Thousands join anti-Trump protests around country

[lannarebirth]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

There are lots of ideas being knocked around now. 

A significant portion of the population realizes that there MUST be a non-traditional and persistent opposition to trump well beyond normal political channels, given he controls the entire federal government and the vast majority of state governments as well.

Learning from history?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/to-resist-a-trump-presidency-ask-what-would-the-abolitionists-do/2016/11/18/2615a136-a767-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html?utm_term=.531b66cd8f5b

 

I think Trump will likely hoist himself with his own petard. Either through the Tweeting or the really flimsy wall that may or may not exist between his transition/presidency and his business interests. Those are the soft spots.

[Silurian]

Is four years of Trump not enough for you? Donate now to the Trump 2020 campaign and get this amazing T-shirt!!

 

Donald Trump Campaign Offers T-Shirts for Donations of $45 - $2,700

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-campaign-offers-t-shirts-donations-45-2-700-n683951

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

If that translates to a general opposition to government overreach that is applied to all future governments, then it could hardly be a bad thing. If it's just because "my" candidate didn't win then it's just politics as usual.

Except its not "politics as normal".

 

Election results are usually argued about in the media.  But now we have anti protesters around the country sometimes chasing and attacking those who voted for the other candidate.

 

I've little doubt that Trump is only interested in himself - but the demonstrations against Trump are very unusual.

[dick dasterdly]

43 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I think Trump will likely hoist himself with his own petard. Either through the Tweeting or the really flimsy wall that may or may not exist between his transition/presidency and his business interests. Those are the soft spots.

Not the tweeting, but likely it will become obvious that his business interests equate with his policies...

 

But we don't know, and have to hope for the best.

Edited November 20, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[Jingthing]

This election was about what kind of country we are. Basically love and intelligence vs. hate and fake facts, anti-science. Hate trumped.

Much of the losing side still feels the passion to fight trumpism for a more civilized version of America. We also feel trump has strong authoritarian tendencies. Gotta fight that.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Jingthing said:

This election was about what kind of country we are. Basically love and intelligence vs. hate and fake facts, anti-science. Hate trumped.

I disagree and think it was about those without a voice finally having an anti-establishment candidate (in rhetoric anyway).

[ClutchClark]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

This election was about what kind of country we are. Basically love and intelligence vs. hate and fake facts, anti-science. Hate trumped.

 

Much of the losing side still feels the passion to fight trumpism for a more civilized version of America. We also feel trump has strong authoritarian tendencies. Gotta fight that.

 

 

Just be careful JT because that passion is looking an awful lot like hate.

[lannarebirth]

10 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Except its not "politics as normal".

 

Election results are usually argued about in the media.  But now we have anti protesters around the country sometimes chasing and attacking those who voted for the other candidate.

 

I've little doubt that Trump is only interested in himself - but the demonstrations against Trump are very unusual.

 

As I mentioned in a prior post it happened to my wife and me. A protester from a Planned Parenthood group rushed our car, slapped the hood and shouted at my wife. She had no idea what was going on and it scared her. It pissed me off. That's not how decent people would attempt to persuade others to align with their views.

Edited November 20, 2016 by lannarebirth

[lannarebirth]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

This election was about what kind of country we are. Basically love and intelligence vs. hate and fake facts, anti-science. Hate trumped.

 

Much of the losing side still feels the passion to fight trumpism for a more civilized version of America. We also feel trump has strong authoritarian tendencies. Gotta fight that.

 

 

Civilized, huh? I only know two people who voted for Trump. One is a tenant in a building I own where he operates a pre-school and daycare center. Twenty percent of the 65 kids he looks after, their family pays no fees. He says, "they've got tough home lives and its not the kids fault, so we accommodate them. It's the Christian thing to do".  Another guy, he runs a local business and is an elder in his church, some Baptist like evangelical denomination I think. Anyway, behind the church are these huge warehouses. I asked him one day what's with all the warehouses and the trucks coming and going? He says he coordinates donations and distributes food to 74 food banks covering half of our state. 74 ! He accepts no government assistance and does not discriminate as to who receives food at the food banks he supplies.

 

They know I'm not religious but we get along fine. If you folks can come up with something more civilized than these two, sign me up.

[dick dasterdly]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Civilized, huh? I only know two people who voted for Trump. One is a tenant in a building I own where he operates a pre-school and daycare center. Twenty percent of the 65 kids he looks after, their family pays no fees. He says, "they've got tough home lives and its not the kids fault, so we accommodate them. It's the Christian thing to do".  Another guy, he runs a local business and is an elder in his church, some Baptist like evangelical denomination I think. Anyway, behind the church are these huge warehouses. I asked him one day what's with all the warehouses and the trucks coming and going? He says he coordinates donations and distributes food to 74 food banks covering half of our state. 74 ! He accepts no government assistance and does not discriminate as to who receives food at the food banks he supplies.

 

They know I'm not religious but we get along fine. If you folks can come up with something more civilized than these two, sign me up.

I think civilised (or more accurately empathetic) people can understand what has happened.

 

Some are unable to think outside their own 'box' and are consequently unable to understand - and so prefer to blame it on racism etc.

[Morch]

16 hours ago, tropo said:

Far from calling an end to the protests, Obama has endorsed it:

 

Obama: 

 

“And I suspect that there’s not a president in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests. So, I would not advise people who feel strongly or who are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised during the course of the campaign, I wouldn’t advise them to be silent.”

 

When has another president-elect been subject to such protests as we've seen over the past 10 days?

 

Trump:

 

Quote

Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/797034721075228672?lang=en

 

Seems there's a rare consensus.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Morch

[Jingthing]

Guess you missed this tweet, then?

 

Quote

 

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump  Nov 10

Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!

 

 

[Morch]

15 hours ago, Opl said:

 

Timothy Snyder : What we do now  - How to preserve the ideals of liberal democracy in the face of a Trump presidency.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/how_to_preserve_the_ideals_of_liberal_democracy_in_the_face_of_a_trump_presidency.html

 

Starts with the cautious possibility of Trump not actually becoming Emperor Palpatine, but quickly falls back on "would-be dictator". Goes on about creating wider networks and accepting different views within, morphs into preaching a purist for us or against us stand. Overall, this reads like how a fine guide on how to stay in our comfort zone and alienate sympathizers. Very nice if one haven't grown up star wars.

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Guess you missed this tweet, then?

 

 

 

No, I did not. That was his first response, later changed to the one I posted.

The point of my post was to highlight the gap between Trump's statements and those of his supporters (as in the post I was replying to).

[Jingthing]

Both tweets stand. I know you're a very smart man. Smarter than me and smarter than most everyone that posts here. I'm sure you know that his FIRST post was the "real" Donald trump. The second one was clean up because some handler told him he's president elect now and needs to cool it down. 

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, tropo said:

Far from calling an end to the protests, Obama has endorsed it:

 

Obama: 

 

“And I suspect that there’s not a president in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests. So, I would not advise people who feel strongly or who are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised during the course of the campaign, I wouldn’t advise them to be silent.”

 

When has another president-elect been subject to such protests as we've seen over the past 10 days?

Reminds me of when Mao sent the Red Guards out to cause mayhem in the country. He thought he could control them, but he couldn't. Same with Obama. These thugs and hooligans are Obama's equivalent of the Red Guards.

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Starts with the cautious possibility of Trump not actually becoming Emperor Palpatine, but quickly falls back on "would-be dictator". Goes on about creating wider networks and accepting different views within, morphs into preaching a purist for us or against us stand. Overall, this reads like how a fine guide on how to stay in our comfort zone and alienate sympathizers. Very nice if one haven't grown up star wars.

 

Good stuff, but you don't know the way that will work either. I get your POV already. That the only way out of this is intelligent and reasoned engagement with trumpists. I'm extremely skeptical that would work. We're in a post facts era. trump ran the most outrageous campaign in American history and won. You're talking about fighting back with something conventional. The truth is we're in totally new situation in the USA with trump as president. Your suggestion may well be ethically the best way to oppose, but that's not the same thing as succeeding in it. 

 

No, I don't have the definite answer either. But you act like you do and I find that totally ridiculous. 

Edited November 20, 2016 by Jingthing

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

There are lots of ideas being knocked around now. 

A significant portion of the population realizes that there MUST be a non-traditional and persistent opposition to trump well beyond normal political channels, given he controls the entire federal government and the vast majority of state governments as well.

Learning from history?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/to-resist-a-trump-presidency-ask-what-would-the-abolitionists-do/2016/11/18/2615a136-a767-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html?utm_term=.531b66cd8f5b

 

Doubt the attempted parallels drawn  between protesting against slavery (or the Fugitive Slave Act) and opposing the deportation of illegal immigrants. There are obviously cases and situations which ought to be exempt, and cases in which it would be beneficial for the country to offer exemption. But getting illegally into a country and staying there is not exactly the inalienable right of every illegal immigrant.

[Jingthing]

Ripping families apart and deporting young adults that have never known anything but living in the USA to a foreign country against their will is not something to be done lightly.  There will be pushback and there should be pushback. trump is asking for violence by rejecting the idea of civilized immigration reform for undocumented people already in the U.S.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Just be careful JT because that passion is looking an awful lot like hate.

Will someone please tell the willfully blind that the thugs and hooligans that are attacking innocent people and breaking things are not 'lovers", but "haters".

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Doubt the attempted parallels drawn  between protesting against slavery (or the Fugitive Slave Act) and opposing the deportation of illegal immigrants. There are obviously cases and situations which ought to be exempt, and cases in which it would be beneficial for the country to offer exemption. But getting illegally into a country and staying there is not exactly the inalienable right of every illegal immigrant.

I am somewhat stunned that a certain poster thinks it's OK to be illegally in the US when he lives in Thailand that has no problem deporting illegals whatsoever.

Try overstaying in LOS and see what happens. Why should the US be any different?

[ClutchClark]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Ripping families apart and deporting young adults that have never known anything but living in the USA to a foreign country against their will is not something to be done lightly.  There will be pushback and there should be pushback. trump is asking for violence by rejecting the idea of civilized immigration reform for undocumented people already in the U.S.

 

Why can't family units travel together?  

 

Undocumented workers made personal choices and gambled that breaking known laws would work out.

 

Sometimes when you gamble you lose.

 

The only person at fault is the person who took the risk and exposed his/her/X family to suffer the consequence.

 

If I moved to Canada illegally (circumventing their customs & Immigration laws) and started a family and the authorities caught up with me. Who is responsible? Its pretty obviously me.

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Both tweets stand. I know you're a very smart man. Smarter than me and smarter than most everyone that posts here. I'm sure you know that his FIRST post was the "real" Donald trump. The second one was clean up because some handler told him he's president elect now and needs to cool it down. 

 

Which was my point, thanks. The gap between how Trump supporters see Trump, and reality. They often get excited when he shoots his mouth off, then get confused trying to explain away his backpedaling. Not that I buy into the handler's tweet, of course it's a rough shot at damage control. Was just too tempting not to couple it with Obama's statement.

 

By the way, doesn't the responsibility for maintaining law & order rest with local police departments, and if the situation merits, governors? POTUS stepping in could be a seen as a political over-reaction, not sure about legal aspects. But that said, a more decisive statement with regard to violence (and specifically, political violence) wouldn't not go amiss, IMO.

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Which was my point, thanks. The gap between how Trump supporters see Trump, and reality. They often get excited when he shoots his mouth off, then get confused trying to explain away his backpedaling. Not that I buy into the handler's tweet, of course it's a rough shot at damage control. Was just too tempting not to couple it with Obama's statement.

 

By the way, doesn't the responsibility for maintaining law & order rest with local police departments, and if the situation merits, governors? POTUS stepping in could be a seen as a political over-reaction, not sure about legal aspects. But that said, a more decisive statement with regard to violence (and specifically, political violence) wouldn't not go amiss, IMO.

 

Rather than trying to guess the thought process of a Trump supporter, why don't you just ask one of us?

 

So Trump made a comment and then edited it? Guess what--we agreed with his first tweet and fully understood why he modified it--to try to appease the mass of people throwing temper tantrums in the street. We would prefer they show some dignity in losing and we are glad Trump made a statement of peace and reconciliation. 

 

The two tweets are in no way mutually exclusive.

 

You are making much ado about nothing.

 

Sorry.

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Good stuff, but you don't know the way that will work either. I get your POV already. That the only way out of this is intelligent and reasoned engagement with trumpists. I'm extremely skeptical that would work. We're in a post facts era. trump ran the most outrageous campaign in American history and won. You're talking about fighting back with something conventional. The truth is we're in totally new situation in the USA with trump as president. Your suggestion may well be ethically the best way to oppose, but that's not the same thing as succeeding in it. 

 

No, I don't have the definite answer either. But you act like you do and I find that totally ridiculous. 

 

Not exactly what I'm on, actually.

 

There's usually very little ground to be gained when discussing things with ardent, hard core supporters. Efforts ought to be centered on two things - consolidating the side you're on and winning the undecided and those not politically involved. If one is optimistic, consider making some headway with moderate supporters of the other side. That's about it.

 

Asserting all those who voted for a side as damaged goods is will do not good, and is in fact counter productive. Lumping them all in is not a must, but a choice - and a bad one, the way I see it. If it's about preaching for the converted, by all means - just keep expectations for a better outcome at a realistic level.

