Not their president: UI students protest Trump's election

Not their president: UI students protest Trump's election

CHAMPAIGN — Organizers say a demonstration against the election of Donald Trump that broke out Friday on the University of Illinois campus was fueled by a desire to protest the past and spur momentum for future change.

A group of students and other UI-affiliated people marched from the Alma Mater to the Quad before walking down Green Street and stopping back at the statue. Their chants complemented signs reading "Love Trumps hate," "Immigrants make America great," "Borders kill," Women's rights are human rights" and "Silence condones oppression."

UI student Tyler Dolan said the Mexican Student Association, a Facebook event and general word of mouth helped spread plans for Friday's protest. It was the second organized Trump protest on campus since his election Tuesday.

Of his feelings about election night, Dolan said: "It was unusual — extra dark."

Out of those dark feelings came a push to sup- port those targeted dur- ing Trump's campaign, including Hispanics, Muslims, immigrants and the LGBTQ community. Student Michelle Martinez said she wanted the protest to be a place for poor and minority groups to come together.

Champaign County, led by the Champaign-Urbana area, went blue on election night, with 49,694 votes for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and 33,235 for Trump. Nearby Douglas, Ford, Piatt and Vermilion counties all favored Trump.

"Protests like these shouldn't quell desire for change — it should spark it," student Maryam Sultan said.

Fellow student Dunia Ghanimah chimed in, saying, "It doesn't stop here."

They said participation in groups like Students for Justice in Palestine and United Muslim and Minority Advocates is a start for creating that change.

Karen Olowu, a member of Black Students for Revolution, said she hopes the protest inspires radical thought.

"I had a desire for release and a need to communicate about the reality of the current situation," Olowu said about her motivation to join the protest.

To wrap the event up, Olowu led the crowd in a call and response, including the phrases "It is our duty to fight for our freedom" and "We must love and protect each other."

That was followed by several hugs and embraces before the crowd dispersed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
wutheringheights wrote on November 12, 2016 at 9:11 am

Over my 50+ years of voting there have obviously been MANY times the person I voted for didn't get in. For the past 8 years, for instance, I've felt like we haven't had a President, but rather a pop-culture icon. Did I ever protest? NO. This is life; we don't always get what we want. The people voted, Donald Trump is our next President, get over it, move on with your life.  

uncommon_name wrote on November 12, 2016 at 9:11 am

(from another article:)

"The University of Michigan offered its traumatized students coloring books and Play-Doh to calm them..."

It's equal parts hysterically funny and terrifying all at the same time.

DoNotTread wrote on November 12, 2016 at 9:11 am
Profile Picture

I stand with the tens of millions of Americans who emphatically disagree. Any man who runs a fear mongering campaign based on hate, xenophobia, racism, misogyny and many other deplorable platforms is not my president. Standing up for what is right will never go out of style. That's why this movement will not go away.

uncommon_name wrote on November 12, 2016 at 10:11 am

I wish you the best of luck with your movement. I'm sure it will have a real and lasting effect for many years to come.

DoNotTread wrote on November 12, 2016 at 10:11 am
Profile Picture

Thanks?

uncommon_name wrote on November 12, 2016 at 10:11 am

Sorry, I should have made my sarcasm more clear. I'll try to be a little more obvious next time.

DoNotTread wrote on November 12, 2016 at 11:11 am
Profile Picture

Your kind had the same arrogance when women fought for the right to vote and choose what to do with their own bodies, when people of color fought for civil rights, when the LGBT community fought for equality. You always lose in the end. Hate always loses and love ALWAYS wins.

uncommon_name wrote on November 12, 2016 at 11:11 am

So by your logic shouldn't you be loving my arrogance? Shouldn't you be offering me a hug and embracing my viewpoint? One big love fest? People of all opinions are welcome in your world I'm sure...as long as they fit with your opinion.

DoNotTread wrote on November 12, 2016 at 11:11 am
Profile Picture

None of your opinions are valid if they violate the most basic of human rights. That's an inherent knowledge in most people. Why isn't it for you?

annabellissimo wrote on November 13, 2016 at 12:11 am

Try some basic logic:  how can anyone's OPINIONS (i.e. THOUGHTS) violate anything? They are thoughts, ideas, notions and - reminder here: this is AMERICA and we can, for the time being, THINK for ourselves, have independent ideas, choose to eschew groupthink and even - gasp - disagree with you or anyone else. That violates nothing and no one.  Your world view is really quite frightening because the single most magnificent thing about America, about being an American is: freedom and most precious of all, freedom of thought, freedom of speech. The recent trends of social pressure to say, think, endorse whatever "the group" enforces is really anti-American and is quite dangerous. I do not endorse - not at all, not one iota - the kind of language that expresses violence, hatred, intimidation, denigration and I long for a return to a time when such public bilge is gone from public discourse. I see what these "protesters" are saying and writing and it is uglier, filthier and more vile than the garbage that Trump said; there are protesters advocating for his assassination. This is lunacy and un-American! You don't like Trump? Fine. Do meaningful things that work for the ideas and views that you espouse, but you have no right to try to deny those same rights - however much you dislike and disagree with them - to others.

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 7:11 am
Profile Picture

Are you high? Do you think you sound educated by using all your big words? Because you don't. You sound like a the rest of the windbags in here still trying to defend the Deliverance Demographic.

I stated, correctly, that if your opinions violate basic human and constitutional rights that they are invalild. 

You disagreed with that.  You and the rest of your Putin fan club are doing your damndest to shred whatever remaining rights we have left over after the Bush Administration was done gutting the Constitution. You are the worst type of people we have, and thank god this election was your last gasp. 

The protests will continue. Gays, blacks, muslims, mexicans, unsubmissive women and people who don't beleive in your backwoods, incest way of thinking are here to stay. And there are more coming :)

leftylib wrote on November 13, 2016 at 9:11 am

Pssssttt...

To the grammar policeman/woman on this forum (per posts #2 and #22):

Check your spelling of "beleive".  You may want to correct that or you may come off as backwoods uneducated.

Truly, I don't care about small grammar mistakes.  But, if you are going to ask somebody what "ther president" means (post #2), you should probably be able and willing to spell "believe" correctly. 

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 9:11 am
Profile Picture

I open myself to grammatical critique and am glad you caught my typo. It is evident that my editorial skills have room for work. The fact none of you can bring forth any rational reason as to why you think it's ok to treat others as though they are below you due to their race, religion, gender, sexuality, social class, etc. and instead have to start picking apart my grammar says a lot and proves my point.  

