segnosaur

Here's an article by someone with the U.S. government that was actually in japan shortly after the war. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/ About a week after V-J Day I was one of a small group of scientists and engineers interrogating an intelligent, well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama. ... He replied: "We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated," by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender. ... General MacArthur's staff anticipated about 50,000 American casualties and several times that number of Japanese casualties in the November 1 operation to establish the initial beachheads on Kyushu. ...A month after our occupation I heard General MacArthur say that even then, if the Japanese government lost control over its people and the millions of former Japanese soldiers took to guerrilla warfare in the mountains, it could take a million American troops ten years to master the situation....That this was not an impossibility is shown by the following fact, which I have not seen reported. ... It is not generally realized that there was threat of a revolt against the government, led by an Army group supported by the peasants, to seize control and continue the war. For several days it was touch and go as to whether the people would follow their government in surrender. Yet some people are claiming that "Japan was ready to surrender".

Once again, what exactly are you claiming is a "myth"? That American soldiers were dying while the supposed blockade was going on? Well, I've pointed out 2 cases of ships that were sunk (leading to American deaths) when supposedly Japan was blockaded and "about to surrender". That Japan still had troops in other Asian countries and were causing deaths in those countries at the time of the bombings? That's pretty well documented. That Japan was not likely to surrender any time soon? Well, I think the fact that they were continuing to fight even after loosing in Okinawa was a pretty good sign of that. Uhhh... so? The fact that servicemen are at risk doesn't mean that the government doesn't have an obligation to reduce that risk when possible. We don't send the military into combat with slingshots if we don't have enough guns for them. Soldiers are still humans and citizens. (And it should be pointed out that many were drafted, rather than volunteers.) And the sooner the war was over, the sooner those servicemen would become civilians. ETA: And in case you need to be reminded, not only were servicemen at risk as the war continued but civilians in countries like China, Vietnam and Laos. You know, you seem to toss around the phrase "war crime" rather willy-nilly. What is the basis of your claim that: - The use of Nuclear weapons (at the time) was considered a "war crime" - That nations are not allowed to take actions to protect the lives of its soldiers

It is. But for me, its a little bit of a consolation to know that the people most likely to be harmed by Trump's actions on health care are the people who voted for him. For some reason, seeing people harmed by their own stupidity makes me smile. But on the other hand, at least he's going to keep out those evil Muslims. Well, except the problem is many medical personnel working in rural areas (i.e. in areas that supported Trump) are actually from places affected by the Muslim ban, making it harder for Trump supporters to find doctors. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/12/27/these-coal-country-voters-backed-trump-now-theyre-worried-about-losing-obamacare/?utm_term=.ce88e7f7068d https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/03/14/obamacare-repeal-could-hurt-rural-areas-key-trump-constituency/f3ZYjshzc2lwb9qd1xqwzO/story.html https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/us-doctors-trump-travel-ban-health No, its the republicans. From start to finish, its them. They were the ones who basically fought against Obamacare when it was first introduced. They are the ones who voted multiple times to repeal Obamacare with no plan for a replacement. They are the ones who nominated (and later supported) Trump, a man who also had no plans for health care, instead giving empty promises. (And later said "Nobody knew health care would be so hard".) Now MAYBE the plan isn't perfect and the Dems could have helped tinker with it to iron out some of the bugs. But kind of hard to do when the only thing on the Republican's agenda is "Repeal". ... What Trump wants is irrelevant, because he's an incompetent bigoted buffoon and has no idea how to get anything useful done.

