Dems want a Civil War

[Faun]

You have no business bitching about Trump if you threw away your only opportunity to vote for the one viable candidate running against him.

As though saying someone can't complain if they don't vote isn't bad enough, here you are saying someone can't complain if they don't vote for someone you approve of as viable?

My approval has nothing to do with this. There were only 2 viable candidates. Reality dictated that, not my approval. There was no chance anyone other than Trump or Hillary was going to win. And anyone upset with Trump in office who either didn't vote or threw their vote away on some other candidate (which is effectively the same as not voting) has no business bitching now. If yiu didn't want Trump, you should have voted for Hillary. If you didn't want Hillary, you should have voted for Trump. There were no other viable candidates.

Here you are talking about who other people should be voting for again.

1) The two major party candidates are the only viable candidates so long as people believe that to be true. If people start to believe otherwise, a third party candidate can become viable. That has to begin somewhere.
2) You are assuming that a person must vote against a candidate. Perhaps some people actually voted FOR a candidate, instead.
3) Your chosen candidate winning the election is not the only reason people cast a presidential vote.
4) Some people didn't want Trump or Clinton in office.

This is still all about your approval. If you approve of the way someone voted, you approve of them complaining. Otherwise, you don't think they have any business bitching. I think that is ridiculous.

It's reasonable to talk about who people should vote for when they are bitching about who won. If someone didn't want Trump to win, they should have voted for the only other candidate who had a viable chance at beating them. When you throw away your vote, you throw away your standing to ***** about it with your vote.

Again, if a person didn't want Clinton or Trump as president, why would they have voted for Clinton to keep Trump from office? Why do you insist that someone most vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate? The idea that a vote for someone other than one of the two major party candidates is a 'wasted vote' is one of the more annoying in our political system. How is it throwing away a vote to vote your conscience?

Your entire point is based on the idea that only a vote for a D or R matters. Not only is that something I vehemently disagree with, not to mention insulting to anyone who votes third party/independent, it is playing into the lesser-of-two-evils paradigm that keeps the two major parties in power, as well as assures us we will continue to elect an evil.

I didn't want Trump to win. I didn't want Clinton to win. By your reasoning, not wanting either of those candidates pretty much excludes me from bitching about having one of them in office.

How's this? Did you vote for Clinton? If the answer is yes, you voted to support the Democratic party in pushing a candidate so thoroughly flawed she could not defeat a thin-skinned, juvenile celebrity candidate like Trump. Supporting Clinton gives the Dems impetus to continue pushing crappy candidates forward, so in a way Trump is your fault. Therefore, you shouldn't ***** about him being the new president.

It matters not that you wanted neither to win as one of them was going to regardless of what you wanted. Many folks would have preferred better candidates to choose from; but our choices were still limited to Trump or Hillary. For those who liked neither, which applied to many, the only rational choice was to pick the lesser of two evils. For those who were stupid enough to throw their vote away by not voting or voting 3rd party, **** 'em. They had their chance to speak up and blew it. No one cares now to hear from those who didn't care enough to speak (vote) then.

 

[Montrovant]

As though saying someone can't complain if they don't vote isn't bad enough, here you are saying someone can't complain if they don't vote for someone you approve of as viable?

My approval has nothing to do with this. There were only 2 viable candidates. Reality dictated that, not my approval. There was no chance anyone other than Trump or Hillary was going to win. And anyone upset with Trump in office who either didn't vote or threw their vote away on some other candidate (which is effectively the same as not voting) has no business bitching now. If yiu didn't want Trump, you should have voted for Hillary. If you didn't want Hillary, you should have voted for Trump. There were no other viable candidates.

Here you are talking about who other people should be voting for again.

1) The two major party candidates are the only viable candidates so long as people believe that to be true. If people start to believe otherwise, a third party candidate can become viable. That has to begin somewhere.
2) You are assuming that a person must vote against a candidate. Perhaps some people actually voted FOR a candidate, instead.
3) Your chosen candidate winning the election is not the only reason people cast a presidential vote.
4) Some people didn't want Trump or Clinton in office.

This is still all about your approval. If you approve of the way someone voted, you approve of them complaining. Otherwise, you don't think they have any business bitching. I think that is ridiculous.

It's reasonable to talk about who people should vote for when they are bitching about who won. If someone didn't want Trump to win, they should have voted for the only other candidate who had a viable chance at beating them. When you throw away your vote, you throw away your standing to ***** about it with your vote.

Again, if a person didn't want Clinton or Trump as president, why would they have voted for Clinton to keep Trump from office? Why do you insist that someone most vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate? The idea that a vote for someone other than one of the two major party candidates is a 'wasted vote' is one of the more annoying in our political system. How is it throwing away a vote to vote your conscience?

Your entire point is based on the idea that only a vote for a D or R matters. Not only is that something I vehemently disagree with, not to mention insulting to anyone who votes third party/independent, it is playing into the lesser-of-two-evils paradigm that keeps the two major parties in power, as well as assures us we will continue to elect an evil.

I didn't want Trump to win. I didn't want Clinton to win. By your reasoning, not wanting either of those candidates pretty much excludes me from bitching about having one of them in office.

