Hear, hear!!! People today really need to grow the f@ck up!!

i know i love ABDL but there is a line for infantilization! and a place!

Agreed! I just can't imagine anything more ironic than the fact that people like us, who are into diapers and stuff, are far more mature than these crybabies in big kid pants, tearing up the streets just because their presidential candidate lost the election...

Not to mention they are also denouncing Capitalism, even though they wouldn't last a day without their iPhones/Smartphones and their social media to bitch about how "horrible" it is to be an American today, even tho all that good stuff came as a result of Capitalism! The hypocrisy just makes me so ill...

Actually a lot of it came as a result of military/government research. Companies have simply taken it farther.
Capitalism is fine but it must be kept in check lest we let human greed run rampant and destroy us.

People just gotta start being more optimistic about things. Seriously, it's like the world is ending because they didn't get what they want.
Both options sucked, yeah, but we just gotta hope that the guy we're stuck with does a good job. I understand not liking him (truthfully, I think he's a complete asshat), and I understand wanting to do something about it, but violence is not the answer.
You have a right to free speech, you have a right to petition, you have a right to peaceful protest, but you do NOT have a right to hurt anyone or destroy their property, y'know? It's like what they said back in Kindergarten, "You get what you get and you don't throw a fit."

On a different note, I just wanna add that I'm really disappointed that there wasn't any drama or shade being thrown during the inauguration speeches. I had popcorn and everything :/

exactly, i like this message, be optimistic! if your not happy make your faces known, but being violent and combative, that is not a right. and those people only hurt the people who have nothing to do with it.. trump is a dipshit, lol yeah noone with honesty can deny that. but noone has a right to say well, those that voted dont count. make your displeasure known, so people know what you want, wanting to change it, i get the sentiment but that has to be tempered with understanding that this is democracy. it runs this way for a reason, and the alternative is not better

my old man and i spoke he has no hope in trump, but this should be the sentiment of all americans"i want him to do a great job, i want him to do well, because if he doesnt, it hurts us all."

Why would someone call you a musical instrument?

lol oh it took me a second to get that, good one ;u; <3

in case you havent seen, its one of the deragatories people throw at trump people, trumpettes, trumpanzees, trumpettes, etc.

I'm Canadian ;p I just like making silly comments don't mind me!

I have my political views on the newly elected president, but I am not beating anyone over the head with it.

Too busy saying EH and SORRY EH!

EEEHHHHHHHH!!!!!!i entirely respect that! its jsut the bullying i have seen form so many that are bad.also greetings hello from murica!

Hello from the penthouse! (Apparently judging by what's happening down there). Nothing gives people an excuse to resort to violence and bullying.

Hear hear

;u;!

South Park put it best when their election options were a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

"But Stan, don't you know, it's always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Nearly every election since the beginning of time has been between some douche and some turd. They're the only people who suck up enough to make it that far in politics." XD

I may not agree with the president but, I never have nor will I ever support any kind of violence, doesn't matter what you belong to. Violence does not nothing but, add fuel to a most likely raging fire already and just try to go about your normal lives for the next 4 years.

I personally don't care if you gather peacefully, use freedom of speech in a calm manner but, don't go about shouting death threats and rioting. All it does is turn people away from your cause and maybe even drive them further away from ya. Want people to listen? Be calm, be polite and above all else, know that not everyone may agree with you but, if its kept in a civil manner, then both sides can find a middle ground or maybe even gain new insight on an old subject

exactly, EXACTLY! this is what makes me batty!! people see what you say, total truth and sense and then turn and go" oh the only way we are heard is through violence" noone hears the message when your violent, they only see the violence, and that is their judgement, and rightfully so if you behave like that. nobody has to like trump, but people arent disrespecting him. they are disrespecting their fellow citizens when they do this.they are the ones who hurt, not him.

But u are batty...how can something drive a bat batty!

by being me, dangit!!!*flutters off!*

"nobody has to like trump, but people arent disrespecting him."

This is the only bit I will disagree with. No one owes Trump respect, or anything else. Respect is something that is earned, not demanded, and In my eyes Trump has done nothing to earn it. The last 2 years have been and gone, and he's done nothing respect worthy. The deluge of controversies, Twitter rants, and temper tantrums he has thrown only re enforce my belief that he is just a petulant toddler who wants everything his way.

I am more than open to changing my mind on him, and even respecting him. But he has to earn it first. And so far I see no signs of that.

let me correct myself, i worded that poorly. i meant respect that he was voted in, respect the democratic process. your absolutely right, he has to earn respect, not merely be given it. sorry for the confusion there >3<

As a great man once said "Violence is the Last Refuge of the Incompetant!"

My main concern with Trump is his unpredictability. I'm concerned that he'll do something that pisses off the wrong people. I'm willing to give him a chance, but he's really testing my patience with his behavior.

On another point, it's finally nice to see that I'm (seemingly) not the only centrist in these days.

