Social Question

josie's avatar

Why not simply refuse to vote for Donald Trump?

Asked by josie (30926points) May 25th, 2016

He deals with his opponents with boorishness and buffoonery to be sure,

But his opponents seem to be inclined to damage property and injure cops.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/24/politics/donald-trump-albuquerque-protesters-police/

What is gained by that? I am sure it merely strengthens the convictions of his constituency, whomever that may be. And I doubt if it is an effective get out the vote strategy for the other side.

Why not be civilized and vote for the other candidate?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

30 Answers

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

I have been to protests as large as hundreds of thousands of people to smaller ones in the tens of thousands. They have been peaceful and I never felt unsafe…until the cops came. They show up as a military-style unit and start pushing people around, and things can get out of hand fairly quickly. For example, I carried my 6-month-old daughter on my chest on the eve of the invasion of Iraq through Boston without fear. When the cops arrived and started instigating some mild violence, I left.

Additionally, it’s sexy for the media to describe a protest by the actions of a handful of people who may have arrived with the intention to break a window. It results in what you are asking here. The truth is that most – or nearly all – of those people were simply sick of Trump and wanted to speak out and show some solidarity against him. To spin the story as one of violence is a convenient way to ignore protest.

Also, I would like to add that I think getting out to speak out against (or for) something in places other than the voting booth is far from “uncivilized”, whatever that means. It’s quite admirable. You could debate the effectiveness, but a passionate, vocal, active citizenry is not something I have a problem with.

And finally, I have to mention that I’m quite skeptical of such stories of violence among protesters. We needn’t go back to COINTELPRO to suspect that some actions of “the protesters” are likely not involved in the cause at all.

ucme's avatar

It must be so fucking frustrating, having the good sense not to vote for either (Trump/Clinton) vile candidate, but not to vote at all violates your constitutional moral right.
Sane Americans, you have my sympathy…for what it’s worth

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I agree, vandalism, and violence proves nothing other than you are a fucking idiot no mind.

Cruiser's avatar

These protesters were largely two socialist activist groups who pre planned the night before with the sole intention of “taking down” the Trump Rally. Give you 3 guesses as to who is funding these jamokes and the first two don’t count….George Soros.

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

@Cruiser: “These protesters were largely two socialist activist groups who pre planned the night before with the sole intention of “taking down” the Trump Rally.”

And if this protest was organized by these two groups….what exactly is the problem? I’m sure you’ll explain. Oh here…

@Cruiser: “Give you 3 guesses as to who is funding these jamokes and the first two don’t count….George Soros.”

Wait – so the guy who is against everything these groups stand for is funding them? Ok, I’ll bite. [Going to click your link.]

Ok, I’m back. I think you posted the wrong link. Did I miss the part that shows that Soros is “funding” 2 tiny socialist groups?

I was sure they must have had millionaire backers. Just take a look at this flyer. Holy sh*t! That must have cost hundreds of…pennies to print a hundred of these. If I were a socialist in one of these groups, I definitely would reach out to my ideological enemy to get funding for these.

?

Cruiser's avatar

@DoNotKnowMuch The problem is the intentional violence not to protest but to disrupt “take down” the rally. And I do not think you went to my link because if you did and scrolled down you would see the Soros connection.

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

^ Followed your link again, yet could not find the Soros connection to these 2 groups.

Cruiser's avatar

Cut and paste…

You can visit their website HERE and find out all about them.

The second group, “The Red Nation”, you can visit HERE and see their social justice endeavors.

Who do you think is funding these endeavors?….

YUP.

The same guy funding Hillary Clinton, George Soros, – The Billionaires Super PAC

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

The guy who wrote that blog post just asserted it, like you did. His links don’t support his assertion. Please provide a link/source.

Cruiser's avatar

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-george-soros-218494
George Soros in December donated $6 million to the leading super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, marking the return of the billionaire financier as among the biggest givers in all of American politics.
The massive check brings to $8 million the Hungarian-born investor’s total 2015 giving to pro-Clinton groups.

The super PAC that received the $6-million check, Priorities USA Action

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

^ That’s the link that the blog post had. Again , can you provide a source for your assertion that Soros funded these 2 groups?

Your article does not support your assertion.

johnpowell's avatar

Sort of the same reason you posted this. You wanted us to read it.

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

@Cruiser – Now that we have cleared this up and determined that you posted someone’s baseless assertions and didn’t bother to read your own links to make sure they supported your claim, we can dismiss the claim that Soros funded these 2 groups flyer-making, which likely cost about two dollars.

And for the record, I am not a fan of Soros at all. He has donated millions of dollars to Hillary Clinton, who I would love to see lose. Also, I’d like to point out that for those of us who don’t visit inaccurate conservative blogs, we may not have such negative associations with terms like, “socialist activist groups”. So, for starters, attempting to dismiss actions because they supposedly were organized by two socialist activists groups is a positive for me.

But the only reason I pressed you on your claim about Soros was that you provided zero evidence for the claim, and just doubled down with links that provided zero evidence. You would have been just as successful linking to a recipe on how to make a lasagna.

Anyway, I’m glad we could get to the bottom of that bizarre claim. If you do find some evidence for it, I’ll gladly review. Thanks!

Cruiser's avatar

@DoNotKnowMuch I gave you ample evidence to backup my observation that Soros was directly linked as a financial supporter of these agitator anti Trump groups and find it frankly bizarre that you are so obsessed with denying these facts.

