Saw this and it made me think
"Imagine if Trump supporters had shut down major metro areas after a "historic" Hillary win? Media would destroy them."
My thoughts...absolutely true. The media would be all over such events. During the election we heard that there was a shooting at a polling place in California and that was scary since I was at my precinct from 6AM to 8PM. Turns out it was totally unrelated to the election. Still, rumors flew and I don't know know how this was reported on election day. We all feared it, but it didn't happen.
Then the election ended and I was surprised as anyone. It was a possibility, but honestly after 2012 the idea of any of the upper midwest or PA flipping was just such a will-o-wisp that I figured it would never actually happen. Then again, the coal country went to Trump for a reason. Free trade agreements are a net positive, but for parts of the US they are a negative. Yes, it might be better everywhere for plants to move to Mexico, or parts to be shipped in...but for those that lose their jobs? For the coal miner who see their job disappear and as a result the shopkeeper has less business? Free trade proponents for too long ignored those issues and Trump gave them a voice and a person to vote for that they feel will actually make their lives better. Him not being a politician actually makes people think he is better equipped because they know that the politicians track record is constant lies to them to get their votes and they are forgotten after election day.
Then I see this video of a group of black teens beating a white man because he voted for Trump.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eff_1478768686
Then there is this person who said that it would take casualties on both sides before her side gets justice.
Much of her anger is just that...anger and she is able to express it and get it out and hopefully turn to positive action. It goes back to how this might have been covered if this was an angry white man who said that there would be violence and casualties because of Clinton's election? Would it get just a passing mention on the news or would the pundits talk breathlessly about how violence was incipient? I don't know, but I suspect it would be treated differently.
My thoughts...absolutely true. The media would be all over such events. During the election we heard that there was a shooting at a polling place in California and that was scary since I was at my precinct from 6AM to 8PM. Turns out it was totally unrelated to the election. Still, rumors flew and I don't know know how this was reported on election day. We all feared it, but it didn't happen.
Then the election ended and I was surprised as anyone. It was a possibility, but honestly after 2012 the idea of any of the upper midwest or PA flipping was just such a will-o-wisp that I figured it would never actually happen. Then again, the coal country went to Trump for a reason. Free trade agreements are a net positive, but for parts of the US they are a negative. Yes, it might be better everywhere for plants to move to Mexico, or parts to be shipped in...but for those that lose their jobs? For the coal miner who see their job disappear and as a result the shopkeeper has less business? Free trade proponents for too long ignored those issues and Trump gave them a voice and a person to vote for that they feel will actually make their lives better. Him not being a politician actually makes people think he is better equipped because they know that the politicians track record is constant lies to them to get their votes and they are forgotten after election day.
Then I see this video of a group of black teens beating a white man because he voted for Trump.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eff_1478768686
Then there is this person who said that it would take casualties on both sides before her side gets justice.
Click to viewMuch of her anger is just that...anger and she is able to express it and get it out and hopefully turn to positive action. It goes back to how this might have been covered if this was an angry white man who said that there would be violence and casualties because of Clinton's election? Would it get just a passing mention on the news or would the pundits talk breathlessly about how violence was incipient? I don't know, but I suspect it would be treated differently.