Posted on Nov 11, 2016
If more people were employed, would there be less people protesting and demonstrating?
13.2K
159
100
16
16
0
Posted in these groups: 
Protest
Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton
Office of the President (POTUS)
Election 2016
Protest Donald Trump Hillary Clinton Office of the President (POTUS) Election 2016
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 27
13
13
0
They ARE employed to a great extent as paid protesters (thanks to Soros). The rest are no more than useful idiots.
(13)
(0)
SGT Damaso V Santana
There will always be the "USEFUL IDIOTS" as Lenin and Stalin used to call them.
(2)
(0)
SPC James Anderson
Looting, destruction of personal property, violence against the police, false imprisonment, why do we keep calling these protests? I believe Riot is the correct term. Protests are organized activities that do not infringe on other peoples rights.
(3)
(0)
9
9
0
Capt Chris McVeigh
"Clear" is easily open to interpretation. If you look at the votes, it really came down to less than 100,000 people in a couple swing states. That is far from a landslide election particularly since one candidate won the electoral college and one won the popular vote. That could easily be seen as an unclear outcome. And none of that changes the numerous times he voiced opinions on the "rigging"/fairness of the election.
(2)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Capt Chris McVeigh - Are you serious? Popular vote has nothing to do with it or Al Gore would have been president. Trump beat her like a rented mule when the legal process of electors were counted. When that is close talk to me.
(2)
(0)
Capt Chris McVeigh
I know exactly how the election works and that popular vote doesn't influence who is elected....the point was that when you talk about a "clear" election, losing the popular vote does not make it clear (see the exact election you cited and how confused that one got, you can't tell me that was a clear one). It is literally losing one of the two ways to measure an election.
I'm not arguing for or against one side in this election, I'm just throwing out a perfectly valid interpretation of what was said during it. For some reason you are violently opposed to thoughts that you disagree with.
I'm not arguing for or against one side in this election, I'm just throwing out a perfectly valid interpretation of what was said during it. For some reason you are violently opposed to thoughts that you disagree with.
(2)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
To be clear, some Trump supporters, including an ex-Congressman, were threatening armed violence if Trump didn't win. Apparently you see nothing wrong with that.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
I think the employment status of the individuals involved have little to do with those engaging in the civil unrest. Let's be clear, we all have the right to protest in this country, but there is no right to riot. When the first window is broken, the first fire is set or the first person is assaulted, the breach of peace results in a law enforcement response and those continuing to engage are no longer lawfully assembled. The attitude of entitlement is the issue, otherwise if we were interested in solving social issues and injustices we would not see the "protesters" stealing ten pairs of tennis shoes and looting businesses.
(9)
(0)
SGT Jerrold Pesz
On the news this morning they showed a big convoy of buses delivering "protesters".
(1)
(0)
SGT Damaso V Santana
the only ones who will not see for what it is are the same people who Covered Up for hillary, the minions of state run media and the governmental agencies running interference for her.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google