Do you support these protests against Trump?

[Stoked]

Some of the protests are starting to turn. Portland police are now deeming their protest a riot and changing tactics.

For example.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sand-protest-trump-in-rallies-across-the-u-s/

 

[Red]

The Tweeter-in-Chief has weighed in:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/artic...s-media-on-twitter-for-inciting-protests.html

 

[babe]

Rent-a-Mob "Protesters" have born in theProgressive toolbar since Trotsky, maybe since Machiavelli.
Ordinary folks don't carry sledge hammers any more than military ordinance. Sure the point is to mobilize the sentiment but it is not just a spontaneous demonstration, and these are riots not articulate protest.

 

[LoPo]

I work in higher education and I still can't quite grasp why people would be mad. Disappointed yes, but not mad.

- In 1995, Bill Clinton said he was going to deport illegal immigrants. It never happened. It never happens.
-Trump was very clear saying he wants to actually do something for inner city blacks instead of just making promises like the blue.
- Trump has issues with Muslim immigrants not Muslim Americans
-What has Trump done to the LGBTQ community?

In my opinion, the protests turning to riots are completely without base.

Sent from my VS980 4G using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

if you remove California from the mix then hillary did not win the popular vote. So Trump carried the popular vote in the other 49, in aggregate, while Clinton overwhelmingly carried the biggest single state.

Why would you remove Americans who have a legitimate right to vote? If anything, you should remove dumb rednecks who are the offspring of brothers/sisters, and obviously have birth defects of the brain. I think we all know how it would have gone then.

 

[Scat]

Why would you remove Americans who have a legitimate right to vote? If anything, you should remove dumb rednecks who are the offspring of brothers/sisters, and obviously have birth defects of the brain. I think we all know how it would have gone then.

This train of thought always cracks me up. Only idiots and "deplorables" vote for the candidate I am against. Only people that are smart and well reasoned vote for the candidate I support.

What's funny is that millions of voters that voted for Pres Obama changed sides and voted for Trump. So they were smart and well reasoned in 08 and 12 and somehow got dumb by 16?

 

[fishonjazz]

This train of thought always cracks me up. Only idiots and "deplorables" vote for the candidate I am against. Only people that are smart and well reasoned vote for the candidate I support.

What's funny is that millions of voters that voted for Pres Obama changed sides and voted for Trump. So they were smart and well reasoned in 08 and 12 and somehow got dumb by 16?

Still though, why were you wanting remove california from the voting again?

 

[LogGrad98]

Why would you remove Americans who have a legitimate right to vote? If anything, you should remove dumb rednecks who are the offspring of brothers/sisters, and obviously have birth defects of the brain. I think we all know how it would have gone then.

Yeah I am sure if you removed all 300 of them it would have made a HUGE difference. Unless you are implying that my father is one of those just because he voted for Trump in which case you ARE the problem, and **** you for good measure.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

This train of thought always cracks me up. Only idiots and "deplorables" vote for the candidate I am against. Only people that are smart and well reasoned vote for the candidate I support.

What's funny is that millions of voters that voted for Pres Obama changed sides and voted for Trump. So they were smart and well reasoned in 08 and 12 and somehow got dumb by 16?

Even dummies can get lucky once in a while. Anyway, I would not have had a problem with anyone voting for Romney last time around, and I'm no big supporter of Hillary Clinton, so don't make any assumptions about me be one-sided. I have some very legitimate reasons for why I dislike Trump as much as I do.

This is all beside the point, though. I'm questioning anyone, for any reason, defending an election process where the candidate who loses the election is somehow declared the winner because of a flawed system. Hell, for the last 6 months, all we've heard from Trump and his supporters was that the system is rigged and how unfair that is. Apparently, Trump voters don't really give a **** about things being fair, and aren't really believers in democracy, just so long as their guy wins.

P.S. If the roles were reversed, and Clinton won without the majority, I would still want the electoral college gone. I can't even believe anyone would defend a system where someone loses an election, but is declared the winner anyway. It's embarrassing as a country.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

Yeah I am sure if you removed all 30,000,000 of them it would have made a HUGE difference. Unless you are implying that my father is one of those just because he voted for Trump in which case you ARE the problem, and **** you for good measure.

Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're father is one of the 2.5% with a fully functional brain.

Still want to try and understand your comment about how if you don't count a part of America, then Trump would have won. Sounds like some of the delusional rationalization that some people have been using in defending a system where the loser of an election is declared the winner.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

I mean, it's fine to protest, but the real answer is that Dems dropped the ball here. Trump didn't win, Hillary lost. She didn't inspire the voters, and the voters just didn't show up.

That's part of it, the other part is that some voter laws were changed, and it was harder for some people to register to vote, as well as some polling locations were closed (800 locations), making it a little harder to actually vote. Some places had hours long wait to vote. That is unacceptable. But that is a small part of what happened. The Dems just didn't show up. Republicans had a million or so less total voters than in 2012, while Dems had around 9 million less. That is pretty huge, and wont win many races.

