D.C. protesters tear gassed

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

1 minute ago, Radio Ga Ga said:

Mess at the littletrumpsters on this forum, if you're gay and support trump (and worse, his administration which includes mike pence), I hope you go through electro conversion therapy 

Disgusting.

[PaperIz 7,354]

Protesting and the like is key to our country. It's like the backbone, standing up to injustice. To silence it is horrific

[Bebe 17,289]

2 minutes ago, Saint Laurent said:

Honestly, his policies haven't even been officially announced.

The rhetoric of the election campaign should be largely ignored.

Lets wait and see what the actual policies are going to be before we protest against them.

"The rhetoric of the election campaign should be largely ignored."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

I disagree with that completely  There is nothing at all wrong with standing up and saying "We the people do not agree with your campaign rhetoric and we won't stand for these policies."

It's completely unreasonable to expect people to just ignore it and act like the racist rhetoric of his campaign or his racist policy proposals don't matter.

It's what he has promised, it's what he has talked about non-stop for months. Of course people want to stand up and say that they don't want him to continue with this rhetoric or act upon his proposals. There is nothing wrong with making sure your voices are heard and making sure that the government knows the people won't accept racist, bigoted rhetoric or policies.

There was also a sign about education! About public schooling! Trump just nominated a woman for secretary of education that wants to privatise public education, a woman that has a personal interest in charter schools that you would think conflicts with her ability to act as a secretary of education.

It's also more than fair to protest that.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

#ThankYouObamas is trending on Twitter.

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

2 minutes ago, Bebe said:

"The rhetoric of the election campaign should be largely ignored."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

I disagree with that completely  There is nothing at all wrong with standing up and saying "We the people do not agree with your campaign rhetoric and we won't stand for these policies."

It's completely unreasonable to expect people to just ignore it and act like the racist rhetoric of his campaign or his racist policy proposals don't matter.

It's what he has promised, it's what he has talked about non-stop for months. Of course people want to stand up and say that they don't want him to continue with this rhetoric or act upon his proposals. There is nothing wrong with making sure your voices are heard and making sure that the government knows the people won't accept racist, bigoted rhetoric or policies.

There was also a sign about education! About public schooling! Trump just nominated a woman for secretary of education that wants to privatise public education, a woman that has a personal interest in charter schools that you would think conflicts with her ability to act as a secretary of education.

It's also more than fair to protest that.

I didn't say there was darling, I said it was wrong to protest an inauguration of an elected President.

[Bebe 17,289]

6 minutes ago, Saint Laurent said:

I didn't say there was darling, I said it was wrong to protest an inauguration of an elected President.

You said "The rhetoric of the election campaign should be largely ignored."

Then you said:

"Lets wait and see what the actual policies are going to be before we protest against them."

I disagree,  like I said in response:

"There is nothing at all wrong with standing up and saying "We the people do not agree with your campaign rhetoric and we won't stand for these policies.""

Yes, you originally said you disagreed with people protesting the actual inauguration of an elected President (Even though there was no evidence of people doing that) but you clearly went beyond that after I told you what they were protesting  

You said that Trump's campaign rhetoric should be ignored and that the protesters should wait for 'actual policies' before protesting and I disagreed  

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

1 minute ago, Bebe said:

You said "The rhetoric of the election campaign should be largely ignored."

Then you said:

"Lets wait and see what the actual policies are going to be before we protest against them."

I disagree,  like I said in response:

"There is nothing at all wrong with standing up and saying "We the people do not agree with your campaign rhetoric and we won't stand for these policies.""

Yes, you originally said you disagreed with people protesting the actual inauguration of an elected President (Even though there was no evidence of people doing that) but you clearly went beyond that after I told you what they were protesting  

You said that Trump's campaign rhetoric should be ignored and that the protesters should wait for 'actual policies' before protesting and I disagreed  

I did not say, contrary to what you would have people believe, that it was wrong to protest the election rhetoric, nor did I say it was wrong to protest the proposed policies.

I personally believe that the rhetoric of the campaign should be largely ignored, and by that I mean it should not be taken seriously, as the election campaign was essentially a boxing match between Donald and Hillary. Not only that, the election campaign was largely without reference to policies. Therefore, yes I do believe that to a large extent, the rhetoric of the campaign should be ignored.

I also personally believe that it would be more prudent and more advantageous to the cause to wait until an official announcement of policies before protesting them. This is because, obviously, it would be a lot easier and clearer if the protesters were to protest an actual policy, rather than the words of a man so clearly deranged as a result of an ongoing personal battle between the other candidate.

Moreover, I said nothing about the protesting of the appointment of an education minister and frankly hadn't noticed that sign as part of the protest. For this I would agree that protest is acceptable.

Otherwise, I do not find it to be prudent to protest no existent policies, which is why I suggested they wait.

