Trump protestors

[tar]

My best friend during those riots, was a black girl, a classmate, who I talked to a lot during the walkouts and such. She thought it stupid to be burning houses. What does it gain? I went to Orange High School my 10th grade year. Just west of East Orange, which borders Newark.

" 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?

 

A threat to what? I don't concur with your assessment. And what will it take for you to be right, for you to be happy? A race war? That Trump is a Russian spy? A depression? A world war?

 

What will make you right about this? So you can say "I told you so"?

Obama already said it. Don't protest. Vote.

 

At this point the election is over. Even though when the votes are counted in California and Washington Hillary will have a 2 point plurality, it is not going to change the electoral college decision in December. Unless there are a lot of faithless electors. Is that what you hope?

 

I am afraid you will have to wait two years for the next election. Vote then, to reestablish democratic control of at least the house. That is how we do it, here in America.

Edited November 21, 2016 by tar

[rangerx]

 

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.

 

I addressed this in my question to you in post #346.

 

Why was it okay for republican lawmakers to demonize YOUR president for eight years? Why was it okay to get nothing done then, but not now?

 

Ignore my question if you wish. That is your right, but as it stands suggests a glaring double standard.

 

Nobody owes you an explanation, either. That's why civil freedom of expression is protected under the 1st Amendment.

[swansont]

 

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.

 

 

My argument is that you (and others) are silent in one case, making your complaints in the other rather shallow, and that you picked a poor example.

 

Further, the cases of disrespect toward the president I am talking about are from elected officials, not the populace exercising their first amendment rights. But make no mistake, there is a large swath of the country that did not and do not respect Obama, and do not respect Hillary Clinton. Some of the latter category can be identified, as they were yelling "lock her up" and/or wearing "Trump that bitch" shirts. The former category were ones who depicted Obama as a monkey or bought into the birther nonsense, for a couple of examples.

 

Booing — and this is not in the context of interrupting a speech — is a sign of disapproval and disagreement. Plenty of sports stars get booed. Mostly it's because they are playing poorly (if the team's fans do it) or because they are a good player on the opposition. Not out of disrespect. But I think you know this already. That's why I object to this. It smacks of apologetics.

 

 

edit: another thing about this is Trump's reaction to it. After all of the horrible things he's said about people, he doesn't all of the sudden get to pretend that an affront to his decency has occurred. That ship sailed long ago.

[Endy0816]

 

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.

 

 

They have protested during Obama's speeches as well.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

There are a lot of people that think Hilary, and Bill, over the last 30 years have manipulated people, and peddled power, and slipped out of situations where a person without political power would pay a price. I personally, for instance, still don't know why Russia owns a quarter of our uranium. I would think the interests of the U.S. and our security and our ability to reduce nuclear proliferation would be compromised if a traditional enemy in the arms race that defined the early 60s was in control of some of our uranium resources. And I would think this should be a concern of yours, as well, when we talk about double standards, and turning a blind eye, and excusing behavior that has bad optics, because we believe the person did not have the intent that the charges against them imply.

 

For instance, I was watching the election, and the charges and the past that was dredged up about Hilary and about Trump. There was terrific vitriol coming from both sides. Elizabeth Warren, the Obamas, the Clintons, the press, Mitt Romney and other republicans like the Bushes and Cruz said demeaning things about Trump, calling his character and capability into question and he called names back. Even if everything imagined about Trump's transgressions was true, and even if every transgression imagined about Hilary was true, one of the two of them, was going to be the president of the U.S. and it was inappropriate to cut down the other to a level of such low esteem. Both candidates were untrusted and disliked. Obama's legacy was both revered and despised. The country was split. But it was not some sort of epic battle, between good and evil, and neither was the devil and neither was the saint.

 

I protect Trump, because he is our president. I protected Obama in the same manner. I wished for his success I appreciated his strength and resolve and thought him a good leader in hard times, bringing Pragmatic logic and concern to situations and using the power of the office to comfort and direct people. But I did not agree with his politics, I think he failed us in Syria, and I think he failed by not confronting ISIS as soon as they started chopping off heads...like that day, like that hour. We have the power to reach into any county, anywhere in the world, with or without diplomatic efforts, and stop awful things like that, and we did not use it. I think Obama did not address gang violence correctly, I think he did not handle the health care situation right, I think it was destructive to the savers of this country to have the quantitative easing that pumped 85 billion a month into the pockets of the bankers...but still he was my president, and when he did a thing, or said a thing, I tried to see an upside, and give him the benefit of doubt, that he knew more than I did, about what was going on, and was doing the things he was doing in the interests of the U.S. and its people. Not just the banker, not just the factory worker, not just the poor and needy, but everybody. Maybe he failed some and did not fail others. He has an historically high approval rating for an outgoing president. He did a good job. He has resistance to enacting his proposals because people did not find them workable, not because he had a black father.

 

I was in the Military and the commander in chief was my boss. I did his bidding. What I thought about his decisions did not matter. I followed the orders of my superiors.

 

Regards, TAR

civilians do not have to follow orders blindly, I get that, but what I don't get is railing against people in your own country that are good people that make the country work, on the basis of some perceived character flaw

 

Misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia and wealth are not criminal offenses. I have a little of each in me. I don't throw me out as evil because there are a few places where I can improve by interaction with other human beings. And I retain the right, to support those I see as on my team and admonish those who seem to be doing it wrong. Regardless of their sex, race, nationality, sexual orientation or bank account.

or political party

 

most of my close friends and family are dems

Edited November 21, 2016 by tar

[rangerx]

I recall you saying this in a thread from January of this year: (bolding mine)

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89809-what-is-americas-biggest-problem/page-17#entry899821

 

 

My point is, that Obama started with a house and senate that was of his party and could do just about wghatever they wanted to do. It is however important to recognize threats to the American way of life. And it is required to stand against presidential overreach and anarchists, at the same time.

 

I'm certain most would agree, lawlessness (anarchy) during protests is repudiated at the highest degree by either political stripe. However as to overreach, not only have you upheld those rights, you've insisted it's a patriotic duty.

 

Then in this thread you've derided those who do the same under a different administration, as un-American.

 

It is not reading a note that is rude, it is lecturing the president on what a president of good character would do

 

 

 

The note implored the VP elect, by civilly outlining perceived threats which came verbatim from the words of president elect himself, on countless occasions.

 

Please explain how this can be anything less than a double standard?

[tar]

rangerx,

 

The play already expressed the lecture's message. Pence already saw the play. The lecture was political, and assumed the president was not going to protect all the population unless he was thusly lectured and shamed into behaving correctly. Rude and misplaced. I am not saying anything about the message of the play being inappropriate, I am saying the lecture was. It assumes that Trump is a KKK sympathizer and a gay basher, and a misogynist and these are the fears that the lecture was addressing. And the implication was that Trump would not protect blacks and Muslims, gays and women, and Mexicans.

 

regards, TAR

Edited November 21, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

There are a lot of people that think Hilary, and Bill, over the last 30 years have manipulated people, and peddled power, and slipped out of situations where a person without political power would pay a price. I personally, for instance, still don't know why Russia owns a quarter of our uranium. I would think the interests of the U.S. and our security and our ability to reduce nuclear proliferation would be compromised if a traditional enemy in the arms race that defined the early 60s was in control of some of our uranium resources. And I would think this should be a concern of yours, as well, when we talk about double standards, and turning a blind eye, and excusing behavior that has bad optics, because we believe the person did not have the intent that the charges against them imply.

All of which is immaterial to the current discussion, unless we're recreating the "without cause" part of Animal Farm

 

 

I protect Trump, because he is our president. I protected Obama in the same manner.

When he was booed you posted in protest on these forums? Link, please.

 

I was in the Military and the commander in chief was my boss. I did his bidding. What I thought about his decisions did not matter. I followed the orders of my superiors.

As did I. Which is why disrespect (not opposition, though) from members of the government is not acceptable. But a private citizen has rights which do not exist with members of the military, or with federal employees while on the job.

 

Some years ago, a colleague of mine saw fit to flip two birds at the VP while he was getting on or off his chopper. That didn't sit well with the chain of command. They found they couldn't fire him for it (not easily, at least) but he accepted a transfer elsewhere other than face the local atmosphere. And he was wrong to do that — you don't get to "voice" such an opinion while you're on the job at a federal institution. But after work it's a different ballgame.

 

So this is just a smokescreen to the issue of private citizens voicing one of the mildest forms of protest there is.

 

civilians do not have to follow orders blindly, I get that, but what I don't get is railing against people in your own country that are good people that make the country work, on the basis of some perceived character flaw

One argument is that these are not "good people", and that past behavior might just be a predictor of future performance. Also the campaign promises.

 

Misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia and wealth are not criminal offenses. I have a little of each in me. I don't throw me out as evil because there are a few places where I can improve by interaction with other human beings. And I retain the right, to support those I see as on my team and admonish those who seem to be doing it wrong. Regardless of their sex, race, nationality, sexual orientation or bank account.

 

or political party

 

most of my close friends and family are dems

You weren't being booed. You aren't making policy and passing laws that hurt people. But if you voted for them you bear some responsibility for that, since their positions were not secret.

