This is Our America. ALL of ours.

To those who were shocked and incensed when trump refused to say in October that he would unconditionally accept the results of the November election… and all those who are now protesting, rioting and refusing to accept the results from the vote of the American people on Election Day in November…

Clinton called Trump’s remarks “horrifying.” “He’s denigrating and talking down our democracy,” she said. “I, for one, am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position.”

Hollywood elites, college students, even high schoolers who have been whipped into a frenzy expecting one result and waking up Wednesday to a completely other one are doing exactly what Trump was assumed that he would have done if he’d lost. They are refusing to accept the results of the election and either planning to renounce citizenship, leave the country or just riot in the streets. As Clinton said in October, it denigrates our democracy and is appalling.

And look who else agreed back then…

“The most irresponsible possible action that anybody in public life can take is to undermine public confidence in our system of government. If I were not being prudent with my words, I’d say anybody who has the public’s ear, who is undermining our democratic system, is acting in a traitorous fashion. I will mind my words, so I will not use the word traitorous.” -Robert Reich, former Cabinet Secretary under President Bill Clinton

(((Of course he said this when he was confident that Hillary would win. Now, of course, his tune has apparantly changed…)))

12 ways to disrupt Donald Trump’s first 100 days as President

Seems to me that Robert Reich just called Robert Reich a traitor. Not me, I mind my words better than he does apparantly. 

These are some of the others who have taken their balls and plan to stay home, not to honoring the Constitutionally mandated Peaceful Transfer of Leadership.

I would add that it’s childish and shows how undemocratic and uncommitted to real democracy these people are. In a real democracy, people disagree… and they aren’t necessarily racist or sexist or Homophobic if they do. Then we sit down at the same table, us all disagreeing folks, and talk to and with each other. Talk… not shove or manipulate or emotionally extort or even riot or take our ball and go home if we don’t get our own way… or call the other guy racist or sexist or Homophobic if he disagrees with us.

Childish and horrific reactions, whether they come from Republicans upset that Obama was elected/re-elected or Democrats pissed off that Hillary didn’t win. It ‘denigrates our democracy’ when your reaction to losing an election is to riot, blame your opponents for being idiots, sexist, racist and (insert whatever emotionally charged pejorative term) for not doing what you wanted them to do.

“When they go low… we go high”

Well, yesterday’s examples of the High is well below even the Low that Democrats and major media outlets expected from Trump supporters had they been on the losing end Tuesday. Take your own advice. Apply it to yourselves this morning:

  • Go high (with Mrs obama)
  • and Go Forward. (with Obama’s reelection slogan)
  • and work Together, because we’re Stronger that way as a democracy (applying Hillary’s campaign slogan)

So grow up. Accept the outcome of the election even if you disagree. Its what orhers have done throughout the history of our country. This is what real democracy looks like. It’s what you would have been urging and encouraging Trump supporters to do in your place if Hillary had been elected. And according Hillary Clinton and Robert Reich, at least before the election, it’s what is best for the integrity of our system of government.. 

As Hillary Clinton said… It would be “horrifying” to do otherwise.



151 thoughts on “This is Our America. ALL of ours.

    • “Most of this makes perfect sense… except for the parts on racism, sexism and homophobia.”

      Please do tell. What did KIA say that you disagree with?

      “There are people who are actually racist, sexist or homophobic. If you believe a restaurant should have the right to refuse entry to me because of my (homo)sexuality that is, in essence homophobic.”

      I am starting to believe that you are an expert at creating straw men. When the hell did he say anything about a restaurant or you personally? At no point in this article were you referred to and nowhere does he say that people should be refused service based on their sexuality.

      Here’s what he actually said: “I would add that it’s childish and shows how undemocratic and uncommitted to real democracy these people are. In a real democracy, people disagree… and they aren’t necessarily racist or sexist or Homophobic if they do. Then we sit down at the same table, us all disagreeing folks, and talk to and with each other. Talk… not shove or manipulate or emotionally extort or even riot or take our ball and go home if we don’t get our own way… or call the other guy racist or sexist or Homophobic if he disagrees with us.”

      That’s a perfectly reasonable position. When people disagree on something, they can sit down like adults and instead of name call at each other, actually discuss the issues.

      In other words, name calling doesn’t work and it doesn’t constitute a valid argument. It’s childish and the Left needs to learn that calling people names isn’t going to work any more. If people want to be taken seriously, they will have to come up with coherent arguments for their position.

      Liked by 2 people

      • The implication of Kia’s argument is people *get to make* racist, homophobic and sexist arguments- without consequence.
        When Pence is called a homophobe it’s because he promoted a law that allowed people to refuse service to LGBT people in Indiana. When Trump was called sexist it was because he talked about grabbing women by the pu**y. And when David Duke says his goal is the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black race- that’s racist. So the idea we shouldn’t call these things out because it “demonizes” people is ridiculous.
        This concept of unilateral freedom of speech is absurd. If people are racist they should be called racist.


          • Sorry, but there’s no way around that being the implication. You can’t have it both ways. Many in the Trump camp were labelled as they were labelled because of their verifiable behaviour.
            Trump himself hides behind political incorrectness every time he acts out behaviours that fall into those negative categories.


        • “The implication of Kia’s argument is”

          Let me stop you right there. Just give me a second.

          *GC drives a tractor and drops off some more straw so Pink can get to work creating more straw men*

          “people *get to make* racist, homophobic and sexist arguments- without consequence.”

          Man, glad I gave you that straw.

          Nowhere did KIA say that and he implied no such thing. If you think he feels that way, instead of accusing him, why don’t you ask him? That’s how you have a conversation. Try having one without wearing your glasses of perpetual offense.

          “When Pence is called a homophobe it’s because he promoted a law that allowed people to refuse service to LGBT people in Indiana. When Trump was called sexist it was because he talked about grabbing women by the pu**y. ”

          He wasn’t talking about specifics. He was talking in general. Again, try asking him to clarify instead of jumping to the conclusion he doesn’t think there is evidence to support claims of racism or sexism against those people.

          Also, even if those people are racist and sexist doesn’t mean the people who voted for them are either of those things.

          “And when David Duke says his goal is the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black race- that’s racist. ”

          So is segregated safe spaces. I fail to see your point because KIA didn’t say any of these things so you’ve just erected yourself a gigantic straw men and now you’re attacking away.

