Women's March: Millions March In Country to Protest Trump
262 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sgman91;51705846]I'm not sure what you mean with that quote in the truth line, but it seems pretty clear that they want no restriction on abortion based on them saying they're against "any... restrictions." I'm not even stretching their words here.[/quote]
"I'm not stretching their words" as you just stretched, misquoted, and butchered their words.
[quote]We believe in Reproductive Freedom. [B]We do not accept any federal, state or local rollbacks, cuts or restrictions on our ability to access quality reproductive healthcare services, birth control, HIV/AIDS care and prevention, or medically accurate sexuality education. This means open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people, regardless of income, location or education.[/B][/quote]
Read it again. If you can't read, then I suggest you follow [URL="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/17173/windows-10-hear-text-read-aloud"]this guide[/URL].
[QUOTE=sgman91;51705846]Are they referencing the ERA from the 1970s? I doubt it since that only specified women. I would need to know their specific wording to know their true intent.[/QUOTE]
AGAIN.
[quote]We believe Civil Rights are our birthright, including voting rights, freedom to worship without fear of intimidation or harassment, freedom of speech, and protections for all citizens regardless of race, gender, age or disability.[B] We believe it is time for an all-inclusive Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[/B][/quote]
They want to amend the Equal Rights Amendment so it includes [B][I]not just women[/I][/B].
[QUOTE=pentium;51705792]Yet he got elected, so perhaps next time you could try promoting someone else this hard BEFORE the vote.
It only became anti-democratic AFTER someone they didn't want won. IF Hilliary or Bernie won nobody would of given a fuck.[/QUOTE]
This has got to be the most retarded mindset ever.
First off, no, he was not properly elected. Between him and Clinton, the people overwhelmingly chose Clinton. She defeated him in the national popular vote by almost 2.9 million votes. The problem is that we have an archaic institution (the Electoral College) which is allowed to continue to exist that unfortunately has the power to completely disregard this fact and say, "Well yeah, Candidate X did win more votes than Candidate Y did and clearly has the majority support of the people in this country... but fuck them, we want Candidate Y, so we're going to steal the election away from Candidate X and hand it over to Candidate Y instead. Democracy!" This is the fifth time in American history that this has happened, the second just in the modern era. The last time was when Gore defeated Bush by more than 543,000 votes in the 2000 election but the EC handed it to Bush anyway. This is a huge reason why people are pissed off about what happened: he's not fit to be president, he was not wanted by the majority of Americans, yet he was handed the job by a small clique of people in our government anyway. No shit that's going to cause anger; voting doesn't mean anything so long as this system is allowed to continue to exist.
Second, it was always anti-democratic. Democracy means the citizens directly elect who represents them and leads them in government. But that's not what happened here. We elected Clinton, we got Trump. Why? Because, again, a small clique of individuals in our government (the Electoral College) are given the power to override the democratic will of the people and hand the election over to somebody else if they want. Again, so long as this system is permitted to continue to exist, our vote means nothing. You can vote for one candidate, they can win the majority of votes, but they can still "lose" the election because the EC can/will just hand it over to the other person if they want. Naturally, this is irritating.
Third, if Clinton or Sanders won, the right-wingers in this country would be acting like a bunch of fucking animals right now-- especially if Clinton won. [url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/15/donald-trump-warnings-conspiracy-rig-election-are-stoking-anger-among-his-followers/LcCY6e0QOcfH8VdeK9UdsM/story.html]Trump's supporters after all were the ones who were calling for her assassination and talking about rebellion back during the campaign season[/url], in addition to [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0]Trump's own "Second Amendment people" comments which he deliberately used to incite this mindset[/url]. And Sanders, being a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist with strong left-wing views... how well do you think that would've gone over for them?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51705878]"I'm not stretching their words" as you just stretched, misquoted, and butchered their words.[/B].[/QUOTE]
Right so they have the first sentence where they say they want no restrictions on a bunch of stuff. They then explain that first sentence is being explained by the second sentence with the phrase "This means". The two sentences are talking about the same thing in different terms. Both parts apply to the other.
[QUOTE=Huggy;51705845]Hope for what? This isn't gonna make Trump and his administration change their mind about things.
They should be mad at the Democratic party for choosing such a shit candidate.[/QUOTE]
Hope that the world isn't just going to lie down and take Trump's idiocy, Hope that he might actually cave under the pressure and change his mind on some of his policies.
