Cokes wrote This enthusiasm was no where to be found November 8th when they had a chance to elect a women President.

I don't think that's accurate.

Worldwide there are estimated to be 2.5 million protesters taking part in these marches.
Hillary won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes on November 8th.

I'm not trying to start a debate about whether or not the popular vote should matter more than the electoral college, but the enthusiasm was definitely there.

The problem was that Trump was hammered so hard - and so stupidly - by the mainstream media that his supporters were much more enthusiastic than Hillary's were.

Cokes wrote You're trying to tell me the hundreds of thousands of rioters from these recent few months are apart of the group Black Bloc? Not believable.

No, there have been liberal riots over the past few months but the one going on around the inauguration isn't that.
We know that the ones rioting at the moment are anarchists because they are all holding anarchist flags and they all wear black so that it's more difficult to tell them apart - so that they can avoid prosecution.

This happens every year and to attribute this to liberals is just wrong.

This is like liberals attributing these riots to Trump supporters because in his speech he said, "January 20th 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again."


It's wrong and it doesn't make sense.
These riots would have happened if Hillary was elected because that's just what Anarchists do. They form a Black Bloc and smash up a Starbucks.

Cokes wrote Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because of deep blue states like California, where she led the state 4.3 million votes. Take California out of the equation, and factor in the rest of the 49 states, Donald Trump wins the popular vote by over 1 million votes. California also has the highest illegal population, making up 6 percent of California's state population. Not saying illegals voted, but it's very understandable that Californians would be not be found of Trump in any way and it showed in their voting records. The popular vote for Clinton doesn't mean much when it's one state that needs to carry her to it. So no, the enthusiasm wasn't there.

But regardless, the numbers aren't relevant. The point is, why not take the effort of 2.5 million people, and push it towards organizing a grassroots movement? Why not organize this march prior to the election where people will actually get out and vote. There was a lower turnout for HRC than there was with Obama, so clearly it wouldn't have been a waste, although we can never be too sure. Nonetheless, a march would have made more impact to the Presidency before, rather than after. Again, this level of enthusiasm was nonexistent prior to the election . Women's March was trending world wide with over 1 million tweets, this could have done wonders prior to the election. The march was nothing but resistance to the transition of power of a democratically elected President.

As far as riots go, I'm not talking about one specific riot. The user I replied to had implied that the riots were all caused by one group, because the user he replied to mentioned the phrase riots generally. Overall, there has been riots caused by liberals, and anarchist groups. I'm not attributing this single riot to liberals, but what I will attribute to them is the hypocrisy when they were criticizing Trump for not accepting the election results, because many of them are doing the same thing right now. A peaceful transition of power isn't going to happen with all these protests/riots.

The only way that I can reply to this is by debating semantics and sentence structure with you and let's be honest that is quite boring and not worth the time.
The first paragraph I agree with but like you said the numbers aren't relevant. The second I agree with but not really for the same reasons as you have put forward. The third I do take issue with but it would just be a boring discussion about semantics.

I don't think we disagree on enough and strongly enough to continue this debate so I'll leave it at this.

Skates wrote its lit.

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Yes, literally

I agree wholeheartedly. People would rather see Trump fail then succeed which truly terrifies me.

Just hoping Trump doesn't actually build the wall(s).

Wanting trump to fail is like wanting a pilot to crash a plane, THAT YOU'RE ON.

I for one hope he shows these people that he knows what he's doing, I believe in Trump.

Are there others that would be better? Yes, there always is, but Trump is our president, and wanting him to fail at it is just plain dumb.

Zytio wrote Wanting trump to fail is like wanting a pilot to crash a plane, THAT YOU'RE ON.

I for one hope he shows these people that he knows what he's doing, I believe in Trump.

Are there others that would be better? Yes, there always is, but Trump is our president, and wanting him to fail at it is just plain dumb.

I think it is a matter of perspective. If the pilot is headed towards a mountain on purpose, do I want them to fail or succeed? There are those that want him to crash and burn though. They think if he does, the next president has the chance to be more liberal than Obama. I understand it, but I personally don't want to take the risk of ending up in a bad way and can't get out. I do hope he does good, but I feel that would be him failing to do what he wants.

