Just from observation, viewing social media (including Quora), news reports on rioting and looting, and the self-description of rioters and looters, one easily gets the impression that those who riot and loot feel more comfortable with the Democrats than with the Republicans, and thus vote accordingly.While that may be true, there is no empirical evidence that they riot and steal because they are Democrat voters. Both our major political parties are big tents. Of course, you will find all kinds in the net of a big tent.Democrats normally attract Liberals (social and religious), and the Left. They attract people and voters who tend to not like boundaries and borders around gender, sex and sexuality, or around the geographical nation. They attract voters who agressively defend the rights of certain animal life. Democrats also aggressively attract Blacks and voters for women's rights and God-given choice to abort babies without any burdensome "moral" restrictions. Democrats attract those who value equality and freedom, but giving more weight to equality. The Democrat party attracts most urban voters, today's college administrators, instructors, and college instructed student bodies. They attract voters who would give the UN some legal power over the US. Those loving modernity tend to vote Democrat. Democrat voters also have most of our news media and staff under their tent.Republicans normally attract Conservatives (social and religious), and they attract the Right. They attract people that honor "time-tested" moral boundaries," they say. Republicans attract people and voters who still want highly protected national borders, and boundaries around gender and sexuality. Republicans attract voters wanting restrictions on abortion and who aggressively want a God given right to life for human babies. The Republican party is attractive to religious conservative Blacks. Republicans attract those whovalue freedom and equality, but giving more weight to freedom. They attract voters who're not willing to give the UN power over the US. Of course, Republicans also attract, even if less, some news media types, some university types and some urnan types. Although the Republican is not as agressive as the Democrat Party in courting interest groups (except for courting anti-abortion groups), certainty, there is overlapping Party attractions to some of these various interest groups. Conservatives, who make up a larger percent of Republican voters than they do Democrats, are agressive first defending their religion; they are less agressive and protest less about socio-economic issues that they don't think threaten life and freedom. Donald Trump, not historically regarded as a Repiblican, may be changing that Party's reluctance to agressively court interest groups, not continuing to say that all people are equal human beings and that it's racial discrimination give special focus to any ethethnicity. So with such big Party tents, we will find groups within that are more inclined to behave in certain ways. Political activists more aligned with causes of Liberals and the Left are usually a bit more inclined to block roads, throw objects, "face down" and challenge law enforcement personnel, wear masks which injects tension, overturn vehicles, break windows, etc. Their causes are religiously important to them. They aggressively protest for socio-economic policies they support, as much, if not more, as Conservatives and the Right with them protest for their interests.That said, not many Democrat-voting group protests end in riot and looting. It should be acknowledged, however, that Judeo-Christian (bible) influences may be found less among Democrats. This does not mean this Party is less than good, or has evil intentions. Many mean well. It means that more aggressive protests (naturally, more harmful to people and property) will be found among Democrat-voting marchers, protestors. Among these voters, gressive political actions are seen as effective tools to force change. Republicans, with more bible derived influences among those under their tent, will protest without looting, and even clean the streets after their political actions and events. They usually make a big deal of this point after they protest or rally. This does not guarantee we will never see rioting and looting among protests by Republican-voting groups. This area of social phenomena needs more studies. If anyone is aware of such viable studies done, please share..
Which President faced more opposition from Democrats, Trump or Lincoln?
Although I can see Brandon Wilson's point -- this is less a legitimate question and more passive-aggressive partisanship masquerading as a question -- I think it is worth a straightforward response.Abraham Lincoln's election led to the succession of a group of states, one of which attacked a federal fort, precipitating a disastrous civil war. Our political partisanship does not come close to that level of intensity today, and, I must add, we must all hope that it does not. The American Civil War, as horrible as it was, at least divided the nation by geographic regions. If today's cultural divisions ever escalated to the level of war, the result would be community fighting nextdoor community, neighbor fighting neighbor. Citizens would experience war itself more as citizens of the former Yugoslavia experienced the Balkan War at the close of the 20th Century, and regardless of who won, would find themselves in a second tier nation as a result of that war. As to the level of opposition to President Trump, I do not think that either partisan wing is looking at this through clear glasses. Our nation's relationship with the presidency has been in a downward spiral for several decades now. The presidency has passed back and forth between the two parties, but regardless of which party is in and which out, each presidency has been assailed more intensely than the previous one, in terms of the president actually being legitimate. And meanwhile, each administration has made more extreme claims about the absolute nature of presidential power.So the more useful questions would proceed in this vein:Who faced more insane opposition from the out-party, Donald Trump or Barack Obama? Barack Obama or George W. Bush? George W. Bush or Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan? Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter? etc. Just to clarify, I am not talking about political opposition to the proposed policies and programs and priorities of the sitting president. I am talking about the wide array of claims, accepted by increasing numbers of citizens in the out-party tent, that the man in the White House has no real right to hold the job until the next election.Sadly, I realize that most people reading this post are die-hard partisans of one wing or the other, and will generally respond, "It's totally different. The presidents of the other party really deserved all that abuse. But the treatment of my presidents -- totally unjust." That's what a death spiral looks like.Your original question kind of outsmarts itself. You are so, so busy trying to tie Abraham Lincoln to today's Republicans, and the Democrats of the mid 19th Century to today's Democrats. A silly conceit in any case, given the number of issues on which the two parties have traded positions over the past century and a half. In truth, though, your question sets too low a bar for questioning current Dem behavior. After all, it is really not enough for the Dems to refrain from precipitating a civil war.