[Bebe 17,289]

16 minutes ago, Saint Laurent said:

I did not say, contrary to what you would have people believe, that it was wrong to protest the election rhetoric, nor did I say it was wrong to protest the proposed policies.

I personally believe that the rhetoric of the campaign should be largely ignored, and by that I mean it should not be taken seriously, as the election campaign was essentially a boxing match between Donald and Hillary. Not only that, the election campaign was largely without reference to policies. Therefore, yes I do believe that to a large extent, the rhetoric of the campaign should be ignored.

I also personally believe that it would be more prudent and more advantageous to the cause to wait until an official announcement of policies before protesting them. This is because, obviously, it would be a lot easier and clearer if the protesters were to protest an actual policy, rather than the words of a man so clearly deranged as a result of an ongoing personal battle between the other candidate.

Moreover, I said nothing about the protesting of the appointment of an education minister and frankly hadn't noticed that sign as part of the protest. For this I would agree that protest is acceptable.

Otherwise, I do not find it to be prudent to protest no existent policies, which is why I suggested they wait.

I'm glad you don't think there is anything wrong with protesting, but your posts have clearly had a critical tone of the protesters

From the beginning you falsely framed the protesters as anti-democratic protestors who were protesting the peaceful transfer of power and protesting the actual inauguration process - when there was no evidence of any group of protestors doing that and actual clear evidence of what they where protesting.

You continue to say that you think the rhetoric of the campaign should not be taken seriously, which still seems unnecessarily critical of protestors who are clearly taking such rhetoric seriously. Our point of disagreement on this is that I think it's important for people to take such racist, divisive rhetoric seriously and band together to make it clear that they will not stand for such rhetoric. I side with the protestors, who are taking this seriously - you seem to be critical of this and think Trump's campaign rhetoric should be ignored and not taken seriously

You continue to say that protesters should wait, I think that that's crazy. I think that people should be vocal about rejecting his proposed policies and vocal about rejecting the rhetoric he has spent months campaigning on. That stuff is important, we shouldn't be waiting until there are actual policies we should be making it clear what we don't want in a Trump presidency and the majority don't want what he offered in his campaign (which is all anyone can go on).

 

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

2 minutes ago, Bebe said:

I'm glad you don't think there is anything wrong with protesting, but your posts have clearly had a critical tone of the protesters

From the beginning you falsely framed the protesters as anti-democratic protestors who were protesting the peaceful transfer of power and protesting the actual inauguration process - when there was no evidence of any group of protestors doing that and actual clear evidence of what they where protesting.

You continue to say that you think the rhetoric of the campaign should not be taken seriously, which still seems unnecessarily critical of protestors who are clearly taking such rhetoric seriously. Our point of disagreement on this is that I think it's important for people to take such racist, divisive rhetoric seriously and band together to make it clear that they will not stand for such rhetoric. I side with the protestors, who are taking this seriously - you seem to be critical of this and think people should be ignored and not taken seriously

You continue to say that protesters should wait, I think that that's crazy. I think that people should be vocal about rejecting his proposed policies and vocal about rejecting the rhetoric he has spent months campaigning on. That stuff is important, we shouldn't be waiting until there are actual policies we should be making it clear what we don't want in a Trump presidency and the majority don't want what he offered in his campaign (which is all anyone can go on).

 

That's totally incorrect I'm afraid. I hadn't even read the news story before my initial post, which was simply to question the notion put forward that all forms of protest are democratic, which is an idea that I disagree with.

By the way I'm not American, but I am quite sure that he has apologised for many of the unacceptable things he said during the campaign. If he didn't apologise for all of them then that's fair enough, but the point still stands. Why are we protesting somebody for saying something, which has since been retracted, does that not seem like a waste of resources to you?

Apologising doesn't make something okay by any means, but unless you want the man to draw blood for you I see no purpose to protesting retracted statements he made, as I've said, throughout a long, arduous and quite frankly, childish campaign.

After reading relevant news articles, I became critical of the protesters because, as I've just said, I think it would be more prudent to wait. If you disagree with that, that's fine, that is one of the many advantages of a democracy.

My tone is critical because I am critical, but not for the reasons you're suggesting.

[Bebe 17,289]

Just now, Saint Laurent said:

That's totally incorrect I'm afraid. I hadn't even read the news story before my initial post, which was simply to question the notion put forward that all forms of protest are democratic, which is an idea that I disagree with.

By the way I'm not American, but I am quite sure that he has apologised for many of the unacceptable things he said during the campaign. If he didn't apologise for all of them then that's fair enough, but the point still stands. Why are we protesting somebody for saying something, which has since been retracted, does that not seem like a waste of resources to you?

Apologising doesn't make something okay by any means, but unless you want the man to draw blood for you I see no purpose to protesting retracted statements he made, as I've said, throughout a long, arduous and quite frankly, childish campaign.

