Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

[theengel]

I wonder if, years from now, these college kids are going to realize Trump had no intention of killing LGBT or locking up minorities or trying to plan a dictatorship. He was just a guy who thought that he could do things better than Washington. Will they laugh at themselves?

[copiertec]

Low energy sheeple drinking George Soros' kool aid. It amazes me how a man is elected in to the white house and makes a promise to American people that he is going to help them- and they are out rioting. I just read an article that people are destroying new balance shoes because they supported Trump. If you look at the reasons why they supported Trump is because they want no part of the TPP, which would make 0% their product no longer made in the USA, just like the rest of the shoe manufactures in their category. New balance domestically manufactures 25% of their shoes in the USA. Go figure, morons that are trashing a company for wanting to stay in the USA?! And, support and employ American workers....what have we come to in society!? Why is Barack Husein Obama not stopping these riots? Since Obama has been in office we have had the lowest labor participation rates (bureau of labor statistics), Close to 95m Americans out of the labor force (bureau of labor statistics), lowest home ownership rate in 51 years, foreclosures in record numbers, around 43 million Americans on food stamps ( according to the USDA), please don't tell me its the Republicans fault or a senate and a house thing, either, because the majority since 2007 was Democrat. Obama promised change and had 8 years to do it.... I'm still waiting. Give Trump a chance and see if he can do what he said he would do and please don't drink the media kool aid, be a free thinker, seek out information on your own and educate yourself.

[Coptech]

What does it say about the current American Political Machine? Essentially, "we searched through our entire collection of current politicians, and this is the best we could find to offer". It is time for a house cleaning. The system is overfilled with people who have forgotten who was sent there to work for whom.

[Wild Bill]

So...it's similar to a temper tantrum. Most on the right when Obama was elected, accepted the outcome and didnt riot. I didnt here of any anyway. I didnt vote for Obama ever, yet he was our President. Now this CEO is telling his people to resign if they dont agree with his political views.

Children, get back in your corner for at least 15 minutes.:p

Boss says employees who agree with Trump's rhetoric should resign | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/boss-tells-pro-trump-employees-to-resign.html)

[SwisSeV]

Now that he is elected, the more he talks the more reasonable he sounds. Hope he doesn't screw up.

It's ironic that the super liberal people are burning flags. Democracy is only great if you get your way??

[Iowatech]

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs) might be appropriate here, but it contains pretty strong language so don't watch it at work.

[qbert69]

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs) might be appropriate here, but it contains pretty strong language so don't watch it at work.

..that rant was E.P.I.C.!!!

:cool:

[Tonerbomb]

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs) might be appropriate here, but it contains pretty strong language so don't watch it at work.

That was F*cking awsome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Wild Bill]

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs) might be appropriate here, but it contains pretty strong language so don't watch it at work.

LOL, I watched it at work! Kept turning the volume down cause the F Bombs were flying! You did warn me.
I might vote for that guy for prez...maybe not
Thanks Iowatech!

[tech28]

The deplorable's and the silent majority spoke, turned blue to red where it counted and nobody imagined it could happen, but it did. People wanted change and now we are going to see if it's what we wanted. God Bless America and our new president elect, President Trump!

[mx6turbo89]

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs) might be appropriate here, but it contains pretty strong language so don't watch it at work.

Nothing there anymore. What was it? Got another link?

[ZOOTECH]

The deplorable's and the silent majority spoke, turned blue to red where it counted and nobody imagined it could happen, but it did. People wanted change and now we are going to see if it's what we wanted. God Bless America and our new president elect, President Trump!
Yes, the electoral college had Trump as winner, while the popular vote was for Clinton. And, while a lot of things Trump was prophisizing, he has since backed down. So, it may not be a joke on "Trump Protesters", but the actually supporters of Trump that may be disappointed. (Just saying).

[emujo]

34742

Couldn't think less of anyone who would disrespect our flag, anthem, military, or elected officials and be too lazy to actually vote.

[copiertec]

34742

Couldn't think less of anyone who would disrespect our flag, anthem, military, or elected officials and be too lazy to actually vote.

