While I think there would have been a lot of angry talk, and maybe street protests, I wouldn't expect to see Trump supporters rioting and destroying property if he had lost. I would expect legal challenges over voting issues, and a lot of online vitriol, but that's about it. In fact I would expect Donald Trump to publicly call for an end to any violence that may have happened following his defeat.
And, for the record, I also have grown disgusted with both major parties. I voted Green Party this year, just like in 2012, but am really a small-el libertarian. Mainly, I just get annoyed over these discussions where so many people assume conservatives actually are like the caricatures the left makes them out to be. In effect they are calling people I know violent racists, and after a while it pisses me off.
The Court situation will quickly change, and without a majority in at least one house or the prez, you don't have enough influence to stop most highly partisan bills.
You nominated one of the most unlikable candidates you've ever put forth;
And one of the smartest and most experienced there is.
Can you guys please stop saying that phrase like it is based on reality? One term as Secretary of State, following one Senate term, while being married to the only President in living memory to be impeached, does not make Hillary "the most experienced" politician. Any state governor worth considering, Democrat or Republican, has more experience where it matters, working with a legislature and getting policies in place that make the people in the state better off.
And in the areas that they are the majority, they don't call leftists/liberals "racists", "homophobes", nor "evil".
No, they call them "faggots" or "pussies" or "queers" or "n*ggers" or some other such thing. Notice the difference? One side uses terms that denigrate oppressive or hateful behaviors and attitudes, and the other side uses hateful terms of racism and homophobia that denigrate a genetic quality.
So, you are saying there is a "gay gene" that homosexuals have.
While reading your post, I found several items to make no sense to me at all. I mean no offense, but it seems you are not well-informed about several aspects of modern politics, especially regarding violence and protests. Let me give my take on your comment.
I have been very disappointed in the response of the losing side over this election.
I find it hard to be disappointed when people act exactly like I would expect them to act in a given situation. Staged rioting, funded by outsiders, is commonplace among the American left today. From Black Lives Matter, back to Occupy Wall Street, to violent protests on any number of college campuses, it is now the norm, not the exception.
This is the kind of behavior I feared that would flare up on the other side when Trump lost the "rigged" election and the faithful rose up in revolt.
Why? How often to conservatives or Republicans riot? Did any Tea Party protests incite violence? Hmmm, let's see. "one of the Tea Partiers can be seen having an argument with one of the ANSWER counter-protesters when that counter-protester pummels him with his sign."
It's not what I would expect from the allegedly rational side of the fence.
Rational? How long were you in that cryogenic tank you just came out of last week?;^) Large sectors of politically active liberals in the US haven't been rational for years. Or non-violent, for that matter. Do you remember the university professor calling for "muscle" last year?
They don't even have the excuse that Hillary egged them on.
In fact, the only excuse they could possibly make is that "this is how Trump would do it". So tell us again how you're better than he is?
Again, I am just left wondering why you are surprised at all by this. No one who voted for Trump is surprised. In fact, that is why there were millions of them who claimed to support Hillary, or even Johnson, before last week. They didn't want to get attacked, or have their cars and property destroyed.
You are a member of a group that some claim doesn't exist. I'm sure you have seen people say that Sanders could not have won in place of Hillary, because fewer people would have wanted a socialist than a (whatever-the-hell you consider Hillary).
When I've responded that there were liberals/Democrats that couldn't force themselves to vote for Hillary, and sure as hell weren't going to vote for Trump, the Libertarian or Green candidates were acceptable. And not as a "protest vote", but as a "clear conscience vote".
I voted Green myself, even though I disagree with most of their platform. And I sleep like a baby.
> if trump had lost I guarantee there would have been protests against Hillary
You mean like all of the protests and rioting that occurred when Obama was elected? Oh wait.... that never happened. Why would you assume that trump supporters are as whiny and childish as Hillary supporters when that never happened for Obama? Oh sure, there were a handful of morons trying to claim he wasn't edible to be president because of the nationality of his father but that was nothing compared to what's going on right now. To make it even more idiotic is that they're destroying the cities that actually voted for Hillary. That'll show all those trump supporters!
You just quoted him. Where does he ask for the Russians to get online and hack into a server that was already offline? Does he instead ask the Russians to look through their own computers for the folder called "Hillary Clinton's Emails From Her Unsecured Server" and publish the information they already had?
The media portrayed it as the first option above. As in "(Hyperventilating talking head) I can't believe Donald Trump just asked Russia to hack into Secretary Clinton's email!"
Trump will be our presodent. He has no political experience or record,
Why do people keep saying this? He is the founder and executive of many businesses, a global real estate empire, and now a successful campaign for the preidency. When Barack Obama was elected, the only experience he had was community organizing and a few years as a junior senator. Oh, and the campaign.
Of the two, even today, who has more years experience running an organization?
Slashdot Mirror
At $5000 a seat, you think they give a shit about sonic booms disturbing people?
Interestingly, women and minorities will be the most impacted by these flights.
And being a one term senator didn't solve Obama.
Tag, you're it.
While I think there would have been a lot of angry talk, and maybe street protests, I wouldn't expect to see Trump supporters rioting and destroying property if he had lost. I would expect legal challenges over voting issues, and a lot of online vitriol, but that's about it. In fact I would expect Donald Trump to publicly call for an end to any violence that may have happened following his defeat.
And, for the record, I also have grown disgusted with both major parties. I voted Green Party this year, just like in 2012, but am really a small-el libertarian. Mainly, I just get annoyed over these discussions where so many people assume conservatives actually are like the caricatures the left makes them out to be. In effect they are calling people I know violent racists, and after a while it pisses me off.
The Court situation will quickly change, and without a majority in at least one house or the prez, you don't have enough influence to stop most highly partisan bills.
And one of the smartest and most experienced there is.
Can you guys please stop saying that phrase like it is based on reality? One term as Secretary of State, following one Senate term, while being married to the only President in living memory to be impeached, does not make Hillary "the most experienced" politician. Any state governor worth considering, Democrat or Republican, has more experience where it matters, working with a legislature and getting policies in place that make the people in the state better off.
And in the areas that they are the majority, they don't call leftists/liberals "racists", "homophobes", nor "evil".
No, they call them "faggots" or "pussies" or "queers" or "n*ggers" or some other such thing. Notice the difference? One side uses terms that denigrate oppressive or hateful behaviors and attitudes, and the other side uses hateful terms of racism and homophobia that denigrate a genetic quality.
So, you are saying there is a "gay gene" that homosexuals have.
Technically, Obamacare is making others pay for your expensive insurance.
As opposed to Occupy Wall Street that squatted in the middle of Manhattan and did go to war with law enforcement?
While reading your post, I found several items to make no sense to me at all. I mean no offense, but it seems you are not well-informed about several aspects of modern politics, especially regarding violence and protests. Let me give my take on your comment.
I have been very disappointed in the response of the losing side over this election.
I find it hard to be disappointed when people act exactly like I would expect them to act in a given situation. Staged rioting, funded by outsiders, is commonplace among the American left today. From Black Lives Matter, back to Occupy Wall Street, to violent protests on any number of college campuses, it is now the norm, not the exception.
This is the kind of behavior I feared that would flare up on the other side when Trump lost the "rigged" election and the faithful rose up in revolt.
Why? How often to conservatives or Republicans riot? Did any Tea Party protests incite violence? Hmmm, let's see. "one of the Tea Partiers can be seen having an argument with one of the ANSWER counter-protesters when that counter-protester pummels him with his sign."
It's not what I would expect from the allegedly rational side of the fence.
Rational? How long were you in that cryogenic tank you just came out of last week? ;^) Large sectors of politically active liberals in the US haven't been rational for years. Or non-violent, for that matter. Do you remember the university professor calling for "muscle" last year?
They don't even have the excuse that Hillary egged them on.
In fact, the only excuse they could possibly make is that "this is how Trump would do it". So tell us again how you're better than he is?
Again, I am just left wondering why you are surprised at all by this. No one who voted for Trump is surprised. In fact, that is why there were millions of them who claimed to support Hillary, or even Johnson, before last week. They didn't want to get attacked, or have their cars and property destroyed.
You can ask the family of the poor lawn care worker who had that happen last year. His sleeve got caught on a branch, as it was going in the chute.
I'm sure his family thought it was really cool.
What does that matter? He didn't even win his party's nomination.
Don't worry, they didn't mention Grindr messages in the article.
You ever try to clean the shit out of a politician?
Calling a candidate a clown, a sex offender, Hitler reincarnate, etc, doesn't sound like free advertising.
You are a member of a group that some claim doesn't exist. I'm sure you have seen people say that Sanders could not have won in place of Hillary, because fewer people would have wanted a socialist than a (whatever-the-hell you consider Hillary).
When I've responded that there were liberals/Democrats that couldn't force themselves to vote for Hillary, and sure as hell weren't going to vote for Trump, the Libertarian or Green candidates were acceptable. And not as a "protest vote", but as a "clear conscience vote".
I voted Green myself, even though I disagree with most of their platform. And I sleep like a baby.
> if trump had lost I guarantee there would have been protests against Hillary
You mean like all of the protests and rioting that occurred when Obama was elected? Oh wait.... that never happened. Why would you assume that trump supporters are as whiny and childish as Hillary supporters when that never happened for Obama? Oh sure, there were a handful of morons trying to claim he wasn't edible to be president because of the nationality of his father but that was nothing compared to what's going on right now. To make it even more idiotic is that they're destroying the cities that actually voted for Hillary. That'll show all those trump supporters!
Best autocorrect ever!
My clock only goes to 10.
Damn metric time keeping.
Are you saying that Obama understood that before he became president?
Either way, it's a pretty small detail, that comes up once in a presidency.
You just quoted him. Where does he ask for the Russians to get online and hack into a server that was already offline? Does he instead ask the Russians to look through their own computers for the folder called "Hillary Clinton's Emails From Her Unsecured Server" and publish the information they already had?
The media portrayed it as the first option above. As in "(Hyperventilating talking head) I can't believe Donald Trump just asked Russia to hack into Secretary Clinton's email!"
The rest of the world realizes they already had.
Find the video. Watch the video. Personally transcribe the video.
Then come here and tell me he told Russia to hack a computer that had been offline for a year already.
Still butt-hurt that Hillary lost?
Why the homophobic rant? What do you have against gay russians?
Trump will be our presodent. He has no political experience or record,
Why do people keep saying this? He is the founder and executive of many businesses, a global real estate empire, and now a successful campaign for the preidency. When Barack Obama was elected, the only experience he had was community organizing and a few years as a junior senator. Oh, and the campaign.
Of the two, even today, who has more years experience running an organization?
You believe the media lie that Trump asked Russia to hack Hillary's email server, don't you?
Of course, you also believed the media's lie that Hillary had a 90% chance of winning last week.
Right, because the head of the Trump business empire has never had to compromise, liaise, or work long hours.
Partisans in congress will never impeach a same-party president. Party before country.
That's what we learned in the 1990s as well.