          Feel free to flail away. Just do so in the corner so that reasonable people can talk rationally without you disturbing them.

          “This concept of unilateral freedom of speech is absurd. If people are racist they should be called racist.”

          You can call them racist but the calling doesn’t make it so. You have to have evidence they actually are racist. But none of this has anything to do with what KIA actually wrote. Try addressing his actual arguments.


          • If you don’t understand simple cause and effect, I can’t help you.
            A candidate sets out a platform. If that platform, for example, blamed the Jews for all sorts of things. And states directly and indirectly that they’re responsible for the dire economic situation 0f a country at the time.
            People who vote for the candidate do so in full knowledge how he plans to approach the Jewish issue.
            That leaves two and only two possibilities. Either the voter agrees with the candidate, or the voter disagrees but feels the candidate’s program is acceptable anyway. Which means he doesn’t particularly care about the consequences for Jews.
            Get it now?


            • “If you don’t understand simple cause and effect, I can’t help you.”

              If you can’t understand what a straw man argument is, I can’t help you either. KIA said none of what you accused him of saying.

              “That leaves two and only two possibilities. Either the voter agrees with the candidate, or the voter disagrees but feels the candidate’s program is acceptable anyway. ”

              There’s only two possibilities according to Pink and no more.

              Here’s a few more:

              1) Candidate B has said or did things worse in the eyes of the individual voter and so they feel they have to vote for the jew-hating candidate rather than put candidate B in power

              2) They’re voting in protest of the system

              3) They’re unaware of the issues and voting based on low information

              4) They’re entrenched in their dogmatic support of one party and will vote that party no matter what. Sometimes they don’t even bother to pay attention to debates (and so forth) because they trust their party is the best to run the country

              There are a ton of reasons why that person might vote even for a candidate that is undesirable. Not just two possibilities.

              “Get it now?”

              Oh I get it. You see things in black and white and have a problem understanding nuance. You like erecting straw men and attacking arguments the poster didn’t actually say, and you have a hard time admitting when you’re wrong so you erect another straw men to defend.


              • As I’ve said before, you’ve got the intellect of a doorknob. None of the alternatives you propose deny the point I proposed. A vote for Trump was a vote that **had to factor in the fact** that he promoted racism, planned to do something about that racism, and also aimed to overturn federal abortion rights. Whatever other reasons there may be have to COEXIST with those facts. That means either an endorsement or at least the acceptance of THOSE FACTS.
                P.S. why don’t you look for one of those free online logic courses because your understanding of the mathematics of logic is astoundingly poor.


              • “As I’ve said before, you’ve got the intellect of a doorknob.”

                Glad to see you were paying attention to the gist of this post, since you just demonstrated the point he was making.

                But it is fun exposing your childishness whenever you’re challenged to back up your goofy arguments.

                Here’s a soother. You should go away when the big people are talking.

                “None of the alternatives you propose deny the point I proposed. ”

                try reading them again. All of them did. They offered alternatives to the ‘only two alternative’ foolishness you proposed.

                “A vote for Trump was a vote that **had to factor in the fact** that he promoted racism, planned to do something about that racism, and also aimed to overturn federal abortion rights.”

                That’s not what you originally said.

                Here, let me remind you since you seem incapable of remembering your own arguments. You said, “A candidate sets out a platform. If that platform, for example, blamed the Jews for all sorts of things. And states directly and indirectly that they’re responsible for the dire economic situation 0f a country at the time.
                People who vote for the candidate do so in full knowledge how he plans to approach the Jewish issue.
                That leaves two and only two possibilities. Either the voter agrees with the candidate, or the voter disagrees but feels the candidate’s program is acceptable anyway. Which means he doesn’t particularly care about the consequences for Jews.”

                See the full knowledge part? See how you said there are only two alternatives. See how it says they didn’t care about the consequences to Jews?

                “That means either an endorsement or at least the acceptance of THOSE FACTS.”

                As I pointed out, it could also mean they’re unaware of those facts in more than one of my proposed scenarios.

                “P.S. why don’t you look for one of those free online logic courses because your understanding of the mathematics of logic is astoundingly poor. ”

                LOL. Will it make me unable to see alternatives other than black and white? Will it make me so childish that I name call whenever I’m opposed? Will it make me so smug that I think I’m smarter than everyone around me?

                Will it make me like you?

                I can certainly do without that. I prefer using reason and rationality, instead of accusing people (like you did KIA) of saying things they didn’t say.


              • Try this:
                The problem is you’re trying to form equations without proper parameters. That just doesn’t work. Take for example your position on *freedom of speech*, it was unilateral. If your equation is X has the right to free speech and so X can say anything, then X must apply to both Trump AND his critics.
                So you see, until you can organize your thoughts into a logical formula, you’re basically trying to walk in the dark. And don’t take my word for it. Ask Tildeb, John Zande, Ark, Makagutu, Argus- take your pick. Your thought formulation as it stands is a non-starter.


              • What are you babbling about? Nothing you said here has anything to do with what we are talking about.

                And those people are free to disagree with me if they wish. Do you speak for them now?

                In fact, Tildeb and I agree on most things, but regardless, I’m fairly certain all of those people can talk for themselves and they have nothing to do with your assertions here on this post.

                It’s funny to me that you seem to believe that if you have enough cheerleaders, you’re automatically right, instead of basing it on the quality of your argument.

                You have not addressed anything. You can’t even remember your own arguments and contradict yourself constantly. When that doesn’t work, you resort to name calling like a five year old and then resort to telling us all how smart you are.

                KIA didn’t argue what you accused him of arguing. That’s the facts.


              • What I said was any of those people can help you better understand the mathematical formulation of ideas, which is something you’re failing at.
                Agreeing with Tildeb doesn’t mean you understand how he lays out the logical progression of his ideas. That’s the important part. Agreeing alone can be (and usually is) an issue of tribalism, understanding the equation and how he arrived at the result is what really matters.


              • Okay, well thanks for telling me your opinion about how others come to their conclusions. If I disagree with them, I’ll be sure to discuss it with them.

                However, I’m not talking to them. I’m currently talking to you and shredding your arguments about what KIA supposedly said.

                Try focusing on that. Or call me another name or something.

                I’m sure that will help your mathematical equation explain why you’re right.


