Anti Trump protests

[bean29]

I unfollowed my SIL on FB too. She just doesn't get why so many think Trump is Racist, Facist, demagogue. One of her daughters dates a black man and the other a Mexican. I figure she will start hearing of their racist encounters soon.

I am kind of trying to spend less time on Facebook.  I am very drepressed and unsettled.  I am also afraid for my families future.  Now that Trump is filling his cabinet with White Supremacists one wonders if some of his followers will begin to "get it".

If there is nothing to worry about - why did Vice President Biden have to offer reassurances to Israel?

I am totally disgusted with Paul Ryan

www.greenevillesun.com/news/ap_national_news/ryan-says-trump-agrees-no-place-for-racism-hate-crimes/article_a6496575-b38c-5139-adf0-df00ec651292.html

The Wisconsin congressman told CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that, "People should really just put their minds at ease. We are pluralistic, we are inclusive... that's the kind of country we are still going to have."
He says he's "confident Donald Trump feels the same way."

Bulls!t.  Look at who he is putting in charge.  Bannon Yeah right he is not a white supremacist (Sarcasm).

and the rest of the proposed list:

Homeland Security Secretary

The hodgepodge agency, formed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has one key role in the Trump administration: guarding the United States’ borders. If Mr. Trump makes good on his promises of widespread deportations and building walls, this secretary will have to carry them out.


Joe Arpaio Departing sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz.

David A. Clarke Jr. Milwaukee County sheriff

Rudolph W. Giuliani Former New York mayor

Michael McCaul Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee

Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama who is a prominent immigration opponent

Joe Arapio, David Clark Jr, Rudu Giuliani ??  Yeah those guys are going to smooth over race relations.  I really don't think David Clark can get re-elected in Milwaukee County again now that he is on the Republican Train (He has always run as a Democrat in the past, he is now well known as a Republican).

[Phoenix84]

Nov 9, 2016 22:27:06 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

Not really my thing, but as long as they remain peaceful, they are just exercising their 1st Amendment right.  

I don't really care if they protest as long as they don't trespass on private property, try to block roads, and don't engage in looting and vandalism. Otherwise, it's covered by the 1st amendment.

[Phoenix84]

Nov 9, 2016 22:33:07 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Nov 9, 2016 22:18:47 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  I thought the fate of the world hung in the balance with the peaceful transfer of power?   And ,that if Trump didn't immediately concede that the world would collapse.  Well, Hillary wimped out on that until today, though she did last night by phone.  And, all the lectures we get by Dems about we should act before, during, and after an election never apply to them.  How about that?

The transfer of power is between the President elect and the out going President. Hillary is neither. Also conceding isn't necessary. He won the EC and lost the popular vote. Meaning most Americans voted for Hillary. Let's see if he stands by his promises. I'm waiting for the wall.  

A fraction of one percent difference is not "most."

I'm getting tired of this "well, Clinton won the popular vote."  Clinton won the popular vote by an extremely thin margin, that does not make her the president and it certainly does not invalidate or diminish the millions upon millions of people who voted for Trump.  I'm tired of our votes being cheapened and rationalized away.

[Phoenix84]

Nov 10, 2016 8:24:32 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

Protest is a fundamental right in a democracy, HOWEVER,protesting about the result of the democratic process is in effect rejecting democracy, rather ironic the protesters call themselves DEMOCRATS.

An interesting point. Protesters are, in effect, protesting against the outcome of the democratic process. It's especially ironic since republicans were lectured about how Trump and the republicans needed to respect the democratic process and concede the election and ensure the peaceful transition of power.

[dondub]

I'm quite sure the protests are against Trump and his stated policies and not the democratic process that elected him. YMMV

[Tennesseer]

Nov 15, 2016 11:16:55 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Nov 10, 2016 8:24:32 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

Protest is a fundamental right in a democracy, HOWEVER,protesting about the result of the democratic process is in effect rejecting democracy, rather ironic the protesters call themselves DEMOCRATS.

An interesting point. Protesters are, in effect, protesting against the outcome of the democratic process. It's especially ironic since republicans were lectured about how Trump and the republicans needed to respect the democratic process and concede the election and ensure the peaceful transition of power.

Trump was tweetingly against it before he was conveniently for it.

“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy,” Trump tweeted on Nov. 6, 2012.

Trump in 2012: ‘The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy’

[Opti]

Nov 15, 2016 11:20:15 GMT -5 dondub said:

I'm quite sure the protests are against Trump and his stated policies and not the democratic process that elected him. YMMV

I think many Trump voters are missing that's the reason people are protesting. They are worried. Steve Bannon a cornerstone of the alt-right movement, was the CEO of the campaign and will be one of Trump's hires. He is known for his anti-Semitic views and put downs of women.

