Trump protestors

[Ten oz]

iNow,

 

The gang wars in Chicago is the fire I am concerned with. Not some fear of yours that the KKK will be normalized in my heart.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

Ten Oz,

 

I do not know what intelligence briefings have been given to Trump, and when. They are private. He mistook a photo of the plane transferring hostages for the plane carrying a pallet of money and clarified. The cash was still transferred though.

 

I am not saying Trump has not lied and misdirected. But some stories are complex and someone looks at the facts and says they mean one thing and the important thing is this and the other says they mean another and the important thing is that. For instance, to you, it is important that Trump campaigned that there was a picture showing a pallet of cash and it was untrue. To me the important thing is that there was a cash deal at the same time that Hostages were released. Or with the FBI description of Hillary and the e-mails, she said she did not send or receive any e-mails marked classified, when the FBI said she did. You say that the FBI cleared her of any wrongdoing, which is inaccurate. The director accused her of being very carless and incorrectly stating she did not have classified information on the server and she admits she made mistakes. Depends on ones feeling of what is wrongdoing. There wasn't anything reported, but let us say that there was one email found on Anthony's laptop that was government record, that was inappropriate, containing either state business not turned over or classified information...that is all it would take, for Hilary to have lied to congress. One.

 

But there are things we don't know, and inaccurate reports and someone saying they feel this way or that when the feeling is projected and may not be the truth. Today I saw a report that Ford had decided to keep production of Lincolns in a plant in Kentucky and Trump claimed he influenced Ford to keep the jobs there. Other reports show that Ford is obligated by agreement with the UAW to not close plants until 2019, insinuating that Trump was inappropriately taking credit for something that had nothing to do with him and therefore was lying. There may be another reality though, where what Trump has said, during the election, and what he has talked about directly with Ford, that production that was being considered to be moved to Mexico, that may now be retained in Kentucky. I am not privy to the discussions, nor are you. If jobs were saved, or will be saved, then Trump may have been effective in protecting those jobs, like he says. Making it, not a lie.

 

Regards, TAR

My take on the e-mails was that she was secretary of state and would have to have knowledge of classified materials, all such knowledge not being transferred by mouth or written letter. Some of her correspondences with advisors and confidants where made through her server and some of these topics must have included aspects that were classified. She made these communications while in foreign countries, going through communication equipment not under the control of the U.S.. Her communications were not properly encrypted by government systems and may have been compromised. No proof of such, but the danger is there, and she put our private stuff carelessly in such danger. It is this I consider the facts of the situation, and is exactly what the FBI said.

 

Regards, TAR

You are ignoring facts. U.S. Intelligence issued statements that the hacks were Russian and attempting to influence the election. That is a fact. Trump then continued to promote the material in the hacks and claim it may not have been Russia despite Intel releases and brief indicating otherwise. Trump also, based on no evidence, suggested it was China. All that despite being briefed otherwise. There is nothing "complex" about it. You are merely attempting to obscure Trump's malicious behavior.

 

The FBI investigated the emails! Whty are you bringing up emails? It is a resolved matter. What more due diligence is required?

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

The claim is that the Antho​ny Laptop thing cost Hilary the election ​and if not for the FBI , she would have won the election. That is why I am bringing it up. You, the plural you, who think that the FBI cost Hilary the election can't cherrypick when to listen to the FBI and when to cast suspicion on them.

 

I remember when Clinton first mentioned that several intelligence sources agreed that the Russians were probably behind the attacks. At the time, I don't remember independent reports from CNN or MSNBC or Fox, the three networks I click between, to get the middle, left and right views. Now you are telling me there was an order and a knowledge that proved malicious behavior on Trumps part, that I am ignoring these facts. The thing did not unfold publically the way you suggest. There are things that Hilary knew at a certain time and that Trump knew at a certain time, but the emails were already out, and people were already embarrassed and fired and such over them, so at the time, any blaming of Trump for being responsible in some way for encouraging the Russians to hack the DNC, was seen by me as simply a way to deflect from the content of the e-mails.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

The claim is that the Antho​ny Laptop thing cost Hilary the election ​and if not for the FBI , she would have won the election. That is why I am bringing it up. You, the plural you, who think that the FBI cost Hilary the election can't cherrypick when to listen to the FBI and when to cast suspicion on them.

