[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[killerjimbag]

That's funny - I haven't seen any government recognise the BLM movement as a terrorist organisation.


But it would be totally okay if Clinton won and Trump's supporters picketed her headquarters, right?

It's not OK for anyone to do it! Is this a trick question? Picketing? Give it a couple of hours.
I've watched elections in 2 countries since Nixon in the 70's Never have I seen a gong show like this. I hope you just watched CNN in L.A. Did you hear that woman say their will be casualties. Really?

 

[Aki Ko]

I've gotten hundreds of downvotes on Reddit - over 50 of them from college students - and flak from people of all ages in person because I voted for the Libertarian party.

I am surrounded by so much disagreeableness that I'm starting to think I'm the problem. Am I the problem? Is libertarianism the problem? Is my logic wrong? Or are there really that many hateful and moronic people in this country?

If these are the kinds of people who are going to be voting for the next 60+ years, well guys...we're screwed.

The highlighted part.

Look, I would've voted the same. It's very amusing when they start pointing fingers when their beloved candidate lost- blinded by the fact that other people see them in a completely different light than what they see. They completely ignore the freedom to vote for whoever. It's always this party or that party you're just dead weight with a wasted vote. Let's not ignore that the people who did vote third party probably voted for Bernie back when he was still in the game. When the DNC jacked his chance, people got crossed and decided to go against the DNC.

What I don't get is how they assume that those third party voters would have voted for Hillary in the first place. They probably would've voted for Trump before Hillary.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I've gotten hundreds of downvotes on Reddit - over 50 of them from college students - and flak from people of all ages in person because I voted for the Libertarian party.

I am surrounded by so much disagreeableness that I'm starting to think I'm the problem. Am I the problem? Is libertarianism the problem? Is my logic wrong? Or are there really that many hateful and moronic people in this country?

If these are the kinds of people who are going to be voting for the next 60+ years, well guys...we're screwed.

Keep the faith brother. I've had the same train of thought as you for 30+ years, wondering whether it was me or everyone around me. Lately I've come to the conclusion it's everyone around me. And yes, we're screwed

 

[McLaren]

Ah, you beloved left wingers. Love trumps hate amiright? Unless you lose the election and then it's smashing windows, spray painting graffiti, profanity laced chants. I'm sure it won't be long before the fighting starts, maybe a few fires for good measure. Tolerance on display.
http://nypost.com/2016/11/09/protests-break-out-in-nyc-over-president-elect-trump/

These people will never get it; they lost b/c of the DNC choosing to interfere with their candidate & b/c they chose to continuously repeat the tired motto of, "Rapist, Sexist, Racist!" at Trump supporters. As I saw one Twitter post put it, if you repeatedly insult & antagonize a group of people, they will eventually act and the result here was deemed a "political revolution".

Edit* I think O'Reilly may have had a better description for these folks, that they're just a bunch of radical leftists who have nothing better to do & do not represent the Democratic party.

 

[-Cheezman-]

The people who are actually rioting right now need to seriously grow up.

Hillary lost. Get over it you cry babies.

I'm not happy about it. You're not happy about it.

But, having a hissy fit and causing thousands of dollars in property damage, if not worse, is not going to gain you any favor.

 

[Joel]

Oh no! Not the property!

Keep the faith brother. I've had the same train of thought as you for 30+ years, wondering whether it was me or everyone around me. Lately I've come to the conclusion it's everyone around me. And yes, we're screwed

Uh...what? You've spent the last 6 months defending Trump from every angle of attack, gleefully cheering him on, and minimizing every scandal. How do you reconcile that with being libertarian?

 

[DDastardly00]

Looks like the Labor party Socialists are organizing these protests

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...otest-Philadelphia-Center-City-400603091.html

 

[-Cheezman-]

Oh no! Not the property!

Such a mature response!

How about physical injuries that may result?

Or the delaying of emergency service response times?

All because one group's political candidate didn't win an election.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Is this a trick question?

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that you can't condemn them for it when all of Trump's rhetoric would have led to the same result if the election went differently.

 

[killerjimbag]

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that you can't condemn them for it when all of Trump's rhetoric would have led to the same result if the election went differently.

Really? Your can't condemn them? What you condone public disobedience,rioting, looting.
Yeah I'm sure if Hillary didn't rig the DNC and let Bernie win it would be a different election result. Yep if he lost,all them rasist rednecks would be on their horse's riding into NYC and Chicago and LA with guns a blazing. Please.

 

[McLaren]

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that you can't condemn them for it when all of Trump's rhetoric would have led to the same result if the election went differently.

So, you think Trump supporters would have attacked a black man, beat him, and stole his car if the election had gone the other way?


