Anti Trump Protests turn violent, what a surprise - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Anti Trump Protests turn violent, what a surprise

£0.00 @
- Liberals turn violent - Protestors throwing bottles and shooting fireworks at police even though they have literally no idea how that police officer who may be white, black or hispanic voted - mob … Read More
davewave Avatar
7m, 2w agoPosted 7 months, 2 weeks ago
- Liberals turn violent
- Protestors throwing bottles and shooting fireworks at police even though they have literally no idea how that police officer who may be white, black or hispanic voted - mob violence hiding behind a fake political agenda - one man one vote!

Noted - how many are happy to discuss foreign affairs!!!!
davewave Avatar
7m, 2w agoPosted 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Options

Top Comments

(5)
20 Likes
Good to see how like Brexit, people moan, bicker and fight about what has passed rather than than working towards a positive future.
So called 'liberal intellectuals' in America wearing masks and rioting on the street in protest of a President because they say there is going to be racist attacks...beggars belief how entranced many Americans have became with the fearmongering message spread by Hillary and her propaganda machine throughout her campaign.
Listened to the radio just now and women being interviewed say they now feel more threatened and likely to be raped because Trump is president. Are people really this stupid and ill informed.

Watched Alan Greenspan last nite who is considerably qualifed to speak on America's economy (who coincidentally refrained from voting for the first time in his life because he could not vote for Hillary in good conscience despite being a Democrat), who said that in all likelihood the American ecomomy has a bright outlook despite a worldwide slowdown and despite in his opinion being underqualified fully expects Trump to play the part well.

Since Trump has been elected we are also less likely to experience WW3, I know I feel safer now diplomatic relations are better with Russia overnight.

Ultimately It's the Democrats fault for pushing a nominee that was so controversial otherwise we would be looking at Bernie Sanders as president.
Wish people would now let the man get on with his job. I've no doubt he will make changes for the better.
12 Likes
People who want to live peacefully alongside others do not throw bottles at police after a democratically fair election
11 Likes
any excuse for a good riot/home electrical theft spree
11 Likes
It is all a little childish. A bunch of intolerant muppets, self-labelled 'Liberals', acting in a very undemocratic and illiberal manner because they didn't get their own way.

The reason Trump won isn't complicated. People are fed up of the neo-liberal machine, of the political establishment. They're tired of political correctness and the Liberal thought police. Trump placed himself among these people, painting a target on his own back. Every attack against him in the media helped make him 'one of them' - an outlier, an enemy of the establishment. Even if you don't agree with his politics, it isn't difficult to understand the appeal when placed against a dull and uninspiring establishment candidate. Clinton was a mistake.

It's a mistake being made regularly in Western politics at the moment. Liberalism and left-wing politics have become moored in the centre-ground, in the neo-liberal establishment that is demonstrably failing.

The US isn't a neo-fascist nation. It's a nation that's fed of of the political elites. Obama won on a platform of real change. Bernie Sanders came out of nowhere to challenge Hilary for the nomination. Every establishment candidate in the Republican Party fell flat against Trump in the race for the nomination - even Bush, a name with tremendous political clout and a huge amount of funding. To anyone paying attention, Clinton was such an obvious disaster in waiting. Early polling suggested Sanders was the stronger candidate against Trump, that Clinton could feasibly lose. And that's exactly what happened.

Edited By: satchef1 on Nov 10, 2016 16:29
8 Likes
It's actually been quite entertaining watching the American news networks go ballistic..
It's the White's fault for voting.
It's the Blacks fault for not voting.
It's the Hispanics fault for voting for Trump rather than Clinton.
It's the peoples fault for the banks being sh#.

Get over it. The people spoke and they got Trump.

All Comments

(191) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
12 Likes #1
People who want to live peacefully alongside others do not throw bottles at police after a democratically fair election
11 Likes #2
any excuse for a good riot/home electrical theft spree
1 Like #3
davewave
People who want to live peacefully alongside others do not throw bottles at police after a democratically fair election

I mean yes fair, but an outdated system where a candidate gets the popular vote and loses

Clinton won more votes from the American public yet because of an old collegiate system which really makes no sense when broken down (basically making a persons vote worth more depending on their state)
1 Like #4
http://i.imgur.com/nb7eXHs.png
1 Like #5
By all means protest the result, but don't protest the principle of democracy itself and keep it peaceful however much you want a new pair of nikes and new telly.
#6
ciarancp
davewave
People who want to live peacefully alongside others do not throw bottles at police after a democratically fair election

I mean yes fair, but an outdated system where a candidate gets the popular vote and loses

Clinton won more votes from the American public yet because of an old collegiate system which really makes no sense when broken down (basically making a persons vote worth more depending on their state)


Hang on, apart from the voting public, you have other things which can give a side extra leverage? Apart from the voting public, who else has more votes than one per person?

Someone having more votes than someone else don't sound right..... oO
#7
DKLS
By all means protest the result, but don't protest the principle of democracy itself and keep it peaceful however much you want a new pair of nikes and new telly.

I'm not a fan of either, but Clinton did win the popular vote and the Electoral College set up worked against her. Winning the most votes is the principle of democracy (even if only by such a small margin).