[rob base]

It is interesting that the theoretical idea that Trump protestors would protest a Hillary election (which would be a protest against her policies) would have been wrong. But what is currently going on is perfectly ok.

I love the cover of "The Week" in this link as it depicts the "predicted" Trump protesters.

theweekmagazine.tumblr.com/post/152073181011/heres-the-latest-cover-of-our-magazine-featuring

[Deleted]

I understand that a lot of these protestors are paid protestors.  Trump is creating jobs before he even takes the oath of office.  (This is going right into the jokes thread after rereading it.)

[dondub]

How do you understand that?

[Opti]

Nov 15, 2016 12:39:04 GMT -5 rob base said:

It is interesting that the theoretical idea that Trump protestors would protest a Hillary election (which would be a protest against her policies) would have been wrong. But what is currently going on is perfectly ok.

I love the cover of "The Week" in this link as it depicts the "predicted" Trump protesters.

theweekmagazine.tumblr.com/post/152073181011/heres-the-latest-cover-of-our-magazine-featuring

Actually the concern was that some pro Trump folk would have protested violently because of their fears of gun regulations if Hillary was elected. And there was some concern Trump would encourage the protests given his rhetoric.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

There's simply no credible evidence that the opposition to Trump is spurred by anything other than legitimate concern about what his presidency might entail. Such concern could and does stem from accurate reporting by objective media outlets.



Trump has a choice: He could accept that a large chunk of the country — including his own hometown — is frustrated at the prospect of his presidency, and work to build their trust and respect. Or he could wave it all away as being contrived and part of a grand conspiracy against him. Which path he chooses moving forward will define what sort of leader he hopes to be.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/14/why-donald-trump-and-his-supporters-want-you-to-think-protests-against-him-are-manufactured/

[rob base]

Nov 18, 2016 15:03:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

Nov 15, 2016 12:39:04 GMT -5 rob base said:

It is interesting that the theoretical idea that Trump protestors would protest a Hillary election (which would be a protest against her policies) would have been wrong. But what is currently going on is perfectly ok.

I love the cover of "The Week" in this link as it depicts the "predicted" Trump protesters.

theweekmagazine.tumblr.com/post/152073181011/heres-the-latest-cover-of-our-magazine-featuring

Actually the concern was that some pro Trump folk would have protested violently because of their fears of gun regulations if Hillary was elected. And there was some concern Trump would encourage the protests given his rhetoric.

And yet the exact opposite happened

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 18, 2016 14:45:10 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I understand that a lot of these protestors are paid protestors.  Trump is creating jobs before he even takes the oath of office.  (This is going right into the jokes thread after rereading it.)

Source please.  That is one of the falsehoods being put out by fake news.

"Many people are saying".....  

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 18, 2016 15:09:20 GMT -5 rob base said:

Nov 18, 2016 15:03:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

Actually the concern was that some pro Trump folk would have protested violently because of their fears of gun regulations if Hillary was elected. And there was some concern Trump would encourage the protests given his rhetoric.

And yet the exact opposite happened

The fears were armed people threatening violence.  The only armed violence that I am aware of was a protestor who got shot by an angry motorist.

[tallguy]

You’ve been writing fake news for a while now — you’re kind of like the OG Facebook news hoaxer. Well, I’d call it hoaxing or fake news. You’d call it parody or satire. How is that scene different now than it was three or five years ago? Why did something like your story about Obama invalidating the election results (almost 250,000 Facebook shares, as of this writing) go so viral?

Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore — I mean, that’s how Trump got elected. He just said whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said turned out not to be true, people didn’t care because they’d already accepted it. It’s real scary. I’ve never seen anything like it.

You mentioned Trump, and you’ve probably heard the argument, or the concern, that fake news somehow helped him get elected. What do you make of that?

My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.

Why? I mean — why would you even write that?

Just ’cause his supporters were under the belief that people were getting paid to protest at their rallies, and that’s just insane. I’ve gone to Trump protests — trust me, no one needs to get paid to protest Trump. I just wanted to make fun of that insane belief, but it took off. They actually believed it.  I thought they’d fact-check it, and it’d make them look worse. I mean that’s how this always works: Someone posts something I write, then they find out it’s false, then they look like idiots. But Trump supporters — they just keep running with it! They never fact-check anything! Now he’s in the White House. Looking back, instead of hurting the campaign, I think I helped it. And that feels [bad].

link

Yeah, people are definitely dumber now.  