 

Opposing what is abhorred by subscribing to the same tactics employed is not just morally problematic, but also carries the danger of integrating them into the norm. Hanging on to reason is, IMO, all the more important in post-truth America. As for remaining civil, that's another choice. More personal, I guess. Think (or perhaps, hope) that it plays for some of the "undecided" electorate.

 

I don't have any definitive answers, those are my long standing views. The "definite answers" were detailed in the link provided - I'm the one doubting them.

 

[amykat]

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I am somewhat stunned that a certain poster thinks it's OK to be illegally in the US when he lives in Thailand that has no problem deporting illegals whatsoever.

Try overstaying in LOS and see what happens. Why should the US be any different?

 

Oh, Thaibeachlovers, I keep trying to work on you about this.  There are fallacies here, which are errors in your reasoning and undermines the logical validity of the argument you are attempting.

 

But whatever ...

 

 

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I am somewhat stunned that a certain poster thinks it's OK to be illegally in the US when he lives in Thailand that has no problem deporting illegals whatsoever.

Try overstaying in LOS and see what happens. Why should the US be any different?

 

Westerns living in Thailand aren't the issue. If you'd like to try drawing parallels, a better example would be Thailand handling of foreign workers from neighboring countries. The push to provide them with registration and legal status was not a bad thing.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Morch

[ClutchClark]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Not exactly what I'm on, actually.

 

There's usually very little ground to be gained when discussing things with ardent, hard core supporters. Efforts ought to be centered on two things - consolidating the side you're on and winning the undecided and those not politically involved. If one is optimistic, consider making some headway with moderate supporters of the other side. That's about it.

 

Asserting all those who voted for a side as damaged goods is will do not good, and is in fact counter productive. Lumping them all in is not a must, but a choice - and a bad one, the way I see it. If it's about preaching for the converted, by all means - just keep expectations for a better outcome at a realistic level.

 

Opposing what is abhorred by subscribing to the same tactics employed is not just morally problematic, but also carries the danger of integrating them into the norm. Hanging on to reason is, IMO, all the more important in post-truth America. As for remaining civil, that's another choice. More personal, I guess. Think (or perhaps, hope) that it plays for some of the "undecided" electorate.

 

I don't have any definitive answers, those are my long standing views. The "definite answers" were detailed in the link provided - I'm the one doubting them.

 

 

If you want to appeal to Republicans then behave like a Republican--be respectful.

 

Works for me.

 

 

[Jingthing]

As far as what is "normal" now ... trump's way is "normal" now. Anyone that thinks American politics is EVER going to be the way it was before trump is very naive. Consider the younger Americans IMPRINTED now with the recent campaign. Depending on their age, that's a campaign for them.

 Any major change from that in future political campaigns is going to seem "abnormal" to them.

 

This reminds me of a story of an artist friend of mine.

Her art career was finding momentum and then 911 happened.

She kept doing the exact same style of art work as before.

She was universally told by galleries that her work had no relevance anymore post 911 and that she needed to change it radically or forget about any hope of success.

She didn't and/or she didn't really want to.

Or something more complicated ... it just wasn't in her to react to the new social and political reality, she didn't really FEEL it like most of the nation did, so any reaction to please the market wouldn't have been authentic.

Her previously promising career fizzled away.

 

I suspect there is a lesson to be learned from that story now that we're entering the trump era. For those that can't / won't board the trump train (which to so many of us reminds of us autocratic regimes in history) their choice is either to retreat or oppose. 

 

I seriously doubt the old ways of opposition will succeed any more. 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2016 by Jingthing

[ClutchClark]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Westerns living in Thailand aren't the issue. If you'd like to try drawing parallels, a better example would be Thailand handling of foreign workers from neighboring countries. The push to provide them with registration and legal status was not a bad thing.

 

Actually its all part of the same issue.

 

Westerners in Thailand who follow the rules are welcome. Westerners who overstay are penalized. 

 

Right now Thailand needs labor so manage the foreign workforce and make them accountable. They are not being offered Thai citizenship but only the security they won't be sent home for working outside the law. When they are no longer needed they can be sent home. If they get drunk, start fights, steal, then they can be more easily found and identified and sent home.

 

Perfectly reasonable.

 

Why do Liberals not call this "hate"? Why is it only hate if America does it? Is it white guilt? Is it reverse prejudice? Is it simply that they have been manipulated to identify with a certain ideology?