The anti-Trump resistance takes shape: 'Government's supposed to fear us'

[Morch]

4 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

You are saying you are going to disrupt society where republicans and working class Left ( who have accepted their loss) just wish to get on with their daily lives. 

 

Be very careful with your rhetoric and don't make the mistake of thinking your toy light sabres are real. If you attempt to spread fear amongst any law abiding citizen you are going to be quickly woken up to reality. 

 

The physical assaults which the rioters have made against fellow Americans simply because they wore a Trump hat or t-shirt are illegal. This fantasy you have of resistance fighters is going to land you in an institution--either the floor a jail cell or a hospital. 

 

You lost. Stop your tantrum and get over it.

 

 

 

I doubt JT said anything about disrupting the life of ordinary citizens or society in general. People expressing their views publicly, or protesting without breaking the law may seem pointless to some, but that's pretty much covered by the constitution. Considering that the current protests witness quite a bit of attendance,  and been going on for some days now - how much actual damage and unlawful behavior are we talking about? Touting the same several reported incidents as being characteristic of all protests and protestors (or alleging anyone voicing support for the protests condones violence) is bogus.

 

You and others talk about the protestors trying to spread fear among the general population. The actual reference, I believe, related to government rather than the public. In effect, blowing the violent incidents (which did occur) out of proportion, threatening retribution, or hyperbole hints of a a possible civil war  - all pretty much fall under the definition of "spreading fear".

[F4UCorsair]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

No, sir. It is not irrelevant. Hillary Clinton, whis would have been a MASSIVELY BETTER choice for president, actually did make history with this election. Her POPULAR VOTE win was WAY BIGGER than ever in history for a candidate that lost the election by electoral vote. trump, the authoritarian tweeter (gaining the well earned rep as President Troll) is claiming a mandate. NO MANDATE! The resistance won't shut up about that fact, so don't even bother. 

 

JT, I've read a lot of your posts over a few years, and generally have had some time for your line of thought, but to suggest that Trump, a Republican, Ias President, doesn't have a mandate when the Republicans control both houses, Is delusional......AT BEST!! It's just plain nuts at the other end of the spectrum.

To quote McEnroe, "You can't be serious!!!"

 

Unable to edit typos and capital 'I' (eye).

[Jingthing]

You're confused. 

I didn't say he doesn't have almost total control of all branches of government.

The only fighting chance the democrats have there is in the senate.

That is not the same thing as a MANDATE from the people. 

He lost the popular vote BADLY.

His electoral victory was nothing like a landslide, and in the key states that put him over, the margins were generally NOT large.

He takes office as the most unpopular president elect in U.S. history.

The majority of voters that even voted for him don't think he is fit to be president, but rolled the dice anyway.

He ran on many radical policies.

He's already walked back a lot of them.

The majority of people do not support him fully on most of his radical campaign policies. 

The resistance may not be able to do much, but there is a chance pressure from the people can TEMPER him at least a little. It's worth trying. 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I think the FBI has already infiltrated that group and is preparing to make arrests if necessary.

It's the groups that don't come out in the open that Trump has to fear. No doubt in my mind that a certain billionaire and his cabal are planning to disrupt Trump's presidency in any way they can.

Expect a propaganda campaign like none before as the anti Trump media get all the funds they need to distort everything Trump does and says. Expect a campaign to impeach him out of the gate, and if that doesn't work a campaign to spoil everything.

 

Goes on about expected propaganda campaign, alleges conspiracy theory without a shred of support. Pretty much the level of discussion expected from certain posters, so no surprises there.

 

Most accounts of Trump's inappropriate, nonsensical offensive and outrageous statements are simply verbatim reports. More often, the ones trying to cast them as meaning other than they say, or interpret them in creative ways, are Trump's supporters and his over-worked spokespersons.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're confused. 

I didn't say he doesn't have almost total control of all branches of government.

The only fighting chance the democrats have there is in the senate.

That is not the same thing as a MANDATE from the people. 

He lost the popular vote BADLY.

His electoral victory was nothing like a landslide, and in the key states that put him over, the margins were generally NOT large.

He takes office as the most unpopular president elect in U.S. history.

The majority of voters that even voted for him don't think he is fit to be president, but rolled the dice anyway.

He ran on many radical policies.

He's already walked back a lot of them.

The majority of people do not support him fully on most of his radical campaign policies. 

The resistance may not be able to do much, but there is a chance pressure from the people can TEMPER him at least a little. It's worth trying. 

