The thing that is really confusing for me is how Trump managed to get elected despite all this opposition to him.
The Dems shot themselves in the foot by running Clinton.
The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
41–50 of 63 posts
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#42I was curious and checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_peaceful_gathe.... It includes all gatherings of people, not just marches or demonstrations.
I was impressed by the numbers of some of the top gatherings. The shared record is for two religious events at ~30 million people in India and Iraq.
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> Who is measuring this support? The same people who called the election for Hillary 99%
Wrong. You are confusing pollsters with an exaggeration of a subset of the set of analysts working with data from those pollsters (and the subset in question is whose approach was criticized by the most well-regarded in the broader set for the exact thing that led to overstating Clinton's likelihood of victory.)
This error though reflects exactly a frequent propaganda line from the Trump camp, and when it gets echoed here and in other forums its often corrected the, so at this point I have begun to doubt whether is ever an honest error rather than deliberate injection of "alternative facts" into the discussion as a distraction.
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Can't speak for above, but for me, establishing an axis of opposition to Trump and his agenda, as well as attacking the narrative that he has any kind of popular mandate, which is a narrative his campaign and administration has pushed ever since barely winning the presidency.
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Emoluments.
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That is a big, big if. Especially considering everything he's proposed is antiquated, disproven economics when it comes to having direct economic benefits for poor communities.
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Mao may not think popular opinion matters, and maybe he could ignore it in his dictatorship, but it's wrong in the U.S. The President leads a democratic political system, the heart of which is the will of the voters. Those in government need to keep the voters happy or they will lose their jobs; that's the way it was designed and the way it works.
It shows the cynicism of the GOP that they would adopt a talking point from Putin, endorse something so undemocratic, and pretend to suddenly forget the unprecedented resistance the engaged in when Obama was President.
Also, my point was relevant to the comment I was responding to.
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That is a big, big if. Especially considering everything he's proposed is antiquated, disproven economics when it comes to having direct economic benefits for poor communities.
I agree with you, however it is a hypothetical statement, if he does do it, do you agree the opposition is toast?
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Who is measuring this support? The same people who called the election for Hillary 99% Wrong. You are confusing pollsters with an exaggeration of a subset of the set of analysts working with data from those pollsters (and the subset in question is whose approach was criticized by the most well-regarded in the broader set for the exact thing that led to overstating Clinton's likelihood of victory.) This error though…
Sorry I dont really understand what you are saying, are you saying Trump calling the pre-election polls incredibly biased , which turned out to be true, propaganda?
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Mao may not think popular opinion matters, and maybe he could ignore it in his dictatorship, but it's wrong in the U.S. The President leads a democratic political system, the heart of which is the will of the voters. Those in government need to keep the voters happy or they will lose their jobs; that's the way it was designed and the way it works. It shows the cynicism of the GOP that they would adopt a talking point…
I think it is disingenuous to say popular vote matters in a country where voting is voluntary, to extrapolate the popular vote over the rest of the non voting population isnt fair. At best he lost the popular vote of the people who bothered to vote.