How much would one care to wager these are likely BLM supporters as well.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Your can't condemn them?

No, you can't condemn them without being a hypocrite.

Yep if he lost,all them rasist rednecks would be on their horse's riding into NYC and Chicago and LA with guns a blazing.

Go ahead, exaggerate all you like. It doesn't change the fact that Trump's pre-election rhetoric encouraged his supporters to take action.

So, you think Trump supporters would have attacked a black man, beat him, and stole his car if the election had gone the other way?

I can't say - but I am not going to assume that the actions of one person speak for everyone who shares a similar position.

 

[mustafur]

I don't see the problem with people protesting the result, that's only a problem if your not okay with protesting in general.

Violence and damage though is another story, but unless all are doing it you can't exactly put all in the same boat.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't see the problem with people protesting the result

Apparently it's a problem if you're a Clinton supporter. Which is strange, given that so many pivotal moments in American history hinged on civil disobedience. What would America look like if King George had said "stop whinging about it already" and the people said "okay"?

 

[McLaren]

I can't say - but I am not going to assume that the actions of one person speak for everyone who shares a similar position.

The problem is that's more than 1 person. That's at least 3 physically interfering & 2 vocally supporting it.

But, to be fair, I'm still standing by O'Reilly's assessment that folks like these are not Democrats & do not represent real Democrats just like the protesters. I think both parties have accepted the results and are going to go on as they have been; work together on some issues, bicker at each other with the rest, probably hold some resentment deep down but not let it get in the way of achieving a goal.

Would people protest if Hillary won? Most likely, but in the case of Liberals vs Conservatives these days, Liberals do tend to get a lot more vocal when they oppose something & sometimes, the concern of altercations happening increase with their distraught. It's why they tend to be mocked by Conservatives as the "Tolerant Left" until they see something they don't like. Now I haven't seen anything violent besides some cursing, so I'm just going to assume a bunch of die-hard, "radical" Lefties protesting the election results should have been expected b/c
A) Lefties like to protest to voice their displeasure & a Presidential election is the biggest thing for them to get behind and
B) we live in a society were people will just protest or get upset over anything. I mean, some people got upset Hillary Duff wore a Pilgrim outfit for Halloween whilst her B/F was an Indian. Big deal.

As @Keef quoted the article, "I am not happy, I have no words, I don’t know I am so upset", these people were just too heavily, emotionally invested in the election and need some way to blow off steam. Deep down, I think they need to suck it up & they probably will eventually, but as long as they don't start replicating BLM protests, might as well let 'em protest. It's an American right after all, as Kaepernick has shown.

 

[Wolfe]

@prisonermonkeys -- Rioting or chanting "🤬 Trump" because Clinton lost and because "I am not happy, I have no words, I don't know I am so upset" isn't worth condoning.

Protesting under the banner of a written statement like this (per the link @DDastardly00 shared above) is different:

"Trump ran on a right populist platform propped up by racism, xenophobia, sexism, and anti-LGBTQ sentiments, but the Democratic Party clearly showed that it could not provide solutions for the problems facing the country," an event organizer wrote. "This event calls for a united movement of the 99% to defeat the right and build real working class power. Joined together we can show that these racist, sexist, oppressive ideas have no place in our society."

The organizers also heavily criticized Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. Organizers said they believed Bernie Sanders, who lost in the Democratic primary to Clinton, could have "united voters on class interests, cutting across artificially created partisan ties," if he was a presidential candidate.

"Clinton is part of the corporate-controlled establishment Trump spent his entire campaign railing against," organizers wrote. "The rigged democratic primary was used to place Clinton as the Democratic Party’s candidate, alienated working class voters, and drove them ever further into the bigoted hands of Donald Trump."

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The problem is that's more than 1 person. That's at least 3 physically interfering & 2 vocally supporting it.

It's still an absolute minority - most of the images and footage that I have seen have been from the protests outside Trump Tower, and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of protesters. That video shows five people, but there appears to be a concerted effort among Trump supporters to use these isolated incidents to discredit the protesters. Which is somewhat ironic, given that Trump pitched himself as the solution to the disaffection felt by the masses; he has to be able to convince the protesters that he has heard them and is willing to address their concerns.

To characterise all Clinton supporters and protesters as violent rioters because of the actions of a few is the same as saying that all Caucasians are racist because the KKK exists, or that Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organisation because a small handful attacked police, or that all Muslims are terrorists because some subscribe to radical ideology. It just doesn't bear out.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

According to Sam Harris who knew him better than any of us here, there is no doubt that Hitchens would have voted against Trump. Above all, these persons, along with other atheist figures, place truth seeking and analytic approaches over emotional, short sighted ones. Trump is the negation of these values, without speaking of his running mate, a creationist.