At least my zinger also had some depth. This one from you is just a sad attempt to sling mud. 

CallSaul wrote on November 12, 2016 at 11:11 am

Right wing Republicans really don't seem to understand how absurd they look to everyone who isn't also a right wing Republican when they trot out the tired old line: 'You're obligated to tolerate my intolerance!!11!!!1!'

So many of them really believe that they're being discriminated against by laws that make it illegal for them to discriminate against others. It might not be long before we see the claim that white right wing Republicans are the most persecuted group ever.

This kind of persecution complex -- that they're being persecuted because they can't legally discriminate against others -- is a winning strategy and will ensure that many, many people join what is now the Party of Ethnonationalism. 

And diversity? You betcha. They've got the Alt-Right, 4-chan, the KKK, all sorts of neo-Nazi groups, militia nuts, the Bundy thugs, even the old Birchers are now being welcomed back into the party with open arms.

Diversity? The Party of Ethnonationalism now has all the diversity it wants and all it will ever be able to attract.

But that's okay because they'd lose their enthnonationalist base if they ever tried to undertake change that might attract real diversity that would make them look like America today...

DoNotTread wrote on November 12, 2016 at 12:11 pm
Profile Picture

Extremely well put. I used to think they were doing it subconsciously but I've concluded there is no way someone can accidentally harbor that much hate for no reason.

SaintClarence27 wrote on November 13, 2016 at 11:11 am

I am still hopeful that this is the last throes of a dying bigot population. Remember, in 4 years, we will have 10,000,000 people dead that overwhelmingly supported Trump in their votes, and we will have 10,000,000 new eligible voters that will likely be overwhelmingly progressive.

Tom Napier wrote on November 13, 2016 at 7:11 pm

Erased.  Duplicate, misplaced comment.  My apologies.

-TRN

 

Tom Napier wrote on November 13, 2016 at 5:11 pm

"Your kind?"  Who excatly is "your kind?"  Isn't this what's called stereotyping? Doesn't stereotyping offend strong women/men, people of color, sexual orientation, spiritual beliefs, national and ethnic origins, political preference and any other characteristic by which people identify themselves or others identify them? 

How do you distinguish between describing someone as "your kind" and stereotyping?  Just a question. 

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 6:11 pm
Profile Picture

His kind are people who have historically supported the serial violation of human rights in a wide variety. You are part of his kind. This was a very weak attempt by you to divert attention away from your other failing arguments. 

I don't support stereotyping anyone based on their color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, heritage, or disability like your kind has.

I only support stereotyping bad people. This is what you have encountered. Your posting history indicates that you won't understand what I'm talking about, though.

Tom Napier wrote on November 13, 2016 at 8:11 pm

Now, sir, you have crossed the line of civility in this discourse. 

I was going to suggesst removing your post.  But I'll leave it for others to see your true colors.

This forum is intended to share ideas and opinions within our community, the results of the 2016 Presidential Election in this case.  It's not a chat room or personal exchange.  Unfortunately (for us) your statement of opinion, to which you are entitled to express and we are obliged to respect, has degenerated into rant of inslults and personal attacks.  You're not holding up your part of the bargain.  Insults such as "moron:," "are you high," and "his kind" are only a few of many examples.  And I'm not the first to bring this to your attention.

You stereotype me while at the same time denying you stereotype people.  You called me a racist, a violator of human rights, a hater, and a bad person.

Who's hateful now?

Whatever.  Exactly how personal attacks relate to the topic at hand is bewildering to say the least.  I do indeed understand what you're saying, or at least attempting to say.  Why you've chosen to express yourself in the way you do is the bewildering part. 

I won't reciprocate.  I won't engage in name calling, belittling, stereotyping, or saying things you didn't even say; you're doing enough of that for both of us.

Good day sir. 

 

 

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 9:11 pm
Profile Picture

What is it all you boot lickers like to say when the police shoot an unarmed person? 'Don't break the law, don't get shot by the cops.'

How does 'don't support racist people and principles, don't get called racist' sound?

LANFORD LUNCHBOX wrote on November 14, 2016 at 2:11 pm

I think the problem here is that you are under the impression that if someone defends freedom of speech, you immediately assume that person is a racist, bigot, etc. That's not necessarily the case. One person you responded to flat out said this and you chose to ignore it to keep pushing your agenda.

On top of that, you keep insulting people while simultaneously lambasting people for insulting others. Do you not see your own hypocrisy here? Do you not see how you are being intolerant, close-minded, and rude? If you're going to consider yourself a righteous, progressive thinker, you should try practicing what you preach, because you're coming across as arrogant and obtuse.

> How does 'don't support racist people and principles, don't get called racist' sound?

I don't support Trump (or Hillary for that matter), but this comment by you is straight up ignorant. It's completely lacking of context. "Oh, you voted for Trump? Then it's a fact you're a racist!" That's the same mindset that the people you despise have. You're a prime example of the validity of the Horseshoe Theory.

DoNotTread wrote on November 14, 2016 at 5:11 pm
Profile Picture

I will defend freedom of speech down to my last breath. Your accusation that I think someone is a racist or a bigot for defending free speech is comical, and also a flat out lie. Hate is not protected in my book. Donald Trump has been preaching hate his entire campaign (and far beyond) and these people are defending him. 

Where have I lambasted anyone for insulting others? You can look back on every single comment I've ever posted on this or any other forum. I promise you won't find it. I have exclusively defended those marginalized by your President-Elect and his supporters. I'll openly admit that I am intolerant, close-minded and rude when it comes to dealing with people who defend racism, misogyny, xenophobia, ethno-nationalism and all of the other terrible things these clowns are clinging onto. Come at me with anything that doesn't fall inside the realm of hate and I will be as diplomatic as anyone you know. 

I stand by my statements. If you voted for Trump, I have very little respect for you. You had a 100% clean and free choice to NOT support evil and you chose to fill in the circle next to his name. Call me intolerant, call me a hypocrite, tack on whatever theory you want to my name. I'll forever stand against evil ideas and evil people and none of you bullies are ever going to shut me up for even a second. 

Tom Napier wrote on November 14, 2016 at 8:11 pm

LANDFORD LUNCHBOX:

You're embarking on an exercise in futility.  But if you get half the entertainment value from the DoNotTreat remarks that I do, it may be well worth it. 