And as far as the protests are concerned, violence is definitely not the way to go about it. I have no problem with an individual protesting, but I do have an issue with someone who's going to take away my safety because they're unhappy about how something went.

centrists, ohhh man they are rare nowadays. its sad since centrists rarely ever, despite usually having the widest view, are ever the ones who are listened to. im just the same, im willing ot give him a chance and give it time.

and i agree, his cabinet picks, i dont knoewthem all extensively, but their backrounds, their pasts, and the things i have heard of their businesses practices worry me too, but we have a voice as the people. ts just drowned out if people are divisive, and choose the wrong path, of violence. above all else, people shouldnt be emotionally reactionary nothing has happened YET! we have to wait and see, before we judge.

I'll merely say that having a cabinet full of oilers & tycoons doesn't sound like it'll solve problems, but I will also back up that lots of people are shouting because they want to be proactive & not reactive to dangerous forms of policy.

this is very true. the people saying these things are part of the massive problems. dc is aplace, exactly, we want the people there out. and millenials can do that if they want something that bad, but this is the issue, those very people are the ones saying this, who voted in record lows. now its ironic why that happened, but the point is, they didnt vote and now they want to upend democracy?i just dont understand it.

I'm only going to say this. You can not blame third party voters. Plain and simple. They voted whom they thought would be better. They voted by their own opinion, not by the collective. You CANNOT fault a person for formulating their own opinion and voting based off it.

this, times a billion, i saw this directly after the eelction"og if this many gary johnson voted for hillary she woulda won!!!!" that is such a messed up thing to do, blame people for voting with their free vote, their one voice int he political pricess

*Insert a giant, enthusiastic thumbs up*

In all seriousness, I agree whole heartledly. It's embarrassing how radical people are getting over this democratic choice.

Agreed! Those idiots have no idea what true oppression really is. These spoiled rotten millennials are making me feel ashamed to be a millennial myself >.<

Well the electoral college by definition is undemocratic. Hillary won the popular vote. She had a few more million people vote for her. How does that make sense that the one with more votes doesn't win? Its how Nixon and George W Bush won too.. This current system is like if a sports team won a game and the losing team was declared the winner. Regardless of who won in the general, election they were both terrible choices. I hated both candidates. Neither of them deserve any kind of power.

No. The Electoral college is extremely democratic. It was instilled by the Founding fathers to prevent any one state from being able to constantly sway the election. IE: New York, California, etc. The electoral college exists for the sole reason of making the election fair and not based on what state you live in. She "won" the popular vote because Obama urged undocumented aliens to vote. A large chuck of her votes have questionable origins, but thats something you will never hear in the mainstream media.

Trump won fair and square. You might not like him, but he sure as hell is better than the warmonger on the left.
I am a left leaning Centrist from Canada, and you've just been taught a lesson about your own system. SMH

I will say, I think that was a little more aggressive than need-be!

Mostly to Lonewolf:
I do believe that the electoral college makes the most sense. Popular vote shouldn't mean much, because if it did we'd have had far more unqualified celebrities running for office in years past. My opinion is that mass amounts of people aren't very intelligent (I have a very pessimistic view of society xD).

If the election had been based on popular vote, any joe-schmoe could jump in the race and have equal odds with someone who has real political experience. I believe there's statistical proof that people will vote for the name they recognize the most (too lazy to look up real stats). If an average "basic" individual went into the voting booth and saw "John Jones Doe" and "Kanye West" (who, if I recall correctly, is considering running for office in the next election), you can bet your bottom dollar they're statistically more likely to vote for Kanye West if they had no opinion of either candidate. Not only that, but we all know the internet loves memes, and would love to make some random hobo on the streets president of the United States just for the sake of "lulz".

Popular vote would lead to disaster. There needs to be a buffer. In fact, The United States isn't even a true-blood democracy, we're a democratic republic.

I haven't been taught a damn thing. You obviously don't understand a single thing about the "democracy" of the US.

And no, I don't like him. I didn't like Shillary either, but at least on domestic policies she would have been better than Trump.

Actually, I do. The Electoral College is the most democratic part of the Election process in the USA. Without it, states like New York, California, Florida, etc would constantly sway every election singlehandedly without chance of opposition. The population in these states would quell any votes from the other smaller population states, thus rendering their votes near nullified. The Electoral College PROTECTS the foundation of Democracy in the event of a Presidental election, so that not any one state's population can decide the vote. The voters vote for their representatives whom then vote for the true voice of the people. Its like a small state by state referendum.

I'm sorry that you're ignorant to your own electoral process, but when told EXACTLY why it exists, jumping to "Oh you just don't know anything" Is extremely poor standards in this form of debate and only reflects poorly on your own point. Please come back when you have actually researched your own system before telling others who have, that they are wrong.