I'm sure you believe that, the idea that he knew him best seems probable but not absolute. And the fact that Hitchens had well documented amounts of editorials and debates in support for the Bush wars and policies (not all) tells me otherwise. When people bring up the supposed hateful rhetoric that Trump gives about fighting and ending terror in the middle east, that strikes to the heart of what Hitchens defended about 2000s conservative policy. A stark contrast to the Chomsky Hitchens of the late 80s to mid 90s. So which is it?

 

[killerjimbag]

No, you can't condemn them without being a hypocrite.


Go ahead, exaggerate all you like. It doesn't change the fact that Trump's pre-election rhetoric encouraged his supporters to take action.


I can't say - but I am not going to assume that the actions of one person speak for everyone who shares a similar position.

I'm not being a hypocrite,no one should be doing what their doing!
Would you care too back up that rhetoric.
www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/09/how-do-i-explain-this-to-my-children-van-jones-gives-voice-to-the-nightmare-some-are-feeling/

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm not being a hypocrite,no one should be doing what their doing!
Would you care too back up that rhetoric.
www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/09/how-do-i-explain-this-to-my-children-van-jones-gives-voice-to-the-nightmare-some-are-feeling/

I felt fine with what he was saying until he brought back to the default setting of this is clearly a racial thing. I mean if you're fine calling 60 million people racist or potential cause they voted Trump...you get a result that may look like what @McLaren posted in one extreme.

Some people actually voted for this guy cause they felt he'd change the global perspective for Americans and give them the ability to actually live in a nation with a return of manufacturing for one and a grip on national security. Now I don't know how he is going to do this, and frankly I'm quit skeptical that he can or even has the faintest idea. But people who are on there last dime pulling two jobs to feed their kids and pay the bills clearly felt that Hillary wasn't going to do it. And for the Dems to try and push that through because she is known...

The more I think about it the more I think perhaps @Joel and @McLaren are right...maybe any non-established dem could have beat Trump. We'll never know cause the Dems can't get out of their own way.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

no one should be doing what their doing!

So no-one should be out in the street, exercising their rights to free speech? Instead, should they all be indoors, accepting the election result and going about their daily routine as if nothing happened?

That sounds an awful lot like tyranny to me.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I felt fine with what he was saying until he brought back to the default setting of this is clearly a racial thing.

I was just drawing a parallel there, citing other, similar examples. The point is that the actions of a small minority, whatever they are motivated by, do not necessarily represent the beliefs or values of others with a similar opinion. There does, however, appear to be a concerted effort among Trump supporters to use the actions of the few to discredit the wider protest movement.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So no-one should be out in the street, exercising their rights to free speech? Instead, should they all be indoors, accepting the election result and going about their daily routine as if nothing happened?

That sounds an awful lot like tyranny to me.

No it doesn't, one at this point I feel you're so disconnected you can't even hold an impartial conversation on this. Especially when you use it to make a point in any post (it was funny in the transfer driver thread). Two I don't think people are saying that, I think people are saying it's a waste of time. You didn't like the results so be it but you going out and protesting after the fact isn't the way. You protest things before it gets to this crap. People had their protest on Nov. 8th and lost it, Nov. 9th people shouldn't accept anything but should be watching carefully and trying to figure out what Trump is planning for his term. And then when it looks bad protest that, learn what your state reps will try to do and hold them to that.

The simple notion of going out protesting feelings as if it will change something is a waste, though I'd be lying to myself if I said it was not within their right. Personally I feel it's a waste but then again I see why it's just and fine. When protest become riots there is no longer any intellectual progression. So if this is what people want the next four years to be like because the media on both sides churned the pot...it wont be good.

 

[killerjimbag]

So no-one should be out in the street, exercising their rights to free speech? Instead, should they all be indoors, accepting the election result and going about their daily routine as if nothing happened?

That sounds an awful lot like tyranny to me.

It's not going to change the Vote. It's over. Look Hillary screwed Bernie as well as the whole freaking nation.Who do you think is protesting,Hillary supporters? Evidentally not,she got her ass kicked.
I believe in the right to protest.Closing down highways like the 101 in LA is stupid. Your endangering your live as well as others.
I get that people don't want to have their families deported. It's the law,unfortunately 8 years of not protecting your boarders and enforcing laws has lead to this. There are people actively and legally trying to get into the US.Who's protesting for them? Who is shutting down highways and streets for them?

 

[Daniel]

As @Keef quoted the article, "I am not happy, I have no words, I don’t know I am so upset", these people were just too heavily, emotionally invested in the election and need some way to blow off steam. Deep down, I think they need to suck it up & they probably will eventually, but as long as they don't start replicating BLM protests, might as well let 'em protest. It's an American right after all, as Kaepernick has shown.

