Skip to main content

These anti-Trump protests are UNNECESSARY

And this is coming from someone who voted for Hillary Clinton.

The election is over. Done. Finished.

Donald Trump will be the 45th president of the United States, whether these protesters like it or not.

It's time we move on and end this bitter diviseness that has greatly fractured our country. While people have a right to feel dissatisfied with the outcome, holding protests does nothing to unify us as a country.

When Obama was elected in 2008, I don't remember seeing people marching on the streets, destroying property, and burning Obama in effigy.

We should be aiming to heal the wounds that this election has left, not aggravating them.

As long as the media pressing on with its reporting of these mass demonstrations, people's attention will continue to be diverted from the issues that really count -- the economy and terrorism among them.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton struck
a conciliatory tone in their speeches yesterday, with the former saying that we're all part of the same team.

I understand these protesters are exercising their right to free speech, but it's only been a day since Trump was declared the president-elect.

As Clinton noted, we owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.

Now that the Republicans are in control of Congress and the presidency, it's on them to implement changes that will improve the lot of struggling Americans. If they fail to do so, they may end up losing their grip on both houses in the midterm elections.

That's what makes living in a democratic society so wonderful: If we're unhappy with the state of the country, we the people oust the incumbent party from power. It happened in 2000, 2008, and now again in 2016.

Will the 70-year-old Trump get two terms in office? That remains to be seen. Until then, we should at least give Trump the chance to "make America great again."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do you have Isolophilia? Find out...

You're probably asking yourself, "What in the world does Isolophilia mean?" It sounds like it would be something negative, doesn't it?  After all, words that end in "philia" (e.g., pedophilia) tend to involve things we want nothing to do with. But Isolophilia isn't something all people deplore. In fact, introverts like me welcome it. Put simply, Isolophilia is defined as having a strong affinity for solitude. It describes a person who relishes being alone. While extroverts can only take so much solitude, we introverts find that it rejuvenates us. In order to recharge our batteries, we need to retreat to a quiet environment where we we're left alone to rest and/or gather our thoughts. Extroverts, on the other hand, become bored and drained when they're alone for a lengthy period of time. Social interaction is the fuel that drives them. So while an extrovert would probably do anything to avoid feelings of Isolophilia in most cases, an...

No response from someone IS a response

Make no mistake about it: When you don't get a response from someone -- whether they fail to answer your texts or return your phone calls -- it is  still a response, and a powerful one at that. When a person fails to respond, it's a direct reflection of their interest -- or lack thereof -- in the relationship. Few things are more aggravating than having to hound a partner, friend, or relative for some sort of reply after we've reached out to them. Yes, we get busy from time to time, but that doesn't give anyone the right to leave the other person hanging. A terse text with something like "Been busy, will reach out soon" doesn't say much, but at least it shows some effort to bring the other person up to speed on why they've fallen off the radar. Failing to provide a response for weeks -- if not months -- communicates that you are just not a priority, and that you'll have to wait your turn to get this individual's attention. This is n...

An important note to women about men and attraction

I was raised by my mom, grandma, and two older sisters.  Growing up, never did I ever take any interest in the girls at school who tended toward exposing more skin. I always treated them as I would my female family members -- with the utmost courtesy and respect.  And anytime I suspected that a male friend or acquaintance of mine adopted a hump-and-dump attitude toward women, I nixed them from my life. I held men who treated women as objects in very low regard, and still do to this day. If women feel empowered to show off their bodies because they love and work hard on their physique, more power to them. In other words, if they're doing it to please THEMSELVES and no one else, good for them.  However, those who do it specifically to curry men's favor are making a big mistake. It sends the wrong signals and actually makes it less likely that a man will want to stick around for a committed relationship (if that's what you want as anyway).  Granted, if you're not lookin...