Hey, there! Log in / Register
Boston against Trump rally tonight
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
boston against trump rally tonight
I didn't vote for the guy either but seriously?
ugh.
The people who voted for him
The people who voted for him are the closed minded white working class , with limited education. examples
People who attend wrestling matches, NHL games, people who drive American made pick up trucks, people who haven't traveled anywhere outside of the US, People who wear Boston Bruins t shirts and hats these people believe what Trump says what he will do, like they believe that wrestling is real.
Simplistic
"The people who voted for him are the closed minded white working class , with limited education."
What a simplistic view. The so-called "white male with no college education" that were supposed to come out in droves from the mountains or wherever they keep themselves and vote were already accounted for. I called this weeks ago right here on some thread or other. I said there was a whole population of "secret voters" who were not saying they were voting for Trump or outright lying and saying they were voting for Hillary or some other candidate. The college professor, the musician in the local band, the IT person who fixes your computer. They may not look like the popular conception of the "neanderthal Trump supporter", but they obviously exist and they clearly voted. They're probably still keeping their mouths shut. They wouldn't want to blow their cover.
All of them?
Love this generalization. Yikes.
Guess what
They're still people. Smug elitist know-it-all douchebags like you are the reason Trump won.
Yeah, they'll show you!
When they find out that Trump don't give a rat's ass about rural people or poor people, it will be such wonderful comfort knowing that they stuck it to the educated people who used to pay for their state's resistance to joining the 20th century!
Way to show them!!!!!
Chicken Butt!
From and oldie but a goodie from 2004
“Let the bastards freeze in
“Let the bastards freeze in the dark” & “Drive 80 mph and freeze a Yankee”
"Let the bastards freeze in the dark” (or “Let the Yankee bastards freeze in the dark” or “Let them freeze in the dark") and “Drive 80 mph and freeze a Yankee” (or “Drive 90 mph and freeze a Yankee” or “Drive fast and freeze a Yankee") were bumper stickers that were popular in Texas during the 1973-74 energy crisis.
http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/let_the_bastards...
Not a Trump voter either
But he won fair.
He won exactly as he said he would. He proved everybody wrong.
Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves. They anointed Clinton before the primary.
Well i assume it wont be
"Democrats" protesting, rather the totalitarian far left. But you're correct in respects to Hillary, she is the most flawed candidate that could have been chosen.
Protesting a fair election is extremely undemocratic.
"totalitarian far left"
You keep using words. They do no think what you think they mean.
Well
Does "you will do exactly as we tell you, or we'll accuse you of every *ism imaginable, get you fired from work and sue you into oblivion" sound about right? Or maybe "you will do exactly as we tell you, or we'll burn down this sorry town of yours?"
And just how is declaring a winner
before all the votes are counted AND ignoring the fact the declared winner is trailing in the POPULAR vote (you know, the count of the actual PEOPLE voting) a "fair" election?
And yes, I'd make the exact same statement if Hillary was declared the winner in the same circumstances.
The rules of the election have been in place since 1877
(Non Trump voter here)
The election was run on those rules.
Arguing about the rules after the game has been played is lame.
News flash - this isn't 1877
And perhaps if more people started arguing about the rules, then we could change the system so the outcome of elections actually reflected the will of the people, as opposed to benefiting candidates based on the results in certain states.
But I guess you'd rather have a "democratic" system that favors long outdated "rules" and "protocols" instead of listening to the majority.
The consitution is even older
It was ratified in 1788.
Perhaps you feel we should do away with that too?
The Twenty-fourth Amendment,
The Twenty-fourth Amendment, amendment (1964) to the Constitution of the United States that prohibited the federal and state governments from imposing poll taxes before a citizen can participate in a federal election. It was proposed by the U.S. Congress on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
And the twenty-sixth
Amendment lowered the voting age to 18.
Still didn't change the rules of the game set down in 1803 by the 12th Amendment.
Yesterday's election did not
Yesterday's election did not produce a majority to listen to, unless you count the House or the Electoral College.
And the history goes back even further
Non-Trump/Non-Hillary voter here
Since its founding our country has struggled with balancing states' rights with a centralized government. The electoral college is a compromise - it gives small states like Wyoming and South Dakota etc. 3 votes (one for each Senator and Representative) deliberately so that their votes are weighed more heavily relative to population.