How's this? Did you vote for Clinton? If the answer is yes, you voted to support the Democratic party in pushing a candidate so thoroughly flawed she could not defeat a thin-skinned, juvenile celebrity candidate like Trump. Supporting Clinton gives the Dems impetus to continue pushing crappy candidates forward, so in a way Trump is your fault. Therefore, you shouldn't ***** about him being the new president.

Because when it comes to one or the other, your vote counts! The election is going to be statewide in favor of one or the other candidate in terms of electoral votes.

My vote counts whomever I vote for.

 

[ChrisL]

My approval has nothing to do with this. There were only 2 viable candidates. Reality dictated that, not my approval. There was no chance anyone other than Trump or Hillary was going to win. And anyone upset with Trump in office who either didn't vote or threw their vote away on some other candidate (which is effectively the same as not voting) has no business bitching now. If yiu didn't want Trump, you should have voted for Hillary. If you didn't want Hillary, you should have voted for Trump. There were no other viable candidates.

Here you are talking about who other people should be voting for again.

1) The two major party candidates are the only viable candidates so long as people believe that to be true. If people start to believe otherwise, a third party candidate can become viable. That has to begin somewhere.
2) You are assuming that a person must vote against a candidate. Perhaps some people actually voted FOR a candidate, instead.
3) Your chosen candidate winning the election is not the only reason people cast a presidential vote.
4) Some people didn't want Trump or Clinton in office.

This is still all about your approval. If you approve of the way someone voted, you approve of them complaining. Otherwise, you don't think they have any business bitching. I think that is ridiculous.

It's reasonable to talk about who people should vote for when they are bitching about who won. If someone didn't want Trump to win, they should have voted for the only other candidate who had a viable chance at beating them. When you throw away your vote, you throw away your standing to ***** about it with your vote.

Again, if a person didn't want Clinton or Trump as president, why would they have voted for Clinton to keep Trump from office? Why do you insist that someone most vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate? The idea that a vote for someone other than one of the two major party candidates is a 'wasted vote' is one of the more annoying in our political system. How is it throwing away a vote to vote your conscience?

Your entire point is based on the idea that only a vote for a D or R matters. Not only is that something I vehemently disagree with, not to mention insulting to anyone who votes third party/independent, it is playing into the lesser-of-two-evils paradigm that keeps the two major parties in power, as well as assures us we will continue to elect an evil.

I didn't want Trump to win. I didn't want Clinton to win. By your reasoning, not wanting either of those candidates pretty much excludes me from bitching about having one of them in office.

How's this? Did you vote for Clinton? If the answer is yes, you voted to support the Democratic party in pushing a candidate so thoroughly flawed she could not defeat a thin-skinned, juvenile celebrity candidate like Trump. Supporting Clinton gives the Dems impetus to continue pushing crappy candidates forward, so in a way Trump is your fault. Therefore, you shouldn't ***** about him being the new president.

Because when it comes to one or the other, your vote counts! The election is going to be statewide in favor of one or the other candidate in terms of electoral votes.

My vote counts whomever I vote for.

Sure to you and the guy you voted for, but not in the bigger picture in an election like this one.

 

[Montrovant]

As though saying someone can't complain if they don't vote isn't bad enough, here you are saying someone can't complain if they don't vote for someone you approve of as viable?

My approval has nothing to do with this. There were only 2 viable candidates. Reality dictated that, not my approval. There was no chance anyone other than Trump or Hillary was going to win. And anyone upset with Trump in office who either didn't vote or threw their vote away on some other candidate (which is effectively the same as not voting) has no business bitching now. If yiu didn't want Trump, you should have voted for Hillary. If you didn't want Hillary, you should have voted for Trump. There were no other viable candidates.

Here you are talking about who other people should be voting for again.

1) The two major party candidates are the only viable candidates so long as people believe that to be true. If people start to believe otherwise, a third party candidate can become viable. That has to begin somewhere.
2) You are assuming that a person must vote against a candidate. Perhaps some people actually voted FOR a candidate, instead.
3) Your chosen candidate winning the election is not the only reason people cast a presidential vote.
4) Some people didn't want Trump or Clinton in office.

This is still all about your approval. If you approve of the way someone voted, you approve of them complaining. Otherwise, you don't think they have any business bitching. I think that is ridiculous.

It's reasonable to talk about who people should vote for when they are bitching about who won. If someone didn't want Trump to win, they should have voted for the only other candidate who had a viable chance at beating them. When you throw away your vote, you throw away your standing to ***** about it with your vote.

Again, if a person didn't want Clinton or Trump as president, why would they have voted for Clinton to keep Trump from office? Why do you insist that someone most vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate? The idea that a vote for someone other than one of the two major party candidates is a 'wasted vote' is one of the more annoying in our political system. How is it throwing away a vote to vote your conscience?

Your entire point is based on the idea that only a vote for a D or R matters. Not only is that something I vehemently disagree with, not to mention insulting to anyone who votes third party/independent, it is playing into the lesser-of-two-evils paradigm that keeps the two major parties in power, as well as assures us we will continue to elect an evil.

I didn't want Trump to win. I didn't want Clinton to win. By your reasoning, not wanting either of those candidates pretty much excludes me from bitching about having one of them in office.

How's this? Did you vote for Clinton? If the answer is yes, you voted to support the Democratic party in pushing a candidate so thoroughly flawed she could not defeat a thin-skinned, juvenile celebrity candidate like Trump. Supporting Clinton gives the Dems impetus to continue pushing crappy candidates forward, so in a way Trump is your fault. Therefore, you shouldn't ***** about him being the new president.