After reading relevant news articles, I became critical of the protesters because, as I've just said, I think it would be more prudent to wait. If you disagree with that, that's fine, that is one of the many advantages of a democracy.

My tone is critical because I am critical, but not for the reasons you're suggesting.

"I hadn't even read the news story before my initial post," Well that was your first mistake.

"I am quite sure that he has apologised for many of the unacceptable things he said during the campaign." Nope. He hasn't.

"Why are we protesting somebody for saying something, which has since been retracted, does that not seem like a waste of resources to you?"

Firstly, they haven't been retracted... Secondly, what the president says he is going to do when president is relevant and it's important for protesters who disagree to make their voices heard (especially in an instance like this when he lost the popular vote and his rhetoric and proposals where clearly racist and bigoted).  They are protesting his rhetoric during the campaign because they don't want him to continue it on in his presidency? They are protesting his proposed policies because they don't want to see them enacted? That doesn't seem like a waste of energy.

"Apologising doesn't make something okay by any means, but unless you want the man to draw blood for you I see no purpose to protesting retracted statements he made, as I've said, throughout a long, arduous and quite frankly, childish campaign."

Apologised for what??? He hasn't apologised for saying he wants to build a wall! He still does! He hasn't apologised for saying a judge was biased because “he’s a Mexican”, he hasn't apologised for attacking Muslim Gold Star parents by insinuating the woman wasn't allowed to speak, he didn't apologise for suggesting President Obama was born in Kenya - he bragged about it, he has continuously downplayed  the racist incidents that followed his election....What are you talking about with the apologies?? When has Trump ever apologised?

I've only repeated what you have said  You think protestors should wait and you think Trump's campaign rhetoric should be ignored - I understand why, I totally disagree.

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

1 minute ago, Bebe said:

"I hadn't even read the news story before my initial post," Well that was your first mistake.

"I am quite sure that he has apologised for many of the unacceptable things he said during the campaign." Nope. He hasn't.

"Why are we protesting somebody for saying something, which has since been retracted, does that not seem like a waste of resources to you?"

Firstly, they haven't been retracted... Secondly, what the president says he is going to do when president is relevant and it's important for protesters who disagree to make their voices heard (especially in an instance like this when he lost the popular vote and his rhetoric and proposals where clearly racist and bigoted).  They are protesting his rhetoric during the campaign because they don't want him to continue it on in his presidency? They are protesting his proposed policies because they don't want to see them enacted? That doesn't seem like a waste of energy.

"Apologising doesn't make something okay by any means, but unless you want the man to draw blood for you I see no purpose to protesting retracted statements he made, as I've said, throughout a long, arduous and quite frankly, childish campaign."

Apologised for what??? He hasn't apologised for saying he wants to build a wall! He still does! He hasn't apologised for saying a judge was biased because “he’s a Mexican”, he hasn't apologised for attacking Muslim Gold Star parents by insinuating the woman wasn't allowed to speak, he didn't apologise for suggesting President Obama was born in Kenya - he bragged about it, he has continuously downplayed  the racist incidents that followed his election....What are you talking about with the apologies?? When has Trump ever apologised?

I've only repeated what you have said  You think protestors should wait and you think Trump's campaign rhetoric should be ignored - I understand why, I totally disagree.

It wasn't mistake, I have the knowledge to give a general commentary on the democratic legitimacy of protesting thank you.

In that case, my apologies, I have been led to believe that he has. If you think he hasn't then that's fine.

Why would he apologise for wanting to build a wall. 

[Bebe 17,289]

8 minutes ago, Saint Laurent said:

It wasn't mistake, I have the knowledge to give a general commentary on the democratic legitimacy of protesting thank you.

In that case, my apologies, I have been led to believe that he has. If you think he hasn't then that's fine.

Why would he apologise for wanting to build a wall. 

It does seem like a mistake to enter a thread and make a comment like:

"If they're protesting the inauguration of Trump that is seemingly undemocratic as it is protesting the mandate of the people."

When it was clear from OP that it wasn't what they were doing, but if you don't see it that way then fine

"In that case, my apologies, I have been led to believe that he has. If you think he hasn't then that's fine."

It's not about me thinking he hasn't, he hasn't.  

"Why would he apologise for wanting to build a wall? "

I wouldn't think he would  I think you misinterpreted my point. You asked "Why are we protesting somebody for saying something, which has since been retracted, does that not seem like a waste of resources to you?"

You also said "unless you want the man to draw blood for you I see no purpose to protesting retracted statements he made"

People are protesting the building of the wall, as clear from the photos in OP, he hasn't retracted that or apologised for that - so people are not protesting against something he has apologised for or retracted, they are protesting against something he continues to stick by...

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

Wow protests are getting ugly now. 

[ComeToMama 4,351]

2 hours ago, LG said:

Context is really important... a protest over the fear of losing key rights is not the same thing as a protest about your favourite candidate losing.

Yes, this.