I feel the same way.

[ZOOTECH]

no the revised tally of the popular vote also went to Trump.. the popular you saw was before ALL areas were done being counted... it always takes a day or more to get all votes counted.
Phil, I have been unable to find a website that verifies that statement - would you please post a link that does?

[slimslob]

Yes, the electoral college had Trump as winner, while the popular vote was for Clinton. And, while a lot of things Trump was prophisizing, he has since backed down. So, it may not be a joke on "Trump Protesters", but the actually supporters of Trump that may be disappointed. (Just saying).

It seems that as absentee ballots come in and are counted, the popular vote is going to Trump also. CNN has already predicted that Trump will ultimately win both. This is based on the fact that traditionally more Republicans vote absentee than Democrats. Also that most military overseas using either absentee ballot or the military Presidential ballot will vote Republican. Military ballots mailed overseas can take as many as ten days to reach the appropriate place to be counted, or at least that is what anything I mailed from Iraq took.

[slimslob]

no the revised tally of the popular vote also went to Trump.. the popular you saw was before ALL areas were done being counted... it always takes a day or more to get all votes counted.


Phil, I have been unable to find a website that verifies that statement - would you please post a link that does?

Plot Twist: CNN Now Saying That Donald Trump Will Win The Popular Vote; UPDATE: CNN Admits Design Flaw - Christine Rousselle (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/11/10/plot-twist-cnn-now-saying-that-donald-trump-won-the-popular-vote-n2244077)

https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/final-election-2016-numbers-trump-won-both-popular-62-9-m-62-7-m-and-electoral-college-vote-306-232-hey-change-org-scrap-your-loony-petition-now/

Or just Google Trump wins popular vote.

[NeoMatrix]

Why you should never vote null & void or protest vote on a ballot paper.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My old man run for local council many years ago. He an I had a discussion about me being a young up-start and why I should never protest vote on a ballot paper.

He explain the protest voter problem to me in simple terms.

The old mans explanation went something similar to the following.
(I've changed the flavour of the story over the years) :
You are living in a small town of 10 people. The town has to vote for a new sanitary toilet system. 9 out of 10 people don't like the mayor. So 9 of the people wrote "stuff you" on the ballot paper. The 10th person (being the town drunk) walks in to vote and say he doesn't use toilets and votes "NO" on the ballot.

The towns folk never got their sanitation system because the majority proper/popular voter said "No" on the ballot.

In other words, 9 of the towns people left the entire sanitary voting choice up to one single person. And so, the town lays in it's own crap because they wrote crap on the ballot paper.

Instead of a protest vote, pick the lesser of two evils on the ballot paper, an avoid leaving the choice of running the country up to the inebriated socialites voters.

A personal protest vote means leaving your voting choice rest on the shoulders of someone else. Just be sure that choice doesn't rest on the shoulders of the wacked-out "Nuke-them-all political party."

[907tec]

Just so we're clear: Hillary won the popular vote by over 1 million votes as of 11/15/16. This number is increasing (not decreasing) as absentee ballots are counted.

[Iowatech]

Nothing there anymore. What was it? Got another link?

As the vid is kind of rude, I posted it as a link on the word "This". That still works here.
If that doesn't work, I'll PM you that if you want. Otherwise just search for the Jonathan Pie explanation of Donald Trump on YouTube.
Don't watch it at work though. Rude language sometimes is unproductive.

[mx6turbo89]

As the vid is kind of rude, I posted it as a link on the word "This". That still works here.
If that doesn't work, I'll PM you that if you want. Otherwise just search for the Jonathan Pie explanation of Donald Trump on YouTube.
Don't watch it at work though. Rude language sometimes is unproductive.

I totally overlooked 'this' and it works great, thanks. Awesome rant!

[Iowatech]

Just so we're clear: Hillary won the popular vote by over 1 million votes as of 11/15/16. This number is increasing (not decreasing) as absentee ballots are counted.

Just so we're also clear, people who whine about the popular vote are morons, and I dare you to find out why.
Honestly, if you want to personally deny me my vote, I'm going to make you work for it. It would be silly to do otherwise.