 

I don't think everyone accepts the above definition of how a mandate is secured  under the US system. The differentiation you make between accepting the elections results, yet denying a mandate does seem odd. And as others stated, I seriously doubt that would be your position if things were to go similarly for HRC.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

dragging his daughter around to meet with heads of state. 

Far as I know she a charming, intelligent person and he relies on her advice. I'm sure all leaders have many advisors with them when they meet other leaders.

Kennedy relied on his brother Robert.

Methinks you make much ado about nothing.

 

Agree about the business interests. If he doesn't solve that he will be haunted and ultimately destroyed by the same accusations he used against Clinton. I hope he can do so for the benefit of all.

 

Trump said that if he wins, his business will be run by his children (including his daughter). Even disregarding Trump's own bizarre concept of "blind trust", the two parts of the post above are contradictory.

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

The rabid left will look for ANYTHING to criticize.   It will be what Trump has for breakfast next.

 

Give it a break guys.....you lost, Trump won.  End of story.

 

Since when did a candidate winning an election mean criticism of his conduct and views had to cease?

Was that the case with Obama's terms in office?

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt JT said anything about disrupting the life of ordinary citizens or society in general. People expressing their views publicly, or protesting without breaking the law may seem pointless to some, but that's pretty much covered by the constitution. Considering that the current protests witness quite a bit of attendance,  and been going on for some days now - how much actual damage and unlawful behavior are we talking about? Touting the same several reported incidents as being characteristic of all protests and protestors (or alleging anyone voicing support for the protests condones violence) is bogus.

 

You and others talk about the protestors trying to spread fear among the general population. The actual reference, I believe, related to government rather than the public. In effect, blowing the violent incidents (which did occur) out of proportion, threatening retribution, or hyperbole hints of a a possible civil war  - all pretty much fall under the definition of "spreading fear".

5555555555555555

The agents spreading fear for the past 18 months have been the liberal press. They did such a good job that when she lost, the snowflakes actually believed that the deportation squads were on the move and were weeping like it was the end of civilization as they knew it.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Trump said that if he wins, his business will be run by his children (including his daughter). Even disregarding Trump's own bizarre concept of "blind trust", the two parts of the post above are contradictory.

 

Very slowly then, Trump   relies   on    his   children   for    advice   (   not   Barron   of   course   )   ,   including    Ivanka.    Got    it    ?

[MajarTheLion]

On 11/21/2016 at 1:51 AM, ehs818 said:

The majority of the electorate did not vote for Trump. In fact almost 75% of eligible voters did not vote for Trump. Of those that did vote, about 1,800,000 more votes for Clinton have been counted so far, with more mail in ballots and provisional ballots still being counted. He did not receive a 'mandate' from the voters. In fact, he did not even have a plurality, much less a majority. He is only the 'winner' due to the form of voting that exists in the USA. The Electoral College meets on December 19 to cast their ballots. Still time for an upset as some US states require the Electoral College members to vote for their states winner, while some certainly do not. While it's possible that an upset may still occur to benefit Clinton, it's highly unlikely. You think the Democrats are 'sore losers'? If that turnabout were to occur, you'd see real violence from Trump supporters if enough of the Electoral College voters were to alter their votes based on the information that the poplular vote went to Clinton and not to Trump. If allowed to vote freely the results could be reversed.

 

Irrelevant goobledygook. Bill Clinton never won a majority. That was irrelvant as well. Under the rules in place, Trump won. People being cry babies about it aren't helping their cause.

[MajarTheLion]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Trump said that if he wins, his business will be run by his children (including his daughter). Even disregarding Trump's own bizarre concept of "blind trust", the two parts of the post above are contradictory.

 

 

Why do you think Trump is under any obligation to put his businesses in a blind trust?

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

5555555555555555

The agents spreading fear for the past 18 months have been the liberal press. They did such a good job that when she lost, the snowflakes actually believed that the deportation squads were on the move and were weeping like it was the end of civilization as they knew it.

 

Far as I recall it was Trump supporters alleging HRC would start WWIII with Russia. Trump supporters saying the elections were rigged. Trump supporters saying there was massive vote fraud. etc..etc.. etc.. Don't let them facts confuse you.

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Very slowly then, Trump   relies   on    his   children   for    advice   (   not   Barron   of   course   )   ,   including    Ivanka.    Got    it    ?

 

He does not merely consult them, they are on his transition team, they were present when meeting foreign representatives.

Before winning the elections he said there would be a separation between his business and state affairs. He also said his kids will run the business. Their current level of involvement does not suggest he intends to keep his word.

