My post about protest had nothing to do with hypocrisy, or how Trump’s supporters would have reacted if the situation was reversed. I don’t really care about hypotheticals.
My point: this nation was founded on political protest, and protest has a long and noble history. Given the dire consequences of Tuesday’s results, protest is absolutely appropriate, and I’d be disappointed if we took it meekly and submissively.
The ironic part is that the riots are in the cities - where Clinton largely won. No riots out here in flyover country 
Shame the crybabies can’t take a hint from the gracious and mature way Hilary and Obama have behaved in the wake of the outcome. I never thought I’d ever have a nice thing to say about those two, but they’ve set a good example. Too bad that example hasn’t had any effect on the people that could learn the most from it.
I think the protestors have every right to protest given how scary Trump made himself with all his erratic promises. Remember too that there were quite a few people on the right threatening “Second Amendment” solutions (and have for years for other things) if Trump didn’t win. So the right’s hands are not clean here and they shouldn’t look down on people who are afraid about their rights and for their country. Maybe Trump shouldn’t have acted so bombastic or scary
Lock her up?
Whole lot of people here weren’t around for the '60s, eh? This is nothing.
Anyway, just to ease the minds of some of the more delicate posters here, I promise not to break any shit over Trump’s election and will make every effort to intervene if I see someone trying to break someone’s shit over this issue. OK? We best buddies again, then?
Careful, kids. They’re making lists.
As someone who voted against Trump, I can say that most people would probably stop taking to the streets if he would just make a statement or give some interviews in which he walks back some of his campaign rhetoric, and, more importantly, appoints people who are not seen as threatening.
I don’t know whether this is truth or rumor, but I’ve read at least two sources indicating that Joe Arpaio is going to be tapped for Homeland Security and Steve Bannon is being considered for Chief of Staff. If that’s the case, people have every reason to feel threatened.
Cite? What are your “sources”?
I’m finding myself agreeing with the OP’s sentiment. Nothing wrong with going through a range of emotions, but some people need to grow the hell up - he earned it fair and square, and represents a now-mainstream viewpoint in the Western world.
I’d also rather have a somewhat cool New Yorker in there than Bush XVII or Ted “Hammer of Witches” Cruz.
Why not just google it yourself?
That’s not how it works, here.
What are your sources?
I agree that protesters have every right to protest - peacefully.
In fact, they don’t need a reason; the beauty of the First Amendment is that protesters don’t need to get approval as to the validity of their complaints.
As long as you’re talking about peaceful protests, I could not agree more.
But in your ‘total even handedness’, you’re still comparing what the left said the right would do in reaction to the election to what some, albeit 1,000’s out of many millions, on the left are doing.
And there are groups within the groups on the left which protest who pretty much always do this, particularly it seems on the west coast. ‘Anarchist’ types (for lack of a better term) just waiting to make left wing protests destructive and/or violent. People who show up for protests not intending to do that and who don’t do are not criminally responsible for those who do. But politically speaking they have to realize by now it’s going to happen, especially in some places, and how it looks.
Also it’s not as bad as rioting but not OK to block a much larger number of other people from going about their business as when protests block busy roads and bridges in cities. There is no first amendment right to paralyze commerce. People doing that should be arrested and removed, and responsible practitioners of civil disobedience accept that. In many cases it’s really the fault of city govts for not making lots of arrests immediately.
Everything like that is a rumor, even if reported in mainstream media sources, which both those names have been for roles in Trump admin. It’s hard to see Arpaio as serious but who knows. Bannon has been a major guy close to Trump, but most reports now say Reince Priebus has the inside track for WH CoS.
Anyway I don’t see what it has to do with protests. Peaceful protests that don’t prevent lots of other people going about their business are legal no matter whether anyone thinks they are for good reasons or not. There’s no validity IMO for any argument along the lines of ‘if you don’t want us to protest, then do as we say’. If protesters are violent or disproportionately infringe on other people’s right to go about their business (the protesters refuse to make way when say blocking traffic on a main city thoroughfare a mass of other people can’t avoid), then those protesters need to be arrested and charged as appropriate. It’s got f-all to do with who gets named chief of staff, that I can see.
I’m beginning to think that the lessons of the 60s have been lost and forgotten. Blocking traffic is the whole point.
Didn’t you all read Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience in high school?
He’s a Republican who says he wants to criminalize abortion. For far too many people, those are the sole qualifiers for public office.
Well, it’s been more than 24 hours. Cite for your claim?
You know, a thread that starts out with citing Breitbart…
Ah, my mistake. Breitbart and the alt-right is mainstream now. Goody. Swell.