  1. I don’t agree with your assessment of Clinton. I don’t agree with your assessment of Trump. I don’t (entirely) agree with your assessment of the two-party system.

    You make a fair point, however, about accepting the results. We wanted Trump to do so, and now we want everyone else to do so too. I’m still sick to my stomach, and I’ll continue to be vocal about how much I hate the guy, but it’s time to accept it and gear up for the 4-year fight we have ahead of us.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think the two party system and all the Demonization of the ‘other guys’ is th3 main problem dividing the nation. It’s never just a Binary problem or solution. We need to hear each other and be willing to respect and work with each other if any of this has a chance of working out


      • I agree that it’s a huge problem, but I also think that voting for 3rd party candidates as a protest does nothing to solve the problem. Like it or not, this election was between two people. Does that need to change, though? Absolutely. From getting rid of the electoral college to getting rid of political parties, there definitely need to be changes in the system.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Who said I voted third party as a protest?
          A vote is your personal consent. I could not consent to either of the two major candidates, so I voted for one of the remaining that I could, with good conscience, consent to. Didn’t matter if he had a chance to win.
          Voting for someone you can’t consent to just to vote against the other one you can’t consent to isn’t a free vote in my opinion.


          • This is not an easy subject to tackle, and I know that different people have different ways of seeing the issues. As I said earlier, like it or not, the election was between two people. IMO, if you vote for someone you know won’t win, that is a protest vote. You are protesting against the idea that there were only two people who could really be considered to be in the race.

            I’m all for voting your conscience, and I’m not trying to belittle you for doing so. To me, however, strategy is more important. I don’t have a problem with the “lesser of two evils” vote. Vote for whomever you like the most or hate the least. Voting 3rd party (as the system stands now) doesn’t affect the election; it only serves to make a statement.


  2. I think the US and also the UK would both be better served if they amended their voting systems to allow optional preferential voting. This would allow voters to support a minor party candidate and still have a say between which of the major party candidates is elected.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think it would be great if American voting ‘systems’ weren’t systems of controlling the outcome. Why do we need ‘major party’ candidates selected for our consideration in the first place? When the nation was founded, party politics was a major fear. They knew it would lead to division, Demonization and destruction of open elections. They did it anyway.
      Do away with the two party system. Go back to open elections where every party is represented and ‘the system’ doesn’t prefer, promote or advantage any of them.


      • In New Zealand a few years back there was a change in their electoral system to make it fairer and to allow smaller parties a say. They studied all the systems used over the whole world and came up with a system called Multi Member Proportional. It was based on the German model. They explain it as:

        “MMP is the system we currently use to elect our Parliament.

        It is a proportional system, which means that the proportion of votes a party gets will largely reflect the number of seats it has in parliament.

        Each voter gets two votes.

        The first vote is for the political party the voter chooses. This is called the party vote and largely decides the total number of seats each political party gets in Parliament.

        The second vote is to choose the MP the voter wants to represent the electorate they live in. This is called the electorate vote. The candidate who gets the most votes wins. They do not have to get more than half the votes.

        Under current MMP rules, a political party that wins at least one electorate seat OR 5% of the party vote gets a share of the seats in Parliament that is about the same as its share of the party vote.

        For example, if a party gets 30% of the party vote it will get roughly 36 MPs in Parliament (being 30% of 120 seats). So if that party wins 20 electorate seats it will have 16 List MPs in addition to its 20 Electorate MPs.

        Coalitions or agreements between political parties are usually needed before Governments can be formed.”


        • In this case, it would require a constitutional amendment to disregard the electoral college… those advocating petitions to states to change their votes clearly have little regard for the Constitution.
          I’m afraid it would take almost a revolution to overthrow the two party system at this point.
          the two parties are really just one party.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. ‘Why is it called an Empire, Miss?’ asked the child.
    ‘Because it is ruled by an Emperor,’ replied the teacher.
    ‘And a Kingdom?’ inquired the child once more.
    ‘Because it is ruled by a King,’ said the teacher.
    ‘Is this why the US is called a country, Miss?’

    A country gets the government it deserves …

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I agree that there should be a call for peaceful protests. But there should be also a call by Trump to calm his supporters down to as there have been numerous incidents of their supporters bullying, using racial slurs, and some violence. Conservatives also have a short memory if they think they just peacefully took Obama’s victory in 2008 and were all nice and polite about it.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Ah you are correct as I didn’t see his piece of 60 minutes. It not really a live press conference though, and no real information why he ran on a platform of intolerance towards minorities in the first place. But I’m glad he spoke to the 16.4 million viewers (half were likely democratic viewers), but how about some live press conferences?

        Liked by 2 people

            • One should not be dependant on the other. The right thing to do is the right thing, regardless if the other side doesn’t budge. Although, I think there’s been much more budge so far on the Republican side. Nothing from the dems


              • I guess we’ll agree to disagree. His cabinet doesn’t resemble anything remotely resembling compromise. Given the things Trump said he was going to do during his campaign… I have tough time buying his words now considering how much he lies. And I’m in no way endorsing Hillary Clinton as a better candidate. I simply don’t trust a person who ran on fascist ideals and extremism to win votes. If he’s some middle of the road between the left and right that remains to be seen, bit given who he’s surrounding himself with and his voice president, I’ll believe it when I see it. I don’t support any violent protest but fear is justified at this point as Trump has given us no reason to trust or believe anything he says.

                Liked by 1 person

  5. Maybe I am wrong but Clinton ceded defeat and I don’t know if she has retracted that position.
    The people rioting, I thought it was part of the rights enshrined in the constitution: freedom of assembly, freedom to picket and freedom of opinion? Or am I misguided?


    • You’re correct.

      The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

      To my mind, setting fires, destroying property and deliberately blocking egress to public spaces doesn’t fall within the definition of assembling peaceably. Would you agree?

      The Clintons graciously conceded defeat and attended Mr. Trump’s inauguration. And Mr. Trump returned the favour by leading a standing ovation for the Clintons during the inaugural luncheon. If they could all find it within themselves to set aside their political differences and act like responsible adults, is it too much to ask that their respective supporters follow suit?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Destroying property is in bad taste.
        Peaceful protest is what I think is granted by the Constitution. And to some, the Clinton’s attending the inauguration looks like a betrayal.


