From the Crybaby-In-Chief:
Well, tough crap for you. Electing Trump isn’t going to stop the freedom to protest whatever the hell they like and it’s not going to alter the number of crybabies either.
Liberals on November 7: “Trump and his supporters are nothing mor than sore losers if they won’t accept the results of the election!”
Liberals on November 9: “We can protest whatever we want. It’s American!”
Liberals never seem to hold any position for long.
As a conservative I am so glad to see all the protesters. I feel bad about all the people being assaulted or having their businesses vandalized but I think this will be good for the Trump presidency. Trump is first and foremost a narcissist. The thing he care most about is how people feel about him. He was a Democrat until a couple of years ago and has no real policy convictions. My great fear is that as soon as he is sworn in he will go back to being a Democrat in order to curry favor with the news media because he cares so much about what people think of him.
Yet as we saw in the debates, he hates being criticized and will always try to defend himself no matter the consequences. Having thousands of people march in the street will give him a hatred of progressives that will keep him from backsliding.
It won’t alter the number of current crybabies, but hopefully with Congress in the hands of the Republicans and with the presidency in the hands of someone who’ll actually take the bull by the horns and make 'em take action, we can begin to put an end to the liberal indoctrination taking place in our schools beginning at the elementary level which in large part has led to all this crybabyism. And perhaps with Trump as figurehead we can begin much needed pushback against political correctness, which has become little more than a self-perceived foolproof way to bully people and which even has liberals turning on each other these days. And perhaps we can reawaken admiration and striving for upward mobility and success rather than dismissing them as the undeserved products of privilege while simultaneously lauding downward mobility and bestowing superiority and nobility on people simply because they’re a victim of some sort.
One only has to take a look at the sort of people lauding the Democratic candidate for the presidency these days to see how dysfunctional this country has become. When low life scuzzbugs like Jay-Z and Miley Cyrus and Lena Dunham are the ones singing your praises, and you’re openly doing everything you can to enable votes from convicted criminals and people who’ve entered the country illegally, it’s more than obvious that the train left the track long ago.
I didn’t vote for Trump and actually wrestled with myself to a surprising degree as to whether or not to vote for Clinton (ultimately I couldn’t pull the trigger and left that part of the ballot blank), but the primary reason I didn’t vote for Trump was because of things I didn’t like about him personally rather than the overall message of his candidacy. It’s my hope that now that he’ll be in office along with a Republican congress, we can finally begin to get the country back on track and put a stop to all the nonsense that’s grown up over 50 years of ever-increasing liberal influence.
So you want the federal government to seize control of public school curriculums?
Perhaps you’ve missed it, but the federal government has effectively seized control of public school curriculums already. This is why we have teachers berating and sometimes even hitting students for conservative statements, and why we have students graduating from high school who can neither read nor write. And of course it’s why those who manage to become quasi-educated and enter college find themselves in need safe spaces and protection from micro-aggressions. Conservatives are clearly not the reason for any of this idiocy.
Cite?
My goodness, how people love to fight the hypothetical!
Obviously it’s extraordinarily unlikely that Trump would do any of these things, but I’m perfectly willing to speculate on the legalities that might be in play if he did.
In general, what you’ve described is the crime of extortion. Extortion happens when a person obtains anything of value from another, with his nominal consent induced by the wrongful use of coercion. This is clearly illegal.
This is a closer question. Trump is presumably wealthy in his own right. If he approaches, say, Les Moonves and says, “Les, old pal, speaking purely as a private citizen, if you can keep CBS from showing these protests, there’s a $100K personal check from me payable to you in my desk,” that seems, at first blush, completely legal. Of course, in today’s Internet world where everyone’s a publisher, this tactic doesn’t seem like it would scale well.
The moment he offered some inducement from official funds, however, the picture changes. I’d have to research the issue to speak confidently on the point, though. The government is certainly allowed to spend money to promulgate its preferred message; no one thinks the Trump administration cannot buy ad time, for example, exhorting people to stay in school, to eat vegetables, or even to marry Russian models. But those funds have to be appropriated – the President does not have a slush fund.
Bottom line is: at this time, it’s an interesting question that would benefit from someone who knows this area of the law.
THis is a ridiculous question. If people protest, Trump can ignore them. Bush did. If they get violent, local authorities will use force. And Trump will cackle.
One could ask them, rather than assume. When interviewed, some very well spoken young protesters explained that they wanted an apology for his racist rhetoric considering that he is president of the US. Seems quite reasonable.
Why would Mr Trump want to do anything? The current protests play well for him. He will position them as a bunch of undisciplined and whiny losers. He can even act Presidential and accept their right to protest since all the damage and inconvenience will be occurring on someone else’s watch.
Mr Trump is not President for a couple more months.
The current protests are a problem for current local and State governments. To some extent they are Mr Obama’s problem also.
If they get out of control and begin creating too much damage, those are the entities who can “do something about it.”
Mr Trump’s wisest recourse will be to let the current protests burn themselves out on someone else’s watch…
More protests will be planned in January, but there will also be more time to prepare responses.
You need to provide a cite for this.
Crybabies? Crybabyism?
How old are you? I thought you were a big boy.
I don’t think $100k is that much money to Les Moonves.
That he starts his racist ranting and raving and strokes out, with the site EMS unable to resuscitate him.
Sorry, he just seriously reminds me of the politician in The Dead Zone …
What will he do? He’ll praise their passion for politics and their country, as he’s just done on Twitter. Trump has always had the capacity to surprise.
What Trump tweeted early sounded like a cry-baby made it,
“Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!”
The following tweet that you are talking about here sounded more like if the handlers or Trump typed it.
Anyhow, back in 2012 Trump thought that Obama had lost the popular vote (wrong!) and did indeed advise the people to revolt.
Can he?
Yes, of course. The question, though, is: is Trump capable of taking that path? If the protests continue, night after night after night–particularly if they remain largely peaceful, and many people express sympathy and solidarity with the protesters, with these videos and expressions of solidarity on display everywhere he looks–will he be able to tolerate simply doing nothing? Or will he…do something? Something that could get him in trouble …
After he’s sworn in he will definitely do something, and may be able to do so under cover of law.
Now, however, there’s not much that’s legal that he can do. His supporters are already deploying in mainstream media and on the internet to say that the protesters are variously ‘professional protesters,’ ‘anarchist hooligans,’ and/or ‘crybabies’----but that may only be fueling the protests, not discouraging them.
What will he do?