Cioran wrote

Cokes wrote This enthusiasm was no where to be found November 8th when they had a chance to elect a women President.

I don't think that's accurate.

Worldwide there are estimated to be 2.5 million protesters taking part in these marches.
Hillary won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes on November 8th.

I'm not trying to start a debate about whether or not the popular vote should matter more than the electoral college, but the enthusiasm was definitely there.

The problem was that Trump was hammered so hard - and so stupidly - by the mainstream media that his supporters were much more enthusiastic than Hillary's were.

Cokes wrote You're trying to tell me the hundreds of thousands of rioters from these recent few months are apart of the group Black Bloc? Not believable.

No, there have been liberal riots over the past few months but the one going on around the inauguration isn't that.
We know that the ones rioting at the moment are anarchists because they are all holding anarchist flags and they all wear black so that it's more difficult to tell them apart - so that they can avoid prosecution.

This happens every year and to attribute this to liberals is just wrong.

This is like liberals attributing these riots to Trump supporters because in his speech he said, "January 20th 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again."

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

It's wrong and it doesn't make sense.
These riots would have happened if Hillary was elected because that's just what Anarchists do. They form a Black Bloc and smash up a Starbucks.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because of deep blue states like California, where she led the state 4.3 million votes. Take California out of the equation, and factor in the rest of the 49 states, Donald Trump wins the popular vote by over 1 million votes. California also has the highest illegal population, making up 6 percent of California's state population. Not saying illegals voted, but it's very understandable that Californians would be not be found of Trump in any way and it showed in their voting records. The popular vote for Clinton doesn't mean much when it's one state that needs to carry her to it. So no, the enthusiasm wasn't there.

But regardless, the numbers aren't relevant. The point is, why not take the effort of 2.5 million people, and push it towards organizing a grassroots movement? Why not organize this march prior to the election where people will actually get out and vote. There was a lower turnout for HRC than there was with Obama, so clearly it wouldn't have been a waste, although we can never be too sure. Nonetheless, a march would have made more impact to the Presidency before, rather than after. Again, this level of enthusiasm was nonexistent prior to the election . Women's March was trending world wide with over 1 million tweets, this could have done wonders prior to the election. The march was nothing but resistance to the transition of power of a democratically elected President.



As far as riots go, I'm not talking about one specific riot. The user I replied to had implied that the riots were all caused by one group, because the user he replied to mentioned the phrase riots generally. Overall, there has been riots caused by liberals, and anarchist groups. I'm not attributing this single riot to liberals, but what I will attribute to them is the hypocrisy when they were criticizing Trump for not accepting the election results, because many of them are doing the same thing right now. A peaceful transition of power isn't going to happen with all these protests/riots.

---

Cioran wrote The only way that I can reply to this is by debating semantics and sentence structure with you and let's be honest that is quite boring and not worth the time.
The first paragraph I agree with but like you said the numbers aren't relevant. The second I agree with but not really for the same reasons as you have put forward. The third I do take issue with but it would just be a boring discussion about semantics.

What is there to debate about semantics? It was very straight forward about what was said in my opinion.

All of theses of Anti-Trump protesters are not protesters, they are Anti-American Rioters.

This is what was originally said. All meaning not just one single protest.

The user I replied to stated:

If you're talking about the people who were destroying shit, they aren't the liberal protesters. They're group called the "Black Bloc".

It's pretty clear to me he wasn't talking about one instance, considering there has been protests for many months, not just one day after the inauguration.

"Not my President"

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Looks like he his your president kids https://www.thetechgame.com/images/chat/smiles/kfc.png

Cokes wrote

Cioran wrote The only way that I can reply to this is by debating semantics and sentence structure with you and let's be honest that is quite boring and not worth the time.
The first paragraph I agree with but like you said the numbers aren't relevant. The second I agree with but not really for the same reasons as you have put forward. The third I do take issue with but it would just be a boring discussion about semantics.

What is there to debate about semantics? It was very straight forward about what was said in my opinion.

Cokes wrote Overall, there has been riots caused by liberals, and anarchist groups. I'm not attributing this single riot to liberals

We don't need to debate the semantics of what he said or what who he was replying to said because we agree in the end.
We have just taken two different routes to get to the same conclusion and that's not worth taking the time to discuss.