Trump protestors

[Delta1212]

I thought the statement by the Hamilton cast was fairly respectful in tone.

[tar]

it was, but some in the crowd booed, and the lecture assumed Trump would not treat minorities fairly unless he was thusly lectured

[Tampitump]

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.

The Boston Tea Party happened before the Constitution, and even so, there were very calculated reasons behind it. We were on the brink of war with Britain, the US had major problems with how the parliament was trying to put their thumb on them, and there was a great reason to carry out this act. Its not like the guys who did it continued to do it repeatedly afterwards. It was an isolated event that was done for a worthy cause.

 

These little liberal morons though, their anger and rage is completely fake and fabricated. They have no legitimate reason to display that scale of rage and anger. We elected a president the same way we always do, using the results of the electoral college. I'm not saying the right is morally-superior (they are not), but this generation of liberal stupidity has to stop immediately if we are to progress. These people are morons, and their actions are unjustified.

 

This is an UNBELIEVABLY false equivalence you've tried to press into service here.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Tampitump

[tar]

more of a political argument than a pro-American argument, and somewhat mistimed, since we already had the election

I am not gloating, as I would have been happy to see how things would have gone with Hilary, and didn't think either one would do the job I think needs done, but Trump did win, and at this point, hoping for a revolution or some series of events that would oust Trump, is somewhat like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I understand the sentiment, as I was hoping for a revolution at the Republican convention that would throw out Trump and instate Kasich, even though the population already voted for Trump. I could not believe he won the primary. Now everybody cannot believe he won the election, but he did. And if it was so wrong, and Hilary so right, the house and senate would have gone dem. It didn't.

 

I have always considered that I would live with the decision of the American people, even in the years when the person other than who I voted for, won.

 

I really would not have hit the streets if Hilary was elected. Complained about some things, sure. Petitioned her government to respect employers as much as employees and such, sure. But hitting the street? I don't think we would have been there, had Hilary won, and I don't think we are there because Trump won. When and if we get there, I am sure there will be millions hitting the street. So it is ok to not fear the slippery slope, or manufacture doomsday scenarios.

 

Better to wish him success.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

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

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.

Perhaps we should follow the bright shining example set by the GOP, the only "real" Americans and true patriots.

 

After all, they were extraordinarily respectful of Obama throughout the last 8 years. It would be hypocritical for Dems to treat Trump any differently.

 

Edited November 19, 2016 by iNow

[Delta1212]

The Boston Tea Party happened before the Constitution, and even so, there were very calculated reasons behind it. We were on the brink of war with Britain, the US had major problems with how the parliament was trying to put their thumb on them, and there was a great reason to carry out this act. Its not like the guys who did it continued to do it repeatedly afterwards. It was an isolated event that was done for a worthy cause.

 

These little liberal morons though, their anger and rage is completely fake and fabricated. They have no legitimate reason to display that scale of rage and anger. We elected a president the same way we always do, using the results of the electoral college. I'm not saying the right is morally-superior (they are not), but this generation of liberal stupidity has to stop immediately if we are to progress. These people are morons, and their actions are unjustified.

 

This is an UNBELIEVABLY false equivalence you've tried to press into service here.

It's not, because what you're describing is the British view of the colonial behavior. You're looking at the people at the time through the lens of knowing what happened afterward and from a very pro-American standpoint. Which is understandable, but if you take a step outside of what you know about how history unfolded and try to view things from the perspective of the British and loyalist aristocrats, it's very interesting to imagine how the actions of the colonists and major patriot figures would have been viewed and to compare that view to later and more modern interactions between protesters and the government and the reaction by the population to those events.

 

The Boston Tea Party would be labeled vandalism by most people if it happened in modern America. And while the Boston Massacre would undoubtedly still be a very controversial event, I think you'd find far more people defending a police action against a violent mob than you would people who think the British were in the right in this country.

 

We're very used to viewing historical events and modern events through completely different lenses because we learn historical events as a battle between heroes and villains who have been pre-picked based on how the events turn out while modern events are much more complex struggles the results of which we don't yet know.

 

But the parallels you can find between modern day events and historical ones are very interesting and often exist in ways that you wouldn't be inclined to think about unless you can turn off the expectations of who is right and who is wrong and shut out what you know about the ultimate results of history.

[Ten oz]

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

No, the objective was to influence the election.

[John Cuthber]

Just a a quick reminder for those who say it was wrong for someone to boo Pence .
At least one Republican thought it was right to heckle Obama during his State of the Union speech.
The difference is that Obama is a good enough orator to deal with it.

[swansont]

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.

 

Such as shouting, "You lie!" during a state of the union address? Questioning the president's legitimacy, in regards to his citizenship and religion? And worse?

 

The Hamilton cast were actually quite respectful as they exercised their First-Amendment rights. Unlike many GOP elected officials, who should be held to a higher standard. To suggest the all of the sudden "disrespect" is unseemly? I can't take this hypocrisy seriously.

[DimaMazin]

Trump is in political trap. Because he has right to not recognize president elections, therefore people have right to not recognize the president elections.

If Putin creates political traps then not only Trump but and all USA get into his traps. Trump is just crass politician.

[paragaster]

Trump has a business approach regarding other countries. Infact he ridiculed the Japanese for not taking financial burden regarding US military forces stationed in the region. The Middle East situation is completely an American deed. Trump needs to get his priority right. Non-interference in any part of the world would be a good start.

[DimaMazin]

. Non-interference in any part of the world would be a good start.

Yes, we need no Trump.

Sanctions are non-interference.

Edited November 20, 2016 by DimaMazin

[tar]

Such as shouting, "You lie!" during a state of the union address? Questioning the predident's legitimacy, in regards to his citizenship and religion? And worse?

 

The Hamilton cast were actually quite respectful as they exercised their First-Amendment rights. Unlike many GOP elected officials, who should be held to a higher standard. To suggest the all of the sudden "disrespect" is unseemly? I can't take this hypocrisy seriously.

 

SwansonT,

 

You are arguing as if I thought it correct to interrupt the president's speech or to challenge his legitimacy. It is not hypocrisy on my part to think both yelling at the president and booing the VP elect, disrespectful of the office of the president.

 

Your argument is assuming I approve in the one case and disapprove in the other. This is the kind of thinking that has gotten this country into the state it is in, where 60 million feel they are right when they can prove the other 60 million wrong.

 

I am of the opinion that you back the president fully whether he (or she) was the one you wanted or not. Disagree and voice your objections, but it gets stupid if you delegitimize your own president. That would be like tying your quarterback's shoes together in the huddle because he called a pass to the other receiver.

 

Regards, TAR

or worse, not block for him when the play starts, because you think he does not deserve to be QB

or, what are you saying? That turnabout is fair play, and because Obama was heckled, it is now OK to heckle Trump. Because the republicans blocked Obama's agenda, now it is the right and obligation of the dems to block Trump's agenda? I think it important to note, that the people voted in the republican majority in the house and senate that blocked the legislation that was blocked, and the votes were according to what the people that won the congressional seats were asked to do by the voters and that was to be good representatives. And there was no 9th judge vetted because the leadership of the senate thought the people did not want a liberal judge that would rearrange the constitution according to progressive desires, and thought it better to let an election decide which way the court would lean in the next 50 years. But we had the election, and if the people wanted, they could have voted for a different dem or a different repub or voted in a majority for the dems in the house and senate. But what happened happened. You are still right about all the things you are right about, and still wrong about all the things you are wrong about, as am I. The election did not change propriety nor rule of law, nor the character of you, nor the character of me.

Edited November 20, 2016 by tar

[John Cuthber]

 

Disagree and voice your objections,

They did exactly that, and they did it calmly and politely.

 

Incidentally, don't forget the the people booing Pence were the audience and the cast told them to be quiet.

If the VP elect is booed by a random bunch of people while he is going about his business- that's unfortunate and improper, but it does say a lot about him. If he can't stand a group of people reading a note to him, then he hasn't the character required to be a politician.

Nobody has damaged the legitimacy of the US presidency nearly as much as Trump- not least by his dishonest tweets about this incident.

[tar]

John,

 

It is not reading a note that is rude, it is lecturing the president on what a president of good character would do, assuming that if not for the note, the president would not protect all Americans.

 

Regards, TAR

[John Cuthber]

John,

 

It is not reading a note that is rude, it is lecturing the president on what a president of good character would do, assuming that if not for the note, the president would not protect all Americans.

 

Regards, TAR

For the record, it was the VP they were "lecturing", rather than the president elect.