Ten million people just decided not to vote.

Except that enough voters did show up for Hillary to win, they just weren't in the right part of the country. Someday maybe this country will make every vote count equally.

 

[Hotdog]

Except that enough voters did show up for Hillary to win, they just weren't in the right part of the country. Someday maybe this country will make every vote count equally.

Why, so Californians and New Yorkers can decide the election every year? Thats not a good thing either. They are overcrowded areas that need to be dispersed. They have much different views on life than the rest of the country because they are fighting over limited resources. If a lot if them just picked up and moved to less populated areas, they would find life isnt so hard. Their views on socialsim and welfare would change a bit.

 

[LogGrad98]

Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're father is one of the 2.5% with a fully functional brain.

Still want to try and understand your comment about how if you don't count a part of America, then Trump would have won. Sounds like some of the delusional rationalization that some people have been using in defending a system where the loser of an election is declared the winner.

Why is it hard to understand, are you not part of the 2.5%? Before the votes from California started coming in on election night Trump was leading the popular vote pretty soundly. When California started reporting the popular vote flipped and the votes there pushed Hilary over the top in the popular vote. Take out California and Trump wins the popular vote in the rest of the country. So much for your claim that only rednecks voted for Trump. But you are pretty good at spreading that hatred that the left supposedly, um, hates.

Also I agree the electoral college needs to be done away with. It is archaic and flawed in many ways. Proponents claim it helps states with fewer people not to be overwhelmed by states with more, but it doesn't allow every vote to count as every vote should, imo.

 

[Hotdog]

Why is it hard to understand, are you not part of the 2.5%? Before the votes from California started coming in on election night Trump was leading the popular vote pretty soundly. When California started reporting the popular vote flipped and the votes there pushed Hilary over the top in the popular vote. Take out California and Trump wins the popular vote in the rest of the country. So much for your claim that only rednecks voted for Trump. But you are pretty good at spreading that hatred that the left supposedly, um, hates.

Also I agree the electoral college needs to be done away with. It is archaic and flawed in many ways. Proponents claim it helps states with fewer people not to be overwhelmed by states with more, but it doesn't allow every vote to count as every vote should, imo.

Disagree. See post above.

But just to help people out with their own argument. Really the bigger probelem might be that each state gets two senators.

 

[Scat]

Still though, why were you wanting remove california from the voting again?

When have I EVER said I want to block CA from the voting?

 

[Eminence]

Cali talking about secession has made me smile, as they are probably the state that has the strongest reason to do so. Poor ******** do the most for the country and get their votes counted for the least.

 

[♪alt13]

Except that enough voters did show up for Hillary to win, they just weren't in the right part of the country. Someday maybe this country will make every vote count equally.

Careful what you wish for.

The Democrats have an advantage in terms of the presidency because of how the states are divided. It is hard to say what the results would be if we went by popular vote. A lot of conservatives in New York and California don't bother voting. Looking at just California I'm going to guess that if you split it into 3 states you would get a swing state, a blue state, and a red state(depending on where thee borders were). Ever been to Redding?

Changing to the popular vote may not give you the political result that you think it will.

 

[b_line]

This train of thought always cracks me up. Only idiots and "deplorables" vote for the candidate I am against. Only people that are smart and well reasoned vote for the candidate I support.

What's funny is that millions of voters that voted for Pres Obama changed sides and voted for Trump. So they were smart and well reasoned in 08 and 12 and somehow got dumb by 16?

How do you know that's true that they switched sides? There is no evidence of that. Trump win with less overall votes than Romney garnered and Hillary had more than him. If anything, these people just didn't show up.

I'm not saying anything about the education level or reading ability of the people, just that your reasoning for saying they switched sides is probably not true. What's more likely is that the other side was apathetic.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Careful what you wish for.

The Democrats have an advantage in terms of the presidency because of how the states are divided. It is hard to say what the results would be if we went by popular vote. A lot of conservatives in New York and California don't bother voting. Looking at just California I'm going to guess that if you split it into 3 states you would get a swing state, a blue state, and a red state(depending on where thee borders were). Ever been to Redding?

Changing to the popular vote may not give you the political result that you think it will.

I dont really care how it makes the vote swing. It will increase voting which is what I care about. There are 9 swing states and outside of that it is almost pointless to vote right now in the presidential election. I am baffled that people dont vote regardless though, because the local stuff matters a lot more than the president does for peoples lives.

 

[UGLI baby]

Careful what you wish for.

The Democrats have an advantage in terms of the presidency because of how the states are divided. It is hard to say what the results would be if we went by popular vote. A lot of conservatives in New York and California don't bother voting. Looking at just California I'm going to guess that if you split it into 3 states you would get a swing state, a blue state, and a red state(depending on where thee borders were). Ever been to Redding?

Changing to the popular vote may not give you the political result that you think it will.

I live in Redding.

Hard to imagine a city being more pro Trump.