 

It's possible to hold some unpopular, possibly hurtful opinion and not let that color the governing you do. I'm sure there are people that find abortion to be repugnant but recognize that it's not their position to restrict someone else's right to choice in the matter. But that's not the issue here: it's someone who believes in and campaigned on some rather odious restrictions on others' rights. And they are in the public eye, and being the target of opposition and protest is part of the job.

[DrP]

QUOTE: "....don't know why Russia owns a quarter of our Uranium.."

 

I don't know why the UK doesn't own all of the oil we produce... How much is owed by the US? I remember our teachers complaining about it in the 70's as to why the USA were involved in setting up our oil rigs and getting a share of the profits. I think China have shares now too, they cover set up costs for a kick back of the profits. I think it is just the way business works. Also, I am not too worried about the USA and Russia cozying up on things like that - the more you get into bed with each other the less likely you are to blow the rest of the planet up fighting each other.

 

re this Pence bloke - has he retracted his moronic statement about smoking not being a cause of cancer yet? Do you think he said this because he owns stock in tobacco or because he is as ignorant as a farmyard cow? Maybe he has some other excuse.

[Delta1212]

rangerx,

 

The play already expressed the lecture's message. Pence already saw the play. The lecture was political, and assumed the president was not going to protect all the population unless he was thusly lectured and shamed into behaving correctly. Rude and misplaced. I am not saying anything about the message of the play being inappropriate, I am saying the lecture was. It assumes that Trump is a KKK sympathizer and a gay basher, and a misogynist and these are the fears that the lecture was addressing. And the implication was that Trump would not protect blacks and Muslims, gays and women, and Mexicans.

 

regards, TAR

Serious question: What do you think of Donald Trump's response to the statement?

[Acme]

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. ~ Frederick Douglass

[rangerx]

 

It assumes that Trump is a KKK sympathizer and a gay basher, and a misogynist and these are the fears that the lecture was addressing. And the implication was that Trump would not protect blacks and Muslims, gays and women, and Mexicans.

 

regards, TAR

 

Pence is a dyed in the wool gay basher. He openly stated “societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family.” Pence also called being gay a choice and said keeping gays from marrying was not discrimination, but an enforcement of “God’s idea.” Thus Pence has no respect for the rule of law, instead advocates governing by the connection of church and state. Then opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would have banned discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. He opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Worst of all, Pence advocated sending gays to "conversion therapy" gulags.

 

Those are Mike Pence's words and actions.

 

Trump wants to torture, register and monitor Muslims. Isn't government interference into the personal lives of it's citizens something conservatives stand against? Does freedom of religious expression mean nothing?

 

Trump wants to bring back "stop and frisk", even though it was struck down as unconstitutional. Isn't upholding the constitution something conservatives stand for? Does racial profiling build bridges to communities?

 

Trump insisted it's okay to harass women in the workplace, especially while having celebrity status. Isn't sexual assault illegal? Isn't elitism something conservatives deride?

 

Trump claimed Mexicans are rapists (though I'm sure he thinks some are good people). He thinks a sitting American born US District Court judge is not capable of doing his job effectively, because he's of Mexican descent?

 

Trump and Pence made their beds, now they must sleep in them.

 

Those issues are not going away, unless they're proven otherwise.

 

Until then, Americans have every right to openly protest those policies and to admonish their president and VP elects for suggesting them. I would never claim you cannot object to anything said, lest one's patriotism be diminished. If I were American, that would be un-American. Conversely, you have no right to suggest that of any of your countrymen, either. It's little more than a childish, last ditch retort to a lost argument, IMHO.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

I have had a problem on this board, arguing the position that people less capable than you have equal say, as Americans, as to how they want to see things go. In the context of Religion, it is argued that just because the majority of the planet is religious, does not mean they are right. Why then not also consider that the majority of the country might feel differently about things, than someone with critical thinking skills and high intelligence? My 90 10 rule, is undeniable in its logic. 90 percent of the population is not in the top 10 percent of the population, when you look at any characteristic measured on a scale from below average to average to above average. Intelligence, wealth, charisma, trustworthiness, strength, size, speed, or whatever measure you are looking at.

Hilary's central theme was we are stronger together, meaning that multiculturalism was superior to xenophobia. This is reasonable in many ways, but does not even consider that each race, creed, religion, is composed of its top 10 and its bottom 90 percent in whatever measure you wish to apply. And that if we are stronger together, that includes old white guys, that may be a little racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, selfish, and these people, like me are not enemies of the state, and in most cases are the backbone of society. Whether I am seen as one of the 90 percent, or one of the 10 percent, in some or another measure.

 

What I mean by that, is that just because you voted democrat, does not make you right, or put you in the top 10 percent of every measure of great human being. You can not mathematically have, in your camp, only 10 percenters, AND constitute the majority of the population...well you can in the sense that if you take 60 percent of the population there is a good chance that just about everybody ranks in the top 10 percent of one characteristic or another, but the chances of all in your camp being good and all in the other camp being bad are not high, because goodness and evilness are not even being measured. Evilness is being erroneously charged by the other team.

 

When the cast reads a lecture, or has a conversation, expressing their fears that the new administration will not protect the planet or minorities it is a political statement, that carries on the vitriol of the election and casts Trump voters as defective, and is therefore misplaced as an addendum to a show, that already had a useful, binding together, American message. Like republicans are against American values, and democrats are for American values. Can't it just be assumed that we are on the same team, and have different ways of going about making the country great.

 

Delt1212,

 

I think Trump's original deleted message about the show being overrated was stupid. It is one of the biggest draws in NYC and has had great reviews by everybody, including his VP.

As to the comment about the lecture being rude, I fully agree with him, for the reasons I have tried to express.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 21, 2016 by tar

[Delta1212]

Regardless of whether you agree with the sentiment, is this an appropriate response from a President?

 

Over the weekend, he complained about the play in multiple tweets over a span of more than a day, and also complained that SNL was unfunny and biased against him.

 

Part and parcel of the Presidency is accepting the fact that you are going to be criticized, challenged and made fun of publically. Pence himself said that he was not offended by what happened at the play, and said that he would leave it up to others to decide whether that was the appropriate venue to deliver the message. He told his children that the boos in the theater are "what freedom sounds like."

 

I do not particularly like Mike Pence. I disagree with him on quite a lot. His response is, however, about how an official elected to one of the highest offices in the country should react to that situation.

 

It concerns me that Trump feels the need to go into very public attack mode anytime there is public criticism of him, and that he thinks it is appropriate to tweet about how his critics are "unfunny" or "highly overrated."

 

Not only do I think that the lack of decorum demonstrates an equal lack of respect for the responsibility of the office of president, but I think the fact that we have a leader who is sent into a tizzy on social media by fairly politely worded criticism directed publically at his Vice President from the cast of a musical doesn't do us any favors in projecting strength to the rest of the world, which is one of the things Trump supposedly ran on being able to do.

 

If he doesn't cut it out, we're going to be a global punchline.

[tar]

rangerx,

 

Except the argument was had, very publically and all those issues brought up, and state after state voted Trump. Last ditch effort in a lost argument does not apply. I agree with some of the positions of Trump and Pence. I think that Islam is half religious and half political and I disagree with their politics and think Sharia law is NOT compatible with our constitution and separation of church and state. I think it is more important to regenerate our coal and steel industries then to sacrifice our industrial strength for the sake of future generations. That is, if it would be beneficial for us all to walk and ride bikes, for people that will live on the planet in 100 years, would you give up your car, and your bus and your plane and your train and your truck and your ship? Would you give up being able to get materials and products from all over the world, sitting in your warehouse or on your store's shelf? Is it not the job of Syrians to make Syria livable and decide what that means?

 

Trump said ugly things indeed in the Access Hollywood tape, but he was bragging, using locker room talk, in the vein of the Mel Brook's "its good to be the king" skits. Words not actions. And women have not yet removed themselves from objectification in this society. Pretend they want removal, but still wear short shirts and plunge necklines, and attend beauty pageants and such. My highly liberated Aunt would find fault with Trump running a beauty pageant in the first place, not saying he was rude by calling a fattened winner, fat.

 

If American values are on trial, or if American values are being upheld or defended, it is important to take them one by one, and see what you are talking about.

 

I am with Pence on the family breakdown thing. The fall of the Roman empire, for instance was coincident with an increase in homosexuality among the roman senate, and it was a derogatory power thing, where the senator got sexual pleasure and dominance over a plaything.

 

And I agree that in some cases homosexuality is a choice. And it is more beneficial, in general for a man and a woman to start a family and have kids, in order to maintain the herd. Not that it is not possible for a homosexual couple to raise a family, just that that is not the normal way it is done.

 

And I told you already, that I sit in airports and rate women passing by from 1 to 10. I don't consider that a disqualifying factor. And my point is, those arguments have not been won by you.

 

You have come to a conclusion, but obviously you have fellow citizens that have not come to the same conclusions. These fellow citizens are just as important to please and agree with as a Syrian rebel.

 

Regards, TAR

Delta1212,

 

But those are reasons to vote against him, not reasons to protest.

