Large Anti-Trump Protest in Downtown Denver Thursday Night

Numbers for tonight’s protest against President-elect Donald Trump in downtown Denver are by all accounts well into the thousands:

20161110_184602 20161110_184541 20161110_184521

FOX31 reports:

Thousands of protesters marched from the Capitol to Colfax and Broadway and then west on the 16th Street Mall. They ended up going back around to Speer Boulevard at the Convention Center.

Police worked to keep everyone safe by closing streets to traffic as the large group moved. It was described as peaceful and orderly.

A protest rally also took place in Boulder Thursday night.

This scene played out in cities across America for a second night in a row…

These protests appear to be growing, not shrinking, as the shock over Trump’s surprise election Tuesday night converts to anger among the majority of American voters who did not vote for him. And apparently some who did, not expecting him to actually win. It’s not the first time the Electoral College and the popular vote have been in conflict, but with Trump, there is a sense of much greater offense being taken.

Are you there? Vicariously? What happens next?


38 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. kwtreemamajama55 says:

    What happens next? Elizabeth Warren on Maddow tonight:

    "You can curl up in a ball, you can move to Canada, or you can stand up and fight back." Volunteer, march. That's where I stand.



    • Civics101 says:

      Elizabeth Warren said, "Trump brought a kind of bigotry to the fore that we have never seen so publicly before in our politics."  Obviously, she has conveniently over looked the first 140 years of the Democratic Party. 

      Andrew Jackson ignored the decision of the SCOTUS affirming the sovereignty of the Cherokee nation, in Georgia, and authorized the Indian Removal Act of 1830, thus creating the infamous "Trail of Tears." 

      The Ku Klux Klan was founded by southern Democrats bent on blocking the Reconstruction.  Jim Crow laws were passed by Democratic state legislators throughout the South.  Lynchings were proxy terror tools used by state and local Democratic officeholders to keep blacks from registering to vote as Republicans. 

      FDR supported the interment of Japanese-Americans who were American citizens during WWII.  Democratic governors — Wallace, Maddox, Forbis — advocated segregation and took steps to block blacks from attending white high schools and state universities. 91 House Democrats voted against the Senate amended final version of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  (Only 35 GOP House members did.) 

      Despite candidate Barack Obama's campaign promise to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill, in the first year of his administration, not a single immigration bill was brought forth during the first two years of his presidency, even though the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. 

      Now, disgruntled liberals threaten to move to Canada.  Canada?  Not one of them expressed their desire to move to Mexico.  I wonder why?

      Senator Warren may find Trump's words racist, but her party has a long history of documented racism that she chooses to conveniently forget. 



      • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

        Nice selective history lesson there, hotshot. Your goal of slamming Democrats now fulfilled, why don't we talk about the "Nixon strategy" and the "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon, wherein the Republican party recruited, embraced, and promoted both the blatant and covert racism of the "Dixiecrats' and turned them into staunch Republicans.

        Perhaps you should change your username to "CivicsGOP"…

        or, better still, tell us who you are and your username won't be such a joke.

        • Civics101 says:

          I'd say it was a pretty accurate history lesson, Duke.  What points did I raise that you found to be inaccurate?

          Unlike Democrats, Republicans did not engage in displacing, jailing, or murdering people to keep them from voting and influencing the status quo.  I am aware of Goldwater's "States Rights" campaign in 1964 and Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968 (although the liberal chaos at the Democratic National Convention probably influenced the outcome of that presidential election more.)  I am unclear about your reference — and relevance — of Reagan Democrats though.

          CivicsGOP would be inaccurate.  I once was a pro-life Democrat until the party purged them.  The Casey father-son team of Pennsylvania, were my Democratic heroes.  I still contribute to the Pro-Life Democrats.

          In Colorado, I am mostly unaffiliated, but I do affiliate with the GOP so I can vote in their primaries, since most Democrats seem to be adverse to having a primary at all.  I switch back to Unaffiliated after the primary,

          In case someone missed it, in one of my previous posts, I did not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.  I voted for Gary Johnson only because I considered it to be my protest regarding the abysmal candidates that the Republicans and Democrats chose as their respective standard bearer. 

          John Kasich, Marco Rubio, or Jim Webb would have been my preference.  I'm still not sure that Trump is a Republican and Democrats oddly decided to duplicate the GOP blunder of nominating the "next man up" for president because it was "his turn."  Democrats learned the female version of this game is equally disastrous… although Clinton may have dragged down some of her party's congressional candidates as well. 

          Civics101 is appropriate because I have taught civics and/or history and/or political science at the middle school, high school, and community college levels for 30 years.  I probably have become more conservative with age.

