But, back to it...what are these "any means necessary" that you advocate for? Since the protesters are not arming themselves, and aren't using their mighty god powers to move the blue chesspieces into harm's way you seem to be ignoring the question.
I have explained my position on this quite clearly several times already. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't help you.
And then they kept asking for his birth certificate.
And tried to repeal Obamacare more than sixty times.
And kept abusing the filibuster.
And refused to confirm his nominee for the supreme court.
Republicans seem to have adopted the viewpoint that a Democratic president is illegitimate and his policies are unconstitutional because he is a Democrat.
That sounds like politics as usual to me. I certainly don't recall congress marching in the streets of major cities across the country.
If the other sides now engages in obstructionuism, mass protests, civil disobedience and the occasional act of technically treason and cospiracy...
Good !
Anything less would be unilateral disarmament.
Since injecting race and gender into every issue worked out so well for you guys, I'm sure this kind of behaviour will work out equally as well if not better. Knock yourself out.
Well yeah, they are disproportionately young and in many cases believe their fundamental rights (even lives, in the case of BLM) are at risk.
Only if you assault cops.
Those sorts of people are more likely to be disruptive at rallies than a population that is disproportionately old. I could certainly point to the worst examples of behavior at Trump rallies - a lot of the liberal media did just that and used it to paint Trump supporters as bigots who chant racist slurs.
Most of which were paid liberal agitators. It came out in Wikileaks. Hillary's campaign paid them $1,500 each and also trained them on what to do. Also the people protesting the Trump rallies were far more violent than anything that happened inside. The police were always present and were even assaulted on occasion by liberal protestors. Trump supporters weren't showing up at Hillary events and doing these things.
Of course nearly all actual white bigots who voted did support Trump - a quick check of Stormfront will confirm that - and they were probably more likely to turn up to Trump rallies than the median Trump supporter.
So what? Who do you think minorities who hate white people vote for?
The Democrats.
Trump was also getting 10,000 to 20,000 people at tons of rallies. Many of them minorities. You can watch any one of his rallies on YouTube and see it for yourself. To suggest that a large segment of these people were white supremacists is out of touch.
You have to understand how propaganda works. If you take the worst examples of either side (in anything, not just politics) and present them as though they are typical, you build stereotypes that are used to drive wedges between people. The modern media and the internet are excellent tools for doing just that, and people have to see through it or we'll be stuck in an era of divisiveness and outrage forever. You, for instance, seem to think that the most obnoxious SJWs are typical liberals, and they're really not. It's just that those are the most vocal and most interested, and also (this is critical) you seek them out, because you really like arguing with them.
I understand fully how propaganda works. What you are not understanding is that the media isn't on the side of the right wing. They weren't on Trump's side. They weren't smearing Hillary supporters, or covering their violence or the fact that they were being paid to infiltrate Trump rallies and instigate disruptions. You believed everything the media and the polling told you and it was mostly all lies.
I also don't think all liberals are SJWs, but I think a lot of them are. A good 30%-35% most likely and I also think the more moderate leftys give the SJWs a free pass and enable their trashy behaviour because they like the fact that they do their dirty work. It has benefited them in the short term, but now it's starting to bite them in the butt because they've built a Frankenstein.
I also don't like arguing with SJWs. I think they're morons. I think this country would be far better off if they didn't exist, or at least weren't enabled by the left. I think they're very polarizing and that they're dragging this country down a path that is going to end in tears. I wish they could be reasoned with and I wish they were capable of behaving like civilized rational people.
Not at all - I would not be particularly happy about Clinton winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote. I'd see it as legitimate, but definitely a major reminder that the system needs to be changed.
I wouldn't have an issue with the process if that happened. The electoral college isn't perfect, but it's the best means to hold an election that we have, which gives all parts of the country representation. Ideally the person with the most seats would also win the popular vote and the majority of the time that is the case.
The view that the EC is an obsolete institution and that we should switch over to a national popular vote system has been supported by a wide majority of Americans for a very long time. I think it should be a system incorporating a runoff (preferably an instant runoff) if a candidate doesn't get a majority. I don't see any good reason that the US would be more likely to fall apart under a popular vote system than under the status quo. After all, nearly all countries that have a president (with power) do so by popular vote.
No, most countries have some version of an electoral college. Also as I said (which you didn't really address), the major downside of going solely by the popular vote is that the only parts of the country that actually receive representation are the large population centers.
The electoral college is just all the way around a better thought out system and the majority of the time the one who win the popular vote also wins the most seats, so I really don't see it as being an issue.
Hold the phone! Technically "treason" is defined by the Constitution as "giving aid and comfort" to America's enemies. You know, like saying we won't come to the aid of our NATO allies if Putin invades them.