 

I remember when Clinton first mentioned that several intelligence sources agreed that the Russians were probably behind the attacks. At the time, I don't remember independent reports from CNN or MSNBC or Fox, the three networks I click between, to get the middle, left and right views. Now you are telling me there was an order and a knowledge that proved malicious behavior on Trumps part, that I am ignoring these facts. The thing did not unfold publically the way you suggest. There are things that Hilary knew at a certain time and that Trump knew at a certain time, but the emails were already out, and people were already embarrassed and fired and such over them, so at the time, any blaming of Trump for being responsible in some way for encouraging the Russians to hack the DNC, was seen by me as simply a way to deflect from the content of the e-mails.

 

Regards, TAR

Please show me where I have ever criticized the FBI for there investigation or blamed them for Clinton's loss? You have a very hard time not deflecting from what's being discussed.

 

So if we can't not quantifiably say the hacks cost Clinton the election than we need not concern ourselves with the matter? Lets just forget that a foriegn nation sought to influence the election to aid Trump. Lets ignore that even after our Intel agencies told Trump it was Russian he continue to encourage his suppurters to review the material and claim it may have been China? All that matter here is who won and who lost. It doesn't matter why Russia did this, why they wanted Trump elected, why Trump ignored U.S. intelligence, or etc. Trump won and you are happy. Everything is just an inconvenience you are just looking to move beyond.

 

This, illegal cyber attacking of candidates, can't stand or else we will never have a non-rigged election again. We must know, for the integrity of our government and election system, why this was done and for those involved to be held accountable. A crime was committed against a Presidential candidate by a foriegn power during an election and and because you are happy with the outcome you are willingly to tolerate that. It is wrong.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I agreed it is wrong, what Russia did. But only if Trump was involved, was Trump malicious. You are assuming Trump planned it. If after the probe, it is shown he had nothing to do with it, would you remove the malicious charge?

 

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

This is not about what you believe or what I believe, except to the extent that we serve as proxies for the Trump voter and the protestors of Trump's victory. Often you claim I am gloating or denying reality or something. That is downright wrong. But if I am to defend myself against such charges, it is hard to know where you are differenciating yourself from the protestors, so in the interest of debate, as it is fair for you to lump me in with all that is evil, I lump you in with all that demonize Trump, and guess that you would side with all MSNBC talking points, same as you assume I side with all Fox News talking points.

 

It would be nice to accept the fact that there is more between us that is alike than is unalike.

 

Regards, TAR

In any case there is a danger in saying that Muslims are dangerous because a 1/3 of the population of the Earth follows Islam.

And in the same way, there is a danger in saying that conservatives are dangerous, because a 1/3 of the country is Republican.

 

Why give 1/3 of the world the benefit of the doubt, when you probably are dismissive of religious points of view, when you won't give a third of America the benefit of the doubt?

[iNow]

So, your argument is that it's okay for foreign nations to hack our elections so long as the candidates benefiting from their activities didn't directly order it?

 

Um, ok.

[DimaMazin]

Americans use wrong math even for president elections, therefore Clinton has lost.Trump wants to have peace with Putin.But when Putin will attack America, Americans will obligated ferstly to kill Trump.

[Tampitump]

I find your incredulity misplaced. This was an election stolen, perhaps by the Russians, perhaps by the FBI, perhaps by the electoral system, but stolen nonetheless. Clinton won the popular vote, and may have won cleanly without Comey and Putin's interference. While I don't condone the violence, I approve the fact that Americans are protesting something that matters, rather than just sitting back and taking it in the keister yet again.