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Why do you think Trump is under any obligation to put his businesses in a blind trust?

 

Legal obligation, oddly apparently none. That said he did say he would (sort of), his kids said it would happen, and so did others on his staff. Anyone refusing to acknowledge the potential conflict of interests as an issue is simply trolling.

[lannarebirth]

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah, I agree.

Early days.

It's a BUBBLE list. 

I don't have the answers of how to defeat trumpism that's quick and easy.

trump's the one that promises quick and easy (BIG LIES of course). 

 

I think the answer is that you put your own house in order. Had it been, no Trump at all

[F4UCorsair]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Since when did a candidate winning an election mean criticism of his conduct and views had to cease?

Was that the case with Obama's terms in office?

 

It didn't, and doesn't, mean that criticism must stop, but it's the level of criticism, and it's now down to some very petty rubbish.   His daughter may well be appointed as an advisor?   I guess the critical left doesn't have the capacity to think that far ahead.   It is, after all, a couple of months yet until he's sworn in.

 

This guy hasn't even taken office yet.   If he doesn't achieve more in his first couple of years than O ama did in eight, I'll drop my daks in Times Square at peak hour.

[F4UCorsair]

I was just viewing an Australian current affairs program, and it was revealed that a forecast made prior to the election, that migrants and women would be targeted if Trump won, has actually materialized.  It was more of a prophecy from the left, rather than a serious news article about potential consequences.

 

Problem is, the target, A migrant woman, ONE migrant woman, is Trump's own wife, targeted not by citizens, but by the left press.

 

Read this    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/is-melania-trump-her-husbands-greatest-victim-or-his-biggest-enabler-20161117-gsrlc4.html

 

for a bit of self fulling prophecy written by a left wing rag journalist.   What a heap of garbage.

 

She says, "What do we do with a problem like Melania?"   WHAT PROBLEM.  There is NO problem, NO PROBLEM, except in the mind of the small minded left press, nor will there be.

 

It's interesting that this 'journalist's' take on Trump supposedly spying on his wife voting is quite different from another Australian left wing journalist who was caught by a hot mike saying he was 'perving on her tits'!!!  You can see that here   

 

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2016/11/09/virginia-trioli-melania-tits/

 

The pettiness is astounding, and the left press sickening..

 

 

 

[MajarTheLion]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Legal obligation, oddly apparently none. That said he did say he would (sort of), his kids said it would happen, and so did others on his staff. Anyone refusing to acknowledge the potential conflict of interests as an issue is simply trolling.

 

So when you say he "sort of" said it, what you really mean is he never said it.

[MajarTheLion]

32 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

I was just viewing an Australian current affairs program, and it was revealed that a forecast made prior to the election, that migrants and women would be targeted if Trump won, has actually materialized.  It was more of a prophecy from the left, rather than a serious news article about potential consequences.

 

Problem is, the target, A migrant woman, ONE migrant woman, is Trump's own wife, targeted not by citizens, but by the left press.

 

Read this    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/is-melania-trump-her-husbands-greatest-victim-or-his-biggest-enabler-20161117-gsrlc4.html

 

for a bit of self fulling prophecy written by a left wing rag journalist.   What a heap of garbage.

 

She says, "What do we do with a problem like Melania?"   WHAT PROBLEM.  There is NO problem, NO PROBLEM, except in the mind of the small minded left press, nor will there be.

 

It's interesting that this 'journalist's' take on Trump supposedly spying on his wife voting is quite different from another Australian left wing journalist who was caught by a hot mike saying he was 'perving on her tits'!!!  You can see that here   

 

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2016/11/09/virginia-trioli-melania-tits/

 

The pettiness is astounding, and the left press sickening..

 

 

 

 

As usual, leftists are not able to discern the difference between legal and illegal immigrants. As Melania has been a citizen for several years, it's a silly ploy for them to try anyway.

 

[Credo]

45 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

As usual, leftists are not able to discern the difference between legal and illegal immigrants. As Melania has been a citizen for several years, it's a silly ploy for them to try anyway.

 

And may she join the thousands of legal immigrants who get stopped and are forced to prove they are a citizen.   May she get detained just like the other legal immigrants when there are raids on work places.   

[Morch]

1 hour ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

It didn't, and doesn't, mean that criticism must stop, but it's the level of criticism, and it's now down to some very petty rubbish.   His daughter may well be appointed as an advisor?   I guess the critical left doesn't have the capacity to think that far ahead.   It is, after all, a couple of months yet until he's sworn in.

