Demonstrations against Trump

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

It's everyone's right to protest.  It's no-one's right to break windows or set fire to dumpsters.

 

Agreed...peaceful protest is protected.  If only more of them had voted instead of waiting to riot instead.

[WestCoastRunner]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's everyone's right to protest.  It's no-one's right to break windows or set fire to dumpsters.

Right. You honestly think every protest should be banned because of a few bad apples?

 

[WestCoastRunner]

Regardless of who voted or didn't, protests are a citizens right. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Right. You honestly think every protest should be banned because of a few bad apples?

 

Could you indulge me and explain how you got from this:

Quote

It's everyone's right to protest.  It's no-one's right to break windows or set fire to dumpsters.

to your reply above?

I think I would find that thought process fascinating.

Edited November 12, 2016 by bcsapper

[kimmy]

Everyone has the right to be stupid and wrong, and these protesters are stupid and wrong. Protesting to say that they don't accept the outcome of a fair election is as stupid and wrong as you can get.

When the time comes to protest an antisocial policy being implemented by the next administration, I'll be cheering them on.  But for the time being they're just making fools of themselves.

 -k

[WestCoastRunner]

2 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Everyone has the right to be stupid and wrong, and these protesters are stupid and wrong. Protesting to say that they don't accept the outcome of a fair election is as stupid and wrong as you can get.

When the time comes to protest an antisocial policy being implemented by the next administration, I'll be cheering them on.  But for the time being they're just making fools of themselves.

 -k

They are protesting to say that they have put Trump on notice and are watching him. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, WestCoastRunner said:

They are protesting to say that they have put Trump on notice and are watching him. 

 

OK....and law enforcement is putting them on notice that riot and vandalism is illegal, and they will be arrested/prosecuted.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

They are protesting to say that they have put Trump on notice and are watching him. 

No they're not.  They are indulging in a fit of pique because the election result took them completely by surprise.

[Bonam]

41 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

It's dumb to you because you and many others have missed the point and don't understand what these protestors are so passionate about. I'll spell it out for you. 

They repudiate his values and policies. 

He does not represent them  

He will be fought when he tries to implement  policies that removes the rights of minorities  

It is their right to protest and if Trump were a true leader he would listen and not rant about another media conspiracy     

As I already said, I agree it's their right to (peacefully) protest. Similarly, it's my right to point out that protesting the outcome of an election is dumb. I absolutely 100% support it if they go protest when he actually tries to implement policies that "remove the rights of minorities". That would be abhorrent, unacceptable, and should be protested. But right now he isn't doing that... he is not even the president yet, in fact. All they are protesting right now is the lawful outcome of a democratic election, which is dumb. 

[kimmy]

11 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

They are protesting to say that they have put Trump on notice and are watching him. 

Their slogan is literally #NotMyPresident.

Just now, Bonam said:

As I already said, I agree it's their right to (peacefully) protest. Similarly, it's my right to point out that protesting the outcome of an election is dumb. I absolutely 100% support it if they go protest when he actually tries to implement policies that "remove the rights of minorities". That would be abhorrent, unacceptable, and should be protested. But right now he isn't doing that... he is not even the president yet, in fact. All they are protesting right now is the lawful outcome of a democratic election, which is dumb. 

That's exactly my feeling too.

 -k

[drummindiver]

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 6:38 PM, BubberMiley said:

Trudeau is a false equivalency. He isn't a racist, lying misogynist with ties to Russia.

Say what? He didn't make his female MPPS go in the back door cause they are, uh, female? You can Google and find a thousand cites stating he is thawing ties with Putin And he's not a liar? Seriously?

[drummindiver]

The fact Trump was democratically voted in clearly makes him their president regardless of their vitriol. 

[cybercoma]

1 hour ago, kimmy said:

Everyone has the right to be stupid and wrong, and these protesters are stupid and wrong. Protesting to say that they don't accept the outcome of a fair election is as stupid and wrong as you can get.

When the time comes to protest an antisocial policy being implemented by the next administration, I'll be cheering them on.  But for the time being they're just making fools of themselves.

 -k

You know what I find stupid and wrong? That in 4 pages of discussion about the protests not a single person has talked about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote and the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the electoral college, nor has anyone brought up voter suppression.

[Cum Laude]

Bernie Sanders is a wonderful person at some level of his being. When he smiles, the world lights up. The bird landed alighted on his podium, not any other. But despite this, he was allied with Darkness. After the terrible Soros funded violence in Chicago, which shut down Trump’s rally, Bernie said “Good job, everyone.” He also said White don’t know what it’s like to be poor. Now admit it Buck, that’s just despicable.

