Marches against Trump

[dogs4thewin]

I have two theories about the marches:
(1) Most of the people marching are Milennials. Milennials, as we know, have been raised in a society where everyone wins and there are no losers. Everyone gets a trophy kind of thing. Perhaps they are marching simply because they are not taught how to "take the lumps" and shrug off losing? Maybe losing is incomprehensible to them since Obama has won the last two elections.
(2) It is getting colder, and I think the marches will decrease in proportion as the temperatures decrease.

I happen to be a milennial and even though I got me way as it were I cannot stand that about my generation everyone cannot and will not win. If I had NOT gotten my way guess what I would have taken it like a grown woman.

 

[Galatea]

I happen to be a milennial and even though I got me way as it were I cannot stand that about my generation everyone cannot and will not win. If I had NOT gotten my way guess what I would have taken it like a grown woman.

I was overgeneralizing a bit with my Milennial statement. I'm only two years away from being one, myself. I'm trying to understand what sort of mindset a person must have to protest the outcome of legal elections.

 

[Goonie]

There is a difference, though. The difference is people are marching to protest the voting process because they don't like who won. That's being "a spoil sport" or having bad sportsmanship. The elections were lawful, they're not suggesting they were rigged or any thing like that. They simply don't like the result.

This is different than marching against social injustices. This is like being angry because they failed a test and want their grades changed. It happens quite often nowadays.

Sure, they have the right to demonstrate. I think they are demonstrating bad sportsmanship.

Well no, it was Trump who declared the elections rigged, should they not take the president at his word.

 

[Galatea]

Maybe it's because Hillary won the popular vote.

Yes, but Gore won the popular vote back in 2000. And, many people didn't think that George W actually won the state of Florida for the electoral vote.

If that is the basis, then they are ill informed about the presidential election process. The electoral vote decides the winner, not the popular vote. This is a GOOD thing. If it were based only on the popular vote, then the only votes that would matter would be the most populated states.

With the electoral college, the fly over states get a say, too. So in this election, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota were just as important as New York and California.

 

[Galatea]

Well no, it was Trump who declared the elections rigged, should they not take the president at his word.

I thought about that this morning, I wondered why the marchers don't use that. But, since Trump said they were rigged AGAINST him, then that might mean he actually won the popular vote, too. It wouldn't be too helpful for their cause.

 

[Skavau]

Yes, but Gore won the popular vote back in 2000. And, many people didn't think that George W actually won the state of Florida for the electoral vote.

Yes, that was an accusation of fraud within a single state. In any case, Bush is not Trump. The differences are immense.

If that is the basis, then they are ill informed about the presidential election process. The electoral vote decides the winner, not the popular vote. This is a GOOD thing. If it were based only on the popular vote, then the only votes that would matter would be the most populated states.

Yo could of course assign electoral votes per state proportionately, retaining the strength the rural and smaller states have, negating voter disenfranchisement, and producing fairer outcomes, as well as ending 'swing states'.

 

[Jack of Spades]

This isn't like Rubio, Bush, Paul or Kasich getting elected. This is more like Vladimir Putin getting elected. You might not see it, but people see a populist demagogue who wants to craft the US in his own image.

The rest of the world, except North Koreans and Russians can see it too.

In my eyes, and I believe my opinion is above average educated on this, Trump is a man with every trait of a dictator or a cult leader. He is not your average conservative, or even populist leader.

I thought about that this morning, I wondered why the marchers don't use that. But, since Trump said they were rigged AGAINST him, then that might mean he actually won the popular vote, too. It wouldn't be too helpful for their cause.

It would express the kind of lack of faith in the process that Trump himself was promoting. Ironically.

 

[Galatea]

No it isn't. Your system is gerrymandered, full of FPTP 'winner takes all' nonsense and your primary system is a mess.

I don't disagree that there is gerrymandering- but I think the gerrymandering is pretty much equal on both sides- so they equal out.

 

[Skavau]

I don't disagree that there is gerrymandering- but I think the gerrymandering is pretty much equal on both sides- so they equal out.

There's a good chance that half the vote of the country doesn't matter. This is not a good system you're defending.

 

[SnowyMacie]

My question is, what are their concerns? It seems like they just don't want to accept the election results.

This is all dependent on Trump being the same person that we've seen over the last 18 months...

1) Like Skavau said, many people see Trump, partially from the media and partially from what he's actually literally said, as a demagogue who wants to craft the United States into his own image.

2) He believes Climate Change is a hoax and wants to remove many vital environmental regulations that protect our environment. We are a point where we cannot afford this.

3) He wants to abolish Obamacare. While that isn't the best law in the world, a total repeal of it would mean that millions of Americans lose health insurance. In the spirit of transparency, this is of particular importance to me as an underemployed 24 year-old with a history of health problems.

4) His appeals to fear, hatred, and division are not the answer to the serious issues that face our country like police brutality and systematic racism, as well as world issues like radical Islam. In fact, they only promote the mentalities behind them.

 

[Goonie]

I thought about that this morning, I wondered why the marchers don't use that. But, since Trump said they were rigged AGAINST him, then that might mean he actually won the popular vote, too. It wouldn't be too helpful for their cause.

I think the protests are misdirected and wrong. Protest his policies when he starts to finalise them, but he won the election and unfortunately they need to accept it.

What the DNC needs to do now is clear out the rubbish and prepare to challenge the Senate and house in 2 years time. I find the idea of a republican house and senate at the same time as Trump potentially even more frightening.

 

[Jack of Spades]

This is all dependent on Trump being the same person that we've seen over the last 18 months...

1) Like Skavau said, many people see Trump, partially from the media and partially from what he's actually literally said, as a demagogue who wants to craft the United States into his own image.

2) He believes Climate Change is a hoax and wants to remove many vital environmental regulations that protect our environment. We are a point where we cannot afford this.

3) He wants to abolish Obamacare. While that isn't the best law in the world, a total repeal of it would mean that millions of Americans lose health insurance. In the spirit of transparency, this is of particular importance to me as an underemployed 24 year-old with a history of health problems.

4) His appeals to fear, hatred, and division are not the answer to the serious issues that face our country like police brutality and systematic racism, as well as world issues like radical Islam. In fact, they only promote the mentalities behind them.

I would like to add the cultural impact of Trump. I am sure plenty of people are unhappy with the fact that he has made things like objectifying women's bodies, excusing sexual assault, open racism, attacking free press, personal bullying in the open, etc. acceptable, by getting elected.

Plenty of those things used to be disqualifying things for a person seeking public office. They no longer are.

 

[Galatea]

The rest of the world, except North Koreans, Russians can see it too.

In my eyes, and I believe my opinion is above average educated on this, Trump is a man with every trait of a dictator or a cult leader. He is not your average conservative, or even populist leader.



It would express the kind of lack of faith in the process that Trump himself was promoting. Ironically.

I am a naive person in many ways, but I am surprised that other people don't see that much of Trump's posturing was a persona to wrangle votes (at least I hope, and since the results, he seems a different person).

Since he has been elected, I have heard about an interview where Trump tells the reporter he will be different when he is elected, more presidential. It remains to be seen if the bombastic behavior and vile personal attacks were simply a persona we could call "Candidate Trump" who will now settle down and be more reasonable, either the real Donald Trump or a new persona "President Trump".

Yes, it is rather ironic. He didn't think he would win at all. Perhaps he is humbled by the amount of faith some of the voters have in him since he didn't think he would win. I don't know what goes on in his head, but I hope all of the nastiness was simply not the real Trump. I think many of us who very reluctantly voted for him hope this.

 

[Galatea]

I think the protests are misdirected and wrong. Protest his policies when he starts to finalise them, but he won the election and unfortunately they need to accept it.

What the DNC needs to do now is clear out the rubbish and prepare to challenge the Senate and house in 2 years time. I find the idea of a republican house and senate at the same time as Trump potentially even more frightening.

Yes, I agree that protesting the election is wrong. If they protest his policies, that would be different. Of course, they have the right to protest the election, it just seems a bit silly.

 

[Vylo]

I would like to add the cultural impact of Trump. I am sure plenty of people are unhappy with the fact that he has made things like objectifying women's bodies, excusing sexual assault, open racism, attacking free press, personal bullying in the open, etc. acceptable, by getting elected.

Plenty of those things used to be disqualifying things for a person seeking public office. They no longer are.

You forgot advocating murdering innocent people. That one sticks out to me, and I seem to be almost alone in that. I'm not sure how he gets a pass on it. It's insane. I really hope most of his promises end up being empty, because if that one comes to fruition.... there aren't words.

 

[Galatea]

Yes, that was an accusation of fraud within a single state. In any case, Bush is not Trump. The differences are immense.


Yo could of course assign electoral votes per state proportionately, retaining the strength the rural and smaller states have, negating voter disenfranchisement, and producing fairer outcomes, as well as ending 'swing states'.

George W is not Trump, but it seems to me, there was an awful lot if rancor toward him at the time. Just maybe not the fear that Trump engenders.

The electoral votes are assigned proportionately, according to population. There are 2 for senators and then one for each representative. Although the big states have more, it still takes over half the electoral college to win the election. So the big states can't do it alone. A candidate has to carry some little states too.

The only reason why we have swing states is because they don't consistantly vote either Democrat or Republican. Any state could potentially be a swing state if the state is not consistently red or blue.

 

[Goonie]

Yes, I agree that protesting the election is wrong. If they protest his policies, that would be different. Of course, they have the right to protest the election, it just seems a bit silly.

It is a genuine electoral shock. Hillary did not even have her concession speech written(I suspect). I am not surprised at the anger, part of it is at the DNC, and their hubris in deciding on Hillary

 

[HannahT]

Since he has been elected, I have heard about an interview where Trump tells the reporter he will be different when he is elected, more presidential. It remains to be seen if the bombastic behavior and vile personal attacks were simply a persona we could call "Candidate Trump" who will now settle down and be more reasonable, either the real Donald Trump or a new persona "President Trump".

I've seen him in interviews prior to his campaign. He could still be bombastic, but he also could be downright reasonable.

I'm not saying I can't see him calling people out in ways it has never been done before. No doubt I won't like it all the time, but some of time? It maybe needed.

Some of these politicians play games, because they know it works. He won't be the type to 'I denounce (insert politician's name) statements/actions/etc!" We hear that all the time! He will no doubt go further than that. Most of the time it won't be needed, and you can handle it on better levels. Yet, when you a get doofus like Harry Reid? Yes, he will throw his brand of BS right back in his lap.

It will be interesting to watch the next 4 years.

 

[Galatea]

The mindset is that they feel Trump is a monster that should not be given the reins of power. There are several other arguments, but this is probably the most common one.

Don't get me wrong. I was not going to vote at all because I didn't like Trump (or maybe his persona, I'm hoping he's different). I never like him from the start. I only decided to vote for him after the third debate when I listened to Clinton say that partial birth abortion was a good thing. I knew I had to vote against her, then.

If they think he is a monster, that shows a lot of naievety. I don't think he is nearly as reactionary as they may think.

 

[LoAmmi]

I've seen him in interviews prior to his campaign. He could still be bombastic, but he also could be downright reasonable.

I'm not saying I can't see him calling people out in ways it has never been done before. No doubt I won't like it all the time, but some of time? It maybe needed.

Some of these politicians play games, because they know it works. He won't be the type to 'I denounce (insert politician's name) statements/actions/etc!" We hear that all the time! He will no doubt go further than that. Most of the time it won't be needed, and you can handle it on better levels. Yet, when you a get doofus like Harry Reid? Yes, he will throw his brand of BS right back in his lap.

It will be interesting to watch the next 4 years.

He's already back to tweeting out lies.

Though I'm sure his supporters will all line up to say we've always been at war with Eurasia.