 

This guy hasn't even taken office yet.   If he doesn't achieve more in his first couple of years than O ama did in eight, I'll drop my daks in Times Square at peak hour.

 

Well no, because quite easy to see from these topics, that it is not specific instances of criticism regarding Trump are rejected, but pretty much all related criticism. There's no differentiation.

 

As far as I understand, his daughter, or any other member of his family cannot be appointed to an official position. At least not without jumping through some legal hoops.

 

Trump hasn't been sworn in yet, true, but the transition process is in progress - posts being filled, political deals being made, foreign representatives met, and a policy statements made. Yet, according to yourself, and other Trump supporters these should not be criticized. Considering the above is happening now, even prior to taking office, why is the public ought to ignore it?

 

[Morch]

47 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

So when you say he "sort of" said it, what you really mean is he never said it.

 

No, that's not what I meant at all. Why troll? (silly question).

Trump's concept of "Blind Trust" falls way short of what it actually means. This was said evident from his statements during and after the campaign. His family's understanding of the concept was pretty much the same, also aired during the campaign. Hence, "sort of" - he said he would, but what he referred to got little to do with the concept itself. Now he seems to renege even on this.

[teatree]

16 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You're confused. 

I didn't say he doesn't have almost total control of all branches of government.

The only fighting chance the democrats have there is in the senate.

That is not the same thing as a MANDATE from the people. 

He lost the popular vote BADLY.

His electoral victory was nothing like a landslide, and in the key states that put him over, the margins were generally NOT large.

He takes office as the most unpopular president elect in U.S. history.

The majority of voters that even voted for him don't think he is fit to be president, but rolled the dice anyway.

He ran on many radical policies.

He's already walked back a lot of them.

The majority of people do not support him fully on most of his radical campaign policies. 

The resistance may not be able to do much, but there is a chance pressure from the people can TEMPER him at least a little. It's worth trying. 

 

The electoral college is unfair and it needs to be changed. 

 

But you need to change it BEFORE you go into the election not after.  If you go into a contest knowing full well what the rules are you can't turn around and reject the result because it doesn't go your way.

 

Both parties have supported and benefited from the current '1st past the post system', keeping power amongst themselves and out of the hands of smaller parties by unfairly limiting choice .   It's a bit hypocritical to moan about it now.  Trump won, Clinton lost - suck it up.

 

There is a golden opportunity for real reform of the US electoral system in the wake of this result if people can redirect their anger away from Trump and towards making the US a Proportional Representation system.   But I don't see this happening as the Democrats are quite happy sharing power on and off with the Republicans.

 

[F4UCorsair]

5 hours ago, Credo said:

And may she join the thousands of legal immigrants who get stopped and are forced to prove they are a citizen.   May she get detained just like the other legal immigrants when there are raids on work places.   

OTHER Illegal Immigrants Implies she Is an IIG.  She Is NOT.  Get It right.

 

IIG should be II = Illegal Immigrant.  Unable to edit since TV upgrade.

[F4UCorsair]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Well no, beilause quite easy to see from these tispics, that it is not specific instances of criticism regarding Trump are rejected, but pretty much all related criticism. There's no differentiation.

 

As far as I understand, his daughter, or any other member of his family cannot be appointed to an official position. At least not without jumping through some legal hoops.

 

Trump hasn't been sworn in yet, true, but the transition process is in progress - posts being filled, political deals being made, foreign representatives met, and a policy statements made. Yet, according to yourself, and other Trump supporters these should not be criticized. Considering the above is happening now, even prior to taking office, why is the public ought to ignore it?

 

Whatever.  You appear to be a stooge of the left, and regardless of what Is put before you, It will be opposed, often on the most Illogical grounds, viz., family can't be appointed, etc.,..........at least without jumping thjrough legal hoops.  So you arte saying they CAN be appointed?  

 

Unable to edit typos.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, F4UCorsair said:

Whatever.  You appear to be a stooge of the left, and regardless of what Is put before you, It will be opposed, often on the most Illogical grounds, viz., family can't be appointed, etc.,..........at least without jumping thjrough legal hoops.  So you arte saying they CAN be appointed?  

 

Unable to edit typos.

When what is put before me is mostly nonsense, no wonder it's opposed.

These so-called illogical grounds are US law. Google the Anti-Nepotism Act of 1967.

I'm saying that where you have laws, you have lawyers - perhaps they could come up with some legal way of bypassing it. Hopefully not.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

On 11/23/2016 at 6:05 AM, F4UCorsair said:

 

The electoral system isn't based on the popular vote.  You can bleat all you like about popular vote, but that is not the existing system.