Trump hasn't said all Muslims are terrorists, all Hispanics are criminal immigrants and all gay people need to be converted. However, many of his supporters do subscribe to this queerphobic, racist and Islamaphobic beliefs and Trump's victory has created the notion that it is okay to be openly vitriolic to anyone who is different than you.

I'm quite sure that many of these people that "have no words" fear the unknown right now. They fear that they may be attacked for speaking anything other than English in public, or holding hands with someone of the same gender, or deported even though they pay taxes, or having their car set on fire because their gender identity doesn't align with their sex, or being assaulted after leaving prayers.

I'm not saying that destroying property is doing anything to help their case, but there are some very legitimate fears that have resulted from Trump's victory, and especially from the VP-elect who wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and has publicly advocated for conversion therapy.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I was just drawing a parallel there, citing other, similar examples. The point is that the actions of a small minority, whatever they are motivated by, do not necessarily represent the beliefs or values of others with a similar opinion. There does, however, appear to be a concerted effort among Trump supporters to use the actions of the few to discredit the wider protest movement.

What wider protest though. My issue with Van's statements is he goes from having a great point, which could also be extended to Hillary's run (but wouldn't have said it cause he's a known dem representative), and then swings toward the fences with...but this is a racial thing that needs to be fixed.

I don't agree, I don't agree with the constant assessment that every damn thing is about black being persecuted, we're not that important of a race I mean really. It's old, it's worn and it's part of this division. To constantly feel that you have a target on your back cause of the color of your skin every where you go...and then use that as logic to act out (not all but some), is the great cop out I've seen in my life time. I feel Muslims really have something to fear, I feel Latin's to an extent have more to fear, but blacks someone feel they ascend all when it comes to the world hating them.

 

[killerjimbag]

What wider protest though. My issue with Van's statements is he goes from having a great point, which could also be extended to Hillary's run (but wouldn't have said it cause he's a known dem representative), and then swings toward the fences with...but this is a racial thing that needs to be fixed.

I don't agree, I don't agree with the constant assessment that every damn thing is about black being persecuted, we're not that important of a race I mean really. It's old, it's worn and it's part of this division. To constantly feel that you have a target on your back cause of the color of your skin every where you go...and then use that as logic to act out (not all but some), is the great cop out I've seen in my life time. I feel Muslims really have something to fear, I feel Latin's to an extent have more to fear, but blacks someone feel they ascend all when it comes to the world hating them.

I mean come on.I'm pretty sure a whole bunch of white people, voted in a Black President twice.I live in Canada,we get along with every colour.It don't matter if your white,black,brown,yellow or pink.
Racism is terrible.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I mean come on.I'm pretty sure a whole bunch of white people, voted in a Black President twice.I live in Canada,we get along with every colour.It don't matter if your white,black,brown,yellow or pink.
Racism is terrible.

That's my point, you'd think after having the first black president this ideal of increased racism would stop...but yeah guess not.

 

[killerjimbag]

That's my point, you'd think after having the first black president this ideal of increased racism would stop...but yeah guess not.

Trump had %89 rural votes to Clinton's %39.

 

[Biggles]

I'm sure you believe that, the idea that he knew him best seems probable but not absolute. And the fact that Hitchens had well documented amounts of editorials and debates in support for the Bush wars and policies (not all) tells me otherwise. When people bring up the supposed hateful rhetoric that Trump gives about fighting and ending terror in the middle east, that strikes to the heart of what Hitchens defended about 2000s conservative policy. A stark contrast to the Chomsky Hitchens of the late 80s to mid 90s. So which is it?

Hitchens (somewhat oddly IMO) supported invading Iraq to get rid of Sadam Hussein. He didn't support conservative policies in general.

I mean if you're fine calling 60 million people racist or potential cause they voted Trump...you get a result that may look like what @McLaren posted in one extreme.

Some people actually voted for this guy cause they felt he'd change the global perspective for Americans and give them the ability to actually live in a nation with a return of manufacturing for one and a grip on national security. Now I don't know how he is going to do this, and frankly I'm quit skeptical that he can or even has the faintest idea. But people who are on there last dime pulling two jobs to feed their kids and pay the bills clearly felt that Hillary wasn't going to do it. And for the Dems to try and push that through because she is known...

I wouldn't call all the people who voted for Trump racist. There were legitimate reasons to vote against Hillary Clinton - ideological & personal - & as you note above & as everyone is well aware - there are very limited avenues in American politics to express dissent. But Trump himself appealed to racist sentiment as a means to gather support. Hillary may have been a questionable candidate to carry the Democratic banner, but it's hard to see what positive qualities Trump embodies - conservative or otherwise.