Actually, the electoral college was originally set up because horseback was the only mode of transportation at the time. So people voted their respective areas and those representatives went to DC. The president was not sworn in until March because of the time to travel and tally.

Now as you say, the electoral college acts as a stop gap against big states. However, only a few states get the attention of the campaigns anyways, the swing states. No other state seems to matter. As for equal representation for states, we already have that in the Senate. So the president should be left to popular vote while congress maintains the counterbalance. Instead right now we have the minority of people telling the majority what to do.

As for voter fraud, i wouldnt lend a whole lot of credence to that. Even in FL i had to have a voter info filled out and get a card back that i had to present when i went to vote.

Oh voter fraud is actually very real, coming from someone who lives in Illinois.

Actually, even outside of IL: my sister, who lives in Missouri, had a co-worker who walked in to vote in this latest election, only to be told someone had already voted posing as her. Nonetheless, she was allowed to vote, but there was still a fraudulent vote floating around. If there was one instance of it, you can bet there are plenty more. If nothing is stopping someone from voting multiple times as the same person, then popular vote is an even worse way of deciding who can run our country.

As I said above: If popular vote determined our president, you can bet we'd have many worse presidents leading up to this point. Anyone could be voted into presidency "just for the lulz" or just because people recognize their name (How many more celebrities/movie stars/etc do you think we'd have had as president?)

Not saying fraud doesn't exist. Its much like identity theft. But dont think those votes just went to Hillary or just to Trump. But all the voter ID laws in the world wont stop it, much same way gun control laws aren't that effective against criminals.

I hate to say it, but some of those celebrities might be better than these career politicians we've been getting. The job of Pres, congress, etc was not meant to be a career. It was meant as a duty to ones country just like serving in the army. But now you get career politicians, who lose sight of the work and only whats needed to keep the job and line their pockets.
However, we just elected a celebrity. So now we get to see what happens. I'm certainly not sold on him and really dislike the party's platform.

I actually said how many "More" celebrities would we have if presidency was voted on by popular vote. We've already had a few in the past!

That being said, I don't believe Kim Kardashian would make a good president, nor some hobo off the streets that the internet wanted to "help" by pushing for him to be president. Pure popular vote just breeds disaster.

Don't get me wrong, I may be more right-leaning, but I certainly do not like Trump. I've never trusted him, but I'm interested to see what he does before jumping to conclusions that he's "the worst thing to ever happen to the United States" or something of the sort.

And no, Domestic Policies and international policies, Trumpster has her beat. The fact she was going to flat out instigate war with Syria and Russia just to have that No-Fly zone, would destroy any chance of the US's infrastructure or economy from being fixed for decades.

yeah i noticed. i have laid my last statement, i am familiar with this type of debate,but am a poor opponent to it. he made that clear with the trademark"oh ill stop insulting you but maybe youll stop victimizing me, maybe, only to constantly attack your character."its typical.your dead on the money, since he hasnt addressed my points, jsut repeated some, straw-manned others, and constantly accused me of dishonesty.

The United States is a 'republic' not a 'democracy'. Our Founding Fathers hated the idea of democracy, and for good reason. Now, democracy and republic are often considered to be synonymous, but there is a difference.

Their reason for hating democracy is because they wanted only the elites in power and in control of everything.

Not wanting for this conversation to turn into a flame war, democracy which is Greek for People's Rule, and easily turn into an Ochlocracy, which means Mob Rule. Theoretically, if the people have any influence in decision making, beyond elections, than a dissatisfied fraction of the population would riot, and We The People have a tendency to riot. In a republic, politicians who are elected by the people, do most of the decision making. The Founding Fathers of the United States wanted to base a Republic off of the Roman model (SPQR-The People and the Senate of Rome), but better because the Roman Republic was truly ruled by elites and that did destabilized the republic and turned Rome into an imperial form of government. There I'm done.

yeah this is what the founding fathers were against, mob rule. and i see their point and the reasoning. its why i think the electoral college isnt a bad thing, and maybe not outdated as people assume. not an expert but from my perspective, it makes sense.

Thank you.

yeah i dont know why it has to be so extreme, but god it has gotten so crazy in the span of what feels like 10 years

yeah , people seem to have forgotten that voting is your voice, not burning cars and going bonkers.

but its all okay, the god emperor is here to deliver us!! god i love that meme.

Haha, yeah... It's really sad, honestly.
There's definitely lines between being disappointed, overreacting, and going absolutely insane.

I don't mind if someone is disappointed. "Trump won :/ Guess we'll have to put up with this for 4 years..." is a perfectly acceptable way to respond.

People overreacting is a little bit of a stretch: "Well, the world's over. Trump is president, now we're all going to die. He's already the worst president we've ever had." I can tolerate this attitude, but... like sheesh, people... he hasn't even done anything, yet. Obama did little to nothing his first 4 years in office despite promising plenty of things. It's very fair to say Trump will likely do very little these next four years.

