"Violence to Protest Against Trump a Logical Response"

[Galloism]

Well, he claims to be and talks like one. You can take that for what it's worth.

Considering all the things he's said, that's not that much.

Point, but when we elect someone on the basis that he's probably bullshitting us, it doesn't inspire much confidence.

[Trotza]

Considering all the things he's said, that's not that much.

Point, but when we elect someone on the basis that he's probably bullshitting us, it doesn't inspire much confidence.

You say we, but obviously I can only speak for myself, not Trump supporters who I assume liked what he was putting down and believe every word of it, at least the parts they equate with hope and change in their own lives.

[Karazia]

Democracy would be majority rule, if America was a democracy then Hillary would've won. Though no it has Republicanism. I personally prefer Republicanism, as it kind of makes it fair for low population states. Democracy and Republicanism are two different things, and I understand that people don't feel like they feel represented correctly - like California for example! Though that's the whole point, it doesn't matter on the state's population, it depends on how much the state wins a certain candidate, this is so states with low populations don't get f*cked over. Whilst Democracy on the other hand would be majority rule, which isn't always the best way to go.

In California, the people seem to want Democracy.

Violence shouldn't be the answer, especially because someone who said mean things won. For god's sake at least wait until he has done something in office!

[Traxa]

If you believe in democracy at all than you have to accept the fact that some times you lose. End of story.

Raising a violent revolt just because the person you supported lost is contrary to the basic principals upon which a modern republic is founded.

And when you still lose despite receiving more votes from the people? Doesn't seem all that democratic to me.

52% of the votes fell into one of 2 categories

1. A vote for trump
2. A vote for a 3rd party candidate and not hillary clinton

She didn't win the popular vote despite how desperate you pathetic liberals wish she did.

[Nocturnalis]

I'm confused as to how the side that's so vehemently anti-gun is now constantly talking about civil war and armed revolt against the side which actually has guns (and knows how to use them, to boot).

[Farnhamia]

And when you still lose despite receiving more votes from the people? Doesn't seem all that democratic to me.

52% of the votes fell into one of 2 categories

1. A vote for trump
2. A vote for a 3rd party candidate and not hillary clinton

She didn't win the popular vote despite how desperate you pathetic liberals wish she did.

*** Warned for trolling. ***

[Traxa]

52% of the votes fell into one of 2 categories

1. A vote for trump
2. A vote for a 3rd party candidate and not hillary clinton

She didn't win the popular vote despite how desperate you pathetic liberals wish she did.

*** Warned for trolling. ***

lol okay noted

[Lady Scylla]

I say it's pre-emptive. Wait and see what Trump does, if he turns out to be as shit and oppressive as people believe, then rise up. He's not even in office yet.

[Kalifati Arab shqiptar]

This is what happens when you get a medal for participating. The liberal left should get used to losing, you don't always win out there, and certainly you are not winning these days.

[Arlenton]

Violent rioting/rebellion because of an election is ridiculous. This isn't comparable to the Arab Spring and what not, because this is the result of a legitimate and lawful election, Trump is not a dictator.


Of course they have the right to peacefully protest as much as they like though.

[Kalifati Arab shqiptar]

Democracy would be majority rule, if America was a democracy then Hillary would've won. Though no it has Republicanism. I personally prefer Republicanism, as it kind of makes it fair for low population states. Democracy and Republicanism are two different things, and I understand that people don't feel like they feel represented correctly - like California for example! Though that's the whole point, it doesn't matter on the state's population, it depends on how much the state wins a certain candidate, this is so states with low populations don't get f*cked over. Whilst Democracy on the other hand would be majority rule, which isn't always the best way to go.

In California, the people seem to want Democracy.

Violence shouldn't be the answer, especially because someone who said mean things won. For god's sake at least wait until he has done something in office!

The mainstream media are more scared not because IF he gets to office, which he did, but because he might actually be great.

[Arlenton]

I say it's pre-emptive. Wait and see what Trump does, if he turns out to be as shit and oppressive as people believe, then rise up. He's not even in office yet.

Rise up? That would not work, considering ~50% of the country supports Trump and he is the commander in chief.


And the people with all the guns and stuff are much more concentrated in the 50% that support him.

[Lady Scylla]

Violent rioting/rebellion because of an election is ridiculous. This isn't comparable to the Arab Spring and what not, because this is the result of a legitimate and lawful election, Trump is not a dictator.


Of course they have the right to peacefully protest as much as they like though.

Which is why I say they should wait and see. Stifle the rage, let it simmer, and see what he does.

[Lady Scylla]

I say it's pre-emptive. Wait and see what Trump does, if he turns out to be as shit and oppressive as people believe, then rise up. He's not even in office yet.

Rise up? That would not work, considering ~half of the country supports Trump and he is the commander in chief.

Half does, half doesnt. If people honestly think hes going to take their rights, then they need to wait til he does before they get violent. Right now, its pre-emptive, and it only discredits them.

[O5vx]

The most most important thing is that we respect the process. Trump was brought in on the same system that has elected many president before, yet, no one questioned the process. Clearly, the process isn't the issue, it is the candidate selected by the parties. Irrespective of who has won, Americans can protest their displeasure, yet must do so within the confines of the law. We can not silence the voice of anger otherwise it will be expressed in a much more violent ways.

[Galloism]

The most most important thing is that we respect the process. Trump was brought in on the same system that has elected many president before, yet, no one questioned the process. Clearly, the process isn't the issue, it is the candidate selected by the parties. Irrespective of who has won, Americans can protest their displeasure, yet must do so within the confines of the law. We can not silence the voice of anger otherwise it will be expressed in a much more violent ways.

Repeating the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true.

I've already documented that the electoral college has been criticized on this forum for years.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Hi, everyone.

We're redirecting a number of the various Trump-related threads to a new megathread, as they're reproducing like Tribbles, and with no poisoned quadro-triticale to stem the tide.

Please continue the current conversation here. Thanks in advance for your understanding.