Anti-Trump Riots: I’ve Seen It Before – Twice!

The recent news that has flooded the media that our progressive/liberal/Democrat colleagues have responded to their disappointment that Hillary didn’t win Tuesday’s election as they usually do.

They rioted.

In some cases, only a few to be sure, but absolutely some cases of looting, arson and violence directed at supporters of Donald Trump have characterized their “protests” regarding their disapproval and disappointment in losing.

I’ve seen this behavior before. In fact I’ve seen it twice before. And unfortunately our society is not willing to take direct and decisive action to moderate these excesses. Why do I say direct and decisive action? Because it worked for me.

How you ask could it have worked for me personally? It was fairly simple. When I had to deal with this sort of behavior, I was talking about both my children when they were about three-to-four years old.

Of course, when my kids behaved like these people (keep in mind, these Clinton supporters are old enough, even if not mature enough, to vote) I never referred to it as a protest. I never referred to it as a riot. I think I was much more accurate when I described it as an infantile temper tantrum.

Sadly, it’s apparent that these “mature voters” learned nothing about acting in a mature manner from their parents. Nor did they learn anything from their college professors. Their only response to almost everything appears to boil down to one simple thought: If I don’t get exactly what I want, when I wanted, or am resisted in any way, I will start a riot.

It seems as if these young hooligans have viewed the operation of the United States government as a branch of Santa Claus, Inc. and view the Constitution as an impediment.

When dealing with children, a prompt and meaningful response is essential. Does this mean they should be locked up? Of course not. If we locked up the rioters that would only mean that we would support them in prison instead of at college. Either way it’s money coming out of our pockets that relieves them of the responsibility of being able to support themselves. The penalty for rioting while you are going to college on the government’s dime shouldn’t be prison, but it might be the equivalent to cutting off their allowance. In other words, if they have financial support in some form or other whether as some sort of tuition subsidy or welfare, after being found guilty I believe a more immediate and lasting lesson would be learned by saying, “You better learn to pay your own tuition bills, because the government isn’t going to support you anymore.”

And by support them I do mean in any way.  We can’t cut off tuition assistance and have them simply trot down to the local welfare department and file for welfare benefits to so they can continue their temper tantrums about whatever the cause de jure may be. It also might help if Congress enabled property insurers to sue every one found guilty of rioting to compensate them for those properties, automobiles and so on that were damaged or destroyed during their temper tantrum riots.

Regardless of how much money Mommy and Daddy have, there’s a good chance that they would be reluctant to underwrite the ultimate cost of their completely out-of-control temper tantrums if a lawsuit by the insurance underwriters comes out of the pockets of Mommy and Daddy.

What a terrible, terrible pity that would be, wouldn’t it?

Oh, and why do I say I’ve seen this behavior twice?  Because I have two kids, and I’m glad now that I didn’t have a half-dozen.  Just sayin’.

Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller, a two-tour Vietnam veteran and writes frequently about political idiocy, business and economic idiocy and American cultural idiocy.  Jim also blogs at, and can be contacted directly at