(Incidentally a lecture is where one person speaks to a group- this was the other way round)

 

In this instance it is not an assumption. He has a record of not protecting all Americans.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/terrible-mike-pence-quotes-against-women

http://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-gay-rights-lgbt-religious-freedom/

 

If they had been telling Trump that they were concerned that he does not protect the interests of all Americans they might have cited the following as evidence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/

http://www.hrc.org/blog/four-ways-donald-trump-would-roll-back-lgbt-equality-as-president

 

Now, since he has yet to take over as president, there is, perhaps some small hope that he won't continue with his behaviour over the decades and that he will protect all Americans.

 

But do you understand why the cast of the show didn't expect him to protect all Americans?

[rangerx]

 

Your argument is assuming I approve in the one case and disapprove in the other.

 

When Mitch MacConnell stoop up in the house and decreed Obama be blocked at every turn, Republicans should have fired him on the spot.

 

But no, instead they embarked on the delegitimization of their President of the United States as the their terms of reference for an entire election cycle.

 

These were law makers doing this. Not actors during a curtain call. Not someone posting an opinion on a forum.

 

 

Surely you must know the difference?

[Delta1212]

John,

 

It is not reading a note that is rude, it is lecturing the president on what a president of good character would do, assuming that if not for the note, the president would not protect all Americans.

 

Regards, TAR

They voiced fears that they would not be protected under the new administration and hope that they would be.

 

That is not a lecture, and I don't see what is disrespectful about, very politely, informing your Vice President about your fears as Americans.

 

How can the President and Vice President address the concerns of their constituents of the constituents are told that it is disrespectful to tell their leaders that they have concerns when presented with an opportunity to speak to them?

[Ten oz]

They voiced fears that they would not be protected under the new administration and hope that they would be.

 

That is not a lecture, and I don't see what is disrespectful about, very politely, informing your Vice President about your fears as Americans.

 

How can the President and Vice President address the concerns of their constituents of the constituents are told that it is disrespectful to tell their leaders that they have concerns when presented with an opportunity to speak to them?

This a typical conservative bait and switch. When Bush was President and we were debating Iraq many conservative pundits made a point to argue that it was unpatriotic to criticize Bush after 9/11, or to criticize a war time President, and etc.

 

Ironically Trump himself spent years running away trying to deligitimize Obama by claiming Obama was born in Kenya. Why that is acceptable yet Pence hearing it from a crowd while out in public is absurd.

[Phi for All]

It is not reading a note that is rude, it is lecturing the president on what a president of good character would do, assuming that if not for the note, the president would not protect all Americans.

 

This statement is so detached from reality that it makes me think you're trolling. With both Trump and Pence's history of abusing minority Americans, I find your defense of their "protection" insulting and inhuman. Way to go.

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

I find your calling me inhuman for asking respect for our president elect somewhat goofy. Maybe I am goofy for thinking Trump might actually help reclaim manufacturing jobs for the working people of this nation...but if he does, that is helping any and all factory workers, regardless of their minority status. You already know Trump is every label that was pasted on him, there is nothing I can do about that. But what you think about him was fed to you by every group that wanted Hilary to win. You were never on his side. For you to be right, Trump has to be as bad as you think he is. I can't tell you whether you will be proven right or wrong about Trump, but he is going to be my president and my face to the world, so I am giving him the benefit of doubt and hoping for the best. I am not moving to Canada, because someone has to stay around here and make sure things don't get out of hand, in terms of hate crimes. That is, if I see anything brewing in my neighborhood, anybody being marginalized because of their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation, I will speak up, and act if I have to.

 

Regards, TAR

And I would have done that prior the lecture.

[Delta1212]

Phi for All,

 

I find your calling me inhuman for asking respect for our president elect somewhat goofy. Maybe I am goofy for thinking Trump might actually help reclaim manufacturing jobs for the working people of this nation...but if he does, that is helping any and all factory workers, regardless of their minority status. You already know Trump is every label that was pasted on him, there is nothing I can do about that. But what you think about him was fed to you by every group that wanted Hilary to win. You were never on his side. For you to be right, Trump has to be as bad as you think he is. I can't tell you whether you will be proven right or wrong about Trump, but he is going to be my president and my face to the world, so I am giving him the benefit of doubt and hoping for the best. I am not moving to Canada, because someone has to stay around here and make sure things don't get out of hand, in terms of hate crimes. That is, if I see anything brewing in my neighborhood, anybody being marginalized because of their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation, I will speak up, and act if I have to.

 

Regards, TAR

 

And I would have done that prior the lecture.

You seem to frequently take very personally things that are explicitly not aimed at you.

[Endy0816]

That is, if I see anything brewing in my neighborhood, anybody being marginalized because of their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation, I will speak up, and act if I have to.

 

That's what the protestors are doing. They see ongoing injustice in their communities and are "speaking up".

[tar]

 

That's what the protestors are doing. They see ongoing injustice in their communities and are "speaking up".

 

Endy0816,

 

So why are they protesting against the president elect. Shouldn't they be protesting against the current power structure?

 

I am not sure the protesters are aiming their love at the right culprit.

 

Delta1212,

 

This is why I take the protests personally. I am the old white guy, whose way of life and sense of propriety and law and order and safety and security feel under attack by the left. Sanders and Hillary explicitly stated they want the rich to pay for their programs. I think it unfair to blame the people that make the country work, the businessmen, the farmers, the shop owners, the owners of the means of production, the working man, the middle class, the suburbs, for the country's problems. There is this narrative that the country is being unfair to minorities, when the country has been, for 50 years, on purpose trying to level the playing field. And all during that time, white middle class people have been giving to charities, paying taxes, adopting children, raising their families, sending their children to college, arranging grants for promising minority youth to succeed. Why would this stop all of a sudden, because a billionaire is going to be president? Why does his election, turn me into a bigot with my shoe on the black man's throat? I just don't get it. There is no logical train of thought, that says that I am keeping anyone down, and if there are people bent on keeping the blackman down, why would killing police officers tend to correct that wrong?

 

That is, I would like to be considered the good guy, not the devil. If you demonize Trump, and you demonize me, you are demonizing all conservatives, or at least all people that used to be democrat that are now republican. Or at least you are demonizing Trump and me.

 

Logic dictates that one must team up with others to get great things done in this world. It has already happened. We have great institutions and companies and people, most everybody wants to do good. In my town, and in any other town in the country, if you have a good idea of how to help people in need, you will find, probably without exception, many more than one organization already doing the good thing. And logic dictates, if you are to do big things, you need wealth, and wealth is accumulated by people that add value, and save some of the value they create. To blame these people, with wealth, for poverty is backward logic. They create the wealth , create the jobs, create the comfort and food and shelter and entertainment, all the things that make us feel good, all the things that ensure our survival and comfort, and it is erroneous to consider, that they are the problem. And it is particularly unseemly to say that you have the right to decide how they should spend their savings.

 

Many of the protestors are caring more about the illegal immigrants to this country, than the legal immigrants. The people that have come here and built the country for generations, and the people that just came in the last generation, and became citizens under the immigration laws. The country belongs to its citizens. It is not impossible for a Mexican for instance to make her own country better. Why, or how does someone claim protection, claim I owe her love and attention, because my country is better, safer, fairer, wealthier than hers. Has she no power to make her own country great?

 

Or take a neighborhood. The people that live in a neighborhood make it what it is. Newark had riots in the late 60s. A quarter of Newark was burned. Blacks, burning their own rented houses. A part of Newark, the Vailsburg section was heavily Italian. They watched out for each other, and kept the riots out of their area. Were those protests successful? What was their aim? To extort programs?

 

It makes no sense to me, that someone burn the U.S. flag, because they want so much to be Americans.

 

So I ask again, in terms of this thread and the protests. What are the protestor's protesting? Who are they speaking to? What is their demand?

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 21, 2016 by tar

[John Cuthber]

" I am the old white guy, whose way of life and sense of propriety and law and order and safety and security feel under attack by the left."

Why?

Who is threatening old white guys (apart from the man who is cutting their social security)?

 

 

 

"Sanders and Hillary explicitly stated they want the rich to pay for their programs. I think it unfair to blame the people that make the country work, the businessmen, the farmers, the shop owners, the owners of the means of production, the working man, the middle class, the suburbs, for the country's problems. "
Nobody is blaming the shopkeepers; they are blaming the likes of Trump who is a piss-poor businessman, (Count the bankruptcies)and a fraud who moves jobs out of America.

 

So why do you not recognise him as a threat?