 

There are a lot of People who feel a need for change who were smart enough to know Trump wasn't the person to bring it. You're seeing a lot of Sanders folks who saw some very bright social promise turn into more conservative selfishness.

Lost is your sense of decency and intellectual compass on this topic. These protestors/rioters are nothing more than a bunch of regressive shit bags with a fundamental intolerance to differing opinions from their own. Many members of the left have shown repeatedly that they have no respect for civil discourse or democracy. This is an example of fabricated rage and anger. A faction of the population comprised of worthless scum bags who are driven by a cultural-marxist, liberal narrative that they think must be followed by everyone, and they have a burning ambition to deliver grief onto those who don't respond correctly to their virtue-signalling, thought-policing, identity-politics ideology. Their actions are an affront to basic human dignity and western values.

 

I say this as a person who is liberal and voted for Clinton. There is no world wherein actions such as this are admirable or acceptable. If you think they are, then I'm not sure what your values are, but they aren't western or American.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Tampitump

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

I agreed it is wrong, what Russia did. But only if Trump was involved, was Trump malicious. You are assuming Trump planned it. If after the probe, it is shown he had nothing to do with it, would you remove the malicious charge?

 

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

This is not about what you believe or what I believe, except to the extent that we serve as proxies for the Trump voter and the protestors of Trump's victory. Often you claim I am gloating or denying reality or something. That is downright wrong. But if I am to defend myself against such charges, it is hard to know where you are differenciating yourself from the protestors, so in the interest of debate, as it is fair for you to lump me in with all that is evil, I lump you in with all that demonize Trump, and guess that you would side with all MSNBC talking points, same as you assume I side with all Fox News talking points.

 

It would be nice to accept the fact that there is more between us that is alike than is unalike.

 

Regards, TAR

In any case there is a danger in saying that Muslims are dangerous because a 1/3 of the population of the Earth follows Islam.

And in the same way, there is a danger in saying that conservatives are dangerous, because a 1/3 of the country is Republican.

 

Why give 1/3 of the world the benefit of the doubt, when you probably are dismissive of religious points of view, when you won't give a third of America the benefit of the doubt?

After being briefed by U.S. Intelligence that it was Russia Trump continued to encourage his supporters to follow wikileaks and view the material. Trump also continued to say it may have been China. That is malicious. No candidate for office should ever encourage a foreign entities attack against our election system nor should a candidate recklessly accuse China or any other nation of crimes they know China or whomever is not responsible for. You honestly think it is frivolous matter that doesn't impact our relationship with China that Trump accussed them despite knowing it was Russia? You honestly believe that Trump's win and his encouragement of the hacks doesn't make those who performed the hacks feel as though they achieved their objectives?

[Delta1212]

Lost is your sense of decency and intellectual compass on this topic. These protestors/rioters are nothing more than a bunch of regressive shit bags with a fundamental intolerance to differing opinions from their own. Many members of the left have shown repeatedly that they have no respect for civil discourse or democracy. This is an example of fabricated rage and anger. A faction of the population comprised of worthless scum bags who are driven by a cultural-marxist, liberal narrative that they think must be followed by everyone, and they have a burning ambition to deliver grief onto those who don't respond correctly to their virtue-signalling, thought-policing, identity-politics ideology. Their actions are an affront to basic human dignity and western values.

 

I say this as a person who is liberal and voted for Clinton. There is no world wherein actions such as this are admirable or acceptable. If you think they are, then I'm not sure what your values are, but they aren't western or American.

The right to public protest is a fundamental American value dating back to the Revolutionary period and I support anyone who chooses to do so regardless of whether I support the particular thing that they are protesting.

[tar]

After being briefed by U.S. Intelligence that it was Russia Trump continued to encourage his supporters to follow wikileaks and view the material. Trump also continued to say it may have been China. That is malicious. No candidate for office should ever encourage a foreign entities attack against our election system nor should a candidate recklessly accuse China or any other nation of crimes they know China or whomever is not responsible for. You honestly think it is frivolous matter that doesn't impact our relationship with China that Trump accussed them despite knowing it was Russia? You honestly believe that Trump's win and his encouragement of the hacks doesn't make those who performed the hacks feel as though they achieved their objectives?

