If we look at the election results, Trump handily won the EC count and was only behind 2.1% in the popular.
If if the tables were turned in regards to those votes, would liberals be as understandable if conservatives decided she was too reprehensible for them to attend the inauguration?
I mean, she only fares slightly better in the likability category.
Curtis 1911
Favorite Answer
If one finds the President-elect reprehensible, that is a legitimate reason to not attend the inauguration, unless the one is white or Republican and the reprehensible President-elect is a minority or democrat.
In such case not attending the inauguration is reprehensible or racist.
tribeca_belle
Yes. Why not? In fact, I believe that in an egregious case such as Trump, responsible citizens should participate in protests.
Hillary Clinton was not aided by Russia -- on the contrary. Hillary Clinton won more votes than Trump.
It is difficult to imagine the two situations turned around, but even if Hillary Clinton had won the electoral college votes but lost the popular vote, at least she would have done it without Russia's interference.
Nosmo
Mowing your lawn or painting the bathroom are "legitimate reasons" to not attend the inauguration, if you needed one. People saying they are skipping it, are just making a political statement, like the boycotters. Me, I have never watched an inauguration, even when my candidate won.
TheKitten
Of course.
Just because he managed to fool a sizeable proportion of the public, and roused the worst instincts of the other, doesn't make him any less unfit for the presidency.
In good conscience, you could not attend his inauguration if you saw him as unfit for office.
just
Sure. What's not legitimate is presenting a legal case and going on national news to tell people about it. That's defamation.
If someone is defending them self, that's not defamation because it's all in how each context was created.