Your editorial Feb. 5, “Trump’s foes pay the high price of losing” isn’t being considerate of the rights of his “foes.” The sub heading read, “Those opposing president should focus less on protest marches, more on winning votes.”
“Those” have a right to protest just as they have a right to vote win or lose. Protests are traditional forms of expression to things one may or may not agree with, so why should an irrational appeal to tradition be implied? People shouldn’t become a mockery for their expressions. Protests have been present with every election.
The people don’t seem to be faulting Donald Trump, but rather upset, as they also have a right. Many people rely on hope in many situations, so the protests demonstrate a continued feeling of hope. To reference what one should and shouldn’t be doing as well as feelings is a clear indication of irrational appeal to emotion.
The last part of this editorial states, “What’s on the scoreboard is all that counts. Read it and weep.” That’s an insult to people’s right to feelings. Just as the Super Bowl was referenced in comparison to some aspects of the election, and before the outcome would be known in this editorial, supporters of either team have a right to their feelings toward their team. Now we can all can say the Patriots won, but it wouldn’t be right to discredit the Falcons’ effort. Just like with voters their voices still have a right to be heard and their effort shouldn’t be discredited.
Rather than making unwarranted assumptions and meaningless statements on what voters or “Democrats” need to be doing, then in another part of the article you acknowledge the rights of those who marched but speak on why protesters should put signs down and win elections. This is a double standard.
You also reference those “who don’t get to vote here,” in other words stereotyping the millions globally who protested. The better approach would be to uplift working together and giving our new president a chance. Although things may not be what one party wants over the next, it’s OK to stand up for what one believes and express concern.
Where’s the evidence to support if the continued protest will not impact some of the orders? If people want to continue to protest, respect their right. Think about those in history who protested and eventually influenced change. No, people cannot change the president, but just maybe their protests will impact decisions to some extent. Hasty conclusions don’t provide hope. People deserve a feeling of hope.
While the president can back up his orders with reason, the statement in this article, “These four years are going to be a wild ride, as we all knew Nov. 9.” Who can say what we all knew? Wouldn’t you agree “Trump’s foes” understand their First Amendment right just as their right to vote? Ultimately what we knew or didn’t know and what happened or didn’t happen, protest are to remain a respected right.