I've told DNT twice that I didn't support Trump.  So, in that regard, I'm agreeing with him/her.  But DNT has absorbed that like water on a duck's back.  I assumed he/she could imply that I, by extension, would not support racism, mysogyny, xenophobia, ethno-nationalism, hate speech, cooties, and any/all evils to which he/she assigns to Trump.  Apparently this is too complex a concept for DNT to understand.  Apparently insulting people and creating self serving stereotypes is more gratifying than acknowledging the written word.  

Such is the life of the Activist. 

DoNotTread wrote on November 14, 2016 at 8:11 pm
Profile Picture

I've never associated you with any of those things in relation to Trump. I associate you with racism because of your years-long (losing) defense of a racist mascot in the chief as well as your many other race baiting letters to the editor/comments online.

I find it hard to call anyone in here a flat out racist because everyone's racism falls on a different place in the spectrum. Some people are a little racist, some are very racist. Some are subconsciously racist being a product of their culture, others are knowingly and purposefully racist. 

I'm not a doctor and I don't know you on a personal level so I can't say for sure where you fall on that spectrum, however there is a good amount literature that you have left on the archives of the Internet forever. Here is a direct quote, that you typed on May10, 2013 during a lengthy argument promoting bringing a racist mascot back to the UofI.

"Tired rants about blackface, Charlie Chan, Natalie Wood, dancing white fraternity boys, Boy Scouts, interracial marriage, and all manner of irrelevant jabber contribute nothing."

That gives me a pretty good idea of where I'd start if tasked with diagnosing your racism.

 

LANFORD LUNCHBOX wrote on November 15, 2016 at 9:11 am

Do you think your method of insulting people is the best way to get your point across? Don't you think that expressing your view in a polite way would work better toward trying to change people's views? If you're not trying to do that, then what's your end-game here? Are you just insulting people for the sake of insulting people? Or do you really think that making wild accusations and being a jerk is the best way to get people to value your opinion?

You lack self-awareness. Don't forget you're not perfect, and you're certainly no better than those you insult.

DoNotTread wrote on November 15, 2016 at 9:11 am
Profile Picture

Lol, thanks for both your concern and the psychological profile, Mr. Lunchbox. What does it matter what my 'end-game' is? And why do you care? This isn't some thriller movie or a game with a start and a finish. I responded to elementary level attacks against me, my ideas and other lies you guys have projected onto me. 

Please, I beg you, tell me what wild accusations I have made?

In my experience, when I have called out people on their racism they generally think I'm a jerk. I've learned to accept this. Anyone that knows me on a personal level will tell you the opposite of what you descibe me as. They don't hang out at many klan rallies so you all may never have a chance to ask them :/

Tom Napier wrote on November 15, 2016 at 6:11 pm

I sincerely apologize for posting something totally irrelevant to the article at hand. Another poster is accusing me of saying something of a personally offensive and slanderous nature. Only in this regard do I feel I must respond.

DoNotTread: If you're calling me out for a letter or article from well over three years ago, this is getting creepy. Pay attention to the commentary at hand and please stop stalking. Do I need to request a restraining order? It takes a zealot with bloodhound-like singularity of purpose to find the comment from which your quote comes.

You accuse me of writing on May 10, 2013 "Tired rants about blackface, Charlie Chan, Natalie Wood, dancing white fraternity boys, Boy Scouts, interracial marriage, and all manner of irrelevant jabber contribute nothing." I did Indeed write that.

First, this statement is taken out of context. My discussion related to Activists destroying institutions yet doing nothing constructive to rebuild or replace; i.e. "tired rant." You neglected to include in your accusation the preceding statement "Destroying institutions is easier than changing them. To construct again requires ideals and a vision for the future" and the statement following "Maybe chanting hey-hey, ho-ho is self gratifying to some, but it accomplishes nothing toward solving a problem. Don't like it? Propose a better approach. Maybe it'll fly or maybe it won't. But it's more constructive than the current All-Complaint-And-No-Action strategy. Or, as you say, time to cowboy up." Note the "you" refers to a different commenter, not DoNotTread.

I will emphasize the "all-complaint-and-no-action strategy" and Activists' refusal to work to actually solve a problem are the focal points of this discussion, not race or racism, or even Chief Illiniwek. Indeed, tire rant does nothing.

Next, and more importantly, I cited the terms "blackface, Charlie Chan, Natalie Wood, dancing white fraternity boys, Boy Scouts, interracial marriage" because they are characterizations frequently applied by Activists to the portrayal of Chief Illiniwek. These aren't my terms, they're Activists' terms.  I have no idea how "interracial marriage" fits into their complaint.  It is in this regard that I find DoNotTread's accusations to be patently offensive; accusing me of being racist when in fact these words are standard contents of the anti-Chief vocabulary.

Finally, for amusement if nothing else gentle reader, consider the following two statements DoNotTread makes within the same comment: "I've never associated you with any of those things in relation to Trump," but then "That gives me a pretty good idea of where I'd start if tasked with diagnosing your racism."

Typical Activist.

DoNotTread wrote on November 15, 2016 at 7:11 pm
Profile Picture

More backpedaling is all I read. All one has to do is Google the name Tom Napier and all the years of race bating letters to the editor pop up on the very first page. As well as the rest of your personal information regarding where you're from, where you went to school, work, live, etc. If you don't want people to find out who you are after you harass them online then you should probably do a better job at protecting your identity. Your failure to complete the most basic steps of online security do not translate to me stalking.

Related to the Chief, you've made several awful arguments for replacing one racist macot with a slightly less racist symbol. Anyone can find evidence of this in the NG archives.

I encourage anyone who cares about what this lunatic thinks, albeit probably no one does, to research his comment history on this newspaper. There have been MANY before me to expose his backwards thinking towards race.

Consider this the last time I engage you in any discussion. I see no value in anything you've had to say thus far and it seems as though your diarrhea of the mouth is terminal.

Tom Napier wrote on November 15, 2016 at 11:11 pm

Oh please, don't hang up.  I will so miss the repartee!  I will so miss being called a hater, a racist, a harasser, a lunatic!  And a backpeddler!  I will so miss my comments being blatently misrepresented in your comments!

But I do understand, as you find no value in anything I've written.  Will you hang up on everyone else in whom you see no value (which is everyone else)?

Do gimme a call or drop me a line sometime.  As you know all about me, you already have my contact information.  I have no reason to hide behind on-line security or a funny screen name.  The WhitePages report even includes my one speeding ticket (Vincennes Indiana, January 2002, midnight-ish, 59 in a 55 zone.  State cop.  Racist state name; they should change it)!  Yeah, yeah I know, don't speed and you won't get a ticket.  But seriously, please contact the associates listed in this report and they'll enlighten you about what sort of a racist I really am. 

And while you're at it, contact the HBCU and ICEP (look them up) students and I've mentored over the years, interns from the organization for which I work, and Little Leaguers I've coached.  Apparently you have the means to find them too.

Just one caution, harassment does have it's consequences.  Seriously.  

OK.  Now hang up. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marty wrote on November 16, 2016 at 10:11 am

You can't trust anyone that voted for Hillary. They're all liars and cheaters who will say and do anything to get what they want/deserve.

Tom Napier wrote on November 14, 2016 at 6:11 pm

I said ... Good Day Sir!

annabellissimo wrote on November 12, 2016 at 11:11 pm

And did you vote? And did you contribute in any significant way to the candidate(s) you supported? I did and my family members did and our candidate did not win and our candidate was treated badly by the nominee of the party and by the media. My candidate did not turn around in a petulant tantrum, stomp his feet and declare: She is not my nominee! And then go on destructive, intrusive, anti-American rampages across the country! What these "protesters" are demonstrating is a serious failure of American education, of developing citizenship and civics-knowledge, of any understanding of political science and the democratic process in America. By the way, regardless of what one thinks of Trump, he has not done anything yet so your protests are against your fellow Americans who voted for him and the electoral college that voted for him. Only the Clinton Cult of Personality is rising up against all the American institutions that did not go her way, according to her Clinton-centric world view: the FBI, the electoral college, the "right wing conspiracy" (although many of those "right-wingers" she has decried for years actually voted for her) and so on and so on. NPR/"All Things Considered" did a fascinating report the day after the election in which they reported that: ". It has nearly 200,000 verified users — not just signups or Twitter bots or trolls, but citizens the startup has crosschecked with voter registration records to confirm identity. When Mahan looked at the pledges, he didn't see data among Republican voters to back up the trending hashtag #NeverTrump. Among registered voters on Brigade, 94.5 percent of Republicans pledged to vote for Trump and only 2.2 percent pledged to vote for Hillary Clinton. That's roughly what you'd expect. Here's where it gets fascinating: On the Democratic side, Mahan explains, "we saw something entirely different." Only 55 percent of registered Democrats pledged to vote for the Democratic nominee. It's not the Bernie Sanders effect. This result is in the general election, after the primaries. It looks more like the Trump effect. Of Brigade's verified voters, 40 percent of registered Democrats pledged to vote for Trump." The problem with the Clinton campaign was The Clintons ("two for one"). If Trump has finally and at long last rid the Democratic Party of the Clintons (and the Republican Party of the Bushes), then he will have done the country a great service. One only hopes that he does not destroy the country in the process. So far it is only the "protesters" who are causing chaos. Is street rioting and destruction for others the only form of "communication" these un-American trouble-makers know? They are trying to foment civil war, not trying to make ANYTHING better at all!

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 7:11 am
Profile Picture

You have a return key on the right hand side of your keyboard. I suggest you use it, otherwise your manifestos will continue to look like you wrote them with your tin foil hat on and nobody will read it. 

CommonSenseless wrote on November 12, 2016 at 10:11 am

On the plus side, no one is talking about radical gun control. Maybe they realized they may get need guns to overthrow a tyrannical government. I wonder who else had that idea?

DoNotTread wrote on November 12, 2016 at 11:11 am
Profile Picture

This is what the internet community refers to as trolling.

CallSaul wrote on November 12, 2016 at 11:11 am

It's so strange that all these right wing Republicans loved the idea of protesting a new president 8 years ago but suddenly now sputter and bluster that it has now somehow become soooooo wrong to protest a new president.

Hmmm...

What's the difference between the 2 presidents that might be causing their double standard....?

It's a puzzlement. It sure is.

I guess we'll just never know why protesting one president is what the 'Real Americans' do but protesting another president is now suddenly bad.

Nope. Not a thing I can see that might cause such diametrically opposed reactions to citizens protesting Obama and other citizens protesting Trump.

The world will forever wonder...

Sancho Panza wrote on November 12, 2016 at 12:11 pm

Republicans or others took to the streets to protest President Obama being elected? I don't recall that happening in this community.

I remember the U of I giving everyone at the basketball game little flags to celebrate President Obama's election. Maybe they will do that again this season.

CallSaul wrote on November 12, 2016 at 12:11 pm

Wow.

Reality really is what you make for right wing Republicans, huh?

I don't blame you for wanting to memory hole the 'tea party' buffoons, but they actually were an actual thing that actually happened. Many of us were there at the time and remember them clearly.

I mean, how could we not, what with their stylish tricorn hats and leggings and signs that read 'We came unarmed. This time...'?

Sancho Panza wrote on November 12, 2016 at 4:11 pm

A non sequitur from the claim that people protested President Obama being elected.

CallSaul wrote on November 12, 2016 at 4:11 pm

The sad predictability of your attempted rebuttal makes it no less ridiculous. I said the right wing Republicans protested the election of Obama 8 years ago. There is actual video evidence if your memory fails you. It is a fact and while you can deny it all you want, your denial of reality doesn't magically make it become untrue. It's sort of like climate change and evolution in that regard.

I bet you're the type of right wing Republican who still tries to argue that Obama didn't call the Benghazi attacks terrorism the next day despite there being video of him doing just that.

leftylib wrote on November 12, 2016 at 1:11 pm

Sancho, I don't recall protesting in this community either after President Obama was elected and re-elected.  Maybe Bernie Sanders would have defeated Trump in the general election.  Too bad many of the Democratic Party leaders didn't give him a fair chance of winning the Democratic primary.

SaintClarence27 wrote on November 14, 2016 at 9:11 am

The Tea Party protests were exactly that. And here's a video of Champaign's Mayor attending one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC4LBdSnhkE

ohnoes wrote on November 12, 2016 at 2:11 pm

I thought that it's pertinent to point out that the red and black flag being flown by one of the protesters represents anarchy.

DoNotTread wrote on November 12, 2016 at 2:11 pm
Profile Picture

Quick! Relay this message to the Gestapo by carrier pigeon immediately!

JoRee wrote on November 12, 2016 at 6:11 pm

So, for all of you who are commenting here about demonstrations and Trumpites, etc.  Please take the time to read the following excerpt from a New York Times article written by Masha Geeson, entitled Autocracy:  Rules for Survival

.....

But Trump is anything but a regular politician and this has been anything but a regular election. Trump will be only the fourth candidate in history and the second in more than a century to win the presidency after losing the popular vote. He is also probably the first candidate in history to win the presidency despite having been shown repeatedly by the national media to be a chronic liar, sexual predator, serial tax-avoider, and race-baiter who has attracted the likes of the Ku Klux Klan. Most important, Trump is the first candidate in memory who ran not for president but for autocrat—and won.

I have lived in autocracies most of my life, and have spent much of my career writing about Vladimir Putin’s Russia. I have learned a few rules for surviving in an autocracy and salvaging your sanity and self-respect. It might be worth considering them now:

Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says. Whenever you find yourself thinking, or hear others claiming, that he is exaggerating, that is our innate tendency to reach for a rationalization. This will happen often: humans seem to have evolved to practice denial when confronted publicly with the unacceptable. Back in the 1930s, The New York Times assured its readers that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was all posture. More recently, the same newspaper made a telling choice between two statements made by Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov following a police crackdown on protesters in Moscow: “The police acted mildly—I would have liked them to act more harshly” rather than those protesters’ “liver should have been spread all over the pavement.” Perhaps the journalists could not believe their ears. But they should—both in the Russian case, and in the American one. For all the admiration Trump has expressed for Putin, the two men are very different; if anything, there is even more reason to listen to everything Trump has said. He has no political establishment into which to fold himself following the campaign, and therefore no reason to shed his campaign rhetoric. On the contrary: it is now the establishment that is rushing to accommodate him—from the president, who met with him at the White House on Thursday, to the leaders of the Republican Party, who are discarding their long-held scruples to embrace his radical positions.

He has received the support he needed to win, and the adulation he craves, precisely because of his outrageous threats. Trump rally crowds have chanted “Lock her up!” They, and he, meant every word. If Trump does not go after Hillary Clinton on his first day in office, if he instead focuses, as his acceptance speech indicated he might, on the unifying project of investing in infrastructure (which, not coincidentally, would provide an instant opportunity to reward his cronies and himself), it will be foolish to breathe a sigh of relief. Trump has made his plans clear, and he has made a compact with his voters to carry them out. These plans include not only dismantling legislation such as Obamacare but also doing away with judicial restraint—and, yes, punishing opponents.

To begin jailing his political opponents, or just one opponent, Trump will begin by trying to capture of the judicial system. Observers and even activists functioning in the normal-election mode are fixated on the Supreme Court as the site of the highest-risk impending Trump appointment. There is little doubt that Trump will appoint someone who will cause the Court to veer to the right; there is also the risk that it might be someone who will wreak havoc with the very culture of the high court. And since Trump plans to use the judicial system to carry out his political vendettas, his pick for attorney general will be no less important. Imagine former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie going after Hillary Clinton on orders from President Trump; quite aside from their approach to issues such as the Geneva Conventions, the use of police powers, criminal justice reforms, and other urgent concerns.

Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality. Consider the financial markets this week, which, having tanked overnight, rebounded following the Clinton and Obama speeches. Confronted with political volatility, the markets become suckers for calming rhetoric from authority figures. So do people. Panic can be neutralized by falsely reassuring words about how the world as we know it has not ended. It is a fact that the world did not end on November 8 nor at any previous time in history. Yet history has seen many catastrophes, and most of them unfolded over time. That time included periods of relative calm. One of my favorite thinkers, the Jewish historian Simon Dubnow, breathed a sigh of relief in early October 1939: he had moved from Berlin to Latvia, and he wrote to his friends that he was certain that the tiny country wedged between two tyrannies would retain its sovereignty and Dubnow himself would be safe. Shortly after that, Latvia was occupied by the Soviets, then by the Germans, then by the Soviets again—but by that time Dubnow had been killed. Dubnow was well aware that he was living through a catastrophic period in history—it’s just that he thought he had managed to find a pocket of normality within it.

Rule #3: Institutions will not save you. It took Putin a year to take over the Russian media and four years to dismantle its electoral system; the judiciary collapsed unnoticed. The capture of institutions in Turkey has been carried out even faster, by a man once celebrated as the democrat to lead Turkey into the EU. Poland has in less than a year undone half of a quarter century’s accomplishments in building a constitutional democracy.

Of course, the United States has much stronger institutions than Germany did in the 1930s, or Russia does today. Both Clinton and Obama in their speeches stressed the importance and strength of these institutions. The problem, however, is that many of these institutions are enshrined in political culture rather than in law, and all of them—including the ones enshrined in law—depend on the good faith of all actors to fulfill their purpose and uphold the Constitution.

The national press is likely to be among the first institutional victims of Trumpism. There is no law that requires the presidential administration to hold daily briefings, none that guarantees media access to the White House. Many journalists may soon face a dilemma long familiar to those of us who have worked under autocracies: fall in line or forfeit access. There is no good solution (even if there is a right answer), for journalism is difficult and sometimes impossible without access to information.

The power of the investigative press—whose adherence to fact has already been severely challenged by the conspiracy-minded, lie-spinning Trump campaign—will grow weaker. The world will grow murkier. Even in the unlikely event that some mainstream media outlets decide to declare themselves in opposition to the current government, or even simply to report its abuses and failings, the president will get to frame many issues. Coverage, and thinking, will drift in a Trumpian direction, just as it did during the campaign—when, for example, the candidates argued, in essence, whether Muslim Americans bear collective responsibility for acts of terrorism or can redeem themselves by becoming the “eyes and ears” of law enforcement. Thus was xenophobia further normalized, paving the way for Trump to make good on his promises to track American Muslims and ban Muslims from entering the United States.

Rule #4: Be outraged. If you follow Rule #1 and believe what the autocrat-elect is saying, you will not be surprised. But in the face of the impulse to normalize, it is essential to maintain one’s capacity for shock. This will lead people to call you unreasonable and hysterical, and to accuse you of overreacting. It is no fun to be the only hysterical person in the room. Prepare yourself.

Despite losing the popular vote, Trump has secured as much power as any American leader in recent history. The Republican Party controls both houses of Congress. There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The country is at war abroad and has been in a state of mobilization for fifteen years. This means not only that Trump will be able to move fast but also that he will become accustomed to an unusually high level of political support. He will want to maintain and increase it—his ideal is the totalitarian-level popularity numbers of Vladimir Putin—and the way to achieve that is through mobilization. There will be more wars, abroad and at home.

Rule #5: Don’t make compromises. Like Ted Cruz, who made the journey from calling Trump “utterly amoral” and a “pathological liar” to endorsing him in late September to praising his win as an “amazing victory for the American worker,” Republican politicians have fallen into line. Conservative pundits who broke ranks during the campaign will return to the fold. Democrats in Congress will begin to make the case for cooperation, for the sake of getting anything done—or at least, they will say, minimizing the damage. Nongovernmental organizations, many of which are reeling at the moment, faced with a transition period in which there is no opening for their input, will grasp at chances to work with the new administration. This will be fruitless—damage cannot be minimized, much less reversed, when mobilization is the goal—but worse, it will be soul-destroying. In an autocracy, politics as the art of the possible is in fact utterly amoral. Those who argue for cooperation will make the case, much as President Obama did in his speech, that cooperation is essential for the future. They will be willfully ignoring the corrupting touch of autocracy, from which the future must be protected.

Rule #6: Remember the future. Nothing lasts forever. Donald Trump certainly will not, and Trumpism, to the extent that it is centered on Trump’s persona, will not either. Failure to imagine the future may have lost the Democrats this election. They offered no vision of the future to counterbalance Trump’s all-too-familiar white-populist vision of an imaginary past. They had also long ignored the strange and outdated institutions of American democracy that call out for reform—like the electoral college, which has now cost the Democratic Party two elections in which Republicans won with the minority of the popular vote. That should not be normal. But resistance—stubborn, uncompromising, outraged—should be.

dadogg wrote on November 12, 2016 at 7:11 pm

I feel very sad for those on the left that can not accept the results of this election. They seem to only understand their own beliefs. And those that do not think like them, must be "wrong" in some way. The fact is that many people that voted for Trump are not ultra-right, many not even republican. But these fact will be missed by those that are trying to re-write history even as it is being made. 

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 7:11 am
Profile Picture

Think about it like this. 

A presidential candidate says "Anyone that uses the name DADOGG as an online alias will be monitored if I win. We will create a registry of all DADOGG's so that we can track their every movement and who they speak to. Also, we will no longer be allowing any other DADOGG's into the country until we get them under control."

An then he wins.

ohnoes wrote on November 12, 2016 at 7:11 pm

Inject intent into others statements much?  You're only making yourself sound like a fool jumping to conclusions, making huge assumptions about people you know nothing about.

Mastadon-27 wrote on November 12, 2016 at 9:11 pm

Since some of the posters here, feel that President elect Donald Trump isn't their President, why not change the constitution by disbanding the Electoral College?  All they have to do is get a two-thirds supermajority of the U.S. Congress (House and Senate) to vote in favor of it.  Then get two-thirds of all of the United States states citizenry to approve the amendment, since the Electoral College was defined by the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  That is the procedure for amending the U.S. Constitution.

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 7:11 am
Profile Picture

Yea, one of you guys get on that. You should be able to get that done by yourself by Monday morning. 

Who are you people? Do any of you live in the real world or are all of you in a bunker somewhere huffing glue? I know the internet is full of crazy people but you all are presumably from Champaign county. It's terrifying to know I share the road with such unintelligent people. 

Mastadon-27 wrote on November 13, 2016 at 2:11 pm

"Yea, one of you guys get on that. You should be able to get that done by yourself by Monday morning." 

 

I'm one of those guys that didn't sleep through four college level courses in history, and just pointed out how you millennials can change the system of government you so despise.

 

"Who are you people? Do any of you live in the real world or are all of you in a bunker somewhere huffing glue? I know the internet is full of crazy people but you all are presumably from Champaign county. It's terrifying to know I share the road with such unintelligent people." 

 

I live in the same city as you do and have for 66 years.  I have a small condo near Parkland College.  I have no traffic violations on my record.  I possess two degrees, IT network security, and LAS - history.  I have held a security clearance as a civilian contractor for the DoD.  Any guess on your part, why I didn't vote for HRC?

 

 

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 2:11 pm
Profile Picture

Your simplification of the process is what I was poking fun at, as if we can all go out tomorrow and undo hundreds of years worth of corrupt politics and corrupt policy making. I hope that is a little easier to understand.

I could care less that you didn't vote for HRC. Your vote for regression, hatred, fear and destruction of our human/constitutional rights would be where my problem would lie if you are bold enough to admit you supported those things by voting for him. 

Mastadon-27 wrote on November 13, 2016 at 10:11 pm

"Your simplification of the process is what I was poking fun at, as if we can all go out tomorrow and undo hundreds of years worth of corrupt politics and corrupt policy making. I hope that is a little easier to understand." 

 

Spoken like a true neo-Nazis goon.  Rather than acutally trying to band together with like minded citizens to effect a solution you would be happy with, you just sit in a room with a computer and denigrate someone who pointed out the path for you to take.  That's why you will be friendless for your miserable life.

DoNotTread wrote on November 14, 2016 at 7:11 am
Profile Picture

Lol! You should stop drinking before your post. Not only this post being a completely contridictive by insulting me both before and after calling me a Nazi for not banding together, but it seems as though you just described yourself.

I have thousands of friends and aquaintances that I have met through many years travel, activism, music, art, volunteering and many more mediums. I've made it a point to expose myself to as many cultures as possible, as many levels of our's and other's society as possible. I've made it a point to learn why all of these people have such a negative view of our country. I've made it a point to get outside the tiny white bubble people like you live in. 

Once you see all of those things in person, you no longer will allow yourself to protect the hate that comes from the people you thought you used to respect and will begin to stand up for what's right.

Mastadon-27 wrote on November 14, 2016 at 4:11 pm

"I have thousands of friends and aquaintances that I have met through many years travel, activism, music, art, volunteering and many more mediums. I've made it a point to expose myself to as many cultures as possible, as many levels of our's and other's society as possible. I've made it a point to learn why all of these people have such a negative view of our country. I've made it a point to get outside the tiny white bubble people like you live in." 

 

Now, the readers of these posts know you (DoNotTread), CallSaul, and JoRee, are not members of the citizenry of the local community.  You're just outsiders posting from other locations to stoke the student demonstration on the campus of the University of Illinois.  Your contention that there are negative views of the U.S. in other countries is a falsehood, since there are thousands of students from all over the world attending the University of Illinois. 

 

Your sole purpose is to be either paid by the likes of George Soros, or have your ego stroked.  Either motive, and you have no other motives, shows you are nothing other than a poor immitation of an old-fashioned rabble rouser.  Fortunately, the students of the University of Illinois are much more intelligent than you, and easily discern your intentions.  The U.S. Constitution and the Electoral College will stand and you will fail in your insulting propaganda spreading.