But when people are going insane over it: burning cars, genuinely discussing assassination attempts, "protesting" the presidency... That's where I get upset. It's childish, it's immature, and it does nothing to prove any points. All it does is hurt people... and the last thing we need is more people trying to hurt others. Granted, I will say that the Right had a very immature attitude about Obama's initial election. I remember vividly the cries of "He's the anti-Christ", and similar 'jests' of assassination... but it certainly didn't get to the point of old man Bob losing his local produce store because some people are mad about the election results. When it hurts innocents, it just becomes well beyond unjustifiable in my eyes.

Agreed! Like Trump or hate him it doesn't matter now. All we can do is just wait and see. He maybe a great president. He maybe a terrible one. He may just be an average one. His story is in the hands of history now.

Judging by his actions so far and his cabinet picks, I'm leaning towards calling him one of the most corrupt we've ever had.

That could be true. I'm still interested in what he'll do just like I was interested to see what direction Barack Obama would guide our country.

I'm sorry, but he is stacking his cabinet with people whom he see's as the best for his views of revitalizing the dismal economy of the USA. This is the situation that the US has been put in by 8 years of absolutely nothing being done by Obama and his staff. He is not corrupt. You view of the situation is.

Good point. You know, it's always easy to criticize the guy (or gal) in authority. People who are presidents, prime ministers, tzars, etc, have to make very difficult decisions within a limited period of time, and with little information. Whenever I see a republican criticize a democratic president (or politician) or a democrat criticize a republican president (or politician) or whatever I would like to say "I doubt you could do any better." Sorry that this reply is longer than necessary.

Um... No, he's stacking his cabinet with Goldman Sachs and people who don't even believe in the positions they're being appointed to. It's the old republican trick, put people in who don't believe in said position to cripple and effectively nullify that agency while he is in office. Good examples being him appointing Betsy DeVos for heading the department of education. She doesn't believe in helping out the public education system, she only supports for profit private schools, and christian ones at that. Not to mention the other reason she was even picked, because she donated a huge amount of money to his campaign. Sounds a lot like the pay to play that Hillary's so called charity always did doesn't it?

As for your claim that Obama and his staff are the reason the US economy is in this hole is false. That blame also lies on Regan, Clinton and Bush as well, they all deregulated Wall Street and believed in tax cuts for the rich. Now going back to Bush, he is the reason we had the recession in the first place, Obama got us out of it and kept it from getting worse. Hell, he even got rid of a huge chunk of the deficit. Now, I'm not saying Obama was a great president by any means, I still give him a very low D if I were to grade his performance.

everything you said here corrisponds with what i know, so i pretty much agree that is why the cabinet picks bother me so much. the people hes appointing are people against what the cabinet stands for. i cannot see any reason for this then what your saying.

and i think that is asuper fair obama rating. mine is an f because i really believed him his first term. i really believed he wanted to help and make changes and he betrayed that belief by just being so medicore and i guess just really middle of the lane sort of.

these people have the knowledge but my concern is their motivations. if these are simply picks trump is making so that he knows they will be loyal, thats one thing, but if they are given free reign, some of them have questionable histories and ethics. i dont doubt their intelliegence i doubt their motivation,you know?they havent done anything in this office to be corrupt, but some of them are a bit questionable.but as i said, im not condemning them until i have reason, they havent even gotten a chance to prove their worth yet.

:) :) :) :)

:333

Well, Trumpo, I believe a mutual block is in short order. >:3

Are you joking?

I cant tell if your joking or if u didnt read anything he typed.

i didnt include trumpo ;3; damnit

Ok, first I'll just say that's the wrong term for what those people are but I understand the sentiment.

I have no problem with non-violent protests against the guy being that it's their right to do such (and it's very understandable why) but yeah this violence shit is going WAY too far and the folks that are caught should be punished to whatever level that is proper for such actions. Really this just destroys the validity to their message and just makes them look bad...

I'll just be straight up, I hate Trump. I think he's a scumbag, a con artist, a racist, and overall just a lying piece of orange shit but he doesn't deserve the violent reaction that these people have done to show their anger (I'm not a Hillary person either, she's just as bad). Non-violent protests have always proven to be the more successful of the two anyways.
My main problem that I have is his choices for his cabinet because some of them are downright horrible either because of the history and connections (a white nationalist, a former racist turned anti-lgbt hater, and a slew of islamophobes) or just cause they have no experience whatsoever (a friggin' retired doctor for Head of HUD and a big Republican donor for Sec. of Education...I don't even). Oh and then there's his whole view of the media and how he interested in is screwing around with the press' rights to journalism because some of them "hurt his feelings" during the campaign season xD.

