Well, you see the thing is I think I am in fact facing quite a bit of liberal orthodoxy.
If the notion that some of the liberals here are butthurt snowflakes bothers you, you might want to ask yourself why that accusation strikes a nerve with you.
The ProtestJ20 protest was violent and intended to be so.
And wtf does size have to do with it?
The million man march had between 400K and 1.2 million participants without any rioting that I can recall.
The March for life routinely attracts over half a million protesters without any violence.
The Women’s march had nearly a million protesters just in DC and there was no violence.
The accusation was that I was telling people that they cannot criticize Trump IN ANY WAY. Now that was not exactly accurate, then perhaps you would like to amend the accusation to “you criticized the violent protest of Trump and disparaged people who marched against Trump before he actually did anything”
some yes, some no.
Some yes, some no. If you criticize Trump for doing something that any other Republican would do, I would say, elections have consequences.
If you run around calling for electors to defect en masse, I will say that subverting democracy for the sake of your partisan desires is worse or the country than Trump.
If you say that Trump is going to be a thrall of Putin because he owes Russians some money or because the Russian mob will threaten his family, I will point and laugh at you.
If you believe that Trump is not a legitimate president because RUSSIAN hacking revealed Hillary’ duplicity, corruption and cheating, I will criticize you for your partisanship.
If you bring up the popular vote as the TRUE gauge of the will of the people in a nation where 45% of the voting population (or 100 million people) doesn’t even bother voting, I will point out how silly you are.
What particular positions have I criticized or ridiculed that you feel could not reasonably be criticized or ridiculed?
Why do you make so many posts? One after the other. Repeating the same tired crap, over & over. The problem is that you are just so deadly boring.
The only people that were violent were the anarchists, who were a small number within a large crowd, and in no way represented most of the people protesting that day. The anarchist’s plan seems to be to try to get the police to overreact and abuse people who weren’t involved in the violence in the hope that they can recruit people to join them against the police and the government. It’s the same tactic Daesh uses.
Well, I hadn’t heard of ProtestJ20, and don’t find very much about it in the news, so they couldn’t have made much of a splash.
And you ignored the meat of my post. You asked what Trump had done of the eve of his inauguration that was worth protesting, and I gave you a partial list. No comment on that?
In almost every post, I am responding to another post. So if I seem repetitious it is only because others are making the same point over and over again. Should I respond to the point once and then let the other side of the argument keep repeating their side of the argument?
If you postulate that all the violent protesters were anarchists then you can reach the conclusion that anarchists were the only violent protesters but the ProtestJ20 violence sprang from several quarters. You can call them all anarchists but then you could call also ProtestJ20 an anarchist protest.
Once again, I am differentiating these guys from the women’s march the next day, which was peaceful.
Boring, and hard to follow, and far too prolific to try and hack through all that hard-to-make-sense-of, yet extremely uninteresting, crap.
I’m sorry despite all the criticism about me posting too much and responding to every post, it is obvious that I also don’t post enough when I don’t address every post.
I should have said DisruptJ20
They were the guys that were protesting on inauguration day.
First, none of the stuff you listed justifies violent protests.
Isn’t it a bit silly to protest the inauguration of any president unless the election was rigged or something? The will of the people (including the people who protested) was expressed through an election just a few short months before the protest. What happened between the election and the inauguration that would make anyone think that the protest was anything more than frustration over losing an election?
Sometimes thinking is hard. But keep trying, your brain is like a muscle, it atrophies when you don’t use it and it just gets harder the next time.
Which is why we have an unqualified, vindictive, pwecious widdle snowflake as peeresident.
I never said any of it justified violent protests. And even that new link you posted doesn’t say anything about actual violence being committed. It says they linked arms at security checkpoints.
No.
Since at this point few people are bothering to read your posts it wouldn’t make much difference.
I saw no instances recorded that were not the guys in black who were spray painting anarchist symbols. Do you have images of others who are not in this group?
I suppose I should be unsurprised that you managed to become even more wrong.
Up next I expect whining that people shouldn’t protest because they might annoy commuters.
Read post 858 where you are responding to my objection to violent protests.
Do you really need me to link footage of the violence on inauguration day?
I think I’ve made an argument for why it is silly to protest the inauguration of a duly elected president. What can you possibly achieve by showing that the people that voted for the losing candidate would STILL vote for the losing candidate?
Your argument for protesting a winning candidate seems to be that you don’t like him and the stuff he’s said. That’s fine but imagine how silly you would find a bunch of frustrated Trump supporters protesting (sometimes violently) the inauguration of Hillary. And it wouldn’t just be the Hillary supporters that would find it silly. Everyone who was not a die hard Trump supporter would find the notion a bit silly.
Just fighting ignorance (its taking longer than we thought).
That’s true. But if all the guys in black were anarchists then there was a large anarchist component to the protests on inauguration day.
In typical fashion, no argument just insults. No analysis, just a reliance on the generally hospitable liberal environment of this board.
As for annoying commuters, it depends. Are you protesting something like segregation or just expressing your frustration that your candidate lost?