 

DoNotTread wrote on November 14, 2016 at 4:11 pm
Profile Picture

You couldn't be any further from the truth. Just because I haven't spent my entire life inside a little white bubble like you have doesn't mean I don't call this community my home. Your wild assumptions are still off base, along with the rest of your reasoning. 

You literally just said that other countries do not have a negative view of the US. The fact that you believe that shows how out of touch you really are. I thank you for showing us your intelligence level so I know not to engage you in the future due to your repeated failure to provide a legitimate response.

You'd better get back to your O'Reilly Factor reruns so you can come up with some more neo-con propoganda to regurgitate online.

Mastadon-27 wrote on November 15, 2016 at 2:11 pm

"You literally just said that other countries do not have a negative view of the US. The fact that you believe that shows how out of touch you really are. I thank you for showing us your intelligence level so I know not to engage you in the future due to your repeated failure to provide a legitimate response." 

 

Those other countries are the countries that are sending their children to the U.S. and the University of Illinois for a first-class education.  So, are you just posting your opinion, or more "hate speech" because you favored candidate wasn't elected to the presidency?

JoRee wrote on November 14, 2016 at 5:11 pm

I feel really sorry for you.  I take from your comments that you have very limited access to information. If you checked many news sources, you would realize that the US  and its President-Elect are no longer considered the leader of the free world.  That would fall to Angela Merkel of Germany.  And, from my readings (NY Times, Washington Post, Bill Moyers newsletter and more) that Der Spiegel (German newspaper) is commenting how Trump is an American version of Hitler.  And do not count on the Constituion and Electoral College surviving.  Further, I would like to say that I am not an outsider (born and raised in C-U) and I resent your questioning my intelligence.  You have no idea of my educational background.  Shame on you!

 

CommonSenseless wrote on November 15, 2016 at 11:11 am

Speaking of Angela Merkel...... There is an article in this very paper about Germany banning a Muslim group for radical ideals and recruiting. So since she is now the de facto leader of the free world, I assume this move is ok with you? Tell me then, why do you find it so abhorrent if the US freezes immigration from known hot beds of radical Islamic activity?

ohnoes wrote on November 13, 2016 at 9:11 am

Perhaps if you'd thought about it for a moment, you'd realize "Hmm, is this someone who doesn't want Hillary as president any more than they want Trump?  Maybe they're coopting a protest for their own aims, something that no one voted for at all."  But I wouldn't expect that of you.  You go for the highbrow "gestapo" comment.  *eyeroll*

Tom Napier wrote on November 13, 2016 at 10:11 am

My advice to those protesting the results of the recent Presidential Election is to find something constructive to do with your time; do something that actually matters.

Don't like? Change it. There are Congressional elections in two years, and another Presidential election in four.

But first, who among you, protesters, did not vote? You will now please refrain from talking and take a seat on the bench. You had a chance and blew it.

Then, perhaps a worthwhile activity would be to work within the parties, either one, to identify and cultivate a candidate that is actually qualified to run for President of the United States of America. Neither Clinton nor Trump, in my opinion and the opinions of many, were worth the price of the newspaper used to wrap dead fish. How pathetic that these two were the "best" candidates our two party system could fabricate. But one of them won and that's the way is. Deal with it. Practice the tolerance you demand others to practice.

For those who never took a Government or Constitution class in high school, please take one or at least read the textbook. Then ... practice tolerance.

Want change? Work for it. Actual political work is harder than stomping around with placards shouting slogans. And, it takes years to achieve results, unlike the instant gratification gained by same-day press coverage. You might surprise yourselves and actually accomplish something useful; more useful than inflammatory, divisive rhetoric.

On a more positive note, kudos for expressing yourselves in a peaceful manner.

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 10:11 am
Profile Picture

May I suggest you dust off a copy of the constitution yourself and examine our rights to peaceful assembly outlined in the first ammendment?

Do you really believe in upholding the integrity of the constitution or just when it benefits your point of view?

Tom Napier wrote on November 13, 2016 at 12:11 pm

Mr/Ms DNT; You might want to reread (or perhaps read) my post.

In my opinion, none of the four candidates is worthy of being President of the United States of America. So, in that regard, I'm agreeing with you at least in part.

I commended your (or their) peaceful assembly, as given in the first ammmmmmmmendment. So in that regard, I'm agreeing with you too.

I'm advocating positive action for those who are dissatisfied with the election results. That is consistent with your posts at least in general direction. We differ is the nature of that action. But it's consistent nevertheless.

And, as long as you defend the Constitution, you may want to revisit (or perhaps visit) Article II and the associated ammmmmmendments. See https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html as a refresher.

I'll make it easy ...

Article II Section 1.

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

So, I'm actually agreeing with you again relative to upholding the constitution.

Please practice the tolerance and respect of others' opinions that you demand others to practice of yours.

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 12:11 pm
Profile Picture

Your entire OP was condescending and mocking those who chose to protest. That is what I was pointing out to you. Funny how defensive you are even though you don't choose sides here ;)

Tom Napier wrote on November 13, 2016 at 12:11 pm

Wow!  That was quick!

If you think my comments are mocking and condescending, that's your privilege, per the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  If you think I'm defensive by agreeing with you (sort of) that is, likewise, your privilege. 

It is likewise MY privilege to express MY opinion, as long as I do it in a polite, respectful manner.  I trust you agree, otherwise your whole discourse is rather ... hollow. 

 

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 12:11 pm
Profile Picture

Are you the same Tom Napier that writes all those race baiting Letters to the Editor? LOL I hope so. If so, it's hilarious that you would be in a discussion on anything regarding race. Anyone who has held onto the whole 'Chief Forever' thing this long can't be taken seriously. 

Tom Napier wrote on November 13, 2016 at 6:11 pm

My discussions relate to the election, and what constructive actions may be taken by those who are dissatisfied with the election's outcome.  Oh, and there's reference to the the Constitution, the Law of the Land, that you imply I only support selectively.  They should offend no one.

I make no comments about race.  You bring it up, I don't.

If you want to read something completely different into my comments, things that I don't say, you're welcome to it.  Just attribute these remarks to yourself, not to me. 

You seem to have trouble taking seriously anyone who disagrees with you. 

It's difficult for me to take seriously someone who can't accept a lawful, constitutional exercise of democracy, even if it's disagreeable to them. 

Good day, sir.

