[Maru]

Well that didn't take long.



Anti-Donald Trump protests break out in New York and Chicago after US election results
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...6-live-reactio

Edit: Just to want to let people know, because this is very significant... these protests were organized (at the start anyway) by Socialist Advantage/Socialist Alternative.... I was so tired last night and my laptop was dying anyway so I didn't to look that up. They had mentioned it on the news. Some had big big flags said that Socialist Alternative and people holding them up on top of trucks and buses.... so maybe premeditated/preorganized.

Socialist Advantage Groups: What to Know about the Anti-Trump Protests and Rallies
https://www.earnthenecklace.com/soci...s-and-rallies/

Donald Trump became the newly-elected 45th president of the United States, after a surprising upset victory over Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton. After Clinton’s emotional concession speech yesterday morning (November 9), in which she simply described her devastating loss as “painful,” thousands of angry social advantage groups and protesters have taken to the streets to voice their frustration, over being saddled with what they call a “racist, sexist, and xenophobic president.” Many people are looking for how they can watch live streams of the anti-Trump protests, socialist advantage groups, and socialist alternative rallies and demonstrations.

Protests Flare Against Donald Trump’s Election
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0d9ce6fc09d18

Socialist Alternative, NYC, the group that organized the anti-Trump march, heaped criticism on the Democratic Party.

Their Twitter feed:

SocialistAlternative (@SocialistAlt)
https://twitter.com/SocialistAlt

[Maru]

Apparently they're upset too that the Democrats failed them and gave them Hillary Clinton as their nominee.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Maru

Apparently they're upset too that the Democrats failed them and gave them Hillary Clinton as their nominee.

Yes FECKING CLINTONS,

Hate them.

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by Maru

Apparently they're upset too that the Democrats failed them and gave them Hillary Clinton as their nominee.

I would be too.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Maru

Apparently they're upset too that the Democrats failed them and gave them Hillary Clinton as their nominee.

If they are to be believed Maru, and this isn't just 'Sour Grapes' - one might ask why they did not take to the streets in earnest protest about Clinton being their nominee, during all these many, many months BEFORE she lost to Trump.

I have the feeling that old Hilary was good enough for them while it seemed that she was a WINNER, and it is the DEFEAT which these precious little undemocratic dahlings cannot stomach.

[Ammi]

...no Arista, bang on wrong...Trump was the 'protest vote' and a protest that had the majority so it's bang on wrong to think these protests shouldn't happen when protest has been such the thing.../I mean the irony...this as with Brexit was always going to be such a vote either way that people had no 'middle ground' thoughts, it was more either all for or all against so inevitably going to create unrest and that would have been either way with the result...had it been Hilary who had won and people were protesting against corruption in the White House with her reign..?..you can bet your bunker baby that you wouldn't be saying bang on right...


...it's so much that we're being told that things like Brexit (for Some) and Trump's vote (for some) are partly because of people feeling unable to voice/feeling restricted in their voice with the old PCs...that's being factored in a bit...so then it's thought wrong to have a voice in protest, that voice is being told to hush up because it's pointless...?...so the democratic right is now trying to quash the democratic right because it wasn't happy enough for them and didn't get there victory pancake breakfast and say hoooorahhh... dancing in the streets would have been fine and dandy maybe but protesting is a no....


...(so long as it's peaceful and doesn't lead to rioting/violence etc..)...then let them have their voice, let them have their protest because it's only fair and right as Trump has had his protest voice in these results../let it all be fair and let people speak if they feel the need to because if it's feeling that people can't speak, have felt unable to that have been part of results for these things..?../then it's bang on wrong to say they shouldn't happen....


...we shouldn't expect to have results and acknowledgements for the protest vote and not expect possible protests against...large amounts of people need their voices heard, whether it be deemed pointless or not when it's so often been said that, that's been partly a problem in the first place, the feeling of having no voice...

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...no Arista, bang on wrong...Trump was the 'protest vote' and a protest that had the majority so it's bang on wrong to think these protests shouldn't happen when protest has been such the thing.../I mean the irony...this as with Brexit was always going to be such a vote either way that people had no 'middle ground' thoughts, it was more either all for or all against so inevitably going to create unrest and that would have been either way with the result...had it been Hilary who had won and people were protesting against corruption in the White House with her reign..?..you can bet your bunker baby that you wouldn't be saying bang on right...


...it's so much that we're being told that things like Brexit (for Some) and Trump's vote (for some) are partly because of people feeling unable to voice/feeling restricted in their voice with the old PCs...that's being factored in a bit...so then it's thought wrong to have a voice in protest, that voice is being told to hush up because it's pointless...?...so the democratic right is now trying to quash the democratic right because it wasn't happy enough for them and didn't get there victory pancake breakfast and say hoooorahhh... dancing in the streets would have been fine and dandy maybe but protesting is a no....


...(so long as it's peaceful and doesn't lead to rioting/violence etc..)...then let them have their voice, let them have their protest because it's only fair and right as Trump has had his protest voice in these results../let it all be fair and let people speak if they feel the need to because if it's feeling that people can't speak, have felt unable to that have been part of results for these things..?../then it's bang on wrong to say they shouldn't happen....


...we shouldn't expect to have results and acknowledgements for the protest vote and not expect possible protests against...large amounts of people need their voices heard, whether it be deemed pointless or not when it's so often been said that, that's been partly a problem in the first place, the feeling of having no voice...

In any Democracy Ammi, surely ALL people have a 'Voice' through the Ballot Box?

I'm sorry, but to me, this is no different to the thousands of idiots who run riot through our town centres every so often disrupting other citizens lives and creating unnecessary work for the police and civic authorities, and all because their football team has lost.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

In any Democracy Ammi, surely ALL people have a 'Voice' through the Ballot Box?

I'm sorry, but to me, this is no different to the thousands of idiots who run riot through our town centres every so often disrupting other citizens lives and creating unnecessary work for the police and civic authorities, and all because their football team has lost.

...democracy has had it's voice through the ballot box Kirk and that voice has been given 4 years in it's apparent 'protest vote' for many, whatever percentage but whatever the reasons for that democracy vote, it has a very generous 4 years anyway..I think it would be extremely intolerant and extremely ironic to not have the protest against the protest, have a few short days/ a small amount of time to heal and to voice in this peaceful way...(and if there is violence and rioting, that should swiftly and harshly dealt with..)...yes it may be disruptive, but whichever which way the result..it was always going to be strongly felt and was always going to disrupt...it's been said so many times, let's see what happens with Trump as president well let let's also see what happens with this protest because atm there are no riots, so lets not assume there will be..if there are then they have to be dealt with but the worst thing and the bigger 'build up' thing so we're often told is to try to stifle a voice that needs it's feelings heard...

[SharkAttack]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...no Arista, bang on wrong...Trump was the 'protest vote' and a protest that had the majority so it's bang on wrong to think these protests shouldn't happen when protest has been such the thing.../I mean the irony...this as with Brexit was always going to be such a vote either way that people had no 'middle ground' thoughts, it was more either all for or all against so inevitably going to create unrest and that would have been either way with the result...had it been Hilary who had won and people were protesting against corruption in the White House with her reign..?..you can bet your bunker baby that you wouldn't be saying bang on right...


...it's so much that we're being told that things like Brexit (for Some) and Trump's vote (for some) are partly because of people feeling unable to voice/feeling restricted in their voice with the old PCs...that's being factored in a bit...so then it's thought wrong to have a voice in protest, that voice is being told to hush up because it's pointless...?...so the democratic right is now trying to quash the democratic right because it wasn't happy enough for them and didn't get there victory pancake breakfast and say hoooorahhh... dancing in the streets would have been fine and dandy maybe but protesting is a no....


...(so long as it's peaceful and doesn't lead to rioting/violence etc..)...then let them have their voice, let them have their protest because it's only fair and right as Trump has had his protest voice in these results../let it all be fair and let people speak if they feel the need to because if it's feeling that people can't speak, have felt unable to that have been part of results for these things..?../then it's bang on wrong to say they shouldn't happen....


...we shouldn't expect to have results and acknowledgements for the protest vote and not expect possible protests against...large amounts of people need their voices heard, whether it be deemed pointless or not when it's so often been said that, that's been partly a problem in the first place, the feeling of having no voice...

THIS

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by SharkAttack

THIS

....awww you, I've just seen this..(..I miss you..)......how has it all been for you over there../...the whole process, exhausting stuff eh..?...

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Aren't these people supposed to be the tolerant ones? #lovetrumpshate is tongue in cheek I guess.

Protesting and intolerance do not go hand in hand with each other, and this is a really dangerous attitude I've seen develop of late. In a democracy (which people often like to reiterate), you are entitled by rights to freedom of assembly and to protest about issues you care about. These do not recede just because an election has taken place, people are allowed to be critical of the result, it is irrelevant whether or not it will change anything - they are entitled to make their voice heard.

You will often find people who break the law in any kind of protest and that's in part both because some people will always spoil it for everyone else and that police tactics such as kettling will make it inevitable. But that doesn't mean it applies to everyone who protests, the vast majority are tolerant and are just exercising their democratic right. The media's treatment of Trump keeps being brought up so it's also worth pointing out that their depictions of protests can often be distorted so as to rubbish a cause and paint everyone involved as petty thugs. It works both ways.

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

If they are to be believed Maru, and this isn't just 'Sour Grapes' - one might ask why they did not take to the streets in earnest protest about Clinton being their nominee, during all these many, many months BEFORE she lost to Trump.

I have the feeling that old Hilary was good enough for them while it seemed that she was a WINNER, and it is the DEFEAT which these precious little undemocratic dahlings cannot stomach.

Many Bernie supporters did in fact protest after it transpired how manipulative the DNC had been in securing Clinton's nomination.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Protesting and intolerance do not go hand in hand with each other, and this is a really dangerous attitude I've seen develop of late. In a democracy (which people often like to reiterate), you are entitled by rights to freedom of assembly and to protest about issues you care about. These do not recede just because an election has taken place, people are allowed to be critical of the result, it is irrelevant whether or not it will change anything - they are entitled to make their voice heard.