I think its mostly because Trump is effectively anti-progressive and in many ways a vile human being, rather than upholding democracy.
1 Like #8
chaywa
DKLS
By all means protest the result, but don't protest the principle of democracy itself and keep it peaceful however much you want a new pair of nikes and new telly.
I'm not a fan of either, but Clinton did win the popular vote and the Electoral College set up worked against her. Winning the most votes is the principle of democracy (even if only by such a small margin).
I think its mostly because Trump is effectively anti-progressive and in many ways a vile human being, rather than upholding democracy.
as if these protesters didn't understand the mechanics, the result didn't go their way, started crying and then literally threw their bottles out of their pram at the police - unforgivable!
#9
raptorcigs
http://i.imgur.com/nb7eXHs.png
oh dear, but its the Jews!
#10
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
2 Likes #11
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
yes, and pretty sure if Clinton had won there would have been riots elsewhere in US.
1 Like #12
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.

You don't generally get this stuff but it's been a very spiteful campaign and there is a real feeling that minority groups will either lose rights or face victimisation and discrimination under a Trump presidency.

It's things like civil rights that people will get angry about losing.
20 Likes #13
Good to see how like Brexit, people moan, bicker and fight about what has passed rather than than working towards a positive future.
So called 'liberal intellectuals' in America wearing masks and rioting on the street in protest of a President because they say there is going to be racist attacks...beggars belief how entranced many Americans have became with the fearmongering message spread by Hillary and her propaganda machine throughout her campaign.
Listened to the radio just now and women being interviewed say they now feel more threatened and likely to be raped because Trump is president. Are people really this stupid and ill informed.

Watched Alan Greenspan last nite who is considerably qualifed to speak on America's economy (who coincidentally refrained from voting for the first time in his life because he could not vote for Hillary in good conscience despite being a Democrat), who said that in all likelihood the American ecomomy has a bright outlook despite a worldwide slowdown and despite in his opinion being underqualified fully expects Trump to play the part well.

Since Trump has been elected we are also less likely to experience WW3, I know I feel safer now diplomatic relations are better with Russia overnight.

Ultimately It's the Democrats fault for pushing a nominee that was so controversial otherwise we would be looking at Bernie Sanders as president.
Wish people would now let the man get on with his job. I've no doubt he will make changes for the better.
1 Like #14
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
You don't generally get this stuff but it's been a very spiteful campaign and there is a real feeling that minority groups will either lose rights or face victimisation and discrimination under a Trump presidency.
It's things like civil rights that people will get angry about losing.
Campaigning is very different from presidency but oh yeah why not throw a firework or glass bottle at a random police officer, because other people voted for a president which you didn't vote for!
3 Likes #15
john184
Good to see how like Brexit, people moan, bicker and fight about what has passed rather than than working towards a positive future.
So called 'liberal intellectuals' in America wearing masks and rioting on the street in protest of a President because they say there is going to be racist attacks...beggars belief how entranced many Americans have became with the fearmongering message spread by Hillary and her propaganda machine throughout her campaign.
Listened to the radio just now and women being interviewed say they now feel more threatened and likely to be raped because Trump is president. Are people really this stupid and ill informed.
Watched Alan Greenspan last nite who is considerably qualifed to speak on America's economy (who coincidentally refrained from voting for the first time in his life because he could not vote for Hillary in good conscience despite being a Democrat), who said that in all likelihood the American ecomomy has a bright outlook despite a worldwide slowdown and despite in his opinion being underqualified fully expects Trump to play the part well.
Since Trump has been elected we are also less likely to experience WW3, I know I feel safer now diplomatic relations are better with Russia overnight.
Ultimately It's the Democrats fault for pushing a nominee that was so controversial otherwise we would be looking at Bernie Sanders as president.
Wish people would now let the man get on with his job. I've no doubt he will make changes for the better.
I am so much in agreement with you, common sense has flown out of the window and into outer space.
4 Likes #16
chaywa
DKLS
By all means protest the result, but don't protest the principle of democracy itself and keep it peaceful however much you want a new pair of nikes and new telly.
I'm not a fan of either, but Clinton did win the popular vote and the Electoral College set up worked against her. Winning the most votes is the principle of democracy (even if only by such a small margin).
I think its mostly because Trump is effectively anti-progressive and in many ways a vile human being, rather than upholding democracy.
Electoral College system was introduced to give proportional representation so that every state no matter how small has a say in the outcome. Not 100% sure but doesn't the UK only vote for a local MP and then the party with the most MP's get to choose a PM? If this is the case you will never get a real choice of who you get as a PM.
#17
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
You don't generally get this stuff but it's been a very spiteful campaign and there is a real feeling that minority groups will either lose rights or face victimisation and discrimination under a Trump presidency.
It's things like civil rights that people will get angry about losing.
Campaigning is very different from presidency but oh yeah why not throw a firework or glass bottle at a random police officer, because other people voted for a president which you didn't vote for!

As I said, people are angry and fearful about the potential loss of civil rights for certain groups and the vilification others may experience.

Rioting is wrong. Ignoring the reasons behind it or dismissing them doesn't actually solve anything though.
3 Likes #18
Small percentage of peaceful protestors, large percentage of looters and ne'er so wells out to exploit the protest for their own gain.