 

If the position had been reversed, and Trump had gained more popular votes than Clinton, your silence would be deafening!! 

 

Get over it.....Democrats LOST, Republicans WON.   Both ran dirty campaigns, nothing to be proud of, but it's Trump who is President elect, not Clinton.  The resistance will grow hoarse, and NOTHING will change.

 

You will begin to hate the system, the government, then each other, and finally yourselves.

 

Cliche ridden rubbish from the selfish, arrogant 'I'm alright Jack' right wing non Americans. All of a sudden these old men are Constitutional scholars, happily lecturing American citizens on their government.

 

Tell us. What is the electoral college based on if not the popular vote? Ju Ju beans? Magic sticks?

 

Just repeating mindlessly the statements of others who share your world view is pretty much a waste of everyone's time. There are actual issues raised by the poster you attack that may have a significant impact on politics and life in America. Once the opposition reorganizes and leaders emerge, then the resistance to Trump will be stronger. The resistance is not about crying over the loss. The only people who are not over the election are you and your right wing crowing swinging dicks. Although why you seem to take credit for this electoral win is someone confusing since you are not a voter.

 

Cliche ridden, obvious, predictable, non specific, bullying, self serving platitudes, if this..if that... Yes, a load of rubbish that deflects from any real issue.

 

Again, tell us how the electoral college vote is determined? Maybe put up lots of irrelevant maps with lots of red in lots of empty counties. Ignore the historical context of the electoral college being designed to protect slave states. All sorts of interesting things that you purposefully ignore because you clearly are not interested in actual issues.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

On 11/23/2016 at 10:49 AM, ClutchClark said:

 

Strange,

 

Everything I have read is that is that this group has a mission to spread fear and disrupt normal society. They have used words like "force" and the very title of this thread is a "threat". 

 

They are tslking about some "resistance" effort. At no time have they called it a peaceful resistance and nothing in the physical attacks I have seen on YouTube videos shows a condemnation agsinst those members of their anti-Trump resistance  who are resorting to violence. 

 

Their gatherings have resulted in destruction of property and broken several laws already.

 

Their goal is to disrupt civil society by fear and intimidation. 

 

It is obvious that they have a disconnect from reality with these irrational thoughts. 

 

I don't know what communities these angry groups shouting threats of "fear us" expect to disrupt but they are setting themselves up for a bad ending. America is not a lawless society. I just hope these sore losers are going to be content typing away angrily on their keyboards because if a group of these resistance fighters with black face coverings causes fear of life or personal safety to Americans simply going about ther lawful daily routine it has all the makings for a bad end.

 

So the more rational amongst this group better get a reality check soon and start calming this situation down. 

 

 

 

Fearful old men attempting to define the political opposition. Lots of bogey men talk. Lots of warnings to the 2A crowed to 'be prepared'. Lots of scary stuff.

 

You can, of course, specify which leader of the resistance has declared that our goal is to disrupt civili society by fear and intimidation.

 

Well...of course you cannot. This is just ramblings of a fearful old man trying to spread his fear to deny the right of the majority of people who voted against Trump to oppose and resist the implementation of his policies. My own view on the direction of the resistance will await further developments particularly the reception to Trump's inability to stick to policy positions and the already established violations of conflicts of interest that do not just affect one Party.

 

So carry on with your bogy man stuff. I know you like this narrative. It lets you attack African Americans and other minorities without the displeasure of being called out.

 

Keep your guns close.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

22 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

JT, I've read a lot of your posts over a few years, and generally have had some time for your line of thought, but to suggest that Trump, a Republican, Ias President, doesn't have a mandate when the Republicans control both houses, Is delusional......AT BEST!! It's just plain nuts at the other end of the spectrum.

To quote McEnroe, "You can't be serious!!!"

 

Unable to edit typos and capital 'I' (eye).

 

You believe Trump is a Republican? Great view you have from so far away. You really have no idea of where the true resistance will come from. Of course you spend so much time crowing about another country's election that I guess you don't have time to consider actual issues.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

16 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Irrelevant goobledygook. Bill Clinton never won a majority. That was irrelvant as well. Under the rules in place, Trump won. People being cry babies about it aren't helping their cause.

 

Far be it for me to challenge someone so obviously impartial and knowledgeable, but it seems Wikipedia does not agree with you. Perhaps you should work on getting that entry changed to reflect your reality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin