Trump protestors

[EdEarl]

Then why is China planning to expand coal power production by 20%.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-07/china-coal-power-generation-capacity-may-rise-19-in-5-year-plan

Democrats running a red scare. You people crack me up.

 

The overall energy production is set to increase. But non-fossil production is going to rise by 48%.

 

The Chinese made super factories to cut production costs of PV panels, and reduced the price of solar PV electricity to less than coal produced electricity. They are using them in China and selling to the world. ATM production capacity limits installation rate, many more factories are needed.

[Delta1212]

Getting back to the topic, which is the protests, not the legitimacy of the election.

( if there is a problem with the Electoral College system, why does it only get brought up when Democrats lose ? And why was there no talk of changing it during the last 8 yrs ? It does seem a rather archaic system and maybe change is in order )

 

Most of the videos I've seen show a lot of younger protesters, a lot of high school age as a matter of fact. Given the fact that historically that is the demographic that is least likely to vote, Why do they feel they have the right to complain about the results ?

Instead of blaming our apathy at the results, why not blame the apathy of those who didn't bother to vote and caused this in the first place ?

If people were worried about a D Trump win, why such a low voter turnout ( lowest since '96 ) ???

 

It wasn't important enough for people to get off their butts and go vote, why is it, all of a sudden, important now ???

It gets brought up all the time. It gets brought up most loudly when there is a mismatch between the popular vote and the electoral vote. It happens that the only two times this has happened in living memory, a Democrat won the popular vote and lost the election.

 

As far as why it wasn't changed in the last 8 years (or whenever) the most straightforward answer is that it would take a Constitutional ammendment to change the Electoral College system, and that is exceedingly difficult to pull off even when you don't have a government that is barely capable of keeping the lights on in their own offices.

 

Edit: I should also point out that while younger voters traditionally do not vote at high rates, low turnout is not the same as no turnout, and you have no idea whether the specific people at the protests voted or not. At a guess, I would say that most (not necessarily all, but most) people who care enough to "get off their butts" and go protest probably also managed to get themselves to the polls.

 

You can't make assumptions about the behavior of individuals based on the average of groups them belong to, especially when discussing individuals in a self-selected unrepresentative sample of the larger population. In this case "Young people who are politically active" rather than just "Young people."

Edited November 11, 2016 by Delta1212

[MigL]

We have the same issue in Canada with proportional representation ( which does seem like a more fair system, but I'm sure would create new problems ), but it only ever gets brought up when the Liberals lose an election.

But that wasn't the main point I was striving to make...

 

Why such a low voter turnout in what is arguably the most important election of the last 50 yrs ?

And given the low turnout, why all the anger and angst at the results ?

[Elite Engineer]

 

The majority of tyrants and dictators were chosen in democratic election,

and then they destroyed democracy,

changed or dismissed constitution,

and gained full power over some nation.

 

There is plentiful examples of this in modern history.

 

You should use "democratic election" sentence more wisely.

It's way more important who is chosen.

Whether that person is good, or evil, or scum.

 

Voters don't know what intentions and plans have their chosen one member of parliament, prime minister, president, etc. etc.

And when it's clear what are his/her intentions, it's way too late for any peaceful reaction..

Saw Star Wars? Emperor was chosen in democratic voting..

The same with hitler.. The same with putin.. The same with erdoğan.. The same with orban..

Now they are saying "obey our rules, as we were chosen in democratic election!"...

 

Not saying that Trump has any chance to become somebody from their league. That's what we will see in the future.

But certainly he would like to. He is seeking for power and money..

Certainly not bothering about poor white people who unexplainably voted on him.

Yes, these leaders were elected via a "democratic method", but their government is/was setup much different from the American government system with checks and balances. The fear that, "Obama was going to repeal the 2 amendment" is a perfect example. He couldn't swoop in and just remove the amendment because of power balance within the government. If Trump wants to remove Obamacare, or anything in that extreme, he's going to face the same hurdles Obama faced with this balanced government. Remember, these Republicans in Congress are going to want to be re-elected in 2 years. To say the 1933 German government or Russian government are the same as the US government system is not accurate.

[John Cuthber]

Yes, these leaders were elected via a "democratic method", but their government is/was setup much different from the American government system with checks and balances. The fear that, "Obama was going to repeal the 2 amendment" is a perfect example. He couldn't swoop in and just remove the amendment because of power balance within the government. If Trump wants to remove Obamacare, or anything in that extreme, he's going to face the same hurdles Obama faced with this balanced government. Remember, these Republicans in Congress are going to want to be re-elected in 2 years. To say the 1933 German government or Russian government are the same as the US government system is not accurate.

Have you noticed that, unlike Obama, Trump's party has both houses?

[CharonY]

Also amending the constitution is quite different from repealing laws and regulations.

[Elite Engineer]

My reaction to the rioting (not protestors) is this. The election is over. Rioting, causing destruction is not going to solve anything. Your president is asking for unification, not destruction. The system is set up so you can reevaluate, and elect new people in 2 and 4 years. Accept the result, and move on.

[CharonY]

I think protest is fine, as it sends a signal. Rioting not so much. However, if it anything like Germany the damage and violence are incited by certain youngsters (typically, but not always associated with the anarchists and extreme lefts,or extreme right, depending on the type of protest) that just want to incite violence while hiding behind legitimate demonstrators. I would bet that most did not even bother to vote.

As such both elements should be viewed at separately as you did in your last post.

[Janus]

I think protest is fine, as it sends a signal. Rioting not so much. However, if it anything like Germany the damage and violence are incited by certain youngsters (typically, but not always associated with the anarchists and extreme lefts,or extreme right, depending on the type of protest) that just want to incite violence while hiding behind legitimate demonstrators. I would bet that most did not even bother to vote.

As such both elements should be viewed at separately as you did in your last post.

That's just what happened here in Portland, a group of anarchists joined in with the peaceful demonstrators and used them as cover for their destructive acts. The group that organized the original peaceful demonstration has now started a GoFundMe account to help pay for the damage done.

[Elite Engineer]

Have you noticed that, unlike Obama, Trump's party has both houses?

From 2008-2010, Democrats had both houses as well..that's why healthcare passed to easily. All in all I'm seeing this as just a swing of the pendulum.

[CharonY]

Oh but it didn't. Blue dog democrats blocked health care reform well until a provision was passed via executive order, I believe.

Edited November 12, 2016 by CharonY

[tar]

Third night of anti trump protests.

 

Saw a group in Miami, and actually quickly counted about 80.

 

Then a shot of people peacefully marching in Atlanta. Too many to count, but maybe a thousand would be a good estimate.

 

From the interviews I have seen over the last couple days the points are mostly that love trumps hate.

 

I have no objection to this message.

 

It is inappropriate to think that people in the Red States don't love their mothers and spouses and children and neighbors.

 

Nor that democrats are the only ones interested in protecting the weak.

 

The polarization of our nation is our own doing. We demonize the other side, when the other side is most likely good.

 

My protest is against people that do not give their own countrymen and women the benefit of the doubt.

 

As a CNN pundit said a little while ago, even a dysfunctional family is still a family. We need to listen to each other and understand and support. Not look to demonize.

 

Regards, TAR

especially on veteran's day, when we thank the many that have served to protect this nation and our freedoms

[StringJunky]

The polarization of our nation is our own doing.

Why do you think this is so? A detached, apolitical assessment would be good, if possible.

Edited November 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[tar]

on the electoral college thing, it is unlikely that a constitutional amendment would pass as it would require the OK of all the small population states, whose voice and power is protected exactly by the system

[Arete]

My protest is against people that do not give their own countrymen and women the benefit of the doubt.

 

I think you might be missing the point of the protests. Trump, throughout his campaign, singled out and demonized particular groups of people. There were protests on our campus, where 84% of our student body identifies as being a member of a minority group. Our Muslim students were singled out and told they would face travel bans and "extreme vetting". Our LGBT students are faced with a VP who wants federal funding for conversion therapy. Our DREAM act students were told they are rapists and criminals who face mass deportation, our female students face a president who has trivialized sexual assault, etc.

 

The protests, at least on campus where I am object to these potential policies, which single out and attack individual groups, and instead fostering inclusivity and protecting the vulnerable members of our community. There is some anger towards Trump supporters who promote these agendas of course, but I wouldn't say the root motivation of the protests I've seen was to attack the people who voted for Trump.

[tar]

String Junky,

 

I think it so, because we are people and all suffer the same human characteristic of framing the exact same thing as good when seen in the first person, neutral when framed in the second person and bad when framed in the third.

 

When we all think of each other as we, then we are all good. When we think of the other as they, then we assign evil motives and characteristics to people we might have under normal circumstances, trusted as a neighbor, who had our back.

 

Basket of deplorables for instance, was a polarizing statement. Obama, our head of state, and leader to the world, for instance, was also the head of the Democratic party and spoke against Trump as an unqualified danger. Not surprising that young people would listen to their president and see trump as evil incarnate, when Reid says he is a sexual predator, etc. People have cursed at Trump during the protests, and even threatened his life. This is actually a federal offense to threaten the life of the president. A felony.

 

Do they know why?

 

Regards, TAR

Arete,

 

Perhaps it is​ ​a fear of the other. That if the other has power, they will use it against the other.

 

I am personally of the opinion that the stronger the other is, the stronger I am, as they are on my team. If however there is a feeling that the other is not on your team, then I can see the fear.

 

But, right now, with the protests, the old white guy, like me, sitting at home, wonders if the Fu@@ Trump chants are directed at me.

 

If people are angry at each other, and fed up with each other, and distrustful of each other, it is partially their own fault.

 

Take any marriage or partnership you can personally get involved in. No matter the mate you choose, you are 50% of the relationship.

 

Regards, TAR

[zapatos]

on the electoral college thing, it is unlikely that a constitutional amendment would pass as it would require the OK of all the small population states, whose voice and power is protected exactly by the system

 

In what way does the electoral college protect small population states? It may have 200 years ago, but times have changed. Virginia no longer bullies Rhode Island and the population is not concentrated in a couple of large states.

 

A Constitutional Amendment would not require the OK of all the small population states. Only 3/4 of all states are required to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

[CharonY]

 

I think you might be missing the point of the protests. Trump, throughout his campaign, singled out and demonized particular groups of people. There were protests on our campus, where 84% of our student body identifies as being a member of a minority group. Our Muslim students were singled out and told they would face travel bans and "extreme vetting". Our LGBT students are faced with a VP who wants federal funding for conversion therapy. Our DREAM act students were told they are rapists and criminals who face mass deportation, our female students face a president who has trivialized sexual assault, etc.

 

The protests, at least on campus where I am object to these potential policies, which single out and attack individual groups, and instead fostering inclusivity and protecting the vulnerable members of our community. There is some anger towards Trump supporters who promote these agendas of course, but I wouldn't say the root motivation of the protests I've seen was to attack the people who voted for Trump.

 

That is pretty much what I am seeing.There is a mix, obviously though aside from "not my President"-like signs I see more things like "against bigotry" "no hate!" etc. There are certain different motivations, but many simply want to show solidarity with targeted minorities (though for the most part I doubt much will actually happen, since Trump is more of a populist than an actual ideologue). After all, the president was endorsed by groups like the KKK (who I sincerely hope will end up being pretty disappointed).

tar, remember, his platform was based on fostering fear, painting black communities as desolate cesspools of poverty and crime, Latinos as rapists, Muslims as terrorist and characterized women as sex objects. I really think this is far more divisive than calling someone who made those statement unfit, because I can really see where they are coming from.

[neutrinosalad]

 

Trump is the most divisive political figure in contemporary American politics. He specifically targeted and vilified various minority groups during his campaign. There has been a spate of hate crimes against these minority groups since the election result was announced, so neither side of politics has a monopoly on antisocial behavior.

 

Are protests really that surprising, given the platform Trump ran on?

 

Except a lot of these hate crimes are unsubstantiated by evidence showing that they happened.

 

Two cases:

 

 

A student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette fabricated a story that she was attacked and had her hijab rippped off, police said Thursday.

The attack was one of several reported in the wake of Donald Trump’s election victory.

In a press release Thursday afternoon, the Lafayette Police Department said that during the course of their investigation into the woman’s complaint, she “admitted that she fabricated the story about her physical attack as well as the removal of her hijab and wallet by two white males.

“This incident is no longer under investigation” by the department, the statement said.

 

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/10/women-in-hijabs-on-2-campuses-say-they-were-attacked-by-men-invoking-donald-trump/

and second one: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/muslim-student-reported-trump-inspired-attack-admits-made/story?id=43442471

 

Hijab story is fabricated.

 

Another one:

 

 

Based on the fact that the police responded saying it had not been reported, story is also fabricated.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

On the other hand attacks on Trump supporters are backed up by video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=165&v=GfJenokrmb4

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52EoprTSouU

 

Follow up on the video that Elite Engineer posted on the first page of the thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=36&v=cr_17ZCJLg8

 

------------------------------------------------------------

Please show me the evidence of the hate crimes please. So far the hate crimes that I am seeing that are backed up by evidence are coming from anti-Trump people.

 

Think about this for a second, the anti-Trump people are violently attacking people who support a man, and we have video to back that up. At the same time, there is so far little to no (video or police report) evidence of pro-Trump people violently attacking minorities or anyone else.

 

Do you see the hypocrisy of what is going on here in terms of ACTIONS that people are taking?

[dedo]

The elitist hypocrisy of the American liberal is amazing. Although they have many important thoughts on areas like health care and the environment, they should also take credit for 60 million abortions they inflicted on the U.S.

 

Neither side has any right to be sanctimonious about anything and it is time to work together.

Edited November 12, 2016 by dedo

[StringJunky]

....they should also take credit for 60 million abortions they inflicted on the U.S.

How is that bad per se? Am I to take that you think it's flat out morally wrong based just on some personal principle?

Edited November 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

Getting back to the topic, which is the protests, not the legitimacy of the election.

( if there is a problem with the Electoral College system, why does it only get brought up when Democrats lose ? And why was there no talk of changing it during the last 8 yrs ? It does seem a rather archaic system and maybe change is in order )

 

Legitimacy of the election and the protests are related. Some feel we just allowed a forgien power to influence our election and that there was active voter surpression.

 

Why is it only brought up when Democrats lose? For starters that is not true. The below qoutes were both tweeted by Donald Trump on Nov. 6th 2012:

"We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"

 

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

 

President that won the popular vote also won the electoral college in every election from 1888-1996. Then in 00' Bush lost the popular vote but won and now just a couple of election later it has happened again to the direct benefit of the same party. Fool me once sahme on you fool me twice..........Somethiing has changed. The system isn't working as it was a way to gerrymander has been worked into the system.

In 2012 Democrats received 1.4 million more votes for the House of Representatives, yet Republicans won control of the House by a 234 to 201 margin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So since 2000 Republicans have managed to win the white house twice and pick up seats on congress without the popular vote (majority support of the people) and there is nothing suspicious about that? A trend isnt forming?

Edited November 12, 2016 by Ten oz

[MigL]

AS has been stated many times on this forum by Phi and many others, Conservatives, and Republicans in particular, appeal to people's emotions ( fear, insecurity, etc. ). D Trump certainly did, he appealed to people's dissatisfaction with the government and how it failed to represent/serve/answer to them. A lot of people felt disenfranchised and ignored by the government, and this was, in effect, a protest vote ( my opinion, and boy, are they in for a rude awakening ).

 

Now, after the election, The people who railed against the fearmongering, are themselves reacting emotionally. The have let fear of what D Trump will do control their actions. What do they expect to gain/change with the protests/riots ?

Do they want the election annulled, and the chaos and anarchy that will bring ?

Do they want the north-eastern seaboard separating along with California and forming their own countries ?

Or are they simply venting frustration, with no particular aim, but making things worse ?

 

I also find it ironic that you guys who can tell me the high percentage of times D Trump has lied during the campaign, now, all of a sudden, believe that everything he said is the gospel truth, and he will do everything he promised.

Edited November 12, 2016 by MigL

[tar]

CharonY,

 

I respect your opinion on this board, more than anybody else here. You are informed, educated and pragmatic, without preconcieved notions of who is evil and who is good.

 

And I agree with people's overall feeling that Trump is suspect when it comes to racism (did not rent to blacks) and sexism (access Hollywood tape) and now the trial starts to have him pay back the monies that he scammed from people with Trump university...but some things about him that people have strong feelings against, were not primarily due to what he did or said, but due to what somebody else said about him, using innuendo to construct a straw man. Like his railing against the criminal drug gangs and the drugs coming across our southern border, and this being proof in the eyes of progressives that he is racist against Mexicans. While Obama has deported many Mexicans and other illegals from central America, without being called a racist.

 

And I laughed silently at Hillary's demonization of him because he ranked females on a scale of 1 to 10 (because I do the same thing as a time passer in Airports, to myself). I have two daughters and a wife, myself, independent and educated and in charge of themselves...but do think testosterone is sometimes on trial, and while I plead guilty, I do not find it evil to have testosterone. So there is reason to call those areas out. That he wants to fix it, and fight the gangs and drugs and bring law and order and jobs to these areas is not racist. It is a way to empower blacks that are currently not.

 

That the Hilary team would promote the access Hollywood tape as a disqualifier, in spite of Monica for instance, is somewhat proof of Pinker's linguistic idea that the same thing, when framed in the first person is good, second person neutral and third person bad. Like I am exploring my sexuality, you are loose, and she is a whore.

 

With these protests, people need to take a breath, and look again at what evils they wish to see defeated and what good things they wish to see promoted. It is about respect for each other, and working together as Americans to make it work. And if the majority of the U.S. is white, then white people should not be both then considered the problem and the solution, except in the ways that they actually are.

 

Many of the marchers are there to protect the rights of minorities. To march for the poor and disenfranchised, to protect the immigrant that came here to lead a better life in peace and security, to march for the black man who is kept in ghettos, and the women that are kept in the kitchen, and the gays that are disrespected and shunned by society. But many of the marchers are white. Whites that to a certain degree are not united in terms of who and what they are for and who and what they are against. A general idea that we are a fair country, and Trump is not fair, is being voiced. But this is the election being litigated again, and that actually was the purpose of the election, to choose a leader.

 

It is my wish that we lock arms during the national anthem as the Seahawks did along with their coach the other day. Not burn the flag in the streets.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 12, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

AS has been stated many times on this forum by Phi and many others, Conservatives, and Republicans in particular, appeal to people's emotions ( fear, insecurity, etc. ). D Trump certainly did, he appealed to people's dissatisfaction with the government and how it failed to represent/serve/answer to them. A lot of people felt disenfranchised and ignored by the government, and this was, in effect, a protest vote ( my opinion, and boy, are they in for a rude awakening ).

 

Now, after the election, The people who railed against the fearmongering, are themselves reacting emotionally. The have let fear of what D Trump will do control their actions. What do they expect to gain/change with the protests/riots ?

Do they want the election annulled, and the chaos and anarchy that will bring ?

Do they want the north-eastern seaboard separating along with California and forming their own countries ?

Or are they simply venting frustration, with no particular aim, but making things worse ?

 

I also find it ironic that you guys who can tell me the high percentage of times D Trump has lied during the campaign, now, all of a sudden, believe that everything he said is the gospel truth, and he will do everything he promised.

Donald Trump received less votes than Romney or McCain did in 12' and 08'. In my opinion it is an error to reference Trump's appeal. I see many political journalists writing about the way Trump won over this or that group. It is not accurate. Trump did not expand the base. He won receiving just below the standard haul for a Republican candidate. Hillary Clinton failing to win her base and that is the bigger reason for the outcome. Millions of people who had voted for Obama in 08' and 12' simply not showing up to vote is what won it for Trump. And no, it wasn't just Blacks or Latinos. Turnout was down across the board and that was after record breaking early voter turnout and initial reports of election day turnout.

 

I don't believe Trump will do any of the stuff he promised. Truly the only 2 things he really promised was to repeal the ACA and build a border wall. Everything else he just made broad general statements about: "negotiate great deals", "extreme vetting", "make the economy win", "defeat ISIS", "rebuild the military", "fix the tax code", and etc. Trump never explained what his vision of "great", "fix", "defeat", "extreme", "win" or etc was. So the door is open to anything and everthing.