Sore losers! Ha ha! :p
#19
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
You don't generally get this stuff but it's been a very spiteful campaign and there is a real feeling that minority groups will either lose rights or face victimisation and discrimination under a Trump presidency.
It's things like civil rights that people will get angry about losing.
Campaigning is very different from presidency but oh yeah why not throw a firework or glass bottle at a random police officer, because other people voted for a president which you didn't vote for!
As I said, people are angry and fearful about the potential loss of civil rights for certain groups and the vilification others may experience.
Rioting is wrong. Ignoring the reasons behind it or dismissing them doesn't actually solve anything though.
Dismissing someone who throws a bottle at a police officer is absolutely the right response, its wrong, irrespective of how annoyed you are that people voted differently to you?
1 Like #20
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
You don't generally get this stuff but it's been a very spiteful campaign and there is a real feeling that minority groups will either lose rights or face victimisation and discrimination under a Trump presidency.
It's things like civil rights that people will get angry about losing.
Campaigning is very different from presidency but oh yeah why not throw a firework or glass bottle at a random police officer, because other people voted for a president which you didn't vote for!
As I said, people are angry and fearful about the potential loss of civil rights for certain groups and the vilification others may experience.
Rioting is wrong. Ignoring the reasons behind it or dismissing them doesn't actually solve anything though.
Dismissing someone who throws a bottle at a police officer is absolutely the right response, its wrong, irrespective of how annoyed you are that people voted differently to you?

Again....

Rioting is absolutely wrong but it's the venting of a frustration that will only grow because people are fearful of losing civil rights.

Go back throughout history and look at all marches, uprisings or riots to do with civil rights and you'll see that eventually they're ended by those people getting those rights.
1 Like #21
chaywa

I think its mostly because Trump is effectively anti-progressive and in many ways a vile human being, rather than upholding democracy.

At least you classified him as human, the same cant be said of Hillary.


Edited By: Predikuesi on Nov 10, 2016 13:32
#22
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
You don't generally get this stuff but it's been a very spiteful campaign and there is a real feeling that minority groups will either lose rights or face victimisation and discrimination under a Trump presidency.
It's things like civil rights that people will get angry about losing.
Campaigning is very different from presidency but oh yeah why not throw a firework or glass bottle at a random police officer, because other people voted for a president which you didn't vote for!
As I said, people are angry and fearful about the potential loss of civil rights for certain groups and the vilification others may experience.
Rioting is wrong. Ignoring the reasons behind it or dismissing them doesn't actually solve anything though.
Dismissing someone who throws a bottle at a police officer is absolutely the right response, its wrong, irrespective of how annoyed you are that people voted differently to you?
Again....
Rioting is absolutely wrong but it's the venting of a frustration that will only grow because people are fearful of losing civil rights.
Go back throughout history and look at all marches, uprisings or riots to do with civil rights and you'll see that eventually they're ended by those people getting those rights.
diff is that the people rioting already have those rights!
#23
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
You don't generally get this stuff but it's been a very spiteful campaign and there is a real feeling that minority groups will either lose rights or face victimisation and discrimination under a Trump presidency.
It's things like civil rights that people will get angry about losing.
Campaigning is very different from presidency but oh yeah why not throw a firework or glass bottle at a random police officer, because other people voted for a president which you didn't vote for!
As I said, people are angry and fearful about the potential loss of civil rights for certain groups and the vilification others may experience.
Rioting is wrong. Ignoring the reasons behind it or dismissing them doesn't actually solve anything though.
Dismissing someone who throws a bottle at a police officer is absolutely the right response, its wrong, irrespective of how annoyed you are that people voted differently to you?
Again....
Rioting is absolutely wrong but it's the venting of a frustration that will only grow because people are fearful of losing civil rights.
Go back throughout history and look at all marches, uprisings or riots to do with civil rights and you'll see that eventually they're ended by those people getting those rights.
diff is that the people rioting already have those rights!

Hence me saying they were fearful of losing them in each of my THREE responses to you. ;)

Edited By: HotEnglishAndWelshDeals on Nov 10, 2016 13:31
2 Likes #24
chaywa
DKLS
By all means protest the result, but don't protest the principle of democracy itself and keep it peaceful however much you want a new pair of nikes and new telly.
I'm not a fan of either, but Clinton did win the popular vote and the Electoral College set up worked against her. Winning the most votes is the principle of democracy (even if only by such a small margin).
I think its mostly because Trump is effectively anti-progressive and in many ways a vile human being, rather than upholding democracy.

Well they have the electoral college system so thats on the yanks. As I have never met the trump I cant say if he is vile or not, I know I have said much worse when out on a night out with the lads.