 

iNow and Ten Oz,

 

I do not think that Russian hacking or Wikileak hacking or Snowden whistleblowing is at all desirable. I hate it all and would like people to not break the law. Where I make the distinction is between the information hacked, leaked, stolen, and the acts or words uncovered and the perpetrators of the illegal or unfair act that uncovered the facts and the beneficiaries of the facts uncovered I do not automatically vote in favor or against the deed uncovered, nor automatically assume the beneficiaries of the info inappropriately acted. For instance, not illegal, but the Hilary campaign and NBC may have been aware of the access Hollywood tape and choose not to air it, to hold it 'til the last week before the election, to put a nail in Trump's coffin, in the case of pro Hilary forces, or to protect Billy Bush in the case of NBC. The Post got a hold of the story and scooped NBC, who quickly released the tape. Nobody is concerned about whether the recording was legal, or how the Post got a hold of NBC property, it only matters that it shows the crude, objectifying of women on the part of Trump, that would disqualify him in the eyes of anybody wishing that women not be objectified and bolster the rightness of anybody, which was most Hilary supporters, that would call Trump a sexist.

 

That the Russians toasted Trump's election, gives me pause, indeed. But I am not sure yet as to why that is the case, except that perhaps Putin does not like Obama or Hilary, or their objection to Assad or the sanctions following the Crimea takeover and think that there might be a lifting of the sanctions, and a different tack on the part of the U.S. in Syria.

 

But I continue to separate the content of the DNC emails, from who leaked them, from who stole them, from who benefited from them.

 

Each factor is its own discussion, with its own calculus of what is right and wrong, desirable or undesirable, helpful or hurtful. None of it is altogether good or altogether bad.

 

Regards, TAR

Which is, by the way, my general argument in most every political or religious thread I get involved in. One bad comment does not make one deplorable on all counts. Belief in God does not make one deplorable on all counts. The humanist point of view does not make any sense if you have to throw out the majority of the human race, in order for your point of view to be right.

Edited November 19, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

Americans use wrong math even for president elections, therefore Clinton has lost.Trump wants to have peace with Putin.But when Putin will attack America, Americans will obligated ferstly to kill Trump.

 

 

No, absolutely not. Why would Putin attack the US, if he wanted Trump elected in the first place?

 

In any event, the law would need to be followed. Trump would be obligated to defend as Commander-in-Chief. If he failed to discharge his duties, legal removal would be the only option to have him step down. Killing is off the table; in fact it's never on the table. At the very least it's a reckless suggestion.

Lost is your sense of decency and intellectual compass on this topic. These protestors/rioters are nothing more than a bunch of regressive shit bags with a fundamental intolerance to differing opinions from their own. Many members of the left have shown repeatedly that they have no respect for civil discourse or democracy. This is an example of fabricated rage and anger. A faction of the population comprised of worthless scum bags who are driven by a cultural-marxist, liberal narrative that they think must be followed by everyone, and they have a burning ambition to deliver grief onto those who don't respond correctly to their virtue-signalling, thought-policing, identity-politics ideology. Their actions are an affront to basic human dignity and western values.

 

I say this as a person who is liberal and voted for Clinton. There is no world wherein actions such as this are admirable or acceptable. If you think they are, then I'm not sure what your values are, but they aren't western or American.

 

Oh, grow up.

 

Anyone who isn't a white male hetero Christian has a legitimate beef of direct provocation by the position of Trump and the GOP, just as many protesters who came before them had legitimate beefs with the status quo. How dare you call this fabricated when Trump has trafficked in dog-whistle and outright bigoted language during the campaign and collected white nationalists and other bigots on his staff during the transition. You're telling Jews, women, brown people, LGBTQ people and others, and anyone who supports them, that they have no reason to be angry at further marginalization and physical danger (an uptick in hate crimes since the election, and not a peep denouncing them from the president-elect).

