Why were they protesting at all on the night he won the election? He hadn't taken up office yet and there was nothing he had done yet to 'hold him to account'. It really was an anti democratic case of 'sour grapes'
He hadn't done anything yet as president, but he had done plenty as a candidate and as a person. There was already
tons to protest. Here's a list.
1. Lying constantly, pushing made up facts, pushing baseless conspiracy theories (birtherism et al).
2. Supporting war crimes (torture, killing families of terrorists)
3. Conflicts of interest. Still has not divested from business interests or released tax returns, despite promises.
4. Attitude towards immigrants. Promises of a border wall.
5. Attitude towards women.
6. Attitude towards science and the environment. Assertion that climate change is a "Chinese hoax".
7. General meanness towards anyone who said something he doesn't like.
8. Support of Russian interference in elections. Possibly even collusion (though still not proven).
These are just off the top of my head. I'm sure I missed some. I can flesh them out with specifics on request.
I can get why you would protest awful and ill conceived decisions or illegal activity. But to protest because your side lost is ridiculous and anti democratic.
Yes, that is exactly what people are protesting: awful and ill conceived decisions and possibly illegal activity. They are not protesting just because "their side" lost. See above list.
It set the tone and revealed their true agenda and is now hard for them to take seriously. Are they protesting because they don't like Trump or are they protesting for legitimate concerns? The lines have now been blurred
legitimate concerns. See above list.
The media certainly loves to fan the flames because its great click bait. Over here the media is very lop sided and almost praises protesters that turn ugly as if they are noble and 'fighting the good fight' and find a way to make it Trumps fault.
I believe you could also thank the media for Trumps win. People are fed up of being 'told' how to think. You can hardly find an organisation that reports unbiased journalism these days. In fact, I don't think there are any journalists left. Most 'news' are now opinion pieces.
Try these: apnews.com, reuters.com, c-span.org
The other way the media helped was essentially 'telling' everyone that the election was in the bag for Hillary and that Trump had zero chance of winning. This would only make Hillarys job in trying to get her supporters out to vote (why should they, she's a sure win) and rally Trump voters to vote for him.
Those celebrities throwing themselves at Hillary did not do her any favours to help getting her voter base to the polls.
The media would do well next time to stay unbiased, report only on the verified facts and stay out of it. Celebrities should probably just stay out of politics all together.
I agree that the media coverage in general was awful and bears part of the blame. Celebrities can speak for themselves. Some are smart and some are dumb. They should be judged on an individual basis.
You also had Madonna promising a blow job to everyone who would vote for Hillary. Real classy (so much for Michelle Obamas 'when they go low, we go high' speech. Madonnas went below the belt - literally lol
I seriously doubt Michelle Obama had anything to do with Madonna's comments. You know that the "left" isn't one giant monolithic organism, right? Michelle and Madonna are in fact two different people.
Poll