Did you see his face during the DNC? He looked like he was in Hell. We may never get to the bottom of all this. Was he just her wing man to begin with – and only later becoming serious? It seemed very real at the end, and he seemed to feel he was betraying his people – and his best self. In exchange he seemed to have gotten a book deal, a lake house, and a future with Democrats, who owe him a big favor. You may well get a chance if four years to vote for him. In the mean time, cut deeply into your middle finger and eat the pain.

[DogOnPorch]

10 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

The fact Trump was democratically voted in clearly makes him their president regardless of their vitriol. 

 

Efforts are now being made to force the Electoral College to support the popular vote rather than the voters of a particular state...which is...of course...why the EC was created by the Founding Fathers...to prevent such tyranny of the popular.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

You know what I find stupid and wrong? That in 4 pages of discussion about the protests not a single person has talked about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote and the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the electoral college, nor has anyone brought up voter suppression.

 

The EC was designed to PREVENT bully states lording it over smaller states...it works just fine.

[Cum Laude]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Efforts are now being made to force the Electoral College to support the popular vote rather than the voters of a particular state...which is...of course...why the EC was created by the Founding Fathers...to prevent such tyranny of the popular.

If popular vote mattered, Trump would have campaigned more in heavily populated California and New York. But he knew he wasn't going to win those states. He could have campaigned in each state and picked up a few hundred thousnad votes, which would have helped him with the popular vote. He had no hope there so he didn't do that.

 

The electoral college forces campaigns to focus on the states that are in play and conceding those that one knows they can't win. Different systems require different methods of campaigning. 

[DogOnPorch]

I agree.

[-TSS-]

Let's try to explain the nature of the electoral college in an analogy a Canadian would understand. Imagine there was a hockey series of best of seven matches and a team A beat team B by four games to three. The individual games would be 1-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-0 for the team A and 0-5, 0-5, 0-5 for the team B. Team A win by four games to three though the number of goals is 4-15 against them.

[DogOnPorch]

Can you imagine the anger if a state was forced to support the popular vote even if the voters chose otherwise?

Yeah...let's start a war.

[BC_chick]

1 hour ago, cybercoma said:

You know what I find stupid and wrong? That in 4 pages of discussion about the protests not a single person has talked about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote and the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the electoral college, nor has anyone brought up voter suppression.

Did you actually read the thread?  I discussed Electoral college on page one and segnasaur about voter suppression on page three.

Edited November 12, 2016 by BC_chick

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, cybercoma said:

You know what I find stupid and wrong? That in 4 pages of discussion about the protests not a single person has talked about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote and the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the electoral college, nor has anyone brought up voter suppression.

Imagine if Canada's prime minister was selected based on who won various regional votes rather than a nationwide popular vote. Oh wait...

All the complaints about the electoral college are absurd. Every side knows the rules of the game going in. Without the EC, why would anyone bother campaigning outside (or addressing the issues of) anything but the biggest population centers?

As for "voter suppression"... in which state do you think "voter suppression" was decisive to the outcome? 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

Let's try to explain the nature of the electoral college in an analogy a Canadian would understand. Imagine there was a hockey series of best of seven matches and a team A beat team B by four games to three. The individual games would be 1-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-0 for the team A and 0-5, 0-5, 0-5 for the team B. Team A win by four games to three though the number of goals is 4-15 against them.

 

Nice...I like that analogy.    Canadians understand hockey.

[drummindiver]

Want to stop the riots? Play the national anthem....they'll all sit down.

Edited November 12, 2016 by drummindiver

[kimmy]

Complaining about the Electoral College is just sour grapes.  The system has been around for a very long time, both parties understand how it works, both parties have had numerous opportunities to propose changes if they wished, and they didn't wish. The possibility of winning the popular vote but losing the election is built into the system, and everybody recognizes that.

As for voter suppression,  it's a legitimate issue.  Surprise voter-roll purges shortly before elections, closing of voting stations, reducing early polling, gerrymandering and "voter caging", these are all real things and all of them should be embarrassing to the American people as a whole.

But I'm having a hard time buying that they had a significant impact on the outcome this year. This year's big voter suppression headlines came from North Carolina, and it was probably all wasted effort because North Carolina really wasn't close anyway.

 -k