*Sighs* So much anxiety, so much craziness, so much anger, and so much frustration, and this is just day 1... ^_^;;;

i agree. the violence is making this entire situation spiral out of control and it doesnt help the left has a very loud, active vocal minoriitrity trying to spur violence for political reasons.

as for trump,its fine you hate im, i think thats fair. i dont know if hes a racist, perse, or how much of some of his thoughts are rhetoric, but this is very fair, it since seeing some people think the resentment is going way too far. the vote, and protests are fine, but violence?no, unnacceptable.

i think your right on the cabinet picks, but i fear that pence might be the puppetmaster here, and that trump is just saying listen to pence cause he has no clue what hes doing. the thing i dont get is how it is , exactly as many have criticized(including among his own supporters) that these people are the antithesis of the office they represent.

Yeah, now that I think about it now, bigot probably a bit closer to what he is since it's just reinforcing stereotypes and views already in play like that whole dystopian wasteland remark and his efforts in housing discrimination towards blacks and latinos. Just kind of gets under my skin.

Hmm that would not surprise me in the least if some of them are more of Pence's choices than Trump's on a lot of the cabinet. Yeah, it's weird that they are just putting in folks that seem to hate the departments or have no idea what their department does in power. It's almost like they want to intentionally sabotage things but I hope it's not as sinister as that and is just Trump making bad picks.

He has no ill-will to Blacks or Latinos. He has a problem with BLM; A domestic terrorist organization founded by a Cop-slayer/FBI Most Wanted, and Undocumented Aliens. The two are not mutually exclusive to Latinos or Black. Yes, those two ethnicities dominate these groups, but that is just the because of general locale. He is not discriminatory towards Latinos or Blacks. He has NEVER had a comment of Blacks in ANY of his campaign. Only on criminals, so unless you yourself are implying that all criminals are black, you are playing a dishonest and disingenuous game. If you would like to refute this, I will say this; Citation please.

I haven't seen him deal out any good will towards either groups either so...

Um, BLM is not a domestic terrorist organization nor is it founded by any of those collectives, I think you're thinking of the Black Panthers, any large street or biker gangs, or the KKK. The group, while a bit overzealous which kind of bugs me a bit, is out to protest police brutality and don't you dare say "Oh but the Dallas shooting." The shooter there even said before his death he despised BLM and other black protest groups as being too soft and that he was fed up with the death of his brethren. Also if BLM were really cop killer sympathizers they wouldn't have tried to help out with keeping the peace during the chaos of that situation along side the cops.

You really don't know much about Trump's past if you can even post that he's never discriminated against Blacks or Latinos in his realty business or just in his life in general. Let me show you some proof:
http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donal.....racism-quotes/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.....ernment-sued-/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/.....race.html?_r=0
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/49595.....imination-case
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.....imination.html
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/122708.....racism-history
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_....._a_racist.html
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen.....aepstein/trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.....=.c9e54b83fa60
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/24/49124.....ea-isnt-enough
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics.....rities/481155/
http://time.com/4452596/donald-trump-dog-whistle/
https://www.thenation.com/article/t.....re-not-racist/

Let see there's the birther movement which he used to disrespect our mixed president because he's not white. Never has there been a president who was suspected of not being born in America until Obama took up office. If we're going to start wanting to know if a president is from the states or not, we should also do this test to Trump just to be sure, you know see his long form certificate and all the junk.

He has made dogwhistles here and there among his campaign that a lot of people seem to just swat aside because they seem so insignificant to them but they stand out to some of us.

I could scour the web for tons of stuff that points to his more racial intolerant nature but I still bet you'll deny that too. He's never differentiated between criminal and innocent among blacks but yes he did when speaking of Latinos though it still isn't right to demonize all criminals as being such just to rape and pillages. Some are people just trying to survive sadly...

So anyways, I never claimed that all blacks are criminals (I'd be demonizing myself if I did). I've just gone by Trump's logic in he thinks that we live in some Fallout 3-ish wasteland/warzone/whatever where we are doing whatever to survive which is far from the case in most areas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/.....ck-voters.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post.....=.96e52e07878a
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na.....103-story.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi.....ack-people-say

Everythin gyou've posted is Mainstream, manipulated media. I will not acknowledge it as it only furthers the race-baiting in the USA. And no, BLM is a domestic terrorist organization, the core founder and first person to create the # BlackLiveMatter, Assata Shakur, known Cop-slayer and part of the FBI's most wanted list. Please do your fact checking before coming into this.

And no, I know everything Trump as said. I have watched all the debates, all of his speeches and rallies. Again, citation please.

Ah, a stereotypical Trump fan. You've just shown me that there isn't any point in wasting my breath or keyboard clicks on you. You'd probably call anything I post mainstream and manipulated unless it came from the like of Breitbart, Infowars, the Daily Stormer, Stormfront or other disgusting sites like that, so I'll just say thanks for showing your colors and I'll just block ya and be on my way since this would just only lead to a back and forth of "I'm right, you're wrong" bullshit and I'd rather exacerbate my depression and other disorders from something with more value to it like trying to get better at drawing or to get better at a few video games I've been working at...