Grab them by the pussy is very mild in comparison.
3 Likes #25
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
You don't generally get this stuff but it's been a very spiteful campaign and there is a real feeling that minority groups will either lose rights or face victimisation and discrimination under a Trump presidency.
It's things like civil rights that people will get angry about losing.
Campaigning is very different from presidency but oh yeah why not throw a firework or glass bottle at a random police officer, because other people voted for a president which you didn't vote for!
As I said, people are angry and fearful about the potential loss of civil rights for certain groups and the vilification others may experience.
Rioting is wrong. Ignoring the reasons behind it or dismissing them doesn't actually solve anything though.
Dismissing someone who throws a bottle at a police officer is absolutely the right response, its wrong, irrespective of how annoyed you are that people voted differently to you?
Again....
Rioting is absolutely wrong but it's the venting of a frustration that will only grow because people are fearful of losing civil rights.
Go back throughout history and look at all marches, uprisings or riots to do with civil rights and you'll see that eventually they're ended by those people getting those rights.
Unless there was fraud in the vote counting, Trump will be the next President and people need to realise this. I don't think a lot of people understand that all of the promises he made won't happen as it takes more than him to get it done.

What I don't understand is why people need to go to this level and resort to these tactics. I don't care who they support it's just plain wrong.
#26
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
You don't generally get this stuff but it's been a very spiteful campaign and there is a real feeling that minority groups will either lose rights or face victimisation and discrimination under a Trump presidency.
It's things like civil rights that people will get angry about losing.
Campaigning is very different from presidency but oh yeah why not throw a firework or glass bottle at a random police officer, because other people voted for a president which you didn't vote for!
As I said, people are angry and fearful about the potential loss of civil rights for certain groups and the vilification others may experience.
Rioting is wrong. Ignoring the reasons behind it or dismissing them doesn't actually solve anything though.
Dismissing someone who throws a bottle at a police officer is absolutely the right response, its wrong, irrespective of how annoyed you are that people voted differently to you?
Again....
Rioting is absolutely wrong but it's the venting of a frustration that will only grow because people are fearful of losing civil rights.
Go back throughout history and look at all marches, uprisings or riots to do with civil rights and you'll see that eventually they're ended by those people getting those rights.
diff is that the people rioting already have those rights!
Hence me saying they were fearful of losing them in each of my THREE responses to you. ;)
;)
#27
Infinitesd
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
You don't generally get this stuff but it's been a very spiteful campaign and there is a real feeling that minority groups will either lose rights or face victimisation and discrimination under a Trump presidency.
It's things like civil rights that people will get angry about losing.
Campaigning is very different from presidency but oh yeah why not throw a firework or glass bottle at a random police officer, because other people voted for a president which you didn't vote for!
As I said, people are angry and fearful about the potential loss of civil rights for certain groups and the vilification others may experience.
Rioting is wrong. Ignoring the reasons behind it or dismissing them doesn't actually solve anything though.
Dismissing someone who throws a bottle at a police officer is absolutely the right response, its wrong, irrespective of how annoyed you are that people voted differently to you?
Again....
Rioting is absolutely wrong but it's the venting of a frustration that will only grow because people are fearful of losing civil rights.
Go back throughout history and look at all marches, uprisings or riots to do with civil rights and you'll see that eventually they're ended by those people getting those rights.
Unless there was fraud in the vote counting, Trump will be the next President and people need to realise this. I don't think a lot of people understand that all of the promises he made won't happen as it takes more than him to get it done.
What I don't understand is why people need to go to this level and resort to these tactics. I don't care who they support it's just plain wrong.

No it would require either an executive order for some of them, the house which he has a majority of (though not a filibuster proof one) or the Supreme Court which he could tip in the balance of conservatives for a generation or more.

So whilst you're correct in most of what you say, the reality is that he has a huge amount of power here doesn't he?
#28
EN1GMA
ciarancp
davewave
People who want to live peacefully alongside others do not throw bottles at police after a democratically fair election
I mean yes fair, but an outdated system where a candidate gets the popular vote and loses
Clinton won more votes from the American public yet because of an old collegiate system which really makes no sense when broken down (basically making a persons vote worth more depending on their state)
Hang on, apart from the voting public, you have other things which can give a side extra leverage? Apart from the voting public, who else has more votes than one per person?
Someone having more votes than someone else don't sound right..... oO

Look up the college voting system in america - Clinton received more individual votes from the public but some states have more college votes than others, outdated but it will never change as the ones in power won't ever do it
#29
ciarancp
EN1GMA
ciarancp
davewave
People who want to live peacefully alongside others do not throw bottles at police after a democratically fair election
I mean yes fair, but an outdated system where a candidate gets the popular vote and loses
Clinton won more votes from the American public yet because of an old collegiate system which really makes no sense when broken down (basically making a persons vote worth more depending on their state)
Hang on, apart from the voting public, you have other things which can give a side extra leverage? Apart from the voting public, who else has more votes than one per person?
Someone having more votes than someone else don't sound right..... oO
Look up the college voting system in america - Clinton received more individual votes from the public but some states have more college votes than others, outdated but it will never change as the ones in power won't ever do it
isn't it the college votes supposed to be in favour of the democrats according to the maths crunched on the recent polls and at obama election, if democrats couldnt win even with this positive bias, well.
1 Like #30
EN1GMA
ciarancp
davewave
People who want to live peacefully alongside others do not throw bottles at police after a democratically fair election
I mean yes fair, but an outdated system where a candidate gets the popular vote and loses
Clinton won more votes from the American public yet because of an old collegiate system which really makes no sense when broken down (basically making a persons vote worth more depending on their state)
Hang on, apart from the voting public, you have other things which can give a side extra leverage? Apart from the voting public, who else has more votes than one per person?
Someone having more votes than someone else don't sound right..... oO

