there doesn't seem to be a distinct presence of sides among the states within their governments or legislators, or even the people. For us to reach a civil would be not just for bitter supporters of a losing presidential candidate to take up arms, they would have to somehow take over the state governments, unite under a banner either as their own unified or mixed countries, and provoke the remainder of the US into fighting. A bit of a longshot, from where I'm seeing it.
Thanks guys, I appreciate and will read what you've all said. And just to clarity, no, I don't think that a civil war will break out over the election, I was just challenging the idea to get some good discussion going.
Really sad this has to happen, wtf
Schools are polling places... Don't they normally close on election day? At least mine did. They don't want a bunch of strangers going in to the school gym while there are kids at school
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51261536]Schools are polling places... Don't they normally close on election day? At least mine did. They don't want a bunch of strangers going in to the school gym while there are kids at school[/QUOTE] Most schools do like I said this is just media fearmongering.
um most schools close on election day anyways since they're common polling stations and most schools can't isolate the traffic from the rest of the school. my school was fortunate (or unfortunate i guess) that our big gym was an addition to the building and so they could lock the doors into the hallway to that section of the school during election times
[QUOTE=GetBent;51261131]Wait, schools aren't closed everywhere on election day already? My polling place is an elementary school and our county's schools are all closed anyway.[/QUOTE] When I voted in the primaries, I had to vote at a church. This town literally has more churches than schools, and they usually seem to be better funded/maintained except for the much smaller ones. :s:
[QUOTE=Xubs;51261123]"US civil war" of a bunch of idiots from various backgrounds (and some even just wanting to cause shit for the sake of it) with some molotovs, guns, bare fists, and knives making trouble for a single day at various polling booths across the country, mostly in and around locations with high populations and strong bipartisan demographics... so mostly swing states either you're using hyperbole or you don't know what the term "war" actually means[/QUOTE] this is a dumb post [editline]26th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Xubs;51261528]The division in the United States that causes many of these problems today is along rural and urban lines instead of south and north. Most of the headline-making problems facing black people and the poor are occurring in cities halfway across an entire [I]continent[/I] from each other in cities that statistically never mattered outside these single news stories. 20% of the population lives in these rural areas, which seems significant, until you consider that many of the rural areas are, yknow, rural, and are very spread apart as well as many of these cities having small populations that likely have not experienced violent crime very recently in their history for the vast majority of them. I live in an area most would consider rural by US standards (around 20,000 people, probably not considered rural by census standards but most people would not consider it big compared to states which have many cities in the 6-digits) and the most recent violent motivated crime that resulted in death occured 4 years ago when a bar brawl got nasty and a dude killed 2 people with a knife. There has not been a single violent motivated crime in this town in 15 years excluding this one event. And the story is similar in other places too. Lots of deaths from wrecks, lots of accidental manslaughter from gun discharges, but very little in the way of truly motivated violent crime. and if the rural population is really supposed to rise up and cause a civil war, you're supposed to have me believe that these people, already probably struggling to get by by the standards of the US middle class but nowhere [I]NEAR[/I] the kinds of conditions that plague modern societies that experience civil wars like Syria, are just gonna abandon the fairly quiet, sleepy societies they have set up where murder is as rare as tourists and just, all agree nationwide across all other rural towns and villages just like all the others that they're gonna kill the military, the police, and the government, all at the same time without any formal communications network set up to coordinate such a huge effort between the 64,944,159 other people living in rural towns alongside them... because I don't know about you but this seems not just unlikely, but so unlikely it is purely in the realm of a cartoon[/QUOTE] this is not how a civil war works [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Put more effort into your posts in SH" - postal))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Solomon;51261664]this is a dumb post [editline]26th October 2016[/editline] this is not how a civil war works[/QUOTE] No no Trump supporters are going to activate their hiveminds and go on a crazy killing spree like the movie Purge. Then they will some how fling the entire united states in a huge civil because most americans that typically wouldnt risk their life on some silly bullshit will suddenly have the urge to join in and start killing people.
[QUOTE=Jouska;51261700]No no Trump supporters are going to activate their hiveminds and go on a crazy killing spree like the movie Purge. Then they will some how fling the entire united states in a huge civil because most americans that typically wouldnt risk their life on some silly bullshit will suddenly have the urge to join in and start killing people.[/QUOTE] no
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.