Think of it this way - every state gets two votes - which also wouldn't be fair. Then you get extra votes based on your population - which many also argue wouldn't be fair if it were only on population (imagine living in the middle of the country and basically just having to go along with what people on each coast said all of your life?).
Depending which side you are on at a given moment in history it works for you or against you. Which in the end is kind of fair because it's unfair to everyone. If that makes sense - which to me kinda does in an odd kind of way.
Disagree
I completely disagree that the electoral college is the best way to decide a presidential election.
If there are more people in the US that want one person to be president, then that should be the president elected. If that means that the people on the coasts get what they want every time, then so be it. Maybe then the republican (or democratic/pirate/green, whatever) party would be forced to put forward more reasonable candidates that would swing more voters their way.
States would still have state-rights and the supreme court to keep things running smoothly and do things their way.
Be careful what you wish for
You just might get it.
Not the best way. Just a reasonable way. It's a compromise. If you got your way, in the extreme, we might end up divided into 2 or 3 countries. Any questions, study the political history of the civil war.
Or in short, read Profiles in Courage. We have a branch of the government with an equal power weight for a reason.
Our system is obtuse by design
And the point of that design was and continues to be to encourage deadlock except in cases of overwhelming popular AND geographic consensus.
This is a feature meant to discourage the people from looking to government as an easy means to some personally preferred end and to encourage them to look at themselves, their families, their communities , and their economic relations as the primary mechanism by which they can get things done to help themselves and their fellow man. This is a good thing.
Also...
And also, people know these are the rules and vote accordingly. If the rules were "popular vote wins", then the vote totals would have been different.
There are plenty of people who stayed home or voted 3rd-party in "safe" states like Vermont or Oklahoma, because they were already very confident of their state's winner. If the election were based on popular vote, how many of those people would have changed their behavior? Would that have tipped the overall numbers towards Clinton or towards Trump? I don't know and neither does anyone else. So, it's mostly pointless to talk about who won the popular vote.
I'm in favor of moving to an actual popular-vote-wins system (and have been since before this election). This could actually be done without a constitutional amendment just by individual states passing laws. See http://www.nationalpopularvote.com for details. Massachusetts has already done this, but more states need to join up before it can be put into effect.
Stop it
He won. We lost. We pulled a combination of Coakley on a national scale, and lost the firewall union of the Midwest, possibly forever.
This also is more than the candidate we ran. People were not kidding when they were telling the media they do not have jobs, they are not getting raises, and their rural towns are dying.
Trump promised them the house, and they gave him the keys.
And why is that?
That has an awful lot to do with the people that they have been voting into their state and national offices for decades. People who play to their worst unfounded fears while advancing economic initiatives that fail time after time. See also: Kansas, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, etc.
I guess it is just much easier to elect another deplorable economic illiterate to the highest office rather than face the whole bed-made-lie problem.
right on
Because a return to trickle-down-economics is clearly the way to help the working man. It's like they didn't really even look into whether his actual policy will hurt or benefit them....
"In 2012, Mitt Romney
"In 2012, Mitt Romney received almost 61 million votes. With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Donald Trump has slightly over 59 million votes. Clinton is winning the popular vote count by roughly 200,000 votes but has so far turned out 6.5 million fewer voters than Obama did. In other words, GOP voters kept voting while millions of Democrats voted with their feet — they walked anywhere but the polling place. In spite of an avalanche of apocalyptic anti-Trump rhetoric, an astonishing number of Democrats didn’t find Hillary Clinton or her progressive agenda worth lifting a finger (literally) to support.
This is a direct rebuke to progressive hubris. It turns out that the progressive elite’s preoccupations with identity politics, social shaming, and radical sexual change don’t motivate their “coalition of the ascendant.” In the past eight years, the progressive movement has doubled down its attacks on churches and in recent years directly confronted American law enforcement. It has attacked free speech, the free exercise of religion, and gun rights — secure in the belief that history was, as they put it, on their “side.”
The result was clear: The Democratic party lost ground with America’s poorest voters. Citizens making less than $50,000 per year propelled Obama to victory over Romney. Exit polling shows that Trump improved the GOP showing by 16 points with voters making less than $30,000 per year and by six points with voters making between $30,000 and $50,000, which more than offset Democrat gains with the middle class.