          What galls me here is seeing the enormous liberal bias here… sometimes to the point of absurdity.  Generally speaking, as soon as I see a liberal resort to name calling, I know they really do not have a legitimate point to offer.  I saw enough of that with middle school students!  

          One thing that is very apparent, on Colorado Pols, is that liberals are far less tolerant than conservatives.  If nothing else, my presence here gives this site some balance, which it sorely needs.

      • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

        Now, disgruntled liberals threaten to move to Canada.  Canada?  Not one of them expressed their desire to move to Mexico.  I wonder why? 

        Gosh…who could imagine? You don't suppose it might have something to do with having to learn a different language…? nah, couldn't be. So if a person moves to Canada and doesn't choose to move to Quebec, it is because they don't like the French, right?…or could it be they just don't want to learn to speak it?

        Whataya think there, CivicsGOP?

        • Civics101 says:

          What do I think?

          High profile liberals, especially the Hollywood set, wouldn't dream of living in warm, sunny Mexico with people unlike them.

          Lots of Americans choose to retire to Lake Chapala outside of Guadalajara.  It is supposed to be the largest contingent of Americans living outside of the United States.  Language must not be a problem for them.

          Besides, if Mike Coffman can learn Spanish, surely the liberal elite can!   laugh

  2. itlduso says:

    I just heard from my daughter that there were pro-Trump protestors outside a Jewish synagogue in Denver.  The preschool where she works had to call the police because they were frightening the four year olds.  Is this really happening?

  3. Andrew Carnegie says:

    What is Fauxcahontus going to fight about?

    She lost. Grow up.

  4. MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

    Lest we forget…

  5. itlduso says:

    ICYMI. — Let the uneducated have their day.  Check out the last lines of Gasrrison Keiler's piece in the DP:


    The past year of politics has taught us absolutely nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. The future is scary. Let the uneducated have their day. I am now going to pay more attention to teachers.

    • Civics101 says:

      You'd be better off listening to your parents. They know more.

      • kwtreemamajama55 says:

        Yeah, that's what some of my students say, too….while they insist that clowns are marauding in small towns, ISIS plans a "purge" on the day of the election, that all Muslims are terrorists, and all the women accusing Trump of groping are paid frauds. If you listen to Fox News enough, the world is a strange and marvelous place.

  6. Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

    When they set themselves on fire I'll consider it as a protest of substance. Otherwise it's just another occasion for kids to hook up for casual sex.

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      Once again Powerful Prune misses the mark. It's far too early to even begin to know for sure how things will shake out. As a Republican, I can see some good things ahead, particularly on the fiscal front.

      I also see potentially bad shit as attacks may start on womens' reproductive rights; separation of church and state; and attacks on keeping our public lands in public hands. I consider myself as a true conservative. I'll support the good stuff; and strongly oppose the bad stuff, through various contacts and channels that I already have.

      • JeffcoDemoJeffcoDemo says:

        On the fiscal front, I hope you don't mean like Kansas?  Isn't that the Blueprint?

        • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

          Brownback is on the shortlist for Ag Secretary. He's being thrown a lifeline ala Pence. After the hostile takeover over of the Kansas legislature by the moderates, Sam is looking for an exit. 

      • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

        OK, CHB. I can't resist. Some good things on the fiscal front?  He wants a massive infrastructure bill passed along with a tax cut. What could possibly go wrong? Don't misread my comment, I look forward to the passage of an infrastructure bill that (if Melania'a speeches are any indicator) will be identical to the one proposed by Obama the last six years. The upside? Trump wants it. The Dems want it. He'll hold McConnell and Ryan hostage to get it with or without them. 

        How do you pet a rattlesnake?  VERY carefully. 

    • kwtreemamajama55 says:

      And you know this from personal experience, or….??????

  7. Les Ismore says:

    Huge crowd marching peacefully through the streets. Denver police were incredible, keeping a respectful distance but protecting the marchers in traffic leap-frogging to close streets in advance of the march

    • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

      That's great. Where were they on Tuesday? The Millenials were the most underrepresented demographic. Now they bitch about it. Sorry, not much sympathy for them. As I always say, "Didn't vote? Don't bitch."


      • Les Ismore says:

        Yes, many young folks and many folks like me and believe me, I am far from being a millenial

      • kwtreemamajama55 says:

        You're making a lot of assumptions in your quest to find someone to blame for this hurtful electoral loss.

        1. You're assuming that the marchers in the streets were all or mostly millenials.

        2. You're assuming that the marchers were millenials who didn't vote.

        3. Donald J Trump assumes that the marchers in the streets were "paid Professional protesters" who were "incited by the media".

        The intrepid Democracy Now reporters did interview some protesters, and they do look to be mostly in the millenial age range. They are diverse ethnically.

        My guess is that your #1 assumption is probably correct, but your #2 assumption is about as valid as the Drumpfsters #3. These young people care enough to risk jail or injury to protest in the streets; it's pretty damn likely that they were engaged enough to vote and to work for a candidate.

        I'm an "all of the above" activist. I'm old enough to remember fighting for legal abortion and against the Vietnam war. It took people working inside and outside of the system, raising hell in the streets, occupying university offices, running for office, arguing in courtrooms, working elections, boycotting stuff and buying stuff and inventing new stuff, speaking at legislatures, teaching, theater and art and music before Roe v Wade and before the US pulled out of Vietnam.

  8. IndependentProgressiveIndependentProgressive says:

    Look, I'm a revolutionary … we need a multi-party system in this country; California, Oregon, Washington seceding is a worthy idea; the top marginal tax income tax rate ought to be 90 percent; we need an Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution, etc.

    But frankly, these protests are just whiny losers who ought to be angry at a corporatized, arrogant Democratic Party that let them down hugely with all their Goldman Sachs candidates. If they want to protest, they ought to be in front of Hickenlooper's mansion, the state Democratic Party HQ, the Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck law firm, etc. In other words the forces that enabled a Trump victory.

    But I guess this is part of the "grieving process" for those who really aren't mature enough for politics. (Yes, I am angry at a system that puts two horrible candidates for POTUS before us … and especially so-called liberals who end-up supporting oligarchs just because they have a 'D' behind their names.)

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      Echoing Michael Bowman's comment yesterday, I believe, I wonder how many of these protestors around the country actually voted. Clinton lost PA by 1 percentage point; Wisconsin by 1 percentage point; and Michigan by .3%; 46 electoral votes there that put Trump over the top. 

      "top marginal income tax rate ought to be 90%……"  Yeah, right, take from those earn their money and give it to those who don't want to work. 

      "CA, OR, WA seceding is a worthy idea……"  Already happened in fiction. Read Ernest Callenbach's 1970s novel, "Ecotopia." 

    • Civics101 says:

      Independent Progressive was right on the mark about protestors not even recognizing who they should be protesting against.  The Democratic Party did rig the nomination process for Hillary and I'm sure some of these protestors then opted to not vote.  As President Barack Obama once said, "Elections have consequences." 

      Protesting the results of a legitimate election will get them nowhere.  We are not some third world nation that overturns democratic elections by riots.  These young protestors will not change the outcome of the election.   If nothing else, they are driving more Americans to the conservative side of the political divide.

      People need to stop whining about the popular vote.  It has never been a factor in any presidential election.  The Electoral College is not going away.  It is in the U.S. Constitution because smaller population states insisted on it.  They still do today.

      • IndependentProgressiveIndependentProgressive says:

        The proof is in the statistics … 53 percent of white women voted against Hillary and  hundreds of thousands of Democrats didn't find her worth going to the polls for. Anger at this loss is correctly directed at a Democratic Party establishment that is so out-of-touch with "ordinary, average guys" that Trump came across as being more attuned to their frustrations and needs than the Democratic Party candidate! Think about that … it is a profound realization that must be acted upon.

        • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

          And yet she's going to win the popular vote by a wider margin that Nixon and Kennedy.  I'm not dismissing your claims, but the 'white women' stat doesn't surprise me at all, particularly given the turnout from my people. I hope the DNC will reorganize…stat…and that it begins to look more like the America we live in and conscious of the real struggles that exist in both urban and rural areas. What should scare the shit out of the DNC is if there actually is another Donald Trump. One that shows up on Capitol Hill, proposed massive infrastructure spending (just like Obama wanted but couldn’t get support from Republicans) thumbs his nose at McConnell, peels off the Republicans in the middle and gets the support of Democrats. If he does that, finds a way to keep his mouth shut and puts a lot of people back to work – mid-terms could be more problematic than we’d hope.

          I think Secretary Vilsack and his agencies did a good job of administering the programs available to them.  But to be honest, the projects we needed (bio-refineries, a massive distributed generation build-out for example) required the acquiescence of a Republican-controlled Congress – the very Congress who vowed to block 100% of the Obama agenda. 

          • Civics101 says:

            And yet she's going to win the popular vote by a wider margin that Nixon and Kennedy.

            Hillary can frame that and hang it over her fireplace in New York. 

            Like every other presidential election, in the history of the United States, the national popular vote doesn't mean anything.  That was the intent of the Founding Fathers when they created the U.S. Constitution.  Each state — especially the small population ones — wanted to make sure the voice of its people meant something.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.