Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the goals and demands of this movement, other than objecting to Trumps presidency something they have no legal basis for ending?
Emoluments.
It wont work.
The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
51–60 of 63 posts
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#52Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
If he manages to do a complete 180° and be someone completely antithetical to the person he's been thus far?
Yes, the opposition is toast if that happens.
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> extrapolate the popular vote over the rest of the non voting population isnt fair
I don't know what you mean by "fair", but the non-voting population has much less influence over politics than the ones who vote. Regardless, we have surveys showing the opinions of non-voters and Trump, at least a couple weeks ago, was at record levels of unpopularity among Presidents-elect.
But I don't see how it's relevant to the point, which is that elected officials are compelled to and do respect the opinions of voters.
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#55Earlier 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?
Making it easy for young women to get good sex education and contraceptives is easily one of the best investments the U.S. government could make. Every time a society has tried it, it has produced good results across the board: reductions in teen pregnancies, abortions, and venereal disease, and improved educational outcomes and economic growth.
And best of all, it is moral to permit human beings to make their own choices about their own bodies.
Unfortunately, the incoming administration and Congress have collectively said some pretty dumb things, and tried to pass some pretty dumb laws, against these ideas.
There are also potentially government issues related to race and ethnicity and sexual orientation and gender, and I think a lot of people marched with those in mind too.
The fundamental question of the Trump presidency is: who is going to own the narrative? Who gets to decide what is true, what is real, what matters, and what the government should do or not do?
The purpose of a mass protest is to seize the narrative, or at least to demonstrate that Trump does not own it. The larger the gathering, the greater its demonstrative power. Each person who decides to go knows that they are individually only a tiny little drop, metaphorically. But they hope to help make a big flood.
Most of Congress is up for re-election in 2018. The President is up for re-election in 2020. Contrary to popular belief, politicians (including Trump) do care a lot about what people think, and they will change, moderate, or slow their efforts if they get the sense that they'll lose an election over it.
This strategy is not new or unique. Republicans used it to great effect in 2009-2010, killing the public option out of Obamacare, and blocking the cap-and-trade global warming bill--even though the Democrats held the White House and Congress.
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#56This 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.
Good thing they're protesting peacefully, unlike those Anti-Trump inauguration protestors, who were burning and destroying properties (cars, Starbucks, etc.).
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
How can he answer you? He still doesn't even understand how Trump won. Still believing that his polls are "real".
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> extrapolate the popular vote over the rest of the non voting population isnt fair I don't know what you mean by "fair", but the non-voting population has much less influence over politics than the ones who vote. Regardless, we have surveys showing the opinions of non-voters and Trump, at least a couple weeks ago, was at record levels of unpopularity among Presidents-elect. But I don't see how it's relevant to the p…
>Regardless, we have surveys showing the opinions of non-voters and Trump, at least a couple weeks ago, was at record levels of unpopularity among Presidents-elect.
They should have voted then. They didn't vote, and when the guy they don't like get voted into office, they get all angry. Well, they should have voted.
>...elected officials are compelled to and do respect the opinions of voters.
Trump does. He's going to implement his policies, since the voters have voted him to do so.
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> extrapolate the popular vote over the rest of the non voting population isnt fair I don't know what you mean by "fair", but the non-voting population has much less influence over politics than the ones who vote. Regardless, we have surveys showing the opinions of non-voters and Trump, at least a couple weeks ago, was at record levels of unpopularity among Presidents-elect. But I don't see how it's relevant to the p…
>Regardless, we have surveys showing the opinions of non-voters and Trump, at least a couple weeks ago, was at record levels of unpopularity among Presidents-elect. They should have voted then. They didn't vote, and when the guy they don't like get voted into office, they get all angry. Well, they should have voted. >...elected officials are compelled to and do respect the opinions of voters. Trump does. He's going t…
> They should have voted then.
They did. First, Trump was behind the leading better by an historic margin for a candidate that won the electoral vote. And, second, Trump's popularity has fallen since the election.
In any case, your implict idea that public-to-elected-official interaction is limited to elections is contrary to the founding principles of this country.
Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Regardless, we have surveys showing the opinions of non-voters and Trump, at least a couple weeks ago, was at record levels of unpopularity among Presidents-elect. They should have voted then. They didn't vote, and when the guy they don't like get voted into office, they get all angry. Well, they should have voted. >...elected officials are compelled to and do respect the opinions of voters. Trump does. He's going t…
> They should have voted then. They did. First, Trump was behind the leading better by an historic margin for a candidate that won the electoral vote. And, second, Trump's popularity has fallen since the election. In any case, your implict idea that public-to-elected-official interaction is limited to elections is contrary to the founding principles of this country.
But you said
>...non-voters...
And non-voters didn't vote. So they're just complaining but they didn't vote.
>In any case, your implict idea that public-to-elected-official interaction is limited to elections is contrary to the founding principles of this country.
Of course, Trump will try to Make America Great for all citizens, as shown by the policies. People can also work for his administration to influence his policies. People can also protest peacefully. People can engage with him on twitter, or directly through email. Etc. Etc.