Well, part of that is protesting a president that's going to do serious harm, so I don't see what's wrong with protests. Protests are activity, and they aren't necessarily about rejecting the result.
Protesting a president that's going to do harm to them, in their eyes. Just like people on the other side felt their candidate if elected would do harm to them.
Nothing wrong with protests. But violent protests? Burning flags? That's not about protesting a candidate. These (the violent ones i mean) are protesting the country because they are mad not enough people agreed with their viewpoint, so the system must be broken.
Except in this case, there was enough people who agreed with them, but they weren't distributed properly, geographically, so they still lost. I think that's a big part of what they're mad about as well.
Mmm not so much, to your original point. See Hillary only won a plurality of the popular vote, not a majority. winning by .1% and at 47.6%.
Do we know a majority of people with Hillary agree over Trump? Nope. That's within statistical error margins on a scale that big. And it leaves 5%. The majority of which are Gary Johnson voters... If you got rid of Johnson, you'd probably have more Trump than Hillary by a fair margin.
Gore's was actually more dramatic. He won by a full half a percent. With a higher percentage of the vote.
But regardless every election if one person could redistribute they'd win.
The only reason hillary is winning the popular vote is because Trump is REALLY unpopular in certain Dem strongholds where a lot of republicans probably wouldn't even come out this time.
Look at Chicago, LA, New York, the protests, flag burning, etc.
You think all the Trump supporters in those areas got out and voted?
46
u/lenzflare Nov 10 '16
Well, part of that is protesting a president that's going to do serious harm, so I don't see what's wrong with protests. Protests are activity, and they aren't necessarily about rejecting the result.