 

How do we become less of a global punchline? Back the guy up.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 21, 2016 by tar

[Delta1212]

Backing up stupidity makes you look more stupid, not less.

[tar]

And Trump told his children every time on the way out the door, NO drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes. What is wrong with that message? I could argue either way, I experimented with drugs when I was young and know people that smoke weed, I drank through college and the army, I smoked since I was 13 up until a few years ago. My personal opinion is that it is better to get your dopamine from doing it right, from winning, from causing the people around you to win, from creating beautiful things for people to enjoy, then from those dependency ways of getting it. I do not for these and other reasons consider Trump morally defective, as I do not consider myself morally defective for holding some of the same views as Trump and Pence.

 

But most important to the thread, protests against fellow citizens is fine if it is a fringe group you wish to keep from hurting your values or your way of life. It is though, somewhat goofy to protest against the mainstream.

 

Regards, TAR

Only to smart people. To other stupid people you look just fine.

delta1212,

 

I am trying to point out, that Trump did not campaign toward the elite, he campaigned toward the average guy. In intelligence, in capability, and the world consists of average guys and girls, and he is​​ tuned in to their desires. He will not make us a laughing stock to the world, because the world consists of the average guys and gals he understands. He is not interested in focus groups and data as much as reading the field and throwing to the open man and winning. People understand capability and strength and victory.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

You think his Twitter rant about Hamilton and SNL makes him look capable and strong? How is that leading us to victory?

 

The average joe on the street might respect him, but the Russian and Chinese leadership are going to run rings around him.

[rangerx]

Trump said ugly things indeed in the Access Hollywood tape, but he was bragging, using locker room talk

 

Wrong. He was in the workplace. He was miked up and in the presence of other staff (producer, makeup, driver) while being transported from one studio to another in an ABC owned/leased vehicle.

 

I've been in the media business and if anyone with a hot mike advocated sexual assault, no less excusing it because of their celebrity status would be fired on the spot.

 

There's nothing "locker room" about it. Period.

 

There is a bright side though. Republicans can NEVER use "high moral character" as their standard bearer for POTUS again.

 

Admitting to be being a racist, sexist, homo/xenophopbe doesn't make it right, simply because Trump won an election. It's emboldened reprehensible behavior.

 

It's divisive and hypocritical (if not outright offensive), especially in light of finger wagging everyone else to get on board with unconditional support of the president elect.

[tar]

rangerx,

 

Ok, he is not your president.

 

Who is?

 

Regards, TAR

[John Cuthber]

 

A threat to what?

 

I don't concur with your assessment. And what will it take for you to be right, for you to be happy? A race war? That Trump is a Russian spy? A depression? A world war?

 

You tell me what the treat is.

You are the one who said " 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. "

 

It's not my assessment, it's yours.

You are the one who said you feel under attack.

 

What it will take for me to be happy is for you to actually answer the question.

 

[rangerx]

rangerx,

 

Ok, he is not your president.

 

Who is?

 

Regards, TAR

 

I don't have a president. I never had a president, ever.

 

Is reading comprehension an issue for you too?

 

 

If I were American, that would be un-American.

[tar]

John,

 

Primarily my fear is that my way of life will be taken away by Islam fulfilling Mohammed's command, 'til all the world is for Allah'.

Secondarily my fear is that I will be put in jail for killing a rabid squirrel, or for burying some oil after an oil change 20 years ago.

Third I am afraid of losing some social security money, because I earn some money while retired.

Fourth, or maybe first, I am afraid that gangs and drugs will follow me out of the city, to the countryside.

Fifth, I am afraid that people will not respect my opinion, or look to me for guidance and wisdom and protection, because I am an old white man, that still remembers there was a time when the man was expected to be the breadwinner and the head of household and the protector from outside dangers, and now the government is taking over those roles and responsibilities.

 

Regards, TAR

rangerx,

 

why is anything about the American political system then important to you, one way or the other

 

yes I forgot you don't have a president, but we are talking about the protestors, and you are arguing as if you are a protestor

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

why is anything about the American political system then important to you, one way or the other

Are you aware that the US does not exist in a vacuum and that decisions made by US leadership have major ramifications for other countries and inhabitants across the rest of the planet?

[tar]

rangerx,

 

for understanding from whence you come, who is your leader?

of course I am iNow

 

One of my major reasons for disliking Hilary as a choice is Syria.

The president of the U.S. is the leader of the free world. Therefore if you are a citizen of a country considered to be part of the free world, then Trump is your leader, or will be if things proceed as outlined in our election laws.

Edited November 21, 2016 by tar