It matters not that you wanted neither to win as one of them was going to regardless of what you wanted. Many folks would have preferred better candidates to choose from; but our choices were still limited to Trump or Hillary. For those who liked neither, which applied to many, the only rational choice was to pick the lesser of two evils. For those who were stupid enough to throw their vote away by not voting or voting 3rd party, **** 'em. They had their chance to speak up and blew it. No one cares now to hear from those who didn't care enough to speak (vote) then.

And now you feel you can speak for everyone.

Anyone who voted for a candidate other than Trump or Clinton did "speak up." That you don't like what they had to say doesn't change that fact.

As long as people continue to accept the lesser-of-two-evils, they will continue to be accepting evil.

You seem to also be ignoring people who may not have seen either Trump or Clinton as a lesser evil.

If you don't want to read people ***** about Trump as president if they didn't vote for Clinton, you can put them on ignore. Seems pretty childish and thin-skinned, though.....like Trump.

 

[Montrovant]

Here you are talking about who other people should be voting for again.

1) The two major party candidates are the only viable candidates so long as people believe that to be true. If people start to believe otherwise, a third party candidate can become viable. That has to begin somewhere.
2) You are assuming that a person must vote against a candidate. Perhaps some people actually voted FOR a candidate, instead.
3) Your chosen candidate winning the election is not the only reason people cast a presidential vote.
4) Some people didn't want Trump or Clinton in office.

This is still all about your approval. If you approve of the way someone voted, you approve of them complaining. Otherwise, you don't think they have any business bitching. I think that is ridiculous.

It's reasonable to talk about who people should vote for when they are bitching about who won. If someone didn't want Trump to win, they should have voted for the only other candidate who had a viable chance at beating them. When you throw away your vote, you throw away your standing to ***** about it with your vote.

Again, if a person didn't want Clinton or Trump as president, why would they have voted for Clinton to keep Trump from office? Why do you insist that someone most vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate? The idea that a vote for someone other than one of the two major party candidates is a 'wasted vote' is one of the more annoying in our political system. How is it throwing away a vote to vote your conscience?

Your entire point is based on the idea that only a vote for a D or R matters. Not only is that something I vehemently disagree with, not to mention insulting to anyone who votes third party/independent, it is playing into the lesser-of-two-evils paradigm that keeps the two major parties in power, as well as assures us we will continue to elect an evil.

I didn't want Trump to win. I didn't want Clinton to win. By your reasoning, not wanting either of those candidates pretty much excludes me from bitching about having one of them in office.

How's this? Did you vote for Clinton? If the answer is yes, you voted to support the Democratic party in pushing a candidate so thoroughly flawed she could not defeat a thin-skinned, juvenile celebrity candidate like Trump. Supporting Clinton gives the Dems impetus to continue pushing crappy candidates forward, so in a way Trump is your fault. Therefore, you shouldn't ***** about him being the new president.

Because when it comes to one or the other, your vote counts! The election is going to be statewide in favor of one or the other candidate in terms of electoral votes.

My vote counts whomever I vote for.

Sure to you and the guy you voted for, but not in the bigger picture in an election like this one.

What bigger picture? That one or the other was almost sure to be elected doesn't change that both were pretty poor candidates.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You people will get one if you prevent Trump from being President.

Damn. Isn't that what you guys were calling for if Clinton won?

The election is a done deal. Trump won. But the issues surrounding it need to be examined. these kinds of disruptions should not happen again.

These "kinds of disruptions" have been happening for some time now., Third Democrat presidential loss in a row where they made claim something was amiss. This time it's the Russians. The time before that, it was Diebold voting machines. The time before that, hanging chads and the Supreme Court.

All lies of course, but major problems to say the least. The next time a Democrat losses, the same thing will happen. Democrats just can't come to grips that much of America doesn't think like them.

Yet they won in 2008 and 2012.

These kind of disruptions are not normal. 2000 was a very close election. Republicans seem to have trouble winning with much of a margin. In fact - in 2000 and 2016, the winning candidate lost the popular vote. Maybe much of America doesn't thinnk much like the Republicans either.

Well.......... if you take CA out of the mix, Trump would have won by 2 million himself. Remember too that Republicanism and conservatism is sweeping the country. Since the election of DumBama, the Democrats lost something like 900 seats when you factor in federal, state and local.

People love Obama on a personal basis, but not liberal policies. That explains his success and his failed midterms. They still love him today if you look at his approval ratings.

The Democrats made the mistake by taking his success and thinking it was his policies. Hil-Liar just picked up the football and ran with it. But she's no Obama by any stretch of the imagination.

Not sure conservatism is sweeping the country so much as clever long term strategy on the part of the GOP(focusing on state legislators and governorships) in the face of a complacent DNC with it's attitude of entitlement.

For example, look at the following policies and public opinion:

Obamacare - despite the initial resistence and opposition, at this point less than 30% want it repealed. The like many of the consituent parts of it. They want it fixed.

Environment: Most Americans favor strictor environmental regulations.

More Americans say environmental regulations are “worth the cost” than say such regulations come at too steep a price, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. These views come amid speculation about what President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees may mean for future regulatory policy.


