YOU SAY – Should the outrage of the few outweigh the decision of many?
Some comments on Donald Trump from the ArmchairMayor.ca Facebook page:
Rob Dwyer (Nov. 11): I’m not a Trump supporter , but I’m less of a Clinton supporter . I think many things get said during an election , but over all I think Trump was his own worst enemy . He got upset , shot off his yap without considering consequences and I don’t condone that behaviour . But I believe he deserves a chance to prove himself . He is not a polished politician who has perfected the art of deceit. I think you will find he could be a great president. And really, shouldn’t people who are in the country illegally be asked to leave ?
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in second presidential debate. Screengrab, file photo)
Joshua Claycamp (Nov. 11): Mel, perhaps you might offer some comment on the first sentence of President-Elect Trump’s tweet, about having had an open and successful election. I agree with you that the claim of “professional protester” is absurd, and most of what Trump says is indeed bombastic and insulting, but I can’t help but wonder if the point Trump is trying to make, perhaps rather badly, is that protest is unfair due in some way to the broader election. Rhetorically speaking, is it fair to deny Trump the presidency on the protest of a few, when the majority of American citizens within a majority of the American States (the Electoral College, which is very fair and equitable to both States and citizens-not screwy at all) have chosen this man? Should the cry of the few outweigh the vote of the many? Is that fair? Perhaps this is what Trump is trying to allude to in his quirky, attacking manner of tweeting.
Teri Nicole McKay (Nov. 11): The media didn’t start the protests. People all over the US are being harassed, are being threatened, attacked, robbed, sexually harrased, molested. The minority groups in the US are in trouble because trumps hate speech, approval of violence, and blatant disrespect of anyone who is not a white male.
Elona Boyd (Nov. 10): He is a horrible choice for President and a despicable human being. But America will get through it. Congress and our Constitution will keep him somewhat in check and he won’t get re-elected. Even those who voted for him will grow to dislike him by the end of his term. He won’t be able to carry out the promises he made, which made them vote for him. He has no knowledge or experience of holding a public office and honestly today on TV he looked shell shocked and like he had bit off more than he could chew. Hopefully, the democrats will work a little harder next time at nominating a decent human being. I left the Republican party upon Trump’s nomination and became independent. I will (from) here forward vote for the best candidate and not party lines.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
“Give him a chance to prove himself”. That sentiment is being tossed around by the media… all over the place.
Not sure, but I think that might be code for “Let’s give racism, xenophobia, homophobia and misogyny a try, because it might turn out to be really, really great folks.”
LikeLike
With Hillary: There were just too many unanswered questions in so many areas of her and her husband’s life in the present…
Things ‘needing to be addressed’ and were thought to be better left out…and being left out they became just too many unanswered questions ‘as to why -really- they really weren’t being answered.
This was needed for the average American to glean a true coherence of leadership and maybe a firmer direction involving Washington, DC, in order to cast vote for her and Bill (as Bill was part of this as much as she was)… Hence, ‘a verdict was cast against them personally and explicitly; away from running the entire country -potentially, one can see, in light of the Clinton Foundation insights (ie. on the global money transactions vis a vis they’re personal income involvement, etc.).’
It’s noted that even if Mr. Trump wasn’t entirely transparent either, he showed he would muster the latitude to deal with the questions outright and not simply ignore them and it is acknowledged that sometimes his answers were more annoying than his attempt at clarity, with the idea that he seemed to be somewhat willfully ambiguous (this is acknowledged generally by Americans). In contrast with Ms. Clinton: She seemed -through her demeanour- to indicate that determined questioning was something she shouldn’t have to deal with in being who she was (or in whom she had come to be over the years through politics and bonafide public government positions of power), more or less, “representing the free world, et al.”
No, the present outrage is not justified on the back of a democratic decision not being made and cast -it was made and is solid; the people in many states across America (because Trump gained ground in many new areas across America in entirety) wanted leadership away from an old national, ingrown, bureaucracy from the Capitol and what we are seeing is less to do with politics and more to do with a personal agenda of a self-congratulating minority view, whom think because they slap their own backs it makes them right to deny democratic procedure, just because it might affect them for a few years, in terms of having to look themselves in the mirror and ask: “Really, am I being a good citizen or just some problematic, willful, individual, whom would put myself before my entire country…just because something doesn’t suit me? -And if I am the latter, why do I think that I am so important?”
-Get a grip placard holder( against a legitimate President) and stop being so fascist.
LikeLike