[907tec]

Your reply was anything but clear. I have no idea what you meant by that. Nothing in my comment can be construed as whining. I am simply tired of misinformation being regurgitated as nauseam.

Who is denying you of your vote in this situation? What am I being dared to do, exactly?

[slimslob]

Just so we're clear: Hillary won the popular vote by over 1 million votes as of 11/15/16. This number is increasing (not decreasing) as absentee ballots are counted.

You have not provided documentation. I have. Apparently you did not bother to read this link I posted earlier. As of today's update, Trump leads the popular vote by just over 700K, Trump 62,972,226 Clinton 62,277,750.

https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/final-election-2016-numbers-trump-won-both-popular-62-9-m-62-7-m-and-electoral-college-vote-306-232-hey-change-org-scrap-your-loony-petition-now/

[907tec]

You have not provided documentation. I have. Apparently you did not bother to read this link I posted earlier. As of today's update, Trump leads the popular vote by just over 700K, Trump 62,972,226 Clinton 62,277,750.

https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/final-election-2016-numbers-trump-won-both-popular-62-9-m-62-7-m-and-electoral-college-vote-306-232-hey-change-org-scrap-your-loony-petition-now/

You can't seriously be using a WordPress site as your citation, can you? You and I both know that I don't REALLY have to Google this for you. Literally every news organization has the current numbers. If you would like links, I will gladly supply them.

Again, I am not disputing that Trump is our president. I am correcting your assertion that he won the popular vote.

[theengel]

My old man run for local council many years ago. He an I had a discussion about me being a young up-start and why I should never protest vote on a ballot paper.

He explain the protest voter problem to me in simple terms.

The old mans explanation went something similar to the following.
(I've changed the flavour of the story over the years) :
You are living in a small town of 10 people. The town has to vote for a new sanitary toilet system. 9 out of 10 people don't like the mayor. So 9 of the people wrote "stuff you" on the ballot paper. The 10th person (being the town drunk) walks in to vote and say he doesn't use toilets and votes "NO" on the ballot.

The towns folk never got their sanitation system because the majority proper/popular voter said "No" on the ballot.

In other words, 9 of the towns people left the entire sanitary voting choice up to one single person. And so, the town lays in it's own crap because they wrote crap on the ballot paper.

Instead of a protest vote, pick the lesser of two evils on the ballot paper, an avoid leaving the choice of running the country up to the inebriated socialites voters.

A personal protest vote means leaving your voting choice rest on the shoulders of someone else. Just be sure that choice doesn't rest on the shoulders of the wacked-out "Nuke-them-all political party."

But when you're voting for candidates, and you feel as though both candidates are essentially working for the same people, the vote doesn't actually matter. The reason the vote mattered this time was because someone the system DIDN'T choose had won the primary.

In all honesty, I was going to try and start a "Vote For Pedro" campaign. But then Trump won the primary. I don't know if he'll do good or not, I just know he's not more of the same. So we'll wait and see.

[TheBlueOrleans]

Link to Breitbart page detailing the numbers (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/15/donald-trump-won-7-5-million-popular-vote-landslide-mainstream-america/)

[ZOOTECH]

Link to Breitbart page detailing the numbers (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/15/donald-trump-won-7-5-million-popular-vote-landslide-mainstream-america/)
From your link - "Clinton’s 671,066 popular vote margin across the entire country, 61,047,027 votes to Donald Trump’s 60,375,961 votes (according to Politico’s election results website as of Tuesday morning (http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president)) arose from this huge advantage wracked up in these elite coastal counties."

[TheBlueOrleans]

From your link - "Clinton’s 671,066 popular vote margin across the entire country, 61,047,027 votes to Donald Trump’s 60,375,961 votes (according to Politico’s election results website as of Tuesday morning (http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president)) arose from this huge advantage wracked up in these elite coastal counties." Google Image search "Well, shit." When the illegal votes are deducted from the overall total I believe the end result will be a win for Trump in both Popular and Electoral votes. But we'll see. December 19th will be a day to watch.

[copiertec]

The point is moot... Trump is our next President... period! Regardless, of popular vote or electoral vote... if you don't like it, too bad so sad. Obama has been our President for almost 8 years..... done in a little over a month.... but, time for a new one, that's it! If you need a cuddle-buddy, a dog to help you deal with it, I'm sure you can get in line with the rest of the weak- minded, cry baby, my feeling are hurt people that can't seem to deal with it ( give me a break). IT'S CALLED REALITY!!!!! I'm done with my rant and guess what... I don't care if I hurt any feelings... Now, that being said, I'm ready focus on more important stuff, like to go repair more copiers, printers and make them communicate with the networks and learn! On a lighter-side note, if you haven't seen George Carlin's rant on politics, I highly recommend it, a comedians point of view on politics...hmm, maybe he is on to something?

[Iowatech]

Your reply was anything but clear. I have no idea what you meant by that. Nothing in my comment can be construed as whining. I am simply tired of misinformation being regurgitated as nauseam.

Who is denying you of your vote in this situation? What am I being dared to do, exactly?

If you have the time, find out why the Electoral College (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)) exists in the first place. But only if you are interested in fairness, and also why someone who lives in the periphery would act like a jerk defending it (sorry, I could have done that better).

[ZOOTECH]

When I first replied about the electoral vs popular vote, I was not 'whining' about who actually became the Pres-Elec; that is moot. I replied about, "facts" presented that Trump had won both popular and electoral votes which hadn't been determined yet. (And I don't think it has been official, with 'illegal votes' or not).

[907tec]

Not to get in a competition, but I'm fairly sure that I am further into the "periphery" than you are. That does not give me an excuse to act like a jerk. Further, I am well aware of the original reasoning behind the creation of an electoral college.

I understand that the EC is intended to give a voice to those living outside metropolitan areas. Hell, I certainly fall into that category. However, I am failing to see the effectiveness of this system. If the conceit is to ensure that rural concerns are considered by presidential candidates, this system appears to be ineffective. Whereas candidates might have spent their entire campaign pandering to NYC/LA/etc before, under the EC system they focus upon the handful of swing states. Same thing in my mind: a tiny portion of the country essentially dictates the outcome of an election.

Secondly, and I realize that we are not a "democracy" in the truest sense of the word, but I have a hard time justifying why rural votes should be given more weight than urban. How is it fair that lesser populated States receive one electoral vote for every 150,000 people, while more populated States receive only one vote for every 300,000+?

All animosity aside, I am genuinely curious for alternative perspectives on this. As I said, I live in an extremely rural area and am familiar with the sentiment that my vote is entirely irrelevant.

[skynet]

Some people have drawn similarities between England's "Brexit" and Trump getting in. Nigel Farage seemed to take a part in Trump's campaign.

[copier_operator]

From a european point of view i cant say i support Trump nor Hilary, the newshighlights here were nothing but extreme behaviour on both accounts.
Then again, in comparison voting and elections here are not the media circus it is in the states. (hence me using the word extreme earlier)

Here in Belgium a few years ago, we had our own 'Trump' elected and it seems similar to me, big words and promises got toned down to more reasonable dialogue.

I still find it fascinating how it went down though, do i understand it correctly that voting is not a duty in the usa ? its a choice ?

[TheBlueOrleans]

Voting is referred to as one's civic duty, or patriotic duty, but it is not required. (We don't take too kindly to being mandated to do a particular thing.)
the majority of "protesters" in the Portland, OR area actually didn't even vote in this election, which further reinforces one of my political philosophies: "If you don't vote, you don't get to whine about the outcome."

I'm realizing more and more each day what an asshole I really am, and I'm to the point where I simply don't care. I'm "deplorable".

[theengel]

My daughter is in college, and they talked about the election in one of the classes (instead of doing school work). She said every single one of them felt that only sexists and racists had voted for Trump. My daughter finally spoke up and said something to the effect of, "Some people just disagree with Hillary's policies." They looked at her like she had two heads, and asked what on earth someone could possibly disagree on with Clinton. She said, "Well, the plans for the economy, the border security... and I'm prolife, so I can't vote for someone who is pro-abortion."