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

^ I want you to be serious for a second. You are honestly making a claim for which there is no evidence. Yet, when someone calls you on it, you double (and triple) down on it and post the same links again. Now you are saying that despite the fact that there is no evidence for your claims, you find it bizarre that I am asking for evidence.

It’s ok to say that you’re wrong, or that your belief is just a hunch. But don’t claim something is fact and keep insisting it when you’ve been called out on it. You’re publicly stating that the facts and evidence mean nothing to you. Why? And is this how you approach other things?

Cruiser's avatar

Seriously @DoNotKnowMuch I do not know how much more evidence I can give you. If you truly are this obsessed with this notion the Soros is somehow completely detached and removed from these anti Trump protesters than do your own research into making yourself feel vindicated….I sincerely doubt you will be able to do this….good luck!

ibstubro's avatar

Donald Trump is an absurd candidate for president of the United States.
People are responding absurdly to the fact that Trump is being taken seriously.

The entire situation is beyond reason, so there’s reasoning with it.

Jak's avatar

Why not indeed. Disrupting his rallies puts them on the level of the mindless morons who support him. Also, freedom of speech is for everyone, even if someone is standing there saying the masses of stupid shit that spews out of his mouth. I honestly don’t know why people don;t just ignore him the way one would ignore a pile of dog shit. You mentally mark where it is and walk around it. Two steps later, it’s completely forgotten. He should have that little of an impact.

rojo's avatar

I agree with you, such responses just throw gasoline on the fire. Peaceful protests of large numbers of people (such as the Occupy movement) are much more effective at showing how many are opposed to his policies and ideas while presenting a rational, thought-out position that magnifies the differences between his supporters and his opponents. Violent protest puts the protesters on the same level as the Trumpites. like many other folks have said here but I wonder if I could stand there and take the abuse without responding in kind.

rojo's avatar

Ted Cruz says Trump is responsible for the violence at his rally’s for creating an environment that encourages it.

rojo's avatar

Why is it that when I look at these Photos of the violence at a Trump Rally I get the impression there are more police and security personnel present than protesters?

Pandora's avatar

Hey, I’m not all sure they are all anti Trump people. I keep wondering if maybe this is planned by him. He needs to make sure his people stay fired up. At least that is what I would do. Pay some people to cause reckless behavior so I can look like the poor misunderstood rich guy who is only trying to tell the truth and the media gets to talk about how people are stepping all over my first amendment rights. So what they may be getting is a big fat check from his campaign.

And some may be Bernies supporters, I’m sure. Clinton supporters are passionate but mostly on line.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Ballots should simply offer the option of a vote of no confidence.

Jaxk's avatar

The violence is neither accidental (it is planned) nor meaningless. The violence is intended to intimidate Trump supporters. The more violence the less likely his supporters will show up. Also the more violence the protesters create, the more news coverage they get. They not only get on the news but they seem to be a much larger group than they are. Finally the protesters want the violence to insure any Trump appearance is associated with violence.

Frankly it’s a clear strategy used by the left for many years. Organize the protest, then turn the protesters into an angry mob. It’s not hard to do and it works. As long as the police arn’t arresting anyone and the few that are arrested don’t face prosecution, the protests will continue to get more and more violent.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@Jaxk To say it’s used by the left, why leave out the right like they have never done anything to provoke violence in a protest?
The Police themselves have been known to put in undercover officers just to get the crowd going so they can then move in and disperse the the crowd, still think it’s just the left?
If it’s only by the left how do you explain that old guy in the cowboy hat the sucker punched the black protester that was being lead out by security at the Trump rally?
You can’t huff that off it was on every news channel in North America.
I do agree with you I think the violence is planned at times, but not just by the left, the right are just as scummy at it,no matter how many churches or Bibles you put in front of the right .

Jaxk's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 – Nice try but it is typically the left that starts these things. Even your guy that got punched was never put into context. He was there to antagonize and provoke. Apparently he was abusive enough to get a response. First by security and then by the cowboy. That doesn’t excuse the cowboy but the protester was there specifically to get that response. As for your conspiracy theory about the police, I don’t buy it. Your reading way too many anarchist web sites.

ibstubro's avatar

Perhaps people see Trump as the candidate for injustice.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Really while the violence may get news coverage, it does little to nothing to further any cause right or left, because when the public sees violence they tend to pull back from any direction the cause was heading thinking these people are nothing but crazy.

As for intimidation I know it got a rally cancelled but not for the lack of right wing Trump supporters that wanted to attend, the authorities canceled it due to the fear they couldn’t keep the public safe if it did go on.
And Trump himself said he wanted his supporters to fight back, and he would pay any legal fees, is that not provoking violence?< and from the right?

As for the police action it was proven then swept under the rug very quickly at the Canadian G8 a few years ago.
Violence and Vandalism does nothing to further any cause right or left, all it accomplishes is negative media coverage.

Jaxk's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 – That’s not what Trump said. What he said was ” if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato”.. Not an unreasonable response but I kow the left likes to make it sound more menacing.

And your right in that it only tends to get negative coverage but it is negative coverage associated with Trump. That’s why the left does it.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Uh @Jaxk you are right about the tomato thing but his words were “If you see someone ready to throw a tomato knock the hell out of em, and don’t worry I will pay the legal costs”
Sounds a bit more violent then what you are trying to portray .
It does come from both sides.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther