Are you really a poster on SDMB?
The protests can remain non-violent as long as they don’t have to fight a new civil rights war. If that happens, then there definitely can be a repeat of the 1960s.
It may not be legal, but what is legal is not always what is right. Violence has its place. The U.S. was founded on extralegal violence, after all.
There are certain principles, like the fact that all men are created equal, where violently defending them may be necessary. I hope that is not the case in a Trump administration. But, of all the Presidencies for as long as I’ve been alive, his is the most likely to be problematic.
Please. Trump is a textbook narcissist…even psychiatrists came out saying that. He lied more than any candidate in the history of keeping those stats, is going to fuck up the Supreme Court for decades to come, with the complicity of a Republican-held Senate, and is practically guaranteed to set up a climate where there are two big winners (Big Business and lobbyists) and a whole lot of losers, at the cost of the environment. And he scares the shit out of more than just Americans. We’re talking about a possible complete realignment of the world economic system, because Trump always thinks he knows better than anybody else, and that because the US is the economic leader now it (and he) can call all the shots. I’ve got news for ya, baby…it ain’t so.
And who will it end up coming down on? All those working-class people that he claims he’s the ‘working class billionnaire’ for.
Oh, but it’s not serious. Congress and the Republican Caucus will keep a leash on him. Uh, yeahrite. Ever hear of executive orders?
So what exactly are you advocating? You advocating a violent revolution?
Careful, now, BigT. Don’t answer too quick, ol’ octo is tricky, it could be a trap!
Turns out Bannon is probably even more powerful than Chief of Staff: he’s basically the Karl Rove of the Trump administration.
Post a cite? Like I said, Google it yourself if you have doubts. Irrespective of “how it’s done around here,” it doesn’t take that long and you might learn something along the way.
Actually, I think I’ve got a pretty good track record here. I pretty much dominated the Sam Wang and stat geeks club by being one of the few who still gave Trump a chance to win. My record speaks for itself. I’m actually one of the best sources on SDMB. A little bombastic sometimes but in the end, usually right.
This is fun. Can I play?
Conservative logic: when liberals start doing the thing that conservatives have been doing constantly for decades, it just proves how bad liberals are.
Nice misrepresentation. She didn’t call all Trump suporters “deplorables” because they disagreed with her. She said that a sizable subset of Trump supporters were driven by various forms of bigotry, and that those people were “deplorables”. It’s not a campaign-winning approach to be sure, but it was certainly true.
The reason the left were saying the right would engage in armed insurrection in the event Trump lost was that’s what the right were saying. Not all or most or a majority but there were plenty of folk willing to say that if Clinton won they were going to take up arms. Even if they didn’t really mean it, it wasn’t an invention of the left as you imply.
Also FTR: rioting and violence is bad. So don’t do rioting and violence, mmkay?
Especially considering it was probably whipped up in those 8 hours. I don’t think they had one ready to go.
They’ve gone crazy and are legitimizing many of the assumptions that conservatives have about liberals.
Matt Harrigan, CEO of PacketSled, lost his damn mind and posted on FaceBook:
Now he gets to try to explain it away to the Secret Service. Good luck with that.
Is there any good reason why anyone would want to pay attention to this guy? Is he famous? His company important?
Does he have to be famous or head of an “important” company to shoot the President-Elect?
I imagine the Secret Service thinks there’s a good reason to pay attention to him.
Here is another one that tweeted
His follow-up, while probably bullshit, positions him better for the inevitable Secret Service grilling.
I just came from the Game Room and thought I saw he was the CEO of the Packers. That would have been interesting…
A trap?!? Where is Admiral Ackbar when you need him?
I just like clarification when I read something apparently seditious.
Now THAT is what I consider deplorable.
Unless the protestors want the election results overturned, the protests are pretty futile.
Considering how few votes Trump actually received, I think it’s actually safer to say that Trump didn’t win. Instead, Hillary lost. He didn’t run a particularly successful campaign; he just benefited from the hatred his voters already had for Clinton, and the apathy many of the Democrats felt for her.
- It’s still to a large degree what the left was saying the right was saying. For example ‘maybe the 2nd amendment people’ quote by Trump is actually highly ambiguous.
- Even if accurate, still talk. Talk and action aren’t the same.
The actually even handed statement is that many (absolute number, not %) of left people are demonstrating, and some subset (not a large % of the demonstrators, but some) of them are doing it destructively. And there’s nothing one can fairly say about the right’s reaction in terms of action, because their guy won.