Finally! Someone who gets it!

your right on with this. the biggest msitake some people make(that includes me sometimes) is generalizing the extreme left or the extreme right as just the right or left, but this isnt the case.

i personally disagree with flagburning, but that i suppose is a persons choice, but the violence is unacceptable.

im very curious what you mean as you recieved progam as an sjw?were you exposed to alot of them, that sounds dreadful >3<

Yep, yep, seconded.

You know, I've never heard of the Trumpettes like this until now XD. But really it seems more like a temper tantrum now. They had their chance during the election and now that Trump won, they need to accept it. Doesn't mean that they can like it.

I just hope he's a good present. Same thing that I'd say if Clinton won. I'm not a fan of either, but what's done is done.

exactly. this is the perfect atttiude, this is the one i share as well! we want whoever is in office to do great, for us. if they do poorly, we ALL suffer the ramifications.

Though if people are gonna just sit quiet for 4 years, Trump's gonna run rampant on what he believes. All these executive orders basically undoing everything Obama had to struggle uphill for, if people don't at least make a noise, they're advocating it.

I'm not saying it's right to cause violence over this, hell no. That makes them just as bad as any nazi or alt-right bigot. But demonstrations like peaceful protests, petitions and marches have always been and continue to be an option.

Even charity fundraising for stuff like funding abortion clinics, now that Trump has made it impossible to get government and international funding for such family planning necessities is enough to say "No, I don't agree with this decision." The people's anger is justified, in many ways, but they need to start being the better people, stop treating this whole thing like a Team Red vs Team Blue scenario and pull together for the good of their nation and their future.

i agree , silence is consent in a democracy. if trump does things that are wrong, protest is good but people are just going looney toons. hes barely done anything(though the gag order n official twitters about global warming science., and the pipeline pushing is badbadbad as far as im concerned, but tpp is a good move. if hes done more i missed defintely point me in the right direction

its become a hysteria and people are becoming i feel reactionary over what they are protesting for at times, without thinking first, they are just whipped into a fever pitch frenzy, and that wont get a good message across at all.i agree however with all the listed forms of protest. making your voice heard is the point of democracy. having a hand in how your governed.

now i know this is going to be unpopualr, but as for abortion, i dont know why its state funded. i mean, dont get me wrong, my biggest caviate with abortion, really, is that the lack of fathers rights, since it takes 2 to make a baby. otherwise, i think it is something that as long as done with responsibility and proper thought, should not be prevented.(obvious exceptions are rape and forced pregnancy or if the delivery could harm the mother, that should be moms choice entirely)im pro abortion especially if the parents cant care for the child, but i do think it needs to offer father rights, and people should use contraceptives as a first option, especially since abortion form what i understand is still taxing.

The problem with "you should use contraceptives" is that they don't always work, and I imagine getting birth control pills on american healthcare is expensive. This is coming from a UK resident with access to the NHS (as overstretched as it is right now, prescriptions are cheap and birth control is pretty much free, so correct me if I'm wrong). Condoms still fail, from time to time, and in cases of rape, it should be an absolute guarantee that the woman shouldn't have to suffer the consequences. Raising a child is expensive and time consuming, and in a rape case, the child conceived, no matter if they suddenly have a right to life, will almost certainly completely change the mother's life.

As for fathers rights, I think it should be considered, but at the end of the day, the man doesn't have to carry a baby for 9 months with risks of miscarriage, internal injury, the pain of childbirth or risk of actual death. Sure, if a couple tries for a baby, they likely considered all this and decided to go ahead, but if a woman wants to back out because of health risks, or because they can no longer financially cope with raising a baby, then for their right to abortion to be waived because daddy wants to continue his legacy is a tad on the controlling side. Daddy just gotta fire n forget, mommy gotta live with it.

oh yeah i know they can fail. belive me, i had a situation with an ex where our contraceptive failed, and we immediatly bought the plan b pill. the feeling was mutual on that scenario.


that doesnt matter, the father had to be party to create it. its his child is JUST as much as hers, whoever holds the baby. and as i said, if there is a genuine reason to believe she is at risk, at that point thats her life, she makes the choice. thats her life, and at that point, im sorry, thats where the dad's rights will end.same with rape, obviously the prick raping someone has no say, i have no disagreement there.

this is the same with absentee fathers. if your absent or arent available, your waving your rights. im not adverse of course to certain scenarios in which mom is given pure rights and choice, but dads need a voice and a choice, it needs to be discussed and given parameters. fire and forget isnt all that true either, since if mom has the kid dad owes child support, which at times can be crushing.

all around its just a better option. because lets say dad wants an abortion, mom doesnt, then dad signs away rights to the child. that way if mom decides within a reasonable time of that that she wants an abortion and its early enough, then dad has nothing to say. its suffice to say that i think around 6 weeks with a heartbeat, that is a bit late in the game to abort unless its severely risky to mother, but that is part of the ongoing debate. these are my thoughts, but i think its indisputable a discussion must take place and dads need to be given some voice. how big or small is all part of the discussion.

i agree with the points you made, which is why the debate needs to be had with men and woman, be corgial and fair, and give dads some say in the debate.