They quieted down after that. Apparently, no one had even considered the notion that people voted on issues instead of race or sex.

[slimslob]

I don't remember seeing ANYONE out crying - protesting - rioting in 2008. We dealt with it ( didn't like it but.. )
But it has been proven that these riots ( much like Ferguson - Chitown ) were paid for by Hillary's campaign and Soros. All the ginning up of emotions ect during the election and the $$$ has fueled this fire. Piss on the protesters.. hell reports out the majority of them didn't even vote...

You didn't VOTE? Then.... STFU!

And where there have been arrests, the majority of those arrested have been from out of state. Many of them actually did not vote.

[slimslob]

No DJT really wasn't my first choice .. but #NeverHillary

Of all the original candidates on both major parties, the only ones lower on my list than Trump were Bush and Clinton

[Iowatech]

Not to get in a competition, but I'm fairly sure that I am further into the "periphery" than you are. That does not give me an excuse to act like a jerk. Further, I am well aware of the original reasoning behind the creation of an electoral college.

I understand that the EC is intended to give a voice to those living outside metropolitan areas. Hell, I certainly fall into that category. However, I am failing to see the effectiveness of this system. If the conceit is to ensure that rural concerns are considered by presidential candidates, this system appears to be ineffective. Whereas candidates might have spent their entire campaign pandering to NYC/LA/etc before, under the EC system they focus upon the handful of swing states. Same thing in my mind: a tiny portion of the country essentially dictates the outcome of an election.

Secondly, and I realize that we are not a "democracy" in the truest sense of the word, but I have a hard time justifying why rural votes should be given more weight than urban. How is it fair that lesser populated States receive one electoral vote for every 150,000 people, while more populated States receive only one vote for every 300,000+?

All animosity aside, I am genuinely curious for alternative perspectives on this. As I said, I live in an extremely rural area and am familiar with the sentiment that my vote is entirely irrelevant.

The number of electors each state gets is based on the number or Representatives they have in the House of Representatives, and that is based on each states population. So that means that all fifty states get fairly represented in the election of the President, but it also means that candidates for the Presidency need to focus on all fifty states. That's one of the big differences between a representative republic like the U.S. and a pure democracy.
Don't worry about animosity, while we are fellow human beings we aren't the same person. As long as we can discuss them as fellow human beings, as far as I care disagreements are allowed.

[Santander]

Not to get in a competition, but I'm fairly sure that I am further into the "periphery" than you are. That does not give me an excuse to act like a jerk. Further, I am well aware of the original reasoning behind the creation of an electoral college.

I understand that the EC is intended to give a voice to those living outside metropolitan areas. Hell, I certainly fall into that category. However, I am failing to see the effectiveness of this system. If the conceit is to ensure that rural concerns are considered by presidential candidates, this system appears to be ineffective. Whereas candidates might have spent their entire campaign pandering to NYC/LA/etc before, under the EC system they focus upon the handful of swing states. Same thing in my mind: a tiny portion of the country essentially dictates the outcome of an election.

Secondly, and I realize that we are not a "democracy" in the truest sense of the word, but I have a hard time justifying why rural votes should be given more weight than urban. How is it fair that lesser populated States receive one electoral vote for every 150,000 people, while more populated States receive only one vote for every 300,000+?

All animosity aside, I am genuinely curious for alternative perspectives on this. As I said, I live in an extremely rural area and am familiar with the sentiment that my vote is entirely irrelevant.

Beg to differ, but the Electoral College was established in the constitution not to give people outside of metropolitan areas a voice, but to give STATES a voice. Until the beginning of the 21st Century, senators were appointed by the state government/legislature and not by popular vote to provide the states a voice in the federal government as the United States was formed by a confederation of the states which at the time were considered individual nations, hence the name "United States of America". The electoral college gave the people a voice in that the House of Representatives were elected by the people and the Senate was the representative of the States. Your assertation that lessor populated states receive one vote for every 150,000 people versus 300,000 for more populated states is totally false! The House of Representatives is based on population so states with a higher population have more representatives an hence more electoral votes, your premise is totally false. The framers of the constitution knew what they were doing when they constructed the electoral college.

[gneebore]

Beg to differ, but the Electoral College was established in the constitution not to give people outside of metropolitan areas a voice, but to give STATES a voice. Until the beginning of the 21st Century, senators were appointed by the state government/legislature and not by popular vote to provide the states a voice in the federal government as the United States was formed by a confederation of the states which at the time were considered individual nations, hence the name "United States of America". The electoral college gave the people a voice in that the House of Representatives were elected by the people and the Senate was the representative of the States. Your assertation that lessor populated states receive one vote for every 150,000 people versus 300,000 for more populated states is totally false! The House of Representatives is based on population so states with a higher population have more representatives an hence more electoral votes, your premise is totally false. The framers of the constitution knew what they were doing when they constructed the electoral college.

The other party of your explanation is no state has less than one representative. So a very small state like Delaware still had a voice in the House. Plus like you said the senators were appointed by the state legislature until the 17th amendment changed. The reasoning behind two senators was each state had an equal voice in one house of congress. The house is apportioned via population. Some speculated even way back then that states like NY , Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Virginia, the larger states, would eventually gain a majority in the house just based on their larger areas and larger populations. Guess what they did in the house , but each state still has 2 senators. Fun thing is I vaguely remember some discussion in history class about how admitting Alaska and Hawaii changed the way congress worked since there were now four more senators. Before they were admitted there were only 96 senators.

[slimslob]

The number of electors each state gets is based on the number or Representatives they have in the House of Representatives, and that is based on each states population. So that means that all fifty states get fairly represented in the election of the President, but it also means that candidates for the Presidency need to focus on all fifty states. That's one of the big differences between a representative republic like the U.S. and a pure democracy.
Don't worry about animosity, while we are fellow human beings we aren't the same person. As long as we can discuss them as fellow human beings, as far as I care disagreements are allowed.

Also in a pure democracy, in order to win requires 1 vote more than 50%. In a pure democracy, there would have to be a run off since both candidate got less than 50%.

[gneebore]

Also in a pure democracy, in order to win requires 1 vote more than 50%. In a pure democracy, there would have to be a run off since both candidate got less than 50%.

Just a thought too. If we were originally a pure democracy then the south would have had a much larger portion of delegates to congress based on population. Remember that women were not allowed to vote. Nor were slaves. Which is where the infamous blacks being only 6/10ths of a person comes from. The northern non-slave states did not want the large slave population counted towards the numbers of house members allowed to the state. Remember non-voting residents were counted. For example women were counted in the total population even though they were not allowed to vote until the 19th amendment in 1920. So in order to prevent the slave states from gaining too much power slaves were only counted at the rate 60 percent of the total numbers of slaves. In fact most jurisdictions restricted voting to male landowners.

[Wild Bill]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5U8qa-q60U

[Iowatech]

not even a representative republic

OOPS!
Sorry, that was just a way to make it easier for people to understand how all fifty states are represented fairly by the Constitution.

[sturmtrooper]

If you don't think there were people protesting Obama being elected you must not have been paying attention. Plenty of people protested his election and during his terms. I've seen pictures of nooses with and without his face attached, pictures of him burned in effigy.

[copier addict]

but what we DIDN'T see was roads being blocked .. personal property being destroyed nor beatings and people being killed.

So, racial violence and church burnings don't count? You need to take an unbiased look at what really happened when Obama was elected.

[slimslob]

So, racial violence and church burnings don't count? You need to take an unbiased look at what really happened when Obama was elected.

Can yoou provide us a few links to actual valid stories to validate your claim. Bear in mind that true Conservatives believe in law and order and do not commit such acts.

[copier addict]

Can yoou provide us a few links to actual valid stories to validate your claim. Bear in mind that true Conservatives believe in law and order and do not commit such acts.

LOL!!!!!!! It is easy to find them. Have a look.