A majority of U.S. adults (59%) say stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost, compared with roughly a third (34%) who say such regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy, according to the survey, conducted Nov. 30 to Dec. 5.​

Abortion: Majority oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, in fact the number opposing that has increased over the years. Funding for Planned Parenthood, in last years budget deal was also supported by a majority. Keeping abortion legal in all/most cases continues to maintain popular support (as of 2013, that support has gone up since 2007 where it dropped to a low, I'm presuming the support has gone up in the face of laws attempting to severely restrict a woman's access to abortion in some states).

Death Penalty: while a majority continues to support the death penalty, that support has been declining significantly.

2nd Amendment Issues: this one was interesting, because if you only pay attention to the media hysteria and politician hystera you would think that either the right supports ending all gun control or the left favors confiscating guns. NEITHER of which are TRUE. However, it looks from this poll that support for stronger measures has been increasing.



Immigration: some surprises here as well, with significant support for BOTH better border control and a path to citizenship.

What I'm seeing is not a rejection of ideology, in fact two things come to mind. One is that, ideologically the two sides have a lot in common but something is preventing us from coming together on it and I think that is the increased partisan polarization in our country. The other thing that is possible is some of what is considered "liberal ideology" is starting to transition into the mainstream consciousness.

I don't buy it because in most cases, Americans don't have any idea of how regulations would impact them. So they word the questioning to get desired answers.

Example: Would you like cleaner air and cleaner water? Well Duh! Who would say no to that?

Break it down to dollars and cents. Because the problem with environmental improvements is that most all of the costs are hidden. Nobody knows what they are paying for them.

Ask somebody about the environment honestly. If you live an an area that has clean water, ask people if they would like to pay another 30% on top of what they already pay for cleaner water and see what kind of answer you get. Ask people if they would rather see their grocery bill decrease by 20%, or keep ethanol where we are burning our food supply that caused the increase in the first place? At least those are honest questions.

Ask people what we should do with an animal that tortured, repeatedly raped, and murdered an 8 year old girl? Or somebody that brutally beat an 83 year old woman to death to steal her purse, then put her in her car and set it afire? Bet you won't find many that say he should be supported by the public with three squares a day plus snacks, a workout room, cable television and a football field.

If you would ask people questions that give both sides of the story, you'll get different answers.

 

[ChrisL]

It's reasonable to talk about who people should vote for when they are bitching about who won. If someone didn't want Trump to win, they should have voted for the only other candidate who had a viable chance at beating them. When you throw away your vote, you throw away your standing to ***** about it with your vote.

Again, if a person didn't want Clinton or Trump as president, why would they have voted for Clinton to keep Trump from office? Why do you insist that someone most vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate? The idea that a vote for someone other than one of the two major party candidates is a 'wasted vote' is one of the more annoying in our political system. How is it throwing away a vote to vote your conscience?

Your entire point is based on the idea that only a vote for a D or R matters. Not only is that something I vehemently disagree with, not to mention insulting to anyone who votes third party/independent, it is playing into the lesser-of-two-evils paradigm that keeps the two major parties in power, as well as assures us we will continue to elect an evil.

I didn't want Trump to win. I didn't want Clinton to win. By your reasoning, not wanting either of those candidates pretty much excludes me from bitching about having one of them in office.

How's this? Did you vote for Clinton? If the answer is yes, you voted to support the Democratic party in pushing a candidate so thoroughly flawed she could not defeat a thin-skinned, juvenile celebrity candidate like Trump. Supporting Clinton gives the Dems impetus to continue pushing crappy candidates forward, so in a way Trump is your fault. Therefore, you shouldn't ***** about him being the new president.

Because when it comes to one or the other, your vote counts! The election is going to be statewide in favor of one or the other candidate in terms of electoral votes.

My vote counts whomever I vote for.

Sure to you and the guy you voted for, but not in the bigger picture in an election like this one.

What bigger picture? That one or the other was almost sure to be elected doesn't change that both were pretty poor candidates.

Because of SCOTUS appointees.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Again, if a person didn't want Clinton or Trump as president, why would they have voted for Clinton to keep Trump from office? Why do you insist that someone most vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate? The idea that a vote for someone other than one of the two major party candidates is a 'wasted vote' is one of the more annoying in our political system. How is it throwing away a vote to vote your conscience?

Your entire point is based on the idea that only a vote for a D or R matters. Not only is that something I vehemently disagree with, not to mention insulting to anyone who votes third party/independent, it is playing into the lesser-of-two-evils paradigm that keeps the two major parties in power, as well as assures us we will continue to elect an evil.

I didn't want Trump to win. I didn't want Clinton to win. By your reasoning, not wanting either of those candidates pretty much excludes me from bitching about having one of them in office.

How's this? Did you vote for Clinton? If the answer is yes, you voted to support the Democratic party in pushing a candidate so thoroughly flawed she could not defeat a thin-skinned, juvenile celebrity candidate like Trump. Supporting Clinton gives the Dems impetus to continue pushing crappy candidates forward, so in a way Trump is your fault. Therefore, you shouldn't ***** about him being the new president.

Because when it comes to one or the other, your vote counts! The election is going to be statewide in favor of one or the other candidate in terms of electoral votes.

My vote counts whomever I vote for.

Sure to you and the guy you voted for, but not in the bigger picture in an election like this one.