[Deleted]

Nov 18, 2016 15:09:20 GMT -5 rob base said:

Nov 18, 2016 15:03:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

Actually the concern was that some pro Trump folk would have protested violently because of their fears of gun regulations if Hillary was elected. And there was some concern Trump would encourage the protests given his rhetoric.

And yet the exact opposite happened

as normal.

[rob base]

Nov 18, 2016 15:45:52 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Nov 18, 2016 15:09:20 GMT -5 rob base said:

And yet the exact opposite happened

The fears were armed people threatening violence.  The only armed violence that I am aware of was a protestor who got shot by an angry motorist.

So instead of armed people, we have some unarmed people burning things, damaging property and getting arrested

The hypocrisy is amazing.  If Hillary would have won and Trump supporters were protesting in the exact same way the current protesters are democrats and news media would be SCREAMING

But it's ok, like I said in the Trump re-election thread, this is just going to continue to aggravate everyone that voted for Trump and increase his support

Great for the democratic brand!  Also more celebrities should continue to bitch and whine....that is great for the brand as well

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 18, 2016 18:09:55 GMT -5 rob base said:

Nov 18, 2016 15:45:52 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

The fears were armed people threatening violence.  The only armed violence that I am aware of was a protestor who got shot by an angry motorist.

So instead of armed people, we have some unarmed people burning things, damaging property and getting arrested

The hypocrisy is amazing.  If Hillary would have won and Trump supporters were protesting in the exact same way the current protesters are democrats and news media would be SCREAMING

But it's ok, like I said in the Trump re-election thread, this is just going to continue to aggravate everyone that voted for Trump and increase his support

Great for the democratic brand!  Also more celebrities should continue to bitch and whine....that is great for the brand as well

No. The number of actual violent acts  has been small - committed by thugs. The majority of protests have been peaceful, but the fake news media is portraying all protests as violent.

Violence is never OK. Peaceful protest are more than OK. They are patriotic acts protected by the Constitution.

[rob base]

Nov 18, 2016 21:52:44 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Nov 18, 2016 18:09:55 GMT -5 rob base said:

So instead of armed people, we have some unarmed people burning things, damaging property and getting arrested

The hypocrisy is amazing.  If Hillary would have won and Trump supporters were protesting in the exact same way the current protesters are democrats and news media would be SCREAMING

But it's ok, like I said in the Trump re-election thread, this is just going to continue to aggravate everyone that voted for Trump and increase his support

Great for the democratic brand!  Also more celebrities should continue to bitch and whine....that is great for the brand as well

No. The number of actual violent acts  has been small - committed by thugs. The majority of protests have been peaceful, but the fake news media is portraying all protests as violent.

Violence is never OK. Peaceful protest are more than OK. They are patriotic acts protected by the Constitution.

Yeppers

[Deleted]

Nov 18, 2016 15:43:57 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Nov 18, 2016 14:45:10 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I understand that a lot of these protestors are paid protestors.  Trump is creating jobs before he even takes the oath of office.  (This is going right into the jokes thread after rereading it.)

Source please.  That is one of the falsehoods being put out by fake news.

"Many people are saying".....  

LOL, So you're saying that they were the whiney, sore loser Democrats ?    When I brought it up before, I had it explained it was done by paid protestors.

[Virgil Showlion]

We're experiencing some pretty major clashes between pro- and anti-Trump demonstrators here in Toronto.

Of course, cold weather blew in yesterday and that has a tendency to dampen people's enthusiasm somewhat.

[Opti]

Nov 21, 2016 11:26:23 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Nov 18, 2016 15:43:57 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Source please.  That is one of the falsehoods being put out by fake news.

"Many people are saying".....  

LOL, So you're saying that they were the whiney, sore loser Democrats ?    When I brought it up before, I had it explained it was done by paid protestors.

By whom? Because on this thread and others I only see someone saying an anarchist group took advantage of the situation. Reply #247 explains how this paid protestor view is based on a lie.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Nov 18, 2016 18:09:55 GMT -5 rob base said:

Nov 18, 2016 15:45:52 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

The fears were armed people threatening violence.  The only armed violence that I am aware of was a protestor who got shot by an angry motorist.