 

You may not feel anger at current events, but you have no right to tell how other people how they feel. You don't get to call them un-American. You don't get to define that, or how to be patriotic.

 

In any case there is a danger in saying that Muslims are dangerous because a 1/3 of the population of the Earth follows Islam.

And in the same way, there is a danger in saying that conservatives are dangerous, because a 1/3 of the country is Republican.

 

Why give 1/3 of the world the benefit of the doubt, when you probably are dismissive of religious points of view, when you won't give a third of America the benefit of the doubt?

 

Who isn't giving 1/3 of Americans the benefit of the doubt? Last I checked, a majority in elected federal government positions isn't even 300 people. That's less than one part in a million. Even if you expand that for staff and state and local people, it's nowhere near a third.

[Ten oz]

 

iNow and Ten Oz,

 

I do not think that Russian hacking or Wikileak hacking or Snowden whistleblowing is at all desirable. I hate it all and would like people to not break the law. Where I make the distinction is between the information hacked, leaked, stolen, and the acts or words uncovered and the perpetrators of the illegal or unfair act that uncovered the facts and the beneficiaries of the facts uncovered I do not automatically vote in favor or against the deed uncovered, nor automatically assume the beneficiaries of the info inappropriately acted. For instance, not illegal, but the Hilary campaign and NBC may have been aware of the access Hollywood tape and choose not to air it, to hold it 'til the last week before the election, to put a nail in Trump's coffin, in the case of pro Hilary forces, or to protect Billy Bush in the case of NBC. The Post got a hold of the story and scooped NBC, who quickly released the tape. Nobody is concerned about whether the recording was legal, or how the Post got a hold of NBC property, it only matters that it shows the crude, objectifying of women on the part of Trump, that would disqualify him in the eyes of anybody wishing that women not be objectified and bolster the rightness of anybody, which was most Hilary supporters, that would call Trump a sexist.

 

That the Russians toasted Trump's election, gives me pause, indeed. But I am not sure yet as to why that is the case, except that perhaps Putin does not like Obama or Hilary, or their objection to Assad or the sanctions following the Crimea takeover and think that there might be a lifting of the sanctions, and a different tack on the part of the U.S. in Syria.

 

But I continue to separate the content of the DNC emails, from who leaked them, from who stole them, from who benefited from them.

 

Each factor is its own discussion, with its own calculus of what is right and wrong, desirable or undesirable, helpful or hurtful. None of it is altogether good or altogether bad.

 

Regards, TAR

Which is, by the way, my general argument in most every political or religious thread I get involved in. One bad comment does not make one deplorable on all counts. Belief in God does not make one deplorable on all counts. The humanist point of view does not make any sense if you have to throw out the majority of the human race, in order for your point of view to be right.

You are only aware of the content because it was stolen. It is absurd to say you concede it was wrong and the fact Russia chose to do that is troubling but then go line by line through the content of those emails and nit pick.

[tar]

 

Who isn't giving 1/3 of Americans the benefit of the doubt? Last I checked, a majority in elected federal government positions isn't even 300 people. That's less than one part in a million. Even if you expand that for staff and state and local people, it's nowhere near a third.

 

I meant 1/3 of the population of the country is in flyover country or in the republican ring around cities, and these people are mostly law abiding, hard working, capable and trustworthy, loving people, that should be given the benefit of the doubt, regardless of a small number who might be hateful people. People that are white heterosexual Christian males are not to be automatically associated with the KKK...and we take offense at the association. That MSNBC and the dems chose to associate Trump and his supporters with sexists, homophobes, racists, xenophobes, and align themselves with women, and brown skin people and Muslims, and immigrants alienated people and split the nation, and made it so that now, the new President is disqualified and illegitimate, along with everybody not brown or gay or female or progressive. The narrative makes it appear as if I as a white, hetero sexual male would not like to see a woman president. I absolutely would. Just not Hilary. That I would not like to see blacks succeed. I absolutely would, just not as gang members.