Much has been written about how the Democratic tendency to “cry wolf” immunized Republicans against charges of racism, sexism, and homophobia. But it turns out that progressives inoculated even their own minority base. Trump got a higher percentage of the black and the Latino vote than Mitt Romney did. There was a seven-point swing in the black vote against Hillary and an eight-point swing in the Latino vote. When Joe Biden said that Mitt Romney would put black voters “back in chains,” there’s nothing more (or worse) you can say about Trump."
I disagree
I don't think it was identified politics that turned people off. I think it was bc the Dems put up a highly disliked unpopular candidate.
Why choose
I thought Hillary was a bad candidate AND I didn't particularly like being called a racist, sexist, homophobic, imperialist pig-dog for not smiling and saluting at the daily recitation of the DNC talking points.
Hillary didn't "win" the
Hillary didn't "win" the popular vote anyway. She got 48%, not a majority, which would have thrown the election to the House of Representatives which most likely would have chosen Trump over Clinton anyway.
The "bug" is not with the electoral college. It's with single vote ballots.
Bingo! — Sanders Would Have Beaten Trump Handily ...
... so you can thank people like Debbie Wassermann and Donna Brazile who conspired against Bernie Sanders in many ways — including scheduling the few debates they allowed at times when the fewest people would see them, and keeping primaries closed wherever they could so independent voters had no voice.
You can also thank Anderson Cooper and all the other people in the mainstream media who sabotaged Bernie Sanders by dismissing him as "too extreme", grilling him on questions far more critically than they did with Clintor or Trump, and running mostly negative stories about Sanders accompanied by a greater number of positive stories about other candidates.
As I listened to CSPAN's call in last night, over and over again, callers kept saying they would have voted for Sanders, but voted for Trump because they disliked Mrs. Clinton so much. It was also heartbreaking to hear callers say they hadn't heard much about Bernie Sanders until it was too late.
Even before the Massachusetts primary, Sanders was beating Trump by a much larger margin than Clinton in general election polling:
So instead of making sure the person most likely to win the general election would lead their ballot, these people conspired to place the most baggage-laden, deeply disliked, Democratic party candidate ever there instead. Even Elizabeth Warren — she could have endorsed or even campaigned for Bernie Sanders. Had she done so, he very well may have won the Massachusetts primary, and that could have made all the difference.
The possibility of something like the Guiliani/Comey "October Surprise" was looming above Mrs. Clinton from the very start, but the Democratic party leaders simply ignored it. That Republican dirty trick wouldn't have worked with Bernie Sanders because he was such an honest person — that's why the Americans who learned who he really was loved him so much!
I don't necessarily hate saying "I told you so", but in this case, I very much hate that I'm even able to say "I told you so".
couldnt agree more
Could not agree more. Going into last night, people were predicting the death of the GOP, but in fact it was the DNC that ultimately failed.
While the GOP was plagued by bickering and in-fighting, the DNC was plagued by favoritism and the suspicion of corruption. We are used to, and live with, bickering, but in an election cycle when political favoritism was a significant issue, and basically Trump's platform, the DNC continuously proved Trump correct. They tried to shove Hillary down an unwilling public's throat, and this is what happens. It isn't difficult to argue that the DNC lost this election, as much, if not more than Trump won it.
Trump-Sanders, antiwar
Probably over the war
I disagree
I don't think Bernie would have been able to win the national election.
Indeed
I voted for Johnson because it wasn't close here and I was never a fan of Trump's personal BS, but Bernie Sanders on the ballot would have made me and a whole lot more people vote for Trump regardless.
I'm sure the people on this forum who voted for Hillary out of a fear of Trump can sympathize with the concept, if not the polarity of the above statement.
Won fair
I agree with this. Then again, I always believed that would be the case no matter who won.
The irony that the candidate who repeatedly asserted that it was all rigged, that there would be manipulation of the results, has now won and is apparently satisfied with the integrity of the results is not lost on me. He was just kidding, right?
Also, I can only imagine what we would be seeing in the streets of "Red States" right now if Clinton had won the Electoral votes but lost the popular vote (as Trump has).
Pulled a Charlie Baker
I pulled a Charlie Baker myself yesterday and thought that whatever the outcome of the election I'd just deal with it, but seriously? I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot and Trump supporters were pulling this crap, all of those who tow the Clinton/Democrat party line would be posting their insults all over the web (i.e. bullying).
Pulled a Charlie Baker
I pulled a Charlie Baker myself yesterday and thought that whatever the outcome of the election I'd just deal with it, but seriously? I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot and Trump supporters were pulling this crap, all of those who tow the Clinton/Democrat party line would be posting their insults all over the web (i.e. bullying).
Charlie Baker Chickened Out — And That's Made It Worse For Us!
By going on-record of not supporting his party's candidate, Massachusetts will be disfavored in the now, completely-Republican controlled Federal government. There are likely to be many repercussions.
His options were to either tow the party line and support the Republican candidate, or, if he truly did not want Mr. Trump to become president, he could have endorsed Mrs. Clinton. He also could have simply kept his mouth shut — say he'd decide in the polling booth, or evade the question by saying a person's vote is a private matter.
Mr. Baker might even had said he was going to write in the name of someone he admires who would make a good president: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, himself ... anybody!
Instead, the governor totally wimped out — Charlie Baker is now synonymous with "nobody".
You other folks who pulled the "Charlie Bakers", I'm not implying you chickened out at all — indeed, voting for "none of the above" is certainly a respectable option (if you're not a politician).
But as a serious question: Did you think about writing in a name instead of leaving it blank?
This is a real concern.
you left out the additional factor that we have a completely Democratic Congressional delegation.
Then again, if Charlie continues to oppose the North/South Rail Link, maybe we can wind Trump up in a way that he gets to fulfill his promise of more infrastructure spending and can exact revenge on Charlie Baker at the same time by pushing the project through!
(/wishful thinking)
But maybe if his buddies Brady and Belichick ask for it....
(nope. Still /wishful thinking)
Here's an idea
The Canadian Province of New England.
Ridiculous
I was not a Trump supporter by any means, but were people just WAITING to do this?
What would you prefer?
Tar and feathering of the real cause of this mess - the one who ran interference for a weak candidate in her own party?
That ought to help
Nobody was really convinced yet that Boston wasn't for Trump.
When you're finished, there's some terribly important work to be done over at Israelites Against Bacon.
Thanks SP!
I really needed a laugh today.
I woke up this morning and
I woke up this morning and was out of oatmeal.
THANK YOU TRUMP!
WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!!
They blamed Obama for every bad thing in their lives for the last 8 years. Now I can do it with Trump.
(Is it too early?)
Too early
Obama's still in office. Your oatmeal shortage is caused by eight years of socialist economics and pinko-commie-tree-hugging agricultural and transportation policy that prevents the oatmeal from getting to your cupboard.
What you say doesn't matter.
What you say doesn't matter. I still BLAME TRUMP.
WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!!
In any other election where
In any other election where my candidate lost I was bummed, but didn't truly fear for the future of the country (and the world). This time I'm terrified.
But with that being said, this is too little too late. What good is demonstrating against Trump after the election in a city and state where he lost by a wide margin anyway going to do? I just want to crawl in a hole.
We had a Yuge
Anti Clinton rally yesterday at the polls across the country. Respect democracy and reflect on why and how Trump was elected.
Trump
Terrible loss for HRC/Democrats. So Trump is president now, let's give him a chance.
Trump was elected in spite of
Trump was elected in spite of his shortcomings in response to the Clintons , past , present , and future. Even the fact that she was a new category ( Female ) couldn't help carry the day, as that would have garnished support just for that fact alone. Her own machinations, coupled with her joint efforts with Bill, and the potential nurturing of Chelsea to carry on the family business, was enough to instill the Trump movement without the other additives of social re-engineering. She was just a poor candidate that was revealed in spite of the elite intelligent ones.. In her own words she was deplorable.
People have every right to demonstrate peacefully
And express their unhappiness with this election. Why are people upset about folks doing this? Yes, he will still be president, but FFS, this is part of being American. So just let them do it and leave them alone.
No one's stopping them
just pointing out that it's whiny and somewhat hypocritical given the loud and dire predictions of doom and gloom and the Georgia Militia coming out of the woods and seceding from the Union if Hillary won.
Exercising your right to speech doesn't mean everyone else has to shut up.