Look up the college voting system in america - Clinton received more individual votes from the public but some states have more college votes than others, outdated but it will never change as the ones in power won't ever do it
Infinitesd
chaywa
DKLS
By all means protest the result, but don't protest the principle of democracy itself and keep it peaceful however much you want a new pair of nikes and new telly.
I'm not a fan of either, but Clinton did win the popular vote and the Electoral College set up worked against her. Winning the most votes is the principle of democracy (even if only by such a small margin).
I think its mostly because Trump is effectively anti-progressive and in many ways a vile human being, rather than upholding democracy.
Electoral College system was introduced to give proportional representation so that every state no matter how small has a say in the outcome. Not 100% sure but doesn't the UK only vote for a local MP and then the party with the most MP's get to choose a PM? If this is the case you will never get a real choice of who you get as a PM.

Yes but it is no longer proportionally representative

The UK you are technically voting on your local MP (although too many people don't seem to realise this), so it works in that regard, in the US you are voting on one person to lead the country so it makes less sense

For instance last UK General Election I personally didn't vote for the party I wanted to run the country, I voted for the MP I thought would best serve my constituency - the fact that the Labour and Conservative candidates didn't live in my constituency, or in fact anywhere near it and never had didn't make me exactly feel confident they had the areas best interests at heart
#31
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Infinitesd
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
You don't generally get this stuff but it's been a very spiteful campaign and there is a real feeling that minority groups will either lose rights or face victimisation and discrimination under a Trump presidency.
It's things like civil rights that people will get angry about losing.
Campaigning is very different from presidency but oh yeah why not throw a firework or glass bottle at a random police officer, because other people voted for a president which you didn't vote for!
As I said, people are angry and fearful about the potential loss of civil rights for certain groups and the vilification others may experience.
Rioting is wrong. Ignoring the reasons behind it or dismissing them doesn't actually solve anything though.
Dismissing someone who throws a bottle at a police officer is absolutely the right response, its wrong, irrespective of how annoyed you are that people voted differently to you?
Again....
Rioting is absolutely wrong but it's the venting of a frustration that will only grow because people are fearful of losing civil rights.
Go back throughout history and look at all marches, uprisings or riots to do with civil rights and you'll see that eventually they're ended by those people getting those rights.
Unless there was fraud in the vote counting, Trump will be the next President and people need to realise this. I don't think a lot of people understand that all of the promises he made won't happen as it takes more than him to get it done.
What I don't understand is why people need to go to this level and resort to these tactics. I don't care who they support it's just plain wrong.
No it would require either an executive order for some of them, the house which he has a majority of (though not a filibuster proof one) or the Supreme Court which he could tip in the balance of conservatives for a generation or more.
So whilst you're correct in most of what you say, the reality is that he has a huge amount of power here doesn't he?
You are correct the POTUS doesn't need approval for everything, but I don't really think he has the support of the Republicans, so anything he does or tries to do will either be met with government or public opposition.

Also there is talk he may have done it just as a Been there done that thing. Now that he's in, he may just step down. The next 180 days will be very interesting.

Shame Bernie couldn't make it to the party.

Edited By: Infinitesd on Nov 10, 2016 14:01
#32
ciarancp
EN1GMA
ciarancp
davewave
People who want to live peacefully alongside others do not throw bottles at police after a democratically fair election
I mean yes fair, but an outdated system where a candidate gets the popular vote and loses
Clinton won more votes from the American public yet because of an old collegiate system which really makes no sense when broken down (basically making a persons vote worth more depending on their state)
Hang on, apart from the voting public, you have other things which can give a side extra leverage? Apart from the voting public, who else has more votes than one per person?
Someone having more votes than someone else don't sound right..... oO
Look up the college voting system in america - Clinton received more individual votes from the public but some states have more college votes than others, outdated but it will never change as the ones in power won't ever do it
Infinitesd
chaywa
DKLS
By all means protest the result, but don't protest the principle of democracy itself and keep it peaceful however much you want a new pair of nikes and new telly.
I'm not a fan of either, but Clinton did win the popular vote and the Electoral College set up worked against her. Winning the most votes is the principle of democracy (even if only by such a small margin).
I think its mostly because Trump is effectively anti-progressive and in many ways a vile human being, rather than upholding democracy.
Electoral College system was introduced to give proportional representation so that every state no matter how small has a say in the outcome. Not 100% sure but doesn't the UK only vote for a local MP and then the party with the most MP's get to choose a PM? If this is the case you will never get a real choice of who you get as a PM.
Yes but it is no longer proportionally representative
The UK you are technically voting on your local MP (although too many people don't seem to realise this), so it works in that regard, in the US you are voting on one person to lead the country so it makes less sense
For instance last UK General Election I personally didn't vote for the party I wanted to run the country, I voted for the MP I thought would best serve my constituency - the fact that the Labour and Conservative candidates didn't live in my constituency, or in fact anywhere near it and never had didn't make me exactly feel confident they had the areas best interests at heart

I personally couldn't do that. I always vote for the party I believe is somewhere close to the principles I hold. The local MP has to conform to the party's rules and views (or else find another). Voting for a particular person isn't the best choice. I like and have worked with our local Green MP on some issues, but I'd never vote Green because I don't agree with its political views.
1 Like #33
Infinitesd
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Infinitesd
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
You don't generally get this stuff but it's been a very spiteful campaign and there is a real feeling that minority groups will either lose rights or face victimisation and discrimination under a Trump presidency.
It's things like civil rights that people will get angry about losing.
Campaigning is very different from presidency but oh yeah why not throw a firework or glass bottle at a random police officer, because other people voted for a president which you didn't vote for!
As I said, people are angry and fearful about the potential loss of civil rights for certain groups and the vilification others may experience.
Rioting is wrong. Ignoring the reasons behind it or dismissing them doesn't actually solve anything though.
Dismissing someone who throws a bottle at a police officer is absolutely the right response, its wrong, irrespective of how annoyed you are that people voted differently to you?
Again....
Rioting is absolutely wrong but it's the venting of a frustration that will only grow because people are fearful of losing civil rights.
Go back throughout history and look at all marches, uprisings or riots to do with civil rights and you'll see that eventually they're ended by those people getting those rights.
Unless there was fraud in the vote counting, Trump will be the next President and people need to realise this. I don't think a lot of people understand that all of the promises he made won't happen as it takes more than him to get it done.
What I don't understand is why people need to go to this level and resort to these tactics. I don't care who they support it's just plain wrong.
No it would require either an executive order for some of them, the house which he has a majority of (though not a filibuster proof one) or the Supreme Court which he could tip in the balance of conservatives for a generation or more.
So whilst you're correct in most of what you say, the reality is that he has a huge amount of power here doesn't he?
You are correct the POTUS doesn't need approval for everything, but I don't really think he has the support of the Republicans, so anything he does or tries to do will either be met with government or public opposition.
Also there is talk he may have done it just as a Been there done that thing. Now that he's in, he may just step down. The next 180 days will be very interesting.
Shame Bernie couldn't make it to the party.

He'll get the support to do the things most damaging to minority groups and women, and that's where the anger and fear comes from.

I can only imagine how parents in America feel if their kid is female, gay or an ethnic minority. It must truly be worrying at the impact Trump could have on their lives.
1 Like #34
Predikuesi
ciarancp
EN1GMA
ciarancp
davewave
People who want to live peacefully alongside others do not throw bottles at police after a democratically fair election
I mean yes fair, but an outdated system where a candidate gets the popular vote and loses
Clinton won more votes from the American public yet because of an old collegiate system which really makes no sense when broken down (basically making a persons vote worth more depending on their state)
Hang on, apart from the voting public, you have other things which can give a side extra leverage? Apart from the voting public, who else has more votes than one per person?
Someone having more votes than someone else don't sound right..... oO
Look up the college voting system in america - Clinton received more individual votes from the public but some states have more college votes than others, outdated but it will never change as the ones in power won't ever do it
Infinitesd
chaywa
DKLS
By all means protest the result, but don't protest the principle of democracy itself and keep it peaceful however much you want a new pair of nikes and new telly.
I'm not a fan of either, but Clinton did win the popular vote and the Electoral College set up worked against her. Winning the most votes is the principle of democracy (even if only by such a small margin).
I think its mostly because Trump is effectively anti-progressive and in many ways a vile human being, rather than upholding democracy.
Electoral College system was introduced to give proportional representation so that every state no matter how small has a say in the outcome. Not 100% sure but doesn't the UK only vote for a local MP and then the party with the most MP's get to choose a PM? If this is the case you will never get a real choice of who you get as a PM.
Yes but it is no longer proportionally representative
The UK you are technically voting on your local MP (although too many people don't seem to realise this), so it works in that regard, in the US you are voting on one person to lead the country so it makes less sense
For instance last UK General Election I personally didn't vote for the party I wanted to run the country, I voted for the MP I thought would best serve my constituency - the fact that the Labour and Conservative candidates didn't live in my constituency, or in fact anywhere near it and never had didn't make me exactly feel confident they had the areas best interests at heart
I personally couldn't do that. I always vote for the party I believe is somewhere close to the principles I hold. The local MP has to conform to the party's rules and views (or else find another). Voting for a particular person isn't the best choice. I like and have worked with our local Green MP on some issues, but I'd never vote Green because I don't agree with its political views.

Of course there needs to be a middle ground, they have to also conform to my political views as well (or as close as possible)
5 Likes #35
I cant quite understand this new section of society that thinks its acceptable to protest a democratic decision, on the basis that it wasnt their decision, its very immature and ironic in the sense that they have the ability to protest because of their democratic rights.

this is from Google (wiki)

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratia literally "rule of the commoners"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament

Again i think the underlying reasons, for Brexit and Trump are ignored, and the solution to these problems is not to riot or protest and call people, uneducated and wrong..

Nobody voted to 'leave' the EU or no one Voted for Trump to be president, they voted for reasons they saw were not being fixed by the status quo and as such the only option of change they had was the cross they made.



Edited By: haritori on Nov 10, 2016 14:13
#36
ciarancp
EN1GMA
ciarancp
davewave
People who want to live peacefully alongside others do not throw bottles at police after a democratically fair election
I mean yes fair, but an outdated system where a candidate gets the popular vote and loses
Clinton won more votes from the American public yet because of an old collegiate system which really makes no sense when broken down (basically making a persons vote worth more depending on their state)
Hang on, apart from the voting public, you have other things which can give a side extra leverage? Apart from the voting public, who else has more votes than one per person?
Someone having more votes than someone else don't sound right..... oO
Look up the college voting system in america - Clinton received more individual votes from the public but some states have more college votes than others, outdated but it will never change as the ones in power won't ever do it
Infinitesd
chaywa
DKLS
By all means protest the result, but don't protest the principle of democracy itself and keep it peaceful however much you want a new pair of nikes and new telly.
I'm not a fan of either, but Clinton did win the popular vote and the Electoral College set up worked against her. Winning the most votes is the principle of democracy (even if only by such a small margin).
I think its mostly because Trump is effectively anti-progressive and in many ways a vile human being, rather than upholding democracy.
Electoral College system was introduced to give proportional representation so that every state no matter how small has a say in the outcome. Not 100% sure but doesn't the UK only vote for a local MP and then the party with the most MP's get to choose a PM? If this is the case you will never get a real choice of who you get as a PM.
Yes but it is no longer proportionally representative

The UK you are technically voting on your local MP (although too many people don't seem to realise this), so it works in that regard, in the US you are voting on one person to lead the country so it makes less sense

For instance last UK General Election I personally didn't vote for the party I wanted to run the country, I voted for the MP I thought would best serve my constituency - the fact that the Labour and Conservative candidates didn't live in my constituency, or in fact anywhere near it and never had didn't make me exactly feel confident they had the areas best interests at heart
It's a bit of a crazy system, but it's something that's just accepted as the norm if you live in the US. Are there better methods out there? Probably.

If your candidate wins, your happy, in the rare case your candidate didn't win, but received more votes, there is a call to revise the system. Happened to Gore against Bush as well around 2000. Imagine what it would have been like if Gore was President.........

Edited By: Infinitesd on Nov 10, 2016 14:15
#37
Predikuesi
ciarancp
EN1GMA
ciarancp
davewave
People who want to live peacefully alongside others do not throw bottles at police after a democratically fair election
I mean yes fair, but an outdated system where a candidate gets the popular vote and loses
Clinton won more votes from the American public yet because of an old collegiate system which really makes no sense when broken down (basically making a persons vote worth more depending on their state)
Hang on, apart from the voting public, you have other things which can give a side extra leverage? Apart from the voting public, who else has more votes than one per person?
Someone having more votes than someone else don't sound right..... oO
Look up the college voting system in america - Clinton received more individual votes from the public but some states have more college votes than others, outdated but it will never change as the ones in power won't ever do it
Infinitesd
chaywa
DKLS
By all means protest the result, but don't protest the principle of democracy itself and keep it peaceful however much you want a new pair of nikes and new telly.
I'm not a fan of either, but Clinton did win the popular vote and the Electoral College set up worked against her. Winning the most votes is the principle of democracy (even if only by such a small margin).
I think its mostly because Trump is effectively anti-progressive and in many ways a vile human being, rather than upholding democracy.
Electoral College system was introduced to give proportional representation so that every state no matter how small has a say in the outcome. Not 100% sure but doesn't the UK only vote for a local MP and then the party with the most MP's get to choose a PM? If this is the case you will never get a real choice of who you get as a PM.
Yes but it is no longer proportionally representative
The UK you are technically voting on your local MP (although too many people don't seem to realise this), so it works in that regard, in the US you are voting on one person to lead the country so it makes less sense
For instance last UK General Election I personally didn't vote for the party I wanted to run the country, I voted for the MP I thought would best serve my constituency - the fact that the Labour and Conservative candidates didn't live in my constituency, or in fact anywhere near it and never had didn't make me exactly feel confident they had the areas best interests at heart
I personally couldn't do that. I always vote for the party I believe is somewhere close to the principles I hold. The local MP has to conform to the party's rules and views (or else find another). Voting for a particular person isn't the best choice. I like and have worked with our local Green MP on some issues, but I'd never vote Green because I don't agree with its political views.

Of course there needs to be a middle ground, they have to also conform to my political views as well (or as close as possible)
splender
ciarancp
EN1GMA
ciarancp
davewave
People who want to live peacefully alongside others do not throw bottles at police after a democratically fair election
I mean yes fair, but an outdated system where a candidate gets the popular vote and loses
Clinton won more votes from the American public yet because of an old collegiate system which really makes no sense when broken down (basically making a persons vote worth more depending on their state)
Hang on, apart from the voting public, you have other things which can give a side extra leverage? Apart from the voting public, who else has more votes than one per person?
Someone having more votes than someone else don't sound right..... oO
Look up the college voting system in america - Clinton received more individual votes from the public but some states have more college votes than others, outdated but it will never change as the ones in power won't ever do it
isn't it the college votes supposed to be in favour of the democrats according to the maths crunched on the recent polls and at obama election, if democrats couldnt win even with this positive bias, well.
not sure what you mean "even with this" they would have won without this system... same with Al Gore in 2000

in fact it's only happened 5 times and 4 times the Democrat has lost out
#38
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Infinitesd
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Infinitesd
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
You don't generally get this stuff but it's been a very spiteful campaign and there is a real feeling that minority groups will either lose rights or face victimisation and discrimination under a Trump presidency.
It's things like civil rights that people will get angry about losing.
Campaigning is very different from presidency but oh yeah why not throw a firework or glass bottle at a random police officer, because other people voted for a president which you didn't vote for!
As I said, people are angry and fearful about the potential loss of civil rights for certain groups and the vilification others may experience.
Rioting is wrong. Ignoring the reasons behind it or dismissing them doesn't actually solve anything though.
Dismissing someone who throws a bottle at a police officer is absolutely the right response, its wrong, irrespective of how annoyed you are that people voted differently to you?
Again....
Rioting is absolutely wrong but it's the venting of a frustration that will only grow because people are fearful of losing civil rights.
Go back throughout history and look at all marches, uprisings or riots to do with civil rights and you'll see that eventually they're ended by those people getting those rights.
Unless there was fraud in the vote counting, Trump will be the next President and people need to realise this. I don't think a lot of people understand that all of the promises he made won't happen as it takes more than him to get it done.
What I don't understand is why people need to go to this level and resort to these tactics. I don't care who they support it's just plain wrong.
No it would require either an executive order for some of them, the house which he has a majority of (though not a filibuster proof one) or the Supreme Court which he could tip in the balance of conservatives for a generation or more.
So whilst you're correct in most of what you say, the reality is that he has a huge amount of power here doesn't he?
You are correct the POTUS doesn't need approval for everything, but I don't really think he has the support of the Republicans, so anything he does or tries to do will either be met with government or public opposition.
Also there is talk he may have done it just as a Been there done that thing. Now that he's in, he may just step down. The next 180 days will be very interesting.
Shame Bernie couldn't make it to the party.
He'll get the support to do the things most damaging to minority groups and women, and that's where the anger and fear comes from.
I can only imagine how parents in America feel if their kid is female, gay or an ethnic minority. It must truly be worrying at the impact Trump could have on their lives.

I really do not think he will do half of what he said, It was all campaign talk IMO.

He may implement some things that will be controversial, but the guy is an extremely astute businessmen, while he has no experience in the military, he does in business, I think he can at least start to solve Americas finial woes, and in turn he will have advisors who will help him in the areas he lacks..

I was listening the other day to someone who thinks he can make Obama care actually work and work well.


Edited By: haritori on Nov 10, 2016 14:25
1 Like #39
davewave
People who want to live peacefully alongside others do not throw bottles at police after a democratically fair election

Agree but watch the uk if brexit doesn't happen after a democratically fair vote.
There will be riots on a unimaginable scale.
#40
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Infinitesd
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
Infinitesd
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
davewave
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
STRICKIBHOY
this may be the future of being on the losing side of a vote? riots, marches and hysteria. really hope it doesn't though.
You don't generally get this stuff but it's been a very spiteful campaign and there is a real feeling that minority groups will either lose rights or face victimisation and discrimination under a Trump presidency.
It's things like civil rights that people will get angry about losing.
Campaigning is very different from presidency but oh yeah why not throw a firework or glass bottle at a random police officer, because other people voted for a president which you didn't vote for!
As I said, people are angry and fearful about the potential loss of civil rights for certain groups and the vilification others may experience.
Rioting is wrong. Ignoring the reasons behind it or dismissing them doesn't actually solve anything though.
Dismissing someone who throws a bottle at a police officer is absolutely the right response, its wrong, irrespective of how annoyed you are that people voted differently to you?
Again....
Rioting is absolutely wrong but it's the venting of a frustration that will only grow because people are fearful of losing civil rights.
Go back throughout history and look at all marches, uprisings or riots to do with civil rights and you'll see that eventually they're ended by those people getting those rights.
Unless there was fraud in the vote counting, Trump will be the next President and people need to realise this. I don't think a lot of people understand that all of the promises he made won't happen as it takes more than him to get it done.
What I don't understand is why people need to go to this level and resort to these tactics. I don't care who they support it's just plain wrong.
No it would require either an executive order for some of them, the house which he has a majority of (though not a filibuster proof one) or the Supreme Court which he could tip in the balance of conservatives for a generation or more.
So whilst you're correct in most of what you say, the reality is that he has a huge amount of power here doesn't he?
You are correct the POTUS doesn't need approval for everything, but I don't really think he has the support of the Republicans, so anything he does or tries to do will either be met with government or public opposition.
Also there is talk he may have done it just as a Been there done that thing. Now that he's in, he may just step down. The next 180 days will be very interesting.
Shame Bernie couldn't make it to the party.
He'll get the support to do the things most damaging to minority groups and women, and that's where the anger and fear comes from.
I can only imagine how parents in America feel if their kid is female, gay or an ethnic minority. It must truly be worrying at the impact Trump could have on their lives.
It would be a real travesty if it did happen, especially with the support of government. He's already thinking of Newt for a position who really disgusts me, but it's a by product of the democracy we hold so dear.

This is a good example of why sometimes the people don't know what's right for the country, but also another example of people being tired of how the country has been run.

I look forward to voting for Michelle, and think of the next 4 years as a bad dream.

The only good news is writting "I win" on my tax return in April! ( You know at least one person will try it)

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!