So instead of armed people, we have some unarmed people burning things, damaging property and getting arrested

The hypocrisy is amazing.  If Hillary would have won and Trump supporters were protesting in the exact same way the current protesters are democrats and news media would be SCREAMING

But it's ok, like I said in the Trump re-election thread, this is just going to continue to aggravate everyone that voted for Trump and increase his support

Great for the democratic brand!  Also more celebrities should continue to bitch and whine....that is great for the brand as well

And don't forget...blocking access to necessary services.  For about 10 minutes, some protesters here were blocking the main access route to a hospital.  I say about 10 minutes because they were told to move or they would be moved....plain and simple.  This was not an empty threat.  People around here don't put up with that horseshit.  You block the entrance to a hospital where my mother may need emergency treatment and you will be moved.  There is no discussion on that point.

Most people around here are "live and let live" and somebody is protesting something most of the time (unless the weather is bad).  A lot of times, people will stop to ask questions because people who protest usually feel they have a good reason and others want to know what it is.  Who knows - maybe we'll join you!  However, you do not cause damage to peoples' property and you don't block access to emergency/necessary services.  Period.

It's not only weapons that are causing a danger to others.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 21, 2016 11:37:53 GMT -5 Opti said:

Nov 21, 2016 11:26:23 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

LOL, So you're saying that they were the whiney, sore loser Democrats ?    When I brought it up before, I had it explained it was done by paid protestors.

By whom? Because on this thread and others I only see someone saying an anarchist group took advantage of the situation. Reply #247 explains how this paid protestor view is based on a lie.

How can you look at one, two, ten, a hundred... specific hoaxes and conclude anything about the number of legitimate cases?

Have both sides in this argument even defined what "paid protestor" is? For example, do salaried members of activist NGOs count? Does getting lunch and dinner out of the deal count?

[Deleted]

Nov 21, 2016 11:37:53 GMT -5 Opti said:

Nov 21, 2016 11:26:23 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

LOL, So you're saying that they were the whiney, sore loser Democrats ?    When I brought it up before, I had it explained it was done by paid protestors.

By whom? Because on this thread and others I only see someone saying an anarchist group took advantage of the situation. Reply #247 explains how this paid protestor view is based on a lie.

It wasn't on this thread.  I think it was on one of Paul's threads, maybe.  I think mmhmm had a link that described the paid protestors.  I really don't have a dog in this fight because I think that protesting a done deal is like complaining about a meal you made for yourself a week later.  These protestors, paid or not, should really hit their local college (or redo eighth grade) and learn how our electoral college system works.  It's kind of been around for a long time.

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 21, 2016 11:48:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 21, 2016 11:37:53 GMT -5 Opti said:

By whom? Because on this thread and others I only see someone saying an anarchist group took advantage of the situation. Reply #247 explains how this paid protestor view is based on a lie.

How can you look at one, two, ten, a hundred... specific hoaxes and conclude anything about the number of legitimate cases?

Have both sides in this argument even defined what "paid protestor" is? For example, do salaried members of activist NGOs count? Does getting lunch and dinner out of the deal count?

You can keep repeating the same lie.  Or you can deflect.  

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Nov 21, 2016 11:49:41 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Nov 21, 2016 11:37:53 GMT -5 Opti said:

By whom? Because on this thread and others I only see someone saying an anarchist group took advantage of the situation. Reply #247 explains how this paid protestor view is based on a lie.

It wasn't on this thread.  I think it was on one of Paul's threads, maybe.  I think mmhmm had a link that described the paid protestors.  I really don't have a dog in this fight because I think that protesting a done deal is like complaining about a meal you made for yourself a week later.  These protestors, paid or not, should really hit their local college (or redo eighth grade) and learn how our electoral college system works.  It's kind of been around for a long time.

They know how it works. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 21, 2016 11:50:44 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Nov 21, 2016 11:48:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

How can you look at one, two, ten, a hundred... specific hoaxes and conclude anything about the number of legitimate cases?

Have both sides in this argument even defined what "paid protestor" is? For example, do salaried members of activist NGOs count? Does getting lunch and dinner out of the deal count?

You can keep repeating the same lie.  Or you can deflect.  

So you're saying that all I'd have to do to prove to you there's no such thing as "rape culture" is post a story about the Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax?

And if you questioned the logic of that, and I rebutted "You can keep repeating the same lie. Or you can deflect.", you'd take me seriously?

I've apparently been putting far more work into these debates than I need to.

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 21, 2016 12:07:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 21, 2016 11:50:44 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

You can keep repeating the same lie.  Or you can deflect.  

So you're saying that all I'd have to do to prove to you there's no such thing as "rape culture" is post a story about the Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax?

And if you questioned the logic of that, and I rebutted "You can keep repeating the same lie. Or you can deflect.", you'd take me seriously?

I've apparently been putting far more work into these debates than I need to.

I'd take you seriously if you'd provide a link to your source regarding "paid" protestors instead of just repeating the assertion.