I suppose if the dad is a reliable father, it's worth looking in to. Maybe even a custodial thing that allows the mother to move out afterwards, if they can't afford to raise a child. With support payments, obviously, but I think the burden of carrying the baby at the behest of the father should factor in to reducing the payments, in comparison with absent dads.

Also with regards to how easy it is to have babies. I don't know why abortion is such a strongly policed thing. I know someone on adoption leave from work (like maternity leave), but it's taken them years to finally be allowed to even stay overnight with the children. The kids they're adopting weren't even born when they started the process, if you can believe it.

Yet any couple can just get preggers and pop out a spawn, even if they're meth-addled nobodies with no fiscal responsibility.

It's no wonder so many kids don't get adopted if every potential candidate is treated like a potential child molester. Nobody bats an eyelid when someone has a kid of their own.

that i agree with, it seems like a good option to consider, and that really seems like a common sense approach. it allows open scenarios where compromises can be made.

yeah i see exactly what your saying with adoption. thats part of why i think abortion isnt something that is wrong or should be outlawed. exactly like you said, its so easy to make babies, if people who arent responsible are having them, that is a life of undue misery. its better to make the responsible choice.

that is crazy though, i mean im glad they are putting so much effort to make sure the kid will be safe, but jeeze....i mean there are alot of sickos out there, but that is a long time. i am glad they are caring about the child's welfare though. that is a very good thing.

as for drug addicted parents birthing children...i think that should be state funded for sure, give people who shouldnt have kids that option, because that is no way to have a child. thats where the topic gets so difficult, we have so many permutations of scenarios where abortion is the right choice. its definitely something i think should in certain cases, for sure state funded.

I think it's sad that people "Especially the democratic left" have gone out of their way to disregard unity, tolerance, love, and equality,and have now gone to the level of anarchy, extremism, name calling, and just all around insanity. I guess the people who preach love and tolerance don't abide by it. Which is sad. As for Donald Trump, i don't like him, yet i don't hate him. As of now my stance on him is neutral. No i don't think he's the Hitler people make him out to be. I'm not going to live my life in fear and hide in my house for 4 to 8 years knowing he's president. Because i got a life to live, people to love, and friends to hug. So i do think people need to calm down over Trump. Whether you love him, or hate him, You can't keep doing this forever. This temper tantrum has to stop at some point.

I tend to worry a little bit about a man who has never held an elected office before or served in the military...but everyone voted for him, so Oh well...We can only hope that he stumbles into the right paths & doesn't trip on the way there. And maybe admit that the Gigantic 12' (Height Subject to Rising) Wall may not be something that can realistically BUILT.

There have been others who never held political office or Military standing that have been elected to Presidency before. They did just fine. Everyone needs to just calm down on this topic, as it has no pertinence to how well he will do.

There literally has NOT ever in America's history. The point is that this (& 8 bankruptcies) challenge his ability to lead.

He has not been bankrupt. His companies has. He himself has never been bankrupt, or else he would have never been able to run.

Companies he runs though...point in case...among them a diet food pyramid scheme & Trump U, both of which he endorsed

Honestly I can see why the right hate the left so much right now. A loud minority of complete loons advocating violence and anarchy. It's not right. Unfortunately "left" has become a dirty word through that, and the rise of the alt-right/fourth-reich is due in part to the unreasonable left-wingers who would rather put their fingers in their ears and scream than have a constructive conversation.

I mean, that said, there's people on both sides who won't listen to reason, plenty of conservatives actively antagonise those who may not fit their binary view on gender, or traditional heterosexuality, so I can see why there's backlash. People do need to take the high road, though, and stand up for what they believe in a dignified manner more suitable for politics and social development, rather than both shrieking and fighting til their faces turn blue.

The far Left tried to pull away and they left the more sane Left behind, redefining what it means to be liberal. Sense has vacated the building, leaving more traditional liberals leaning more "right", disassociating from their younger, louder peers all together.

It's very sad, really.

It means I can't profess to sitting on the left side without someone calling me a SJW loony libtard cuck. Social Justice is a concept that needs redefining, or it's gonna continue to be a laughing stock and undo all the hard work campaigners have done before...

really, social justice needs to go. it has poisoned the left, to the point where i dont even know if the term left is salvagable. its unfortunate because i tend to lean left often, but its entire premise is now warped. im more centrist and i truly believe centrist is best, because you can go left or right depending on whats BEST, not what political alignment one is married to. but like you said, their insanely far left has forced normal liberals to redistribute and many land in libertarian or conservative circles.


basically, i agree entirely. both sides suffer from this, far left and right . agitators trying to start shit to cast the other side as the ultimate evil, this isnt what politics should be about.

