Trump protests ridiculous

"Give him a chance" would be a relevant point if the protesters were opposed to Trump's record. But they're not. They are opposed to his character.

Trump is an unapologetic bigot and racist. He is an aggressive misogynist who has bragged about abusing women. He is a vindictive bully. He has committed to carrying out war crimes. He has committed to crimes against the Constitution.

Decent people have to stand up to him, every day, for the entirety of his term. He represents the worst of America. He is so diverged from what America stands for as to be unrecognizable to Americans or as an American.

 

there is no national "popular vote" for president. Sorry you failed civics.
Like I just said, the people that actually do something productive are tired of the whiney little snowflakes, who's whining helped push her over a cliff.

 

You'll do nothing.
This whiney, entitlement behavior is why everyone got sick of your "world" and booted you to the curb.

 

He's had stupendous exposure on all media, including hours of free tv.

So, now you say we should give him a chance?

Then and now, he has plenty of chance.

Today he could come on the air and apologize for the full year of his leadership against those who aren't anglo Christian males.

He could apologize to those gold star parents he despises, for example.

 

he is our President now, so we have to give him a chance... that is the way the system works, if we do not give Republicans the wheel respectfully when they win, then we can't expect them to do the same when Democrats win

people say many things to get elected, many of them never come to fruition.... I think Trump will do just fine

if he does something I disagree with I will voice my opinion then, just like I did Obama.. but I will give him a chance

.

 

Announce protesting anything or anyone and the same people would be there because they got nothing else to do and a protest is a fun social occasion.

 

Sure. If you call crying, protesting and death threats productive.

 

I was thinking more the obstruction techniques that the Republicans perfected.

 

What obstruction technique do the Republicans use that hasn't been by Democrats? You know, the ACA could have been so much better as a bipartisan effort, but the Republicans had to sit in the back seat.

 

Haha oh my. You couldn't even wait until Jan 20 to throw out all the rhetoric about the filibuster. Something tells me we'll be seeing the nuclear option before 2018.

- - - Updated - - -

Well no, as with Obama you can filibuster. And will. In fact it's likely the only thing Democrats are likely to do until 2024.

 

Trump ran the most hateful divisive campaign in history. Not really a shock that people would be offended.

 

most of the rioters seem to be millenials.

Millenial turn out for the election.... 19%. (51% during obama)

lolololol.

 

So you are already blaming Dems for Trump's failures and he hasn't even taken office yet?

 

Cheers to ya bro. If you won and we had riots, I would respond in kind. Good show.

 

Not my fault they were so strongly opposed to the filibuster when they were in power.

Heck, even Tim Kaine called for using the nuclear option to pass Hillary's SCOTUS nominee. Watch Trump take their advice and appoint Scalia x2. Watch all of your ambitions on gun control disintegrate before your eyes.

Ginsburg and Breyer are getting mighty old there. Better double check their hearts when next at the doctor. I'm confident at least one of them will cark it before too long.

It'll take you a good couple of decades to recover from that.

[hr][/hr]

You were one of those who smugly thought Clinton would win, that early voting clearly win the EC for Clinton due to Hispanic turnout in Florida. It hurts to be spoon fed propaganda by the elites, I feel for you.

But 1/3rd of those pesky Hispanics voted for Trump. Tsk, tsk, tsk, they're not supposed to do that!

 

"payback" from "progressives" isn't rough on anyone but the protesters. They just riot and destroy their own homes.

 

it/s too late now, dems did not get out and vote, we have no one to blame but ourselves, in 2 and 4 years we will have a chance to vote again

 

The only thing that could have made the ACA more valuable than toilet paper was the public option. That idea was put forth by the liberals but was killed. I recall when it passed I called it the big nothing. If there is any issue republicans are totally clueless on, it's healthcare. Obama failed by being moderate. Healthcare reform is go big or shoot yourself in the foot by making people think "liberal" healthcare doesn't work. Doing nothing would have been more productive than the ACA. We will continue to pay more than socialized healthcare systems with comparable quality and lower access.

 

I hear Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are going to schedule more sit-downs in Congress lol..

 

Actually, it's Liberals who are clueless on health care. A one-size fits all has proven to fail and won't work. There's so many variables in individual health coverage, cost, etc that it should NEVER be a universal program, even with a public option.

 

A one-size fits all has proven to fail? Where? I'll have to hear what you're talking about before I can address it. And why shouldn't some level of coverage be universal?

Though it's true the best programs have some flexibility, as in a universal public floor but with options for expansion of coverage (France), the primary effect of our massively varied healthcare system is increased inefficiency. You must not be aware of what healthcare is like in other developed countries. In America, healthcare costs have been the leading cause of personal bankruptcy. In most other developed nations, that is not the case. We spend a lot more on healthcare as a percentage of GDP, and cover fewer people. What do we get for it?

 

You can have a general universal health care that covers most and private specialised for extra's.

There are lots of options out ther A LOT better then what the US has now.

Again its stupid to pay almost double that of other developed nations for no better health care system.

 

true, kinda like taking over a federal building.. nothing better to do

 

That is based upon the utterly absurd assumption that states like CA and TX would agree 100% on the same candidate.

If also fallaciously assumes that population size equals registered voters.

A popular vote for president would count the votes of everyone equally irrespective of whatever state they happened to reside in.

That is how democracy actually works.

It has been successful as far as Senators and Representatives goes.

Why would it not work for the presidency?

 

Actually he united many.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yhUXSX3ZnpE