 

I am just sad that I have been demonized for being normal, and that weird and illegal behavior has been normalized in the name of love of your fellow man, and that I for some reason, am no longer given the benefit of the doubt as being a fellow man, deserving of love, and capable of giving it.

You are only aware of the content because it was stolen. It is absurd to say you concede it was wrong and the fact Russia chose to do that is troubling but then go line by line through the content of those emails and nit pick.

 

I have missed your point here. The content of the DNC emails, embarrassed Clinton and caused a number of people to lose their jobs, and those people were not fired because of me.

They were fired to disassociate Clinton from being responsible for rigging the primary against Sanders, to keep Sander's votes.

So if you want to look for beneficiaries, the beneficiaries were initially Sander's supporters. As the crimes against him, were surfaced.

Thread,

 

Another theme in the protests that I would like to explore is the generational divide. I wonder if Sander's supporters would be in the street anyway, if Hilary had won.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

Out of curiosity, what definition of crime are you using there?

[DimaMazin]

 

 

No, absolutely not. Why would Putin attack the US, if he wanted Trump elected in the first place?

 

In any event, the law would need to be followed. Trump would be obligated to defend as Commander-in-Chief. If he failed to discharge his duties, legal removal would be the only option to have him step down. Killing is off the table; in fact it's never on the table. At the very least it's a reckless suggestion.

 

 

 

Then why Putin attaked Ukraine? Putin wants Trump be a president because Trump can make USA weeker and Russia stronger by concellation of sanctions. Fight for leadership between dictators . Obama was lame duck because was partially trusting to Putin. Even do you think Putin needs free USA?

[Phi for All]

Then why Putin attaked Ukraine? Putin wants Trump be a president because Trump can make USA weeker and Russia stronger by concellation of sanctions. Fight for leadership between dictators . Obama was lame duck because was partially trusting to Putin. Even do you think Putin needs free USA?

 

Making the US weak enough to allow Putin to do what he likes in his own region seems more likely than doing it to attack the US, don't you think?

[dimreepr]

 

Making the US weak enough to allow Putin to do what he likes in his own region seems more likely than doing it to attack the US, don't you think?

 

 

They do have AN aircraft carrier.

[Tampitump]

The right to public protest is a fundamental American value dating back to the Revolutionary period and I support anyone who chooses to do so regardless of whether I support the particular thing that they are protesting.

The constitution doesn't say "right to pillage and destroy property". The left does not realize what they're doing to themselves. They have acted like a bunch of hateful liitle nitwits for the past few years. The same people have vitiated academia and college campuses with their PC bullshit, they have assaulted Trump supporters, and have whined like little bitches and rioted every time they don't get their way. Large parts of the far left has been deteriorating into a group of non-productive, regressive citizens and people are fed up with it. Its easy to see why Trump was able to sweep in, speak everyone's simpleton, pro-Merica language, look like the moral superior, and win. People are tired of this lunacy and intolerance on the left. We have to fix this problem because it has resulted in one of the biggest dumb asses in human history to run our country and to appoint his clan of lobotomized fucktards to his cabinet. Republicans won just about every level of government and the left is still wondering why. Its easy to see why. Nobody likes them. They've deteriorated to complete stupidity.

[DimaMazin]

 

Making the US weak enough to allow Putin to do what he likes in his own region seems more likely than doing it to attack the US, don't you think?

Some time yes, if Alaska will be Russian region. Why Putin creates nesessary weapon for destroy of USA?

[Ten oz]

I have missed your point here. The content of the DNC emails, embarrassed Clinton and caused a number of people to lose their jobs, and those people were not fired because of me.

They were fired to disassociate Clinton from being responsible for rigging the primary against Sanders, to keep Sander's votes.

So if you want to look for beneficiaries, the beneficiaries were initially Sander's supporters. As the crimes against him, were surfaced.

Thread,

 

Another theme in the protests that I would like to explore is the generational divide. I wonder if Sander's supporters would be in the street anyway, if Hilary had won.

 

Regards, TAR

The objective of the cyber attacks were to hurt Clinton's campaign. The objective was to get people like yourself looking at the material and using it to criticize Clinton. Nothing released reflected illegal activity on Clinton's part. So when you use the materiel to nit pick and draw false equivalencies with matters that were illegal or possibly illegal you are doing exactly what the Russian hackers hoped U.S. citizens would do.

[Delta1212]

The constitution doesn't say "right to pillage and destroy property". The left does not realize what they're doing to themselves. They have acted like a bunch of hateful liitle nitwits for the past few years. The same people have vitiated academia and college campuses with their PC bullshit, they have assaulted Trump supporters, and have whined like little bitches and rioted every time they don't get their way. Large parts of the far left has been deteriorating into a group of non-productive, regressive citizens and people are fed up with it. Its easy to see why Trump was able to sweep in, speak everyone's simpleton, pro-Merica language, look like the moral superior, and win. People are tired of this lunacy and intolerance on the left. We have to fix this problem because it has resulted in one of the biggest dumb asses in human history to run our country and to appoint his clan of lobotomized fucktards to his cabinet. Republicans won just about every level of government and the left is still wondering why. Its easy to see why. Nobody likes them. They've deteriorated to complete stupidity.

While I don't support pillaging and destruction of property, the original and most lauded protest in all of American history was literally pillaging and destruction of property that has been elevated to the level of myth in the American psyche.

 

The only reason we don't think of the Boston Tea Party in those terms is because that isn't how it's framed for us when we first learn about it, and because historical events tend to take on a sheen of unreality.

 

But for the people living at the time, the stuff you don't like now is exactly how that event looked. This is exactly the kind of behavior America was founded on.

 

Not justifying it, just pointing out that there is a distinct difference between "thing I don't like" and "thing that is unAmerican" in this case. I don't like when protest turns destructive, but it is extremely American.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Well OK, but if the Russians wanted to destabilize the U.S. Election, they wanted to do it to weaken the U.S. So why would Trump want a weaker U.S.? The DNC emails made Hilary look bad to Sanders supporters. She already looked bad to Trump supporters. So you assume the Russians wanted to make Hilary look bad so Trump would win and Trump could then build luxury hotels on the Black Sea. Maybe they wanted Sanders to be president. Or anybody but Clinton. They should not be involved in our elections, but people from all over the world, with their own interests have been involved in this election. You never responded to my suggestion that Hilary's carelessness with e-mails as Secretary of State, could have given our enemies ways to get into our systems. That, along with what Snowden did, compromises our cyber security.

 

Regards, TAR

Delta1212,

 

It is also extremely American to support the VP elect of the U.S., applaud and support him and assume he will protect all the people of the country. Not boo him and give him a lecture, assuming his running mate was not going to protect all the people of his country.

 

Regards, TAR

[rangerx]

It is also extremely American to support the VP elect of the U.S., applaud and support him and assume he will protect all the people of the country. Not boo him and give him a lecture, assuming his running mate was not going to protect all the people of his country.

 

Regards, TAR

 

So freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment is un-American then?

[DimaMazin]

 

 

They do have AN aircraft carrier.

What will be military math if Trump will cause civil war in USA?

[tar]

Yes, when it is disrespectful of the President. It is even a felony to threaten the life of the president. The thrust is to be respectful of the office and the constitution and our system of election, regardless of the person elected.

 

It was a big deal at the debate when Trump said he would have to see, if the election was not rigged, before he would accept the results. Everybody took this as an un-American position. You are supposed to politely yield to the victor, and wait for your team to regain power at the next election, but in the meantime support the president, because he is your president. And it is your country that he or she is the leader of.

 

 

 

^​