Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#31

Post by ci5er »

michaelchisari wrote: post #2

This is truly unprecedented. For perspective, the largest march on DC during the Vietnam War was 500,000. Adjusted for population, that would be 784,411 people. Estimated crowd in DC on Saturday was 1.2 million. Nationwide, it was 3 million. Just one of the six Los Angeles area protests had 750,000 people. Even Witchita, Kansas had thousands. I've never seen anything like this, and it's just the beginning.

> I've never seen anything like this, and it's just the beginning.

Beginning of what? What do they want? I couldn't really distill a pattern in my mind from the signs I saw in Austin. There were marches world-wide, so I'm guessing it's more than "We hate Trump".

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#32

Post by dragonwriter »

Mao_Zedang wrote: post #3
michaelchisari wrote: post #2

This is truly unprecedented. For perspective, the largest march on DC during the Vietnam War was 500,000. Adjusted for population, that would be 784,411 people. Estimated crowd in DC on Saturday was 1.2 million. Nationwide, it was 3 million. Just one of the six Los Angeles area protests had 750,000 people. Even Witchita, Kansas had thousands. I've never seen anything like this, and it's just the beginning.

Honestly I am going to say its the end not the beginning, in four years, Trump will run again and maybe we will see another tantrum protest but at least for the next four years do not expect any great resistance or movement, the time for that is over.

> but at least for the next four years do not expect any great resistance or movement, the time for that is over.

Its certainly difficult to mobilize a mass political movement in the US without an imminent election and outside of the immediate aftermath of one, but the great and influential movements all were movements that managed to do that.

The time for a movement is not over. Whether it will hold together or not is, certainly, a thing about which there can be legitimate differences of opinion, but the signs I see suggest that there is something there.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#33

Post by dragonwriter »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #12
ufo wrote: post #7

The thing that is really confusing for me is how Trump managed to get elected despite all this opposition to him.

Because 3 million women motivated enough to protest doesn't outweigh 30 million women motivated enough to vote. The fact of the matter is Trump's support base is broader than his opposition - at least, in the states where it matters.

> The fact of the matter is Trump's support base is broader than his opposition

No, its not.

> at least, in the states where it matters.

Even there it likely isn't now -- even if it was in the most trivial sense on election day -- given the degree to which his support has fallen since then.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#34

Post by michaelchisari »

chuckit wrote: post #27
michaelchisari wrote: post #2

This is truly unprecedented. For perspective, the largest march on DC during the Vietnam War was 500,000. Adjusted for population, that would be 784,411 people. Estimated crowd in DC on Saturday was 1.2 million. Nationwide, it was 3 million. Just one of the six Los Angeles area protests had 750,000 people. Even Witchita, Kansas had thousands. I've never seen anything like this, and it's just the beginning.

What a shame they're not coming out in those sorts of numbers to protest the wars going on all over the world, drone killings, mass surveillance and so on.

Start organizing! There's a lot of momentum right now, and I'm sure you could get a lot of people on board.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#35

Post by gspetr »

snowwrestler wrote: post #26
aplomb wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly more than pocket change

Well, shoot, do you have an address or phone number for the Soros protest fund? My friends and I all paid out of our own pockets to go to the march and it would be nice to get reimbursement or something.

If I may ask, what exactly were you and your friends hoping to accomplish by participating? What were your goals?

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#36

Post by Mao_Zedang »

dragonwriter wrote: post #32
Mao_Zedang wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I am going to say its the end not the beginning, in four years, Trump will run again and maybe we will see another tantrum protest but at least for the next four years do not expect any great resistance or movement, the time for that is over.

> but at least for the next four years do not expect any great resistance or movement, the time for that is over. Its certainly difficult to mobilize a mass political movement in the US without an imminent election and outside of the immediate aftermath of one, but the great and influential movements all were movements that managed to do that. The time for a movement is not over. Whether it will hold together or not…

What are the goals and demands of this movement, other than objecting to Trumps presidency something they have no legal basis for ending?

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#37

Post by Mao_Zedang »

losteric wrote: post #15
Mao_Zedang wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I am going to say its the end not the beginning, in four years, Trump will run again and maybe we will see another tantrum protest but at least for the next four years do not expect any great resistance or movement, the time for that is over.

nice username. I don't think it's the end. People were inspired yesterday, the crowds realized they have the numbers and the passion to fight back. People were taking action, finding their local organizations, learning how to inform their representatives, and even planning the next protests already. We're going to see more and more of this. We will also see more "Alternative Facts" and PR campaigns from the White Hou…

Time is the enemy of this movement, if Trump manages to bring any sort of economic change to the poorest parts of the country, this "movement" doesnt stand a chance.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#39

Post by Mao_Zedang »

hackuser wrote: post #21
LyndsySimon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because 3 million women motivated enough to protest doesn't outweigh 30 million women motivated enough to vote. The fact of the matter is Trump's support base is broader than his opposition - at least, in the states where it matters.

In this case, it bears repeating that Trump lost the overall vote, and lost women's votes 54-41%. The country is a democracy, not an elected dictatorship. Voters and their desires don't disappear the day after the election. Republicans took resistance of Obama's presidency to record levels; only their propagandists can say with a straight face that those who oppose Trump should be quiet for the next four years.

It is also important to point out the overall vote is not important and never has been. It is a way for losers to complain be it republican or democrat, however when you get down to it is symbolic at best.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#40

Post by Mao_Zedang »

dragonwriter wrote: post #33
LyndsySimon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because 3 million women motivated enough to protest doesn't outweigh 30 million women motivated enough to vote. The fact of the matter is Trump's support base is broader than his opposition - at least, in the states where it matters.

> The fact of the matter is Trump's support base is broader than his opposition No, its not. > at least, in the states where it matters. Even there it likely isn't now -- even if it was in the most trivial sense on election day -- given the degree to which his support has fallen since then.

Who is measuring this support? The same people who called the election for Hillary 99%. I think a dose of skepticism is warranted after such a monumental failure to measure the temperature of the nation.
Post reply on HN