        • We can only dream of progressives Democrats in our country protesting peacefully. Doesn’t seem to be in their toolkit. Cars burning, rocks and concrete thrown at people and police, even have a report of a person being shot and almost dying at the University of Washington protest.
          The Clintons NOT attending the inauguration would have been the Betrayal. A Betrayal of the peaceful transition of power from one elected president to the next. It’s not about Hillary or trump. It’s about our country and system of government.


          • I think your way of looking at issues is not any different than the Democrats you decry. Demonstrations in many places turn violent, that is not to mean the DP likes violence.
            Well, the Clinton’s not attending would have been a betrayal depending on what side of the fence you sit. To a person who thinks the person to be sworn in is illegitimate, their candidate attending the inauguration looks like a betrayal to the cause, whatever that cause is.

            Liked by 2 people

            • It doesn’t matter what someone ‘thinks’ is illegitimate. It matters what actually is…
              Trump IS the legitimately elected president of the United States.
              Those who are protesting and causing violence and property damage because they cannot and will not accept the results of the election because their candidate lost are the ones betraying the constitutional system of government we have.


              • I don’t think it’s a matter of whether or not they are “accepting” the results. I think it’s more they simply don’t LIKE the results and want to demonstrate their dislike/distaste for “the legitimately elected president of the United States.”

                I could be wrong, but I doubt very much that any one of the protesters actually believe their actions are going to change anything. They just want to be heard.

                Having said that, I do NOT in any way support violence and destruction of property to express one’s views. But I do support their right to protest.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Sorry Nan, this ended up in spam too. Fished it out.
                I don’t think they want to be heard, I think they want to rage and tantrum. If they wanted to be heard, they wouldn’t be shooting people like yesterday at the University of Washington protest, or burning cars and attacking people with rocks and chunks of concrete.
                They have a definite right to peaceful protest and demonstration. I get that and I agree. What’s actually happening is not that


              • Mike … I don’t understand why my comments keep “ending up in spam.” I’m not including any links … I have a legitimate email address … I’m not having problems with any other subscribed blogs. Perhaps you’ve accidentally added my IP address to your moderation list?


              • Hi Nan. I don’t understand either. I don’t have anyone banned or moderated. Wp is being wonky. I keep fishing out several people who keep ending up in spam. Sorry again, it’s nothing I’m doing and I believe you when you say it’s nothing you’re doing


              • Mike, I think you’re being unfair by lumping all the people into one group. Yes, there are those who probably do want to “rage and tantrum,” but I very much doubt the core group of protesters had that in mind when they first organized. Why not try to be a little more charitable?


          • I think your way of looking at issues is not any different than the Democrats you decry. Demonstrations in many places turn violent, that is not to mean the DP likes violence.
            Well, the Clinton’s not attending would have been a betrayal depending on what side of the fence you sit. To a person who thinks the person to be sworn in is illegitimate, their candidate attending the inauguration looks like a betrayal to the cause, whatever that cause is.
            So instead of acting the moralist, listen to them, empathize and then talk with each other. Any other course of action will lead to a more polarized country than you have already

            Liked by 1 person

          • We can only dream of progressives Democrats in our country protesting peacefully. Doesn’t seem to be in their toolkit.

            I am going to respectfully disagree with you, here. Those rioters resorting to violence and destruction do not represent the majority of those who are marching and protesting. There are hundreds of thousands across the country doing so in an organized and peaceful manner. So, it is indeed in their toolkit. I think it’s a mistake to equate the two.

            Even the police have said the protests have been mostly peaceful and that those smashing windows and burning cars and the like are not even part of any organized protests. It’s the same thugs that come out and resort to this behavior regardless of the cause. Mischief makers.

            Liked by 2 people

  6. I had this conversation with both Carmen and Scottie on my blog just the other day. Scottie in particular, although he seems to be a lovely and tender chap, just couldn’t get past the idea that Trump is the legitimate President. He’s the legitimate President because he won the election. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t win the popular vote. It doesn’t matter that he’s a sexist, misogynist pig. It doesn’t matter that he’s an illiterate moron. None of those things make him “illegitimate” as a President. He’ll be sworn into office today, like the other 44 men before him and he’ll be the President and that’s that. People can whine and cry and protest ALL THEY LIKE. It’s not going to change a damn thing.
    None of this implies ANY of the following:
    – That I like him
    – That I (would have) voted for him (I’m Canadian)
    – That I hate gay people and women
    I also made the comment regarding people chiding Trump for proclaiming that he might not except the results of the election if he lost. How quickly we abandon our principles now that the shoe is on the other foot!!!!

    He’s the President and we all have to deal with it. We can be grown ups about it, or we can have temper tantrums and hissy fits for the next 4 years and go nowhere.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I think I can safely assert that people like “The Pink Agendist” are exactly why Trump was elected in the first place. Projectionist, deliberately obtuse and hysterical. Incapable of empathy AT ALL. Can’t understand simple concepts like false dichotomy, compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance. “Every single person who voted for Trump is a sexist fascist because he is too!!!! All 50+ million of them!!!!! There’s just no other explanation!!!!” Trump’s election is a gigantic “fuck you” to people like that. Doesn’t look like it’s made an impact at all. I wonder if he’s related to CJ Werleman? “Sam Harris wants to nuke every single Muslim on planet earth!!!!!!!”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I think that dismissing the protesting everywhere as childish is wrong for the same reason as dismissing Trump’s supporters as being racists, sexists, or misogynists. It attributes some arbitrary value to something without fully explaining why that value should apply in the first place. While you can’t do anything for the people who are childish, sexist, racist, or homophobic, it doesn’t hurt to hear out why other people might not like what’s going on.

    Is it unwise to destroy property? Sure. But not every protest has gone violent, and most protests died down after the election was over. I don’t know if that could be properly labeled as childish behavior or serving as a reminder that Mr. Trump didn’t, in fact, win a democratic election. He’s got a lot of people to win over.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, ashley.. he won a legitimate d3mocratic election by the Constitutional definition of winning more than 270 votes in the Electoral College. The Electoral College represents the votes of the individual States that Trump won by the popular votes of those states.
        The only ones saying Trump is not legitimate, just won’t accept the results. Don’t like the Electoral College? Submit and get passed, by the constitutional route, an amendment to remove it.
        Until then, winning the Electoral College is the ONLY truly legitimate way to be elected president of the United States.