What bigger picture? That one or the other was almost sure to be elected doesn't change that both were pretty poor candidates.

Because of SCOTUS appointees.

That is the most important consequence of this whole election, Chris. The only governmental body that can effectively "legislate" without being directly elected.

 

[g5000]

You people will get one if you prevent Trump from being President.

The only people I have ever heard talking about succession are pseudocons. They are the ones who want a civil war. Some of them can't wait.

 

[BluesLegend]

We are Americans we are not Europeans. We don't want to be ruled by monarchies and Nobel classes. When the last monarchy got uppity we killed them and drove them from our lands. Unfortunately some of these loyalist fuckers survived and hatched into liberals, trust me they will be put down!

 

[Syriusly]

The only ones I see wanting a 'civil war' are the right wing nut jobs who keep itching for a reason to shoot Americans.

Trump will be elected when the Electoral College meets. Despite the fantasies of the left wing nut jobs, it is going to happen.

And that is despite the fantasies of the right wing nut jobs who love the idea of the Electoral College legally voting for someone else- so that they could use that as an excuse to shoot Americans.

If we on the right just wanted to shoot people, we wouldn't need an excuse.

You won't find a hell of a lot of conservative Republicans in prison for murder. In fact Republicans have done very well in restraint given the protests, riots and attacks against them. It was the left antagonizing, breaking the law, damaging businesses and even public property. Liberals are very violent people you know.

You won't find a hell of lot of liberal Democrats in prison for murder either.

Franky most of the people in prison don't give a damn about politics.

As I mentioned- its the right wing nut jobs who love the idea of the Electoral College legally voting for someone else so that they can use that as an excuse to shoot Americans. If that is not you- then congrats- you are may not be a right wing nut job.

But if you want to see some of their posts- go to the beginning of this thread.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The only ones I see wanting a 'civil war' are the right wing nut jobs who keep itching for a reason to shoot Americans.

Trump will be elected when the Electoral College meets. Despite the fantasies of the left wing nut jobs, it is going to happen.

And that is despite the fantasies of the right wing nut jobs who love the idea of the Electoral College legally voting for someone else- so that they could use that as an excuse to shoot Americans.

If we on the right just wanted to shoot people, we wouldn't need an excuse.

You won't find a hell of a lot of conservative Republicans in prison for murder. In fact Republicans have done very well in restraint given the protests, riots and attacks against them. It was the left antagonizing, breaking the law, damaging businesses and even public property. Liberals are very violent people you know.

You won't find a hell of lot of liberal Democrats in prison for murder either.

Franky most of the people in prison don't give a damn about politics.

As I mentioned- its the right wing nut jobs who love the idea of the Electoral College legally voting for someone else so that they can use that as an excuse to shoot Americans. If that is not you- then congrats- you are may not be a right wing nut job.

But if you want to see some of their posts- go to the beginning of this thread.

Why would they need an excuse to shoot anybody? Shooting a person out of anger is murder and against the law no matter what the situation.

Of course it probably won't come down to that, but let's face it, it is the left who is trying to start a civil war. They protest, attack and kill our police. They protest our candidate and attack his followers. They stop traffic, damage private and public property, and start riots.

If they keep it up, one or more may take it one step too far. They may try to stop traffic one day and some maniac will just gun the engine and kill a bunch of them. You can only push people so far before they begin to push back.

 

[Unkotare]

Think about it. Barack Obama. Scary. Lol!

I can picture an army of LIB *****-boys riding light blue 'girlie' bikes just like Obama's. These 'man-bun' metros all wearing the official uniform: Pink tank-tops. Mommy stretch pants. All waving safety pins.
Dozens and dozens of these wimps doing bike-formation figure eights like the Shriners do on their little mini motor bikes during a parade.
....'.

No one wants to hear about your sexual fantasies, boy.


Trump won the election. Liberals just have to get over it.

Is that a 'man-bun' you are sporting?

No, and keep your deviant fantasies to yourself.


You liberals are losing your minds over the election.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Of course it probably won't come down to that, but let's face it, it is the left who is trying to start a civil war. They protest, attack and kill our police. .

Since when is protesting trying to 'start a civil war'? There is nothing more American than protesting. It was even embodied in our Constitution.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

Who is 'killing our police'?

Criminals- who generally are neither on the right or the left- but are criminals- usually really stupid criminals.

The only ones who I have seen calling for a Civil War here at USMB are the usual collection of right wing nut jobs.

Yes- and they are just looking for an excuse to be able to shoot Americans they don't agree with, thinking that in a civil war, they won't have to worry about being arrested for doing so.

 

[HenryBHough]

If The Democrat Party Adherents get the civil war they are jonesing for it's highly probable that they will come heavily armed.

With cocktail stirrers.

 

[Faun]

My approval has nothing to do with this. There were only 2 viable candidates. Reality dictated that, not my approval. There was no chance anyone other than Trump or Hillary was going to win. And anyone upset with Trump in office who either didn't vote or threw their vote away on some other candidate (which is effectively the same as not voting) has no business bitching now. If yiu didn't want Trump, you should have voted for Hillary. If you didn't want Hillary, you should have voted for Trump. There were no other viable candidates.

Here you are talking about who other people should be voting for again.