 

 

 

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 8:11 pm
Profile Picture

I was very clear in that I was referring to your letters to the editor, which are ALWAYS about race.

Tom Napier wrote on November 13, 2016 at 8:11 pm

I said Good Day Sir!

rsp wrote on November 13, 2016 at 8:11 pm

This attitude, that we have to agree 100%, or any opinion on anything is invalid, is why we can't get anything done. What you have decided is that you are perfect.

DoNotTread wrote on November 14, 2016 at 8:11 am
Profile Picture

I am far from perfect, however I am also intelligent enough to know that if a person is steadfastly racist that I probably shouldn't entertain any of their other ideas.

It's just like, my opinion, man. 

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 11:11 am
Profile Picture

Since our first amendment rights have been brought up so much in this thread is important to point out that the News-Gazette has been actively censoring this discussion and removing comments that are protected free speech. I realize this is not a government owned site and the NG has the authority to do what they want. It's just important for everyone participating and reading to know that your free speech rights are not at all repected by the News Gazette. 

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 11:11 am
Profile Picture

I fully expect to be banned for calling them out on this, too. Seems like the Fascism bandwagon is already rolling. 

SaintClarence27 wrote on November 13, 2016 at 12:11 pm

They already abdicated their human responsibility by failing to endorse a candidate and endorsing Trump in a separate editorial column.  I have no respect for the N-G editorial board, and that was the moment I decided that I would never contribute a dime to their rag.

rsp wrote on November 13, 2016 at 8:11 pm

John Foreman endorsed Trump, not the paper.

SaintClarence27 wrote on November 14, 2016 at 9:11 am

That was the separate column I was referring to.

CU_Realist wrote on November 13, 2016 at 12:11 pm

funny since I was just censored for simply voicing an opinion that was in no way condenscending or offensive like half these posts. yep the real fascists are showing their colors alright.

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 12:11 pm
Profile Picture

Yea, you only called for anyone who doesn't agree with you to be imprisoned or deported. I can't see why that didn't fly. 

CU_Realist wrote on November 13, 2016 at 12:11 pm

there you go putting words in my mouth again. How dare I suggest journalists report facts, voter laws be enforced and ILLEGAL immigrants be deported?! Who is the triggered fascist snowflake on this board - can't even let people read the truth for themselves. You are what is destroying America. Congratulations. WEAK. I'm glad I served in the military so idiots like you can spew hatred and lies online and censor people that suggest using common sense and personal responsibility freely with no recourse. You're a communist or anarchist at best or an ignorant unpatriotic person at least.

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 12:11 pm
Profile Picture

Why do all of your comments read like a Donald Trump tweet?

For the record, you I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. You straight up said that journalists should be jailed for not outing their sources and supported a state run media, among other crazy things. 

Your imagination is YUGE.

Mastadon-27 wrote on November 13, 2016 at 2:11 pm

"Since our first amendment rights have been brought up so much in this thread is important to point out that the News-Gazette has been actively censoring this discussion and removing comments that are protected free speech. I realize this is not a government owned site and the NG has the authority to do what they want. It's just important for everyone participating and reading to know that your free speech rights are not at all repected by the News Gazette."  

 

I see no deletions of any of your posts, or of any other posts on this board.  Why insinuate that the News-Gazette has done so?  Are you paranoid?  Please, prove your insinuations, about your posts, by reposting those that you claim have been deleted.

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 2:11 pm
Profile Picture

The editorial staff emailed me and explained why my comments were deleted. Have you kept a cache of all my posts and know for a fact they haven't been deleted?

Or just going around starting an argument about anything you can now that you have run out of defenses for the bigotry you support?

cwakefld wrote on November 13, 2016 at 2:11 pm

I am 41 years old now, I have voted in 7 presidential elections. Sometimes my candidate won, sometimes they lost.

Without exception, each one of those elections was viewed by the losing voters as a sign of the coming apocalypse, the end of freedom, the collapse of the republic.

Without exception each one of those elections was viewed by the wining voters as the greatest single thing in their lifetime, a giant step forward for all of human kind, the event that saved the republic.

Without exception both sides were roundly condemned by the opposing side for their behavior in response. Claiming "no one has ever responded like this"

Without exception both sides have said... "but this time is different"

Without exception each and every one of those perceptions was wildly incorrect.

leftylib wrote on November 13, 2016 at 3:11 pm

cwakefld, your comments are refreshing, they're missing:  radical left/right wing vitriol, personal attacks, baseless claims and a side of hatred.   

This country has survived and flourished through many different elections/presidents and this one will be no different.  Future elections will follow the same path.  If the one-time registered Democrat and twice-registered Republican is the apocalypse, he will be thrown out of office, hopefully,  before he can do much long-term damage.

The News-Gazette has got to be happy with the performance of this article.   Alot of attention and many hits have to equal some advertising money in their back pocket.  They have us to thank for that.  

I'll check back later in the week............at least for the comedy of it all.

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 6:11 pm
Profile Picture

I'd like to give you a plus one for the summary, however it's just flat out wrong.

Without Exception, not once has a presidential candidate ran a campaign based solely in hate, fear, misogyny, racism, xenophobia and ethno-nationalism.

Without exception, no presidential candidate has promised to create a registry for an entire religion so that the government can monitor their movements and communications. 

Without exception, no candidate has ever promised mass deportations without due process

Without exception, no candidate has ever promoted sexual assault

And the guy won! This is different. It's been a long time since a man this evil has been in control of this amount of power in a country this important. He is not my president. 

Tom Napier wrote on November 15, 2016 at 3:11 pm

How about Andrew Jackson?

You also say "not once has a presidential candidate ran a campaign based solely in ..." but then you say "It's been a long time since a man this evil has been in control ..." To be in control, as President, one has to run a campaign. Which one is it; not once, or a long time? Sorry. Just messin' with ya. But the Andrew Jackson question is straight up.

DoNotTread wrote on November 15, 2016 at 6:11 pm
Profile Picture

I didn't say the President of the United States, though. I said it's been a long time since a man this evil has been in control of a country this important.

I appreciate the attempt to lighten things up, but you took my words out of context and it also wasn't funny, in my opinion.

Tom Napier wrote on November 15, 2016 at 11:11 pm

" I didn't say President of the United States ... "

Now whose backpeddling!  This whole contorted discussion is about the President of the United States.  Of America!

DoNotTread wrote on November 13, 2016 at 6:11 pm
Profile Picture

Redacted - Duplicae Post

-