        • Wow, Mike, way to put words in my mouth while not responding directly to me. At no point did I say the Electoral College results weren’t fair or the product of a valid process. At no point did I say Trump wasn’t the valid winner of our election process. And at no point did I say I didn’t accept any results of the election.

          All I pointed out was that it’s pretty sanctimonious to demand people come together without even pretending to listen to their side of things. Coincidentally, you’ve said nothing on those points. All you’ve done is make shit up about what I said.

          Liked by 1 person

          • I think it’s valid to point out that we’re actually a republic and not a democracy. Our system clearly doesn’t operate on a majority vote for obvious reasons. And I contend that even if it did many people would still not be happy with the results.

            Liked by 1 person

      • Actually, Art. II, § 1(2)-(3) of the U.S. Constitution (along with Amend. XII) determine how a president is elected in the United States. According to this process, the states actually determine how the president is elected. In modern times, the states let their voters choose electors, and not the president directly.

        This is how you can get elections where the majority of voters didn’t actually vote for a presidential candidate. In an actual democratic system, this wouldn’t be the case; the majority of people would always elect the winner.


  9. Pingback: How U.S. Elections Work | Amusing Nonsense

  10. OK I will try again.
    KIA, I assume since you are so dead set against the protests against the current president and you want everyone to accept his policies and ideas, that you totally were aghast and vehemently opposed to what the republicans including the current president did to the prior one. Yes they started right off before Pres. Obama was even sworn in with trying to delegitimize him. They did their best. The current Pres. pushed the birther issue to the fullest extent possible. The delegitimizing went so far as to make his second term a three year instead of a four year term because they refused to do their constitutional job and hold hearings on the supreme court nominee. They stole that seat. No talk about the people having a say, they did when they overwhelmingly voted Pres. Obama in for a second term. Let’s be quite clear. President Obama was a duly elected president with a vastly higher margins than the current President and he was constantly being made illegitimate. He was blocked at every turn. I would love to see your views on that. Are they the same as your views on the current administration? Hugs

    Ashley I made myself very clear to you and you refused to even attempt to see my points as you have done in your post here, but you only kept repeating the same thing. Here is a comment I posted to S.B. blog.

    “I like the post, very informative. I do think there are two versions of the meaning of “legitimate” people are using. While it is true that the person who won the electoral college is now president and nothing can change that. It also is not the meaning some of us use when we say he is not legitimate. When I use that term I mean he is not qualified. He is to be resisted and fought against at every step. His actions on the campaign trail and in office are not acceptable. I equate the delegitimizing of the current administration to the total attempt to delegitimize the former president’s. I feel if they can take a president that was elected by a true landslide and do everything they can to deny him the authority of the office and undermine him at every step, then it is time to do that same thing to a man who did not win in a landslide, did not win the popular vote, and has not the temperament to be president. That is what I mean when I say the current President is not legitimate and I think others are using it that way also. We don’t mean he did not win the electoral college. Hugs”

    The current President should be treated by the opposition the same way that the republicans and the current president treated Pres. Obama. He is to be blocked, his is to be denied, he is be delegitimize at every possible turn. Now you say this is unfair? Or maybe you say do two wrongs make a right? Well the republicans won’t stop doing their dirty tricks as long as they don’t pay a price for doing them. They won’t stop until they get a taste of how it works against them. It is clear the republicans don’t believe in a two party system, they believe only they should have power in government. Look at North Carolina and the attempt to gut all power from the Governor’s office as soon as a democrat won the office. When it was a republican they couldn’t increase the authority fast enough.

    I don’t believe I can make it any clearer for you Ashley. Please do not misrepresent what I have said. Thank you. Hugs


    • Sorry scottie. You seem to have done a good job misrepresenting my words and position. I’m tired. Been a long day. And I doubt further discussion to clarify my position would help your understanding. So I’m going to decline the back and forth. I’m not even going to try anymore

      Liked by 1 person

    • “When I use that term I mean he is not qualified.”

      Qualifications for the Office of President

      Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

      No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

      Term limit amendment – US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951

      No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

      Which qualifications does he fail to meet?


      • Hello Ron, again you are missing the point. I gave the qualification he fails to meet. The fact is his not being qualified in this meaning will not be grounds for him to be ineligible to be president, it simply should have been grounds for him not to be able to be president. Everything from his temperament, his lack of control, his almost pathological need to lie, his denial of reality, his need to be always right, the fact he can never see himself a wrong on anything. It also includes the Russian involvement in the election and his connection to Russia. It includes his lack of candor in his business dealings and despite his saying he can not have conflicts of interest because he is the President, as president his business is rife with conflicts of interest. His lack of ability to understand other people have worth than just him and his family. These and many more traits make him unqualified to be president. Hope this clears it up. Hugs


        • Nonetheless, those things are completely irrelevant. So long as he met all three requirements cited in the US Constitution—the supreme law of the land—and won the majority of seats in the electoral college following a free and democratic vote he is considered the legitimate POTUS.


          • We disagree. That is the point of the majority of the people peacefully protesting. It is the point of the marchers against the administration. That you think character doesn’t matter to me is part of the problem and how we got to this point. I remember all the screaming about Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the white house and how it showed bad character. Most of the right wings complaints about Pres. Obama had to do with their perceived faults in his character. Well if it mattered so much for those presidents, it matters to this one. Hugs


            • Let me post the relevant portion of the First Amendment again:

              “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

              Given that he wasn’t even sworn in, there were no legitimate grievances to protest. And as already mentioned in an earlier post, committing vandalism, starting fires, hurling objects at peace officers and deliberately blocking others access to public spaces does not constitute “peaceful” protest.


              • OK, nice pivot and slide. I was not addressing the protest that actually was Kia. I have never advocated violence or vandalism. In fact I have been on several other blogs discussing this issue and have made the point that it is very counter productive to do such actions. We lose support and open ourselves up to accusations. However I have not been doing any violence or vandalism and I am not a spokesperson for either. You will need to take it up with someone else. Hugs


              • Your character isn’t in question. You raised two points and I addressed them in sequence. To recap:

                1. You claimed that Mr. Trump was unqualified to be president because he possesses character traits you consider undesirable. I responded that the only requirements that matter are the ones enumerated within the U.S. Constitution. You provided no counter-argument, so I consider that point ceded.

                2. You claimed that the majority of protesters did so peacefully, but news footage of that and previous protests reveals that many demonstrators have been anything but peaceful.


              • Ron I am going to bed in a few minutes, but two things I would like to point out. Nowhere in my replies to you have I said anything about my character. I was addressing the current presidents. and on that issue is this presidential to you?
                I would say the fact he can’t distinguish reality from fantasy or has to lie to feel good about himself, or feels persecuted that his attendance numbers are important enough to be doctored by all news sources is disqualifying to me. He is plainly not mentally or emotionally fit to be president. Good night, see you in the morning. Hugs


              • Scottie, the fact remains that your opinion of the office holder’s character is not granted consideration as a qualifying factor within the U.S. Constitution.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Hello Ron , you again seem to miss the point. Maybe not legally but in ways that count yes it is. It is relevant because it is not just my opinion, but the opinion of millions of millions of people. There is a huge movement of people who feel as I do. We will do everything in our power to remind him and everyone else of his inadequacies, his lack of ability, his lack of standing. We will fight him in congress, in the streets, in the press, online, and anywhere else. We will deny him the legitimacy he craves as he and his party tried to do to Pres. Obama. If enough people in this country want something to happen it can and will happen. IF enough people believe something it can transform the country. We believe tRump is unqualified and he is not legitimate. And we are willing to work to prevent him from claiming that legitimacy. Hugs


              • Scottie, you’re just wrong on so many levels about this. Your emotions are definitely getting the better of you. You’re acting like a child who hasn’t gotten his way after being totally convinced that he would. Accept the results and move on. Be better than those in the past who havent.


              • Sorry Mike, I disagree. People like me intend to do to the republicans what they did to us and to Pres. Obama. You don’t have to like it. We did not like the birther crap, and the obstructionism. But that did not stop the republicans for doing it. We did not like all the fake news put out on fox news and other right wing sites. Now while we don’t plan to lie, we also will not let tRump lie as he is right now with the attendance to his inauguration. He had the tweets shut down from the parks department because it showed his less than stellar attendance. Do you deny the things the republican party did to delegitimize the Presidency of Obama? Hugs


              • Sorry scottie. I’m not going to argue this one. You can’t make excuses or blame others for your own actions or irrational hatred. I will be unfold owing you for awhile, but not for long I hope. I just can’t keep reading your erratic posts. I do love you and enjoy reading what you have to say, but you’re going down a road I can’t follow you on.
                I’ll keep checking in from time to time though in hopes you eventually come to your senses. –kia

                Liked by 1 person

              • Well Mike. I am only responding to comments made to me. However you also have an irrational view of the prior administration I have tried to overlook. I also am done. Please have my best wishes. I won’t be back. I won’t darken your door step of your blog with my view of the world. Be well be happy. Goodbye. Hugs


              • Can you link to the videos or news reports of unhappy McCain and Romney supporters trashing cities after Obama won? From what I could gather, Tea Party protesters obeyed all laws and even picked up the litter following their events.


              • Ron I served two tours in the US military because of my love for this country. However those that did not serve have made the act of governing a mockery. The republicans love to do all sorts of dirt tricks and then as soon as they win an office they want everyone to forget and forgive their actions. Then when they lose the office they turn around and start the dirty tricks again. Well this time we don’t forget, we do to them what they did to us. If they dislike it enough maybe they will stop doing it. Hugs


              • Too many people trying to make excuses and shift blame on their ‘enemies’ for their tantrums and why they refuse to accept the results results of the election. I didn’t like or vote for Trump either, but the election is over. We need to accept the r3sults and move forward. To do otherwise is ‘horrific’ and ‘irresponsible’ not to mention damaging to the integrity of our system of government, as I quoted both Hillary and Robert Reich as saying.
                Anger, rage, hostility, violence and punishing those why you disagree with as if they are your enemies does nothing to put the country back together again, and it betrays the message and encouragement of Hillary Clinton in her concession speech. It’s just plain childish and wrong.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Ron, you assert that tRump is qualified to be POTUS based on the requirements enumerated within the U.S. Constitution. Technically, this is correct (except perhaps for the “Emollient Clause,” which most certainly needs to be addressed). However, what I think Scottie is putting forth (and what many others agree with) is that tRump does not have the temperament or disposition to lead the U.S. And this concerns many people besides Scottie.

                As for the protests — you seem to think those that happened before tRump was sworn in were pointless. Is there some unwritten law that says people are required to have a “qualified reason” before they can gather and express their feelings? As for the vandalism and other activities, I tend to agree with Scottie that this often takes place when the “gestapo” police get involved. There are ways to control crowds without using “riot” tactics.

                Liked by 1 person

    • Sorry Scottie. The misunderstanding is not my problem it’s yours. Just so you know where I am coming from, I rely on dictionaries to determine the meaning of words.
      1) Conforming to the law or to rules: ‘his claims to legitimate authority’
      2) Able to be defended with logic or justification; valid
      3) Constituting or relating to serious drama as distinct from musical comedy, revue, etc.

      “While it is true that the person who won the electoral college is now president and nothing can change that. It also is not the meaning some of us use when we say he is not legitimate. When I use that term I mean he is not qualified…”

      Then you’re using the wrong meaning of the word legitimate. The word you are looking for is unqualified, not illegitimate. Please refer to the dictionary definition I have posted here. I said this to you before and I will say it to you again. You are confusing the words and concepts of legitimacy with popularity and competency. If you think he’s incompetent, say so. If you think he’s an unpopular buffoon, say so. He’s not illegitimate. I hope this will help you clear up your thinking on that matter.


      • OK, Ashley we disagree. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. He is illegitimate for many reasons, one of which is he is not qualified and so can’t legitimately the president. He is not qualified because he is unfit. Please try not to be so overbearingly insufferable as to tell me what I mean. Now I am not pedantic. I don’t live in a world like that. You seem to. I don’t intend to spend the next two weeks arguing with you just because you like to argue. I said that before to you. I have had my say, I heard your say several times, we don’t agree, we won’t agree. I have no need to make you agree with me no more than I have a need to make Mike agree with me. He has his view and I have mine. However we can agree to get along by not chewing on each other every time we see each or we can ignore each other. You call. Hugs


        • You say I like to argue. That may be true, but my utmost concern is for what’s true. I’ve tried several times to convey to you what the meaning of the word legitimate is. You choose to ignore it and make up your own definition. It’s not a matter of opinions and it’s got nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. Meanings of words matter. The word legitimate has a meaning. You can disagree with me all you like. I have the facts on my side. Calling Trump an illegitimate President is flat out UNTRUE. You don’t seem to care about that. I do.


          • Ashley: I have tried several times to show you the progression from unfit to unqualified to illegitimate. I am so glad you live in a totally black and white world. I live in one that has many shades of grey and even colors. I am using reasoning and a less than pedantic meaning of words. You want to argue until you brow beat someone to agree with you. Sorry. tRump is president. However he is not qualified as he is unfit and so we should never have gotten to the point we are at. Legally he is the president, in any other sense he is not legitimate. That is not just my view, but the view of a lot of other people. Now if you care so much about truth, please attend to the entire tRump administration’s recent new catch phrase “alternate truth”. Surely all those lies and misdirections and out right non sequiturs must have got your interest? Have fun. Hugs


            • I’ve said repeatedly that I can’t stand Trump, that he’s an idiot, he’s a liar, he’s a bullshit artist, he’s a con man. He makes “facts” conform to his world view rather than the other way around. But then again, so do you. At least that’s one thing the two of you have in common. Have it your way Scottie. Oxford dictionary be damned. Illegitimate means unpopular, it means unfit, hell, it means whatever you want it to mean. And how do you know you’re right? A lot of other people are using it the same way. Therefore it must be true.


              • It’s OK. THe word was not important. It is the idea of making him an illegitimate president. That is how all this started, with the idea that even though PResident Obama was a legal president with a verified large election margin the Republicans in congress did everything they could to make his presidency illegitimate. I think you must remember our conversation on it, I mentioned how the republicans stole the court seat, how they took obstruction to a new level. THey used the willing fox news and right wing talk radio to help convince an entire class of people that the very things they needed were against their best interest. I still remember how the Arizona Governor Jan Brewer though it was her place to school the PResident of the US on the tarmac of an airport by waving her finger in his face and telling him what was what like you would an errant kid. She wouldn’t have done that to George Bush or any other white President. * side note… I love how many people I have seen online saying they won’t have their health care cut because they use the ACA and the republicans are eliminating Obama care* The word is accurate for the purpose it is being used for. You mentioned at the time how it was childish to keep such a thing going from congress to congress. However it seem only when a republican is in the white house do the republicans say that we must get along, give benefit of the doubt, and not have investigations. Yes that was what the republicans demanded when Bush became president after they had done all the could to block and investigate Bill Clinton. The democrats in congress gave in and tried to work with them. However as soon as President Obama won the election all that good will and working together went right out the window. They decided to ruin him before he even took office. They are proud of that. Now that a republican is again in office they want all that forgotten and want everyone to give them everything they want. As I said to you before, they are bullies who will not learn until what they do to others is done to them. When they get tired of it , they will think twice before doing it again. One last thing on this whole word use issue. I never once tried to get you guys to agree with the word I was using, only the progression of the reasons to feel that way. Ashley, Ron , and you Mike have tried very hard to insist I use a different word. I don’t care what you think the word means. It doesn’t bother me if you use it or another one. I couldn’t get through to you on your very unreasonable ideas about Hillary Clinton, and this is the same. You had a blind spot on her, you did not seem to be vocal in objection of what the republicans were doing to President Obama. SO you use what ever word you prefer and I and those who feel like me will continue to say tRump is illegitimate and do all we can to get the democrats in office to make him so in reality just as was done to President Obama. Hope this clears everything up. Now I have a question. Did you read the comment I was writing and trying to finish up this morning when you kept writing in to ask if you were either in mod or blocked or if I was ignoring you? Have a great night. Hugs


              • This probably won’t see the light of day since WordPress is blocking me, but I think your comment to Scottie (“irrational gibberish”) is uncalled for. He has his opinions and it’s his right to express them. You don’t agree with what he says. Fine. But since you’ve opened up your blog to him, why make insults when he expresses how he sees things?


              • Mike I have explained it over and over. I even gave you an example. Think of the last 8 years of total obstruction, attempts to deny the President anything he tried to do even if the obstructing party wanted it. If you have not gotten what I am saying by now saying it again won’t help. You say words matter, I say actions matter more. You keep saying you think I am being irrational and such, but I think you have a huge blind spot where this subject is concerned. Hugs


              • Sadly Mike this is where you are wrong. This is entirely about the republican party’s actions and the way they don’t want others to act as they do. Thank you for being so open minded as to be insulting. I doubt anything I can say would get through to you at this point. You said at one point you did not want to deal with this yet you keep bring it up? I don’t see any reason to keep repeating the same words over and over on the same subject. I wish you well. In time I hope you will see what is clearly in front of you. Till then I feel there is little to be gained by beating this really dead horse. Hugs


              • And if trumps followers were rioting in the street, shooting people and throwing concrete at cops, plotting political revenge if they had lost the election? What would be your opinion then?


              • I have already addressed the protestors and the actions of a minor few who are causing the problems. The right to peaceful protest is in the constitution and I support it, as I think you should. I am not going to address what I already have twice. As for plotting political revenge, are you serious? Did you seriously not know about the meeting held by top republicans in congress right after Pres. Obama was elected where the republican leadership vowed to do all the could to make him a 1 term president and to obstruct everything he wanted regardless if it was good for the country or not. Really Mike, this was done. What was your opinion then. Were you vocal about wanting the republicans to accept with good graces the new democratic president? Did you write posts telling people to not be childish and to give the new president a chance, to wait and see what happened? You really are partisan and one sided. I had thought better of you. Going to bed now. I hope you are done trying to see how many ways we can both repeat what we have said, but if not I will respond when I get up in the morning. Hugs


              • This is still not about Obama or the Republicans. You’re still making excuses and justifying your tantrum. I hope you eventually follow Hillary’s advice ‘we owe him a chance’


              • And I think you and trum0 may have more in common than you think. You both can act like 12 yr Olds in grown men’s bodies. Temper tantrums are childish


        • Interestingly Sam Harris described Trump as a 12 year old child masquerading in the body of a grown man.

          I think many Trump critics are making mistakes focussing on his ‘ideology’, Trump is not ideological, rather it is his temperament that is the issue.


  11. I do claim that most protesters were peaceful. I make this claim based on the news I watched. I watched the actual footage of the protests. In fact at one of the spots that became violent it was not until the police started using force to move protesters from where they were allowed to be further down the road, again by use of force, flash devices, pepper spray and rubber bullets that the violence toward the police broke out. If I had been organizing the demonstration I would have tried to find someway to identify if the people doing the vandalism were out side agitators to make the demonstrators look bad. It has been suggested that some were. As there were republican operatives who tried to get democrats to interrupt the inauguration it is not an unreasonable question. I just looked online and the “The Young Turks” network has some very good videos of the protests. Hugs


    • The violence seems to have been the protests on the 20th not the 21st. When folk turn up wearing ski masks you can be assured they intend to make trouble, no doubt they were a minority, it may be that some people just get an adrenaline rush being anarchists. A few years back there was a study of soccer hooligans and the researchers were staggered to find the typical hooligan was just as likely to be an investment banker as an unemployed youth.

      I must admit I can’t abide the Young Turks, I got sick of them always apologising for bad islamic behaviour, I now refuse to watch them. There was a story about a year ago when Muslim immigrants in Germany molested hundreds of young women on News Year Eve, so the Young Turks used it as a basis to attack the ‘rape culture’ of white americans (just appalling journalism).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hello Peter. On the TYT I can understand. I also got tired of the constant “Bernie walks on water and hillary is the devil” story line the still hold too. Even today I will shut down a story if they get into that. I also have to cut short stories that go too far into the “Anti Money” bais they have. That said I do think they do report some stories well. I think that when they park their bias they can do good work, and often in a detail other news sources won’t go into. I like the detail. Most new sources simply give a overview and then move on.

        The Islam thing is a separate topic I would love to chat with you on sometime. However to just quickly cover the subject, I think it is far more varied and more nuanced than most people want to see in it. When I talk to people who see no good in Muslims I often tell the story of good Muslims, when people say all Muslims are good I tell stories of bad things done by Muslims. My point is they are individuals just as people of other faiths are. OK, off to start emails. I got way behind again. I have to find a better way to deal with emails. 🙂 Hugs


        • Scottie this is a bit of a tangent but it is a fascinating discussion on communication between Neil deGrasse Tyson and Sam Harris:

          Just wish there were more folk like deGrasse Tyson. Sam Harris is brilliant and very clear thinker but is misunderstood by so many critics.

          Liked by 1 person

    • The Young Turks?! Good Lord! That’s the left equivalent of Breitbart news. If you want to watch a clueless Islamic-apologist moron make unending excuses for the behavior of some jihadi that just yelled Allahu Akbar as he shot up a night club full of gay people, that’s the channel for you.
      P.S. I just turned on Fox news yesterday and I found out that Donald Trump is the best president ever.


      • OH Ashley. I said the TYT had video…. hard to lie too much with the video clearly showing what was happening. Also interviews with the people right there. Be well. Also I don’t recall TYT haveing anything but contempt for the thug who shot up the night club Pulse. In fact they were very critical of him. However he was not a radical Muslim in anyway. Hugs


  12. Mike I just realized this response to your comment when to a post on my blog instead of the many time here you asked me if I was ignoring you. Here is the comment I wrote to respond to you. So that others can see and understand the back and forth. Be well. Hugs

    OK, good morning Mike. You should know my policy on deleting comments and on moderation, we did talk about this the last time you questioned it. To refresh your memory. I only delete or block a comment if it is personally insulting to someone in a vulgar way. Not for content, but intent. I also moderate all comments as it cuts down on spam and anti gay messages some people think I really want to see.
    Now as to the speed of which your comment is addressed. I went to bed early last night before any of your comments came in. I had not gotten more than 2 hours sleep in the last two nights prior due to my pain levels being out of control. I woke up early at five and started to read after taking a set of medications. I noticed your comment then. I decided to cut my normal routine short to answer you. So you know my normal morning starts about 7:30 to 8 AM. I then take my first set of pain / nerve / muscle medications. I stay in bed for several hours to give them time to fully activate and go through my system. I use the time to read and spend time with my cats. IF I get up too early without giving time for the meds to work I take a great chance of falling and doing more damage. I also am in a lot more pain until they work.
    Now out of respect I have been avoiding your blog. You gave the distinct impression that to protect your emotional sanity you prefer not to read anything from me. You stated such and decided to protect yourself you had to unfollow. Not wishing to ever harm anyone needlessly I agreed and withdrew myself. I did not agree the step was needed as I felt you should have been able to deal with differences of opinion without the need of such protection, but if you do you do. I even went so far as to ignore a comment from Peter which I did wish to answer, however as I don’t feel it proper to go to someone’s place unwanted and cause them distress and upset I refrained. As you specifically have called me out when I get done answering you I will answer Peter. One thing I would caution, it is easy to see the perceived faults in others, much harder to see them in ourselves. Now on to your question.
    Legally he has no requirement as you say. That is not to say he shouldn’t do it. It is not a fishing expedition as you say. It is a legitimate concern the people have about his foreign entanglements. You should know there is a big difference between being required to do something and the idea you should do something. No matter if it be societal norms or simply the “right” thing to do. Rendering aid to those who are injured or hurt is not legally required in most cases but it is the right thing, the moral thing, to do. There was a recent case where a man stood by and ……………….
    Gods you impatient much !! Give a person time to answer before you keep asking .
    …… and watched a person being harmed. The judge ruled the man had no legal compulsion to act even though he was a scum for not doing so.
    The precedent of releasing tax returns is there for a good reason. Also we know there are questions about tRump and family using their new status to help their business interest. Foreign governments have released records of phone conversations where his business was discussed. Also there is a question of whether other governments might have a means of pressuring him to do what they wish, not what is best for the US.
    I am going to proof read this, and it will take time as it is long. You had an unreasonable attitude towards H. Clinton which no one could shake, and you refused to discuss in the end. Now you want everyone to do what you wouldn’t do which is to look at things objectively, without emotion, and to give the benefit of the doubt. To basically play nice with the bully who won’t return the same concderation to any others. I think the actions of the last few days should convince you of both his being unfit for office and his inability to put the country ahead of his own emotions. Be well. Hugs


Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s