Actually, there is a majjor difference between bigotry and my characterization of Trump supporters. If someone is a bigot/racist, they are taking a trait that may not be common and falsely assigning it to members of a particular group. (E.g. Trump saying "black people are lazy", "mexican immigrants are rapists",) However, Trump voters all have one thing in common... they voted for Trump. And outside something like a mind-control ray or hostage situation, they did so willingly First of all, yes there are other reasons someone may have voted for Trump. But for the most part I'd still find that questionable. After all, pretty much everything Trump had said was either 1) incredibly vague (such as "I will replace Obamacare but won't give you details"), 2) inconsistent, either with statements he himself made (e.g. the constantly changing cost of his well), or with evidence, or 3) of questionable morality or usefullness (e.g. committing war crimes to stop terrorism). So if someone said they voted for Trump for non-racist reasons, I'd still have concerns that a prospective employee might be too gullible or lack the critical thinking skills to be an effective employee. But lets say there was some reason a person could think of for voting for Trump. Maybe they really think millionaire deserve big tax cuts (one of the few policies that Trump has been more consistent and concrete with). Regardless of the reason, they still walked into the voting booth, and cast their vote for someone who is a racist, It doesn't matter how much they wanted that millionaire tax cut... voting for someone who considers an entire class of people as subhuman should automatically disqualify that person as a potential candidate among voters. I never claimed Trump shouldn't be able to run. What I said was that people shouldn't vote for him. If you hire someone, they will be representing your company. Their decisions will affect company profits, and ultimately your ability to earn a living. Hiring a racist, or someone who is gullible will potentially affect your company in a negative way. (Again, I want to stress when the decision is between 2 equally qualified candidates.) Trump voters are pretty much by definition either racists or gullible. Now, that doesn't mean that all Clinton supporters were perfect. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find more than a few that were racist themselves or had similar flaws. But again, if I had a choice, I'd much rather hire someone who was possibly flawed, as opposed to someone who was definitely flawed. I never claimed all trump supporters voted for Trump because of race. What I said was they were fine with racism. Since they voted for a racist. A man who said he was going to enact racist policies. That by definition makes them fine with racism.

Not really sure what you're claiming is a "myth". Are you honestly suggesting that no U.S. servicemen died or were at risk once Japan was effectively blockaded? That the 2 ships I mentioned weren't actually sunk? Or that people in China and other occupied countries were not dying due to Japanese actions in the summer of 1945?

All myths and no sources for your myths. USS Callaghan, sunk July 1945 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Callaghan_(DD-792)) USS Bullhead, Sunk August 1945 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bullhead_(SS-332)) So, despite Japan being "blockaded" American soldiers were dying. Sounds like a pretty big risk to me.

Correction... The republicans managed to falsely convince people that Hillary was corrupt/lying. If you look at politifact, she does have a few lies/falsehoods given (which is understandable... you can't live for decades under a political microscope without having a few problems uncovered). But compared to other politicians (and especially Trump), the number of lies/falsehoods given is quite low. Yet somehow Trump and the republicans managed to get the "Hillary=liar" argument to stick. So they are replacing left-wing "victimhood" with Trump-style "Its the mexican rapist/muslim's fault". Some may not consider that to be a sigificant improvement. Errr.. not likely. Things happen. There doesn't have to be some master conspiracy at play to explain what's happening in the world. You just need a bunch of people who have different political, religious and economic ideas and their inevitable conflicts will cause the type of chaos we see now. As for why Trump was elected: When Bill Clinton won, he managed to build a coalition of southern "dixicrates" and urban voters. When Bush Jr. won, he built a coalition of religious conservatives and global policy hawks. Trump has done the same thing... except Trump's coalition is composed of Bigots (those that are openly racist and sexist) and the gullible/foolish (i.e. those who believed Trump would "make american great again", who would bring back jobs and improve health care even though he gave no plans to do either of those..) I almost see Trump as a Forest Gump type character... not particularly intelligent and significantly flawed, but managed to be successful just through dumb luck. Consider: - He is rich, but he benefited sigificantly from wealth he obtained from his family. (Had he been born into a middle class family he would probably be flipping burgers at McDonald's.) - He won the primary, but against a field that had over a dozen candidates (making it easy for him to stand out). Had the republicans started out with fewer candidates, they probably would have had an easier time building their opposition to Trump around a single candidate - He won the election, but he was against 1) A democrat that had been constantly attacked for years by the republicans, 2) was helped by both Russian interference and an FBI director who's actions were questionable, And despite that, he still lost the popular vote but still won because of the way the electoral college works. Change any of those factors and Trump may have lost Now I'm not saying Hillary was a perfect candidate. If I were to blame the Democrats for anything, I'd say their biggest fault was not committing enough resources to certain states that they assumed they had locked up but where their support was not as strong as expected. (Places like Michigan, where Trump won by a very small margin. Had the Dems ran a few more ads there, visited the state more often, etc. perhaps they may have won it.)

A bit off topic, but it should be pointed out that your "freedom of speech" by definition cannot be violated by the Mods here. Freedom of speech involves only interactions between you and the GOVERNMENT. There is no requirement that anyone else (be it a newspaper, TV/radio station, or this web site) publish your information. I think this cartoon says it best: https://xkcd.com/1357/ There are thousands of murders every year within the U.S. That some of the people killed may have some vague association to political events of the day should not be considered at all surprising.

You do realize that it is possible for someone to both be in favor of "globalization" (through improved trade and international political and military cooperation between nations on a bilateral basis) and yet still be quite critical of organizations like the U.N. Globalization (in general) is good... better trade improves the economy, economic dependence between nations makes conflicts less likely, and the resulting exchange of ideas can foster a better understanding between nations. The U.N. is an outlier... the exception that proves the rule. (In fact, since members of the U.N. aren't required to actually engage in international trade or any sort of cooperation, it might be argued that the U.N. has little to do with 'globalization'.

First of all, I'm not sure if you know what a blockade is, but its not like some sort of spell in Harry Potter where you just wave a magic wand an an invisible barrier appears. Blockades require resources... ships, planes, and soldiers. (Soldiers whom would be 'at risk' during a continued blockade; even if Japan's military strength was diminished it still had planes, subs, etc. which would still be a threat to American forces.) And as others have pointed out, despite Japan being 'blockaded', they still had a significant number of forces in places like China, where innocent people were being killed. (Then there is the issue of the Japanese themselves, many of whom would starve or die should the blockade progress.) So perhaps the U.S. could have just maintained a blockade indefinitely until the Japanese eventually did give up/starve to death (I don't think anyone doubts that), but the problem is that option would have caused more lives than it saved. As for the opinions of "military leaders' opposing the use of atomic weapons... They are certainly entitled to their opinions, but they are just that: opinions. There are also military leaders and historians who think it was the correct thing to do. Ah yes, the myth of the imminent Japanese surrender. The fact is, while there may have been a few Japanese politicians willing to surrender, they did not hold significant power within Japan (at least not enough to actually get Japan to surrender). Japan lost at Midway. They could have surrendered then, but didn't. Japan lost Okinawa, but still didn't surrender. Japanese cities were regularly subjected to bombing, but still they did not surrender. It took 2 atomic bombs, and even then those in charge were deadlocked about continuing the war. It wasn't until the emperor stepped in and said "Dude, are you nuts? They wiped out entire cities with a single bomb. I think its time to give up." And even then there were some in the military who wanted to continue the war (even attempting ta coup.) This was not the sign of a country that was planning on surrendering quickly. Ah yes, another myth... that if the U.S. just promised to keep the emperor around then the Japanese would have surrendered. Ok, as has been mentioned before, Japan wasn't a monolithic society, and not everyone was willing to surrender regardless of what would happen to the emperor. And even many of those who wanted to surrender wanted more than just the emperor left alone... they wanted all of the Japanese military and political system left in tact. So, the nitwits who started the war would have still been around and in charge. The U.S. wisely looked at that option, decided they didn't want to have a replay of the war a few decades later, and decided that no, you can't just leave the same political system in place. Prior to Japan's surrender, they had troops stationed in China, Thailand, Laos, and a host of other countries. So Japan certainly wasn't as 'isolated' as you seem to think. It may have not had enough, but that's different than not being able to 'import/export anything'.

Trump was loosing by double digits at one point. And he was also leading at one point. The thing is, those polls were taken in the middle of the election campaign, as events were unfolding that would impact how people would vote. Polls taken at the end of the campaign were within 1-2% points of the final election results, well within the margin of error.

From: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/01/28/trump-christian-refugees-priority/97175800/ President Trump said persecuted Christians would be treated as a priority as the White House implements major changes in the U.S. refugee program and immigration policy. So while there may be an "everyone is banned" order in place, the ultimate goal is to favor christians over Muslims. The problem is, while Christians may be persecuted in the middle east, Muslims can have it just as bad. (The split over shia and suni muslims is almost as bad as the split between catholic and protestant during the reformation, and groups like ISIS are just as eager to kill Shia muslims as they are Christians.)

Something vaguely related to Canada's fighter jet procurement... Boeing (the company that builds the F18 Super Hornets that the Liberals want to purchase) has joined a coalition of U.S. companies who all favor the imposition of an import tax in the United States. (If applied to Canadian-made goods, it will end up hurting our exports, and ultimately our economy.) Ok, this isn't specifically about the F35 or Boeing, but I wonder if that would make any Liberals reconsider their plans to purchase the F18. (After all, if Boeing is going to harm Canadian jobs, it may decrease sympathy for them.) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-companies-tax-idUSKBN15H2VV

Here's something else to consider: The U.S. health care system relies quite heavily on foreign-born health care providers (including doctors, nurses, etc.), including many from Muslim-majority countries. Trump's travel ban has had an adverse effect on them (and suggested modifications to visa rules will make things worse.) Doctors can't travel to the U.S. for their medical residency, doctors currently practicing in the U.S. can't travel to conferences outside the country to improve their skills, etc. It is quite ironic that in trying to ban muslim travel from several countries (countries which, by the way, have never been the source of refugees engaged in Terror attacks on American soil), Trump may be making the U.S. less safe. And what's doubly ironic... many of these foreign-born doctors work in rural areas, where much of Trump's voter base resided. So people voted for the Racist orangutan in order to make themselves safer/better off, and end up being the worse off for it. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-ban-medical-20170201-story.html

Which still tells us noting about what such 'vetting' will involve (over and above what is already done). The U.S. is not relying on the U.N. for its refugee screening. They do their own checks in addition to what the U.N. does. Do you really think U.N immigration workers are running around trying to undermine various countries? The fact is, they're often quite stringent. (For example, people living in refugee camps in Jordan are restricted from travellign to syria... if they do, they are not allowed back into the camp.)

Trump (during the election, paraphrased): "I want to ban muslim travel". Rudy Guliani (again paraphrased): "Trump asked me how I could do a Muslim ban legally". Trump (post ban): "We'll let christians (i.e. non-muslims) in." So you'll have to forgive people from labeling it a Muslim ban. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.c61131629389

It is not a policy. It is a character flaw... Yes, it is a character flaw... I labeled it a 'policy' because being a racist can impact policy (plus we were comparing it to things like the environment before, which is a policy issue.) You see, that's where I strongly disagree. I've already pointed out why being a bigot should be considered more than just a 'minor flaw'. I guess in the grand scheme of things, if you were a Trump supporter I'd have to label you as being "OK with racism". Yes, that should also have gotten him disqualified too. But the fact that he has one character flaw doesn't mean that the other character flaw (bigotry) isn't also enough to disqualify him. But I've already addressed that issue. Yes, in theory its possible that a Trump supporter didn't hear about Trump's racism, or they heard (from sources like Infowars) about supposed evil things hillary has done. But that wouldn't justify their support of Trump to me. If I were hiring someone and they said they voted for Trump because "Hillary was involved in Pizzagate" I would also find that a reason to be hesitant to hire them. Why? Because as a business owner, I'd want to know that any employees that I hired were able to engage in enough rational/skeptical thought to analyze sources of data and accept or reject those sources based on their accuracy/trustworthiness. Otherwise, I'd be hiring someone who is more gullible and more prone to scams and bad data than they should be. I never claimed that the mainstream media was perfect. Yes, occasionally they get facts wrong. Yes, sources can have biases. Yes they can sometimes be prone to sensationalism. But, the vast majority of times when a source like the New York Times or CNN posts some bit of information, that information will almost always be true. Yes, I'm sure if you hunted down every article ever published by the Times or CNN you can probably find many things that they've gotten wrong. But if they are correct 99% of the time, that should be considered enough to say "these people are pretty darn accurate". The accusations that the Media is "wrong" often comes from sources like Infowars (and from Trump himself)... sources that are much more flawed than the mainstream media that they are condemning. Trump: "Hey, I lied about supporting the Iraq war... but trust me when I say that the Main Stream Media is wrong!". I recognize that The Toronto Star has a left-wing editorial slant. I recognize that Sun News generally has a right-wing editorial slant. However, I would not hesitate to refer to information published in either of these sources (regardless of their bias) because I know that the facts that they themselves published are likely correct (even if they put some sort of spin on the information.) The New York Times, CNN, NBC, etc.... usually correct in the information that it prints (even if it may have an editorial bias). Sources like Brietbart, Infowars and Trump himself... source of such alternative facts such as pizzagate and 9/11 inside-job conspiracy nonsense. It would be nice if all Trump supporters were able to recognize that "A source which is sometimes wrong is still better than a source that is almost always wrong".

Actually, costing out planes is a pretty tricky thing to do... You've got the basic cost of the plane (which can vary... The first F35As that were produced were > $200 million each, but future batches will all be < $100 million.), but then you have to factor things like any modifications that might be done (for example, when we bought the CF18s, we added an extra identification light that wasn't on the stock F18s, which of course increases cost), whether the initial price includes any sort of spare parts or guarantees from the manufacturer in the short term, and the long term cost of maintenance. When you hear a cost like $120 million (which differs so much from other estimates), you need to consider whether that price involves just the plane, or the plane+spare parts. So many people have claimed the F18 SuperHornet is cheaper, and in the short term it might be (or might not...), but it all depends on what we are getting with the purchase. Long-term, I suspect it will be more expensive, based on the issues of maintaining a fleet of planes for which replacement parts will become scarce after production ceases.

Possibly because, despite your claim, you can't buy 5-8 Gripens for the price of one F18. (Wikipedia lists the fly-away cost of the Gripen at 30-60 million. Cost of the F18 Super hornet: 98 million. At best they would only get 2 Gripens for the price of 1 Super Hornet. And that doesn't include any additional costs, such as pilot training.) Possibly because it can carry much less in the way of weapons. And despite people who claim that Canada should only be concerned about its own airspace, that's an isolationist view which would be rejected by all major political parties (all of which have at one time or another supported using our planes in foreign conflicts.) So, buying something incredibly cheap but limiting now would unfairly hobble future governments (be it Liberal, Conservative or NDP) who may want to use or armed forces in a situation like Bosnia. Here's the thing... Canada is actually pretty well off when compared to the rest of the world. We have a stable government, our economy is not that bad off, and we have a long history of constructive engagement in various conflicts (such as our role in various UN missions.) We could probably equip all branches of our armed forces if we had the political will. Situations DO arrive in foreign countries where military intervention would be beneficial (e.g. Bosnia). As one of the more prosperous countries in the world, the decent thing to do would be to try to contribute in a positive way when innocent people are threatened.

Speculations based on past history and other evidence. And by the way, why do you keep trying to use different colors and fonts? Do you really think that magically makes your comments more convincing, instead of how it actually makes your comments look childish and petty? The same Mattis that is actually angry because he wasn't consulted about the ban before the day it was actually signed? http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/30/trump-faces-blowback-from-cabinet-diplomats-for-refugee-ban.html (Hey, its a fox news link... you should like that.) Uhhh... no, it doesn't. Not sure how Trump appointing a cabinet, and then claiming he will take Mattis's advice on Torture shows in any way that Trump regularly thinks through his policies. Heck, he didn't even bother consulting Mattis before implementing his travel ban.

While I may not have been privy to any meetings Trump has had regarding the establishment of safe zones, and while I may not be a mind reader, I think we can easily look at Trump's track record of incomplete and poorly thought-out policies. Take for example is initial plan during the election itself: First Trump called for a Muslim ban, then only later coming up with the phrase "extreme vetting" (a term by the way that still hasn't been explained, or what its going to add to the existing U.S. screening process). If Trump had thought things through, why didn't he talk about extreme vetting in the first place? And how about once the ban was actually implemented: security agencies were not contacted, and the details of how the ban was to be implemented were never communicated to the people actually working at the customs offices. And of course they ended up having to go back and alter their ban because they found it was affecting people it shouldn't have. This is not the mark of a well thought out plan. Or how about Trump's plan to defeat ISIS... at various points Trump has said he'd fire all the generals, that he'd give the generals 30 days to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS, and that he didn't need the General's input because he's smart. Clearly this is an example of Trump flailing around making comments that haven't been thought out properly. These are not the signs of a leader who has clearly thought through his policies and has specific plans for implementation. These are the signs of a leader who is flailing around wildly, flinging whatever he can think of against the wall to see what sticks. While its possible that Trump has a logical plan in place to implement safe zones, the fact that he's shown so often in the past to be incoherent and inconsistent with policy, combined with the lack of details that have so far been given should make anyone skeptical that he has a rational plan for safe zones in place. As the saying goes... fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 3 times, I'm a gullible Trump supporter.

You do realize that refugees often are people that don't agree with their government. The fact that some of those countries don't allow Israelis in is irrelevant. Heck, if there were an Israeli-loving person in Syria its MORE likely that they would be a refugee.

Refugees do not just show up at the border and say "I'm a refugee let me in". Prior to Trump's ban, potential refugees had significant hurdles that they had to clear before they could gain entry to the U.S. They often have to go through the U.N. as the first step. Then they go through multiple interviews by U.S. intelligence agencies, and have their fingerprints and other identifying information run through various databases. The whole process can take over a year. And even after all that is done, a final check is done by border guards at the point of entry. Even if the potential refugee does not have proper government identification, the length of time and the number of checks that are done should eliminate the vast majority of risk. Does it drop the risk to 0%? No, you could never get that low. But at this point, you are probably at a greater risk of harm from natural born Americans than you are from refugees. Trump keeps talking about "extreme vetting", but that's already being done. http://refugees.org/explore-the-issues/our-work-with-refugees/security-screening/

You keep treating racism and bigotry as if its just one minor policy difference among many. It is not. Racism and bigotry is especially heinous.... and if a president has that quality, his ability to serve as representative for roughly half the population is immediately suspect. And not only does racism and bigotry directly affect the minorities involved, it has a myriad of side effects... everything from negative economic impact (as discriminated minorities may not be given a chance to contribute to society to their full potential), potential violence (as racist policies cause a backlash), and foreign policy implications (as a racist president may not always act in the country's best interest). These side effects affect everyone, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. In short, being a racist/bigot should automatically discount anyone from being a preferred candidate, full stop. End of story. Donald Trump is a racist and a bigot. We have substantial evidence from both before he entered politics and after he started campaigning to illustrate that. Anyone who walked into the voting booth and cast their ballot for Trump, by definition, was OK with racism. You may try to justify it by saying "But people may have liked his policies", but racism should outweigh any preferences a voter may have regarding economic, regulatory or foreign policy. The only way someone would have overlooked Trump's bigotry is if Hillary had an equally distasteful past. But since she has not shown any signs of being racist, nor did she have anything particularly disturbing in her past or in her proposed policies (no, she didn't have a plan to force live organ donations for orphans, or have a history of human sacrifices to the god Baal. And no, a few emails do not qualify), then anyone who was NOT OK with racism should have chosen her, regardless of whether you liked her stance on Obamacare or her spending plans. One recurring joke you may see from time to time is how Mussolini "Made the trains run on time". Its often used to point out how supporting someone who has especially distasteful traits can have deleterious effects, even if there are some relatively minor positives. I get the feeling that in the future you will see the same sort of joke made about Trump... "Yes, he destroyed America's global reputation, wrecked the economy, and disenfranchised millions of minorities, but at least he made the trains run on time". There is an episode of the Simpsons where Sideshow Bob (a recurring character who was in jail for attempted murder) is running for political office. In one clip, Homer is in the voting booth and is trying to decide who to vote for... "On one hand, I'm opposed to his Bart killing policy...". In another clip, Krusty the crown is trying to justify his vote... "Well, he did try to frame me for a crime... but I could use those tax cuts". Its a perfect analogy for Trump voters.. people making a selection of someone who clearly should not be a viable candidate, justified by petty claims that don't come anywhere near overcoming the candidate's flaws.

Well, Trump has said some pretty offensive things both during the campaign and after.. racists and sexist comments, etc. And, many of his policies are quite... disturbing to many. (Appointing anti-abortionists to the Supreme court may end up stripping abortion rights away from millions of people for example.) Whether someone thinks its out of proportion to his actions is a personal opinion. Obviously the people participating in the demonstrations don't think its out of proportion. Why do it? Lets see: For personal reasons, it lets people who are worried about Trump's policies recognize that they are not alone. (Yes, its all well and good to read poll numbers that show Trump is unpopular, but going to a rally with thousands of like-minded people may be emotionally satisfying.) It may put pressure on congress to not give in to Trump (the idea being if there are that many protesters, perhaps they may affect the next election if I decide to cave in to Trump A peaceful protest may provide anti-Trump fodder (e.g. seeing Trump's over-reactions) early on, which may affect is chances for re-election (the idea is if his popularity gets too low it will never recover.) As for why Canadian or UK people may protest: It does seem more pointless. But, the protesters could be thinking:By protesting now, they may prevent similar politicians from gaining a foothold here in Canada.