You will often find people who break the law in any kind of protest and that's in part both because some people will always spoil it for everyone else and that police tactics such as kettling will make it inevitable. But that doesn't mean it applies to everyone who protests, the vast majority are tolerant and are just exercising their democratic right. The media's treatment of Trump keeps being brought up so it's also worth pointing out that their depictions of protests can often be distorted so as to rubbish a cause and paint everyone involved as petty thugs. It works both ways.



Many Bernie supporters did in fact protest after it transpired how manipulative the DNC had been in securing Clinton's nomination.

In this case it appears to have far more to do with sour grapes than having a voice, they have just had that. Unfortunately for them more voices had a different opinion.

I really think they believe if they shout loud enough someone will hear and maybe another Ms Miller will come along and throw a spanner in the works. In their dreams! Trying it on basically!

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

In this case it appears to have far more to do with sour grapes than having a voice, they have just had that. Unfortunately for them more voices had a different opinion.

I really think they believe if they shout loud enough someone will hear and maybe another Ms Miller will come along and throw a spanner in the works. In their dreams! Trying it on basically!

And? One person's 'sour grapes' (Jesus ****ing Christ this is people's livelihoods not the X Factor) is another person's concerns about the way their lives are or are about to be governed. It is absolutely irrelevant whether or not an election has taken place, just because one side has won it doesn't mean all dissenting opinions must be silenced, because then taken to its logical conclusion what exactly is the point in having an official opposition to scrutinise policies - why not ban that and let the government have free reign as a dictatorship for the duration of the administration? That's not democracy and this really is a moronic notion that needs to be culled.

[Maru]

[Jordan.]

Aren't these people supposed to be the tolerant ones? #lovetrumpshate is tongue in cheek I guess.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Aren't these people supposed to be the tolerant ones? #lovetrumpshate is tongue in cheek I guess.

What a Great Film on BluRay 1080P
DTSHD 8.1 sound



Shaun --- Do you FEEEL me?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Aren't these people supposed to be the tolerant ones? #lovetrumpshate is tongue in cheek I guess.

You are making some excellent points.

[rk3388]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Aren't these people supposed to be the tolerant ones? #lovetrumpshate is tongue in cheek I guess.

I fear for whoever is tolerant of Trump and many of his loony supporters
I for one am not going to be tolerant for islamophobia, Shutting out Syrian refugees (I'm so proud of Canada for letting so many in with very little problems), sucking the oil sands dry while warming the GLOBE'S climate, and allowing the rich to get richer while the poor people get poorer.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by rk3388

I fear for whoever is tolerant of Trump and many of his loony supporters
I for one am not going to be tolerant for islamophobia, Shutting out Syrian refugees (I'm so proud of Canada for letting so many in with very little problems), sucking the oil sands dry while warming the GLOBE'S climate, and allowing the rich to get richer while the poor people get poorer.

We cannot use the term 'Looney' if it is combined with the word 'Left', but it seems perfectly fine when describing Trump supporters or UK Brexit supporters.

And the Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer under ANY government, I'm sorry to say - even under all the many Socialist and Marxist and Communist governments there have ever been.

[rk3388]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

And the Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer under ANY government, I'm sorry to say - even under all the many Socialist and Marxist and Communist governments there have ever been.

There's no comparing the plan between Bernie and Donald. Donald is literally lowering the taxes for the richest people in America by 20%. Either way, words are just words, and if this bill passes we'll see who is right in 4 years time.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by rk3388

I fear for whoever is tolerant of Trump and many of his loony supporters
I for one am not going to be tolerant for islamophobia, Shutting out Syrian refugees (I'm so proud of Canada for letting so many in with very little problems), sucking the oil sands dry while warming the GLOBE'S climate, and allowing the rich to get richer while the poor people get poorer.

Given the limited choice, voting for the lesser or the two evils doesn't make those that voted for him 'loony'. Arrogant statement.

Syrian refugees should do what they are supposed to do and go to the first safe country, not make a beeline for countries like America and Britain. Genuine refugees' priority would be safety not the economy.

[Kizzy]

Sour grapes.... blah blah...

[armand.kay]

What's the ****ing point? Like do they think America will just throw Democracy out the window and put Hillary in office because a few teenagers marched.

[arista]

Originally Posted by armand.kay

What's the ****ing point? Like do they think America will just throw Democracy out the window and put Hillary in office because a few teenagers marched.

Bang On Right

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by armand.kay

What's the ****ing point? Like do they think America will just throw Democracy out the window and put Hillary in office because a few teenagers marched.

Spot on Armand. It isn't just the US though is it, unfortunately? It seems now that in every Country, some citizens have no intention of abiding with Democratic decisions which they do not align with, and are willing to resort to all levels of anti-social behavior to vent their anger and try to disrupt law and order in an attempt to intimidate the vast majority who do embrace democracy.

They should never be tolerated, and those guilty should be seriously dealt with by the Government before Anarchy ensues - as it surely eventually will, if apathy and lethargy on the part of the authorities fortify their courage and increase their bravado.