I think political centrism is mostly about appeasing the most people and ultimately doesn't get anything done. While stagnation is probably a better alternative to the blatantly racist, homophobic and just plain backwards populism we're seeing. A healthy social progressive, fiscal conservative lean with a view to bettering the populous is far preferable to pandering to religious or extremist types that use the first amendment to force church and state together (which is apparently unconstitutional from what I understand), or to violate the first amendment rights of other people who have as much right to live in the US as anyone else.

see, i dont agree with centrism, what centrism is, to me at least, is about seeing both sides of the road, and picking one. seeing what left says and right says backed with proof, and then say okay, well, right wants this, left wants this, one side provided the best alternative, we do that. i understand why you think its about appeasement, and maybe by and large thats what it is to most, but to me, its about letting both sides of the story for the most informed choice. if left has the best options on xyz, then we can confidently say we saw what right said, and its just the inferior choice, so boom, we go left here. maybe right has a better option over there and we go there.its about avoiding partisan ship for the good of the people in my eyes.

i especially disagree with the claim of homophobia and racism on that one. these cases exist, that is for sure, but that isnt what i think we are seeing. populism, yes, for sure, but i dont think its homophopbically or racially driven. take race for example. there are issues that arent being discussed. in america, for example, the police/black community issues arent cut and dry. there are genuine cases of cops overreacting, and using excessive force, but the term racism is applied to liberally today for it to accurately net true cases. richard spencer definitely is a white nationalist, and definitely harbors genuine bigotry, but a cop shooting a violent individual that happens to be black doesnt link the two, for example. we have a genuine issue in the black community with single parenthood and fatherlessness, and its leading to massive poverty and crime. it has caused the small violent section of the black community to make staggering murder rates, like 52% when people talk about this, this isnt racism, especially for me. i want to see these communities thrive, i have worked with and in these areas, and the people there are by and large great people with a hard lot, and they do need help. i dont think its fair though to innaccurately accuse people of racism by default. the all white people are racist narrative, for example.thats as bigoted as all black people commit crimes, simply its not true and its overinflated. its unhelpful, thats where the left is going wrong.the issues arent"white people holding blacks down" making that calim is misleading everyone to the wrong conclusions and the problem will never be solved. we need to work together here in the us to solve these issues, not by"getting rid of the blacks" or whatever, but helping their communtities by rooting out the criminal element. i want to see the black community flourish, seeing what children turn into or go through breaks my heart in these communities, every time some poor kid is shot due to gang violence .do we have general cases where acts are based purely on skin color and not the scenario? possibly, but i dont think that by and large comes from hate.there is a whole lotta grey and i think it comes from well intentions that turn bitter with failure to communicate. remember, jsut as the left has a vocal minority, so does the right and their forms of bigotry, they may be loud, but what i think says more is how many obama voters went trump. that says alot of these people arent what we think they are.

homosexuality, i dont see alot of cases of genuine bigotry there. i try to keep fairly up to date, but as far as i can tell thats accepted heavily in most countries, int he west, and it damn well should be. if people dont like it, then thats fine, but they dont have a right to treat them unjustly. who ccares who your neighbor is blowing, far as im concerned. let people live their lives. now, there are a large group that doesnt accept this, on the other hand.

im going to come right out with it. in europe, from what im informed of(if im incorrect anywhere, defintely correct me) the migrant crisis is a nightmare, since many of the migrants arent innocent syrians, or just people looking for a new life. many of them are economic parasites, the types that your typical muslim wouldnt want to live around either, trying to force their way of life, and have cause alot of harm and damage. people need to be able to have a honest conversation, but in places like germany, it isnt allowed. this is dangerous, because it makes normally reasonable people become highly bigoted, seeing a subsection of this ethnic group, much like gangs int he united states, be excused and protected, while they abuse others. this leads to what is going to become a very bigoted, and overall bad situation, from what i can tell. but to me its a easy fix. vetting. we do it in the us, and desptie the occasional loon, we dont really seem to have major issues atm. the horrific and heinous pulse night club shooting was just as much extremism as a person struggling with their faith. now that faith does seem to need reformation, but again, thats part of a broader conversation. i really worry if we dont have a open conversation of our problems globally and nationally soon, things are gonna explode.

Morals are only for those that can afford them

no, morals are for people with character and conviction. this is a staggerinly stupid thing to say, as those with the most wealth are often the most ammoral.

I know I'm late to comment but I just have to say I agree with you 100%. I voted for a third party myself and even though I do not like trump as a person he is our president and to pray for his failure is to pray for america's failure. Who knows he could turn out to be the best president America has had in a long time or maybe not but we are not to the point of violent action, if he does turn out to be the wrong man for the job we as Americans have the means to peacefully remove him from office. Don't burn down Washington! Get educated on our electoral system and exercise your rights!