1) The two major party candidates are the only viable candidates so long as people believe that to be true. If people start to believe otherwise, a third party candidate can become viable. That has to begin somewhere.
2) You are assuming that a person must vote against a candidate. Perhaps some people actually voted FOR a candidate, instead.
3) Your chosen candidate winning the election is not the only reason people cast a presidential vote.
4) Some people didn't want Trump or Clinton in office.

This is still all about your approval. If you approve of the way someone voted, you approve of them complaining. Otherwise, you don't think they have any business bitching. I think that is ridiculous.

It's reasonable to talk about who people should vote for when they are bitching about who won. If someone didn't want Trump to win, they should have voted for the only other candidate who had a viable chance at beating them. When you throw away your vote, you throw away your standing to ***** about it with your vote.

Again, if a person didn't want Clinton or Trump as president, why would they have voted for Clinton to keep Trump from office? Why do you insist that someone most vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate? The idea that a vote for someone other than one of the two major party candidates is a 'wasted vote' is one of the more annoying in our political system. How is it throwing away a vote to vote your conscience?

Your entire point is based on the idea that only a vote for a D or R matters. Not only is that something I vehemently disagree with, not to mention insulting to anyone who votes third party/independent, it is playing into the lesser-of-two-evils paradigm that keeps the two major parties in power, as well as assures us we will continue to elect an evil.

I didn't want Trump to win. I didn't want Clinton to win. By your reasoning, not wanting either of those candidates pretty much excludes me from bitching about having one of them in office.

How's this? Did you vote for Clinton? If the answer is yes, you voted to support the Democratic party in pushing a candidate so thoroughly flawed she could not defeat a thin-skinned, juvenile celebrity candidate like Trump. Supporting Clinton gives the Dems impetus to continue pushing crappy candidates forward, so in a way Trump is your fault. Therefore, you shouldn't ***** about him being the new president.

It matters not that you wanted neither to win as one of them was going to regardless of what you wanted. Many folks would have preferred better candidates to choose from; but our choices were still limited to Trump or Hillary. For those who liked neither, which applied to many, the only rational choice was to pick the lesser of two evils. For those who were stupid enough to throw their vote away by not voting or voting 3rd party, **** 'em. They had their chance to speak up and blew it. No one cares now to hear from those who didn't care enough to speak (vote) then.

And now you feel you can speak for everyone.

Anyone who voted for a candidate other than Trump or Clinton did "speak up." That you don't like what they had to say doesn't change that fact.

As long as people continue to accept the lesser-of-two-evils, they will continue to be accepting evil.

You seem to also be ignoring people who may not have seen either Trump or Clinton as a lesser evil.

If you don't want to read people ***** about Trump as president if they didn't vote for Clinton, you can put them on ignore. Seems pretty childish and thin-skinned, though.....like Trump.

No, they did not speak up. They threw their vote away. And if they throw their vote away, they are in no position to ***** now when they had the chance to speak up.

 

[Coyote]

Damn. Isn't that what you guys were calling for if Clinton won?

The election is a done deal. Trump won. But the issues surrounding it need to be examined. these kinds of disruptions should not happen again.

These "kinds of disruptions" have been happening for some time now., Third Democrat presidential loss in a row where they made claim something was amiss. This time it's the Russians. The time before that, it was Diebold voting machines. The time before that, hanging chads and the Supreme Court.

All lies of course, but major problems to say the least. The next time a Democrat losses, the same thing will happen. Democrats just can't come to grips that much of America doesn't think like them.

Yet they won in 2008 and 2012.

These kind of disruptions are not normal. 2000 was a very close election. Republicans seem to have trouble winning with much of a margin. In fact - in 2000 and 2016, the winning candidate lost the popular vote. Maybe much of America doesn't thinnk much like the Republicans either.

Well.......... if you take CA out of the mix, Trump would have won by 2 million himself. Remember too that Republicanism and conservatism is sweeping the country. Since the election of DumBama, the Democrats lost something like 900 seats when you factor in federal, state and local.

People love Obama on a personal basis, but not liberal policies. That explains his success and his failed midterms. They still love him today if you look at his approval ratings.

The Democrats made the mistake by taking his success and thinking it was his policies. Hil-Liar just picked up the football and ran with it. But she's no Obama by any stretch of the imagination.

Not sure conservatism is sweeping the country so much as clever long term strategy on the part of the GOP(focusing on state legislators and governorships) in the face of a complacent DNC with it's attitude of entitlement.

For example, look at the following policies and public opinion:

Obamacare - despite the initial resistence and opposition, at this point less than 30% want it repealed. The like many of the consituent parts of it. They want it fixed.

Environment: Most Americans favor strictor environmental regulations.

More Americans say environmental regulations are “worth the cost” than say such regulations come at too steep a price, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. These views come amid speculation about what President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees may mean for future regulatory policy.


A majority of U.S. adults (59%) say stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost, compared with roughly a third (34%) who say such regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy, according to the survey, conducted Nov. 30 to Dec. 5.​

Abortion: Majority oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, in fact the number opposing that has increased over the years. Funding for Planned Parenthood, in last years budget deal was also supported by a majority. Keeping abortion legal in all/most cases continues to maintain popular support (as of 2013, that support has gone up since 2007 where it dropped to a low, I'm presuming the support has gone up in the face of laws attempting to severely restrict a woman's access to abortion in some states).

Death Penalty: while a majority continues to support the death penalty, that support has been declining significantly.

2nd Amendment Issues: this one was interesting, because if you only pay attention to the media hysteria and politician hystera you would think that either the right supports ending all gun control or the left favors confiscating guns. NEITHER of which are TRUE. However, it looks from this poll that support for stronger measures has been increasing.



Immigration: some surprises here as well, with significant support for BOTH better border control and a path to citizenship.

What I'm seeing is not a rejection of ideology, in fact two things come to mind. One is that, ideologically the two sides have a lot in common but something is preventing us from coming together on it and I think that is the increased partisan polarization in our country. The other thing that is possible is some of what is considered "liberal ideology" is starting to transition into the mainstream consciousness.

I don't buy it because in most cases, Americans don't have any idea of how regulations would impact them. So they word the questioning to get desired answers.

Example: Would you like cleaner air and cleaner water? Well Duh! Who would say no to that?

Break it down to dollars and cents. Because the problem with environmental improvements is that most all of the costs are hidden. Nobody knows what they are paying for them.

Ask somebody about the environment honestly. If you live an an area that has clean water, ask people if they would like to pay another 30% on top of what they already pay for cleaner water and see what kind of answer you get. Ask people if they would rather see their grocery bill decrease by 20%, or keep ethanol where we are burning our food supply that caused the increase in the first place? At least those are honest questions.

Isn't that the case with any issue? For example - do people really understand that extensive de-regulation in the coal industry could lead to higher serious health hazards like black lung disease (coal dust being one of the things they want to relax restrictions on) - instead they see it as jobs. It's a two way street. Would people be willing to pay more for clean water - to not go through what Flint, MI did? I bet they would all say yes. Pew is a reputable group and they are non-partisan. They are known for integrity.

Ask people what we should do with an animal that tortured, repeatedly raped, and murdered an 8 year old girl? Or somebody that brutally beat an 83 year old woman to death to steal her purse, then put her in her car and set it afire? Bet you won't find many that say he should be supported by the public with three squares a day plus snacks, a workout room, cable television and a football field.

You're couching the questions in emotional terms though aren't you? And when you do that you are more likely to get an emotional answer. You could equally ask:

What about execution of the 35 year old father of 3, wrongfully convicted of rape, and executed on death row - subsequently found innocent?

Or, the woman wrongfully incarcerated, who commits suicide?

Sure, you can couch questions in emotionally evocative terms and get MISLEADING answers because they are responding to that one particular situation - not the situation as a whole.

If you would ask people questions that give both sides of the story, you'll get different answers.

But you're NOT giving both sides of the story. You are choosing not to word it in a NEUTRAL manner, but in a way that emphasizes one side only. Right?

The conclusion, drawn by PEW:

A more detailed study last year of attitudes toward capital punishment found that 63% of the public thought the death penalty was morally justified, but majorities said there was some risk of an innocent person being put to death (71%) and that the death penalty does not deter serious crime (61%).​

This seems a more thoughtful answer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Isn't that the case with any issue? For example - do people really understand that extensive de-regulation in the coal industry could lead to higher serious health hazards like black lung disease (coal dust being one of the things they want to relax restrictions on) - instead they see it as jobs. It's a two way street. Would people be willing to pay more for clean water - to not go through what Flint, MI did? I bet they would all say yes. Pew is a reputable group and they are non-partisan. They are known for integrity.

And how many Flint's do we have in this country? Better question, how often?

Why do I take issue with this? Because it's the feds that laid down the law for our drinking water here in Cleveland. We were quite happy with our water, but because some bureaucrats in Washington weren't, we were forced to make improvements that nobody here wanted. It greatly increased the cost of our water and sewer bills.

When I have a choice between renting to a family of four, or renting to a single person or couple, guess who I'm going to choose for tenants? That's right, the couple mostly because of water and sewer costs. And let me tell you, around here, getting a nice rent is almost impossible these days. The new tenants I've rented to within the last year have told me this. So find those applicants I didn't choose and ask them if they want cleaner water.

You're couching the questions in emotional terms though aren't you? And when you do that you are more likely to get an emotional answer. You could equally ask:

What about execution of the 35 year old father of 3, wrongfully convicted of rape, and executed on death row - subsequently found innocent?

Or, the woman wrongfully incarcerated, who commits suicide?

Sure, you can couch questions in emotionally evocative terms and get MISLEADING answers because they are responding to that one particular situation - not the situation as a whole.

I don't know what the woman in jail has to do with the death penalty.

The methods we use to determine innocence (DNA) is what we currently use to convict people. Sure, there have been cases many years ago where a person was not guilty of anything. Again, years ago when we didn't have the technology. Today however, nobody is found guilty that didn't commit the crime. If it's not DNA, it's other forensic science. If it's not other forensic science, it's video which is all around us today. If it's not video, it's all three.

So again, it's a tilted question because you're making the case for crimes in the 70's and not today. Emotional? You bet, and it should be emotional because closing the door on the death penalty would prohibit the execution of that murderer and rapist of the 8 year old, and the murderer of that little old lady. You simply can't exclude crimes like that (or worse) from the question.

But you're NOT giving both sides of the story. You are choosing not to word it in a NEUTRAL manner, but in a way that emphasizes one side only. Right?

The conclusion, drawn by PEW:
A more detailed study last year of attitudes toward capital punishment found that 63% of the public thought the death penalty was morally justified, but majorities said there was some risk of an innocent person being put to death (71%) and that the death penalty does not deter serious crime (61%).
This seems a more thoughtful answer.

Of course it's not a deterrent. When somebody commits a horrible act of murder, and the death penalty is not carried out for 15-18 years, how could it be a deterrent? Nobody but the family even remembers the crime.

Is that a reason to get rid of the death penalty, or is it a reason to make it a deterrent--say have the punishment carried out with all appeals exhausted within five months of sentencing? If we did that, it would act as a deterrent. But again, nobody asks the question in that way. If somebody asked me whether it was a deterrent or not, I would have to answer "no" as well. It doesn't mean I think we should get rid of it. Again, slanted questions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[
Of course it probably won't come down to that, but let's face it, it is the left who is trying to start a civil war. They protest, attack and kill our police. .

Since when is protesting trying to 'start a civil war'? There is nothing more American than protesting. It was even embodied in our Constitution.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

Who is 'killing our police'?

Criminals- who generally are neither on the right or the left- but are criminals- usually really stupid criminals.

The only ones who I have seen calling for a Civil War here at USMB are the usual collection of right wing nut jobs.

Yes- and they are just looking for an excuse to be able to shoot Americans they don't agree with, thinking that in a civil war, they won't have to worry about being arrested for doing so.

It's not the left or the right? Where do you live, under a rock? Of course it's the left and these protests. What were the riots in Baltimore and Ferguson about, Republicans upset that there are too many criminals? No, they were the left upset with law, order and civility. They were upset with our police officers. Remember the chants "Pigs in the blanket--fry them like bacon?" How about "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" And yes, they've killed our police officers because of these "peaceful" protests.

You want to see a right protest? Dig up some videos of the Tea Party rallies. A bunch of people that gathered to hear speeches, drank lemon tea sitting in their folding chairs, went home the same day at a decent hour, cleaned up after themselves, and not one arrest. Not even a parking ticket. That's your right protesting.

Occupy Wall Street? People sleeping over for weeks at a time. Using streets, public buildings, public grass lands as toilets. People getting loaded, buying and selling drugs, a few reports of rape. Damage to public and private property, arrest after arrest, injured police officers. When they finally did leave, the left the place like a tornado went through the area. That's your left peacefully protesting.

Nobody on the right wants a civil war, but if the left is going to bring it to us, we're not backing down. When Satan opens up the gates of hell to attack good people, good people have no choice but to fight against evil.

 

[Flopper]

You have no business bitching about Trump if you threw away your only opportunity to vote for the one viable candidate running against him.

As though saying someone can't complain if they don't vote isn't bad enough, here you are saying someone can't complain if they don't vote for someone you approve of as viable?

My approval has nothing to do with this. There were only 2 viable candidates. Reality dictated that, not my approval. There was no chance anyone other than Trump or Hillary was going to win. And anyone upset with Trump in office who either didn't vote or threw their vote away on some other candidate (which is effectively the same as not voting) has no business bitching now. If yiu didn't want Trump, you should have voted for Hillary. If you didn't want Hillary, you should have voted for Trump. There were no other viable candidates.

Here you are talking about who other people should be voting for again.

1) The two major party candidates are the only viable candidates so long as people believe that to be true. If people start to believe otherwise, a third party candidate can become viable. That has to begin somewhere.
2) You are assuming that a person must vote against a candidate. Perhaps some people actually voted FOR a candidate, instead.
3) Your chosen candidate winning the election is not the only reason people cast a presidential vote.
4) Some people didn't want Trump or Clinton in office.

This is still all about your approval. If you approve of the way someone voted, you approve of them complaining. Otherwise, you don't think they have any business bitching. I think that is ridiculous.

It's reasonable to talk about who people should vote for when they are bitching about who won. If someone didn't want Trump to win, they should have voted for the only other candidate who had a viable chance at beating them. When you throw away your vote, you throw away your standing to ***** about it with your vote.

Again, if a person didn't want Clinton or Trump as president, why would they have voted for Clinton to keep Trump from office? Why do you insist that someone most vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate? The idea that a vote for someone other than one of the two major party candidates is a 'wasted vote' is one of the more annoying in our political system. How is it throwing away a vote to vote your conscience?

Your entire point is based on the idea that only a vote for a D or R matters. Not only is that something I vehemently disagree with, not to mention insulting to anyone who votes third party/independent, it is playing into the lesser-of-two-evils paradigm that keeps the two major parties in power, as well as assures us we will continue to elect an evil.

I didn't want Trump to win. I didn't want Clinton to win. By your reasoning, not wanting either of those candidates pretty much excludes me from bitching about having one of them in office.

How's this? Did you vote for Clinton? If the answer is yes, you voted to support the Democratic party in pushing a candidate so thoroughly flawed she could not defeat a thin-skinned, juvenile celebrity candidate like Trump. Supporting Clinton gives the Dems impetus to continue pushing crappy candidates forward, so in a way Trump is your fault. Therefore, you shouldn't ***** about him being the new president.

Voting third party and even write-ins certain has merit because it sends a message to the two major parties that they need to change to get your vote. However, most people are interested in picking the lesser of two bad choices which is often the case.