Who gives a shit about the democrats? It's in the past, all we can do now is look towards the future and make what we can of it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51705886]Right so they have the first sentence where they say they want no restrictions on a bunch of stuff. They then explain that first sentence is being explained by the second sentence with the phrase "This means". The two sentences are talking about the same thing in different terms. Both parts apply to the other.[/QUOTE]
And what's the problem with abortion? What gives you or anyone the right of ownership over someone else's body? They say land of the free but women aren't allowed to control their own bodies and it's always up to old men to decide what they can and can't do with them even though they will never experience what it's like to have a woman's body. They don't even know what women go through because women hide the problems they face because of their bodies due to the social stigma on menstruation.
Even if you think that a fetus should be allowed to mature into a human being, the GOP does not want to help women have the baby. They don't care about helping the woman survive to give birth and they don't care about the baby once it's born. Adoption isn't even a solution since the GOP wants to cut funding for government programs that directly support them too and they demonize them for growing up poor as if being poor and homeless is a moral failing and they deserve what they get.
Hunter S. Thompson said "in a democracy, you have to be a player." These women are getting involved and doing what they can through peace because they're not going to lie down and take it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51705993]... I haven't said anything about whether it's good or bad. I just stated their goals and he disagreed that they had those goals. So we discussed it.
I'm not going to take this that off-topic and make this an abortion thread.[/QUOTE]
You kept fixating on the abortion aspect of it. That's why I made this post
[QUOTE=Dr.C;51705955]And what's the problem with abortion? What gives you or anyone the right of ownership over someone else's body? They say land of the free but women aren't allowed to control their own bodies and it's always up to old men to decide what they can and can't do with them even though they will never experience what it's like to have a woman's body. They don't even know what women go through because women hide the problems they face because of their bodies due to the social stigma on menstruation.
Even if you think that a fetus should be allowed to mature into a human being, the GOP does not want to help women have the baby. They don't care about helping the woman survive to give birth and they don't care about the baby once it's born. Adoption isn't even a solution since the GOP wants to cut funding for government programs that directly support them too and they demonize them for growing up poor as if being poor and homeless is a moral failing and they deserve what they get.[/QUOTE]
... I haven't said anything about whether it's good or bad. I just stated their goals and he disagreed that they had those goals. So we discussed it.
I'm not going to take this that off-topic and make this an abortion thread.
[QUOTE=pentium;51705792]Yet he got elected, so perhaps next time you could try promoting someone else this hard BEFORE the vote.
It only became anti-democratic AFTER someone they didn't want won. IF Hilliary or Bernie won nobody would of given a fuck.[/QUOTE]
Hi Trump claimed he could only lose if it was rigged, he was preparing his supporters throughout the entire campaign to be ready to cry that it was anti-democratic. Don't spew insults at a side and act like the other side didn't do the exact same thing, to a more intense degree.
[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;51705871]Let's not forgot that Trump threw a fit on Twitter when Obama got the electoral votes but not the popular vote during reelection.yet it's perfectly alright if he gets the electoral votes and not the popular vote.[/QUOTE]
He actually deleted all of those a couple months ago. I got your back though
[t]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/250663604813168640/272179339221794816/donald-trump-tweets-2012-1478856552.png[/t]
[QUOTE=sgman91;51705993]... I haven't said anything about whether it's good or bad.[/QUOTE]
I've seen farmers cherrypick less than you mate.
It's like you pretend to care, but instead of doing research like an "informed citizen", you'd rather be roundabout and obtuse.
Probably complain about a non-answer somewhere else too.
[QUOTE=Kagu;51706040]I've seen farmers cherrypick less than you mate.
It's like you pretend to care, but instead of doing research like an "informed citizen", you'd rather be roundabout and obtuse.
Probably complain about a non-answer somewhere else too.[/QUOTE]
I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with other than some boogeyman image of me that you have in your head. I specifically didn't bring up the good or badness of their policies on purpose. I wasn't even trying to make it about that.
I specifically came in here to discuss the protest on it's own merits. What are it's goals? Does it have the ability to be effective? etc. We've had a lot of very massive, yet vague, protests in our modern age that haven't really led to much of anything concrete and I'm interested to see if this is just another on the list.
Are they marching against Democracy?
[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51706120]Are they marching against Democracy?[/QUOTE]
no
[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51706120]Are they marching against Democracy?[/QUOTE]
no
[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51706120]Are they marching against Democracy?[/QUOTE]
no
[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51706120]Are they marching against Democracy?[/QUOTE]
There you go again!
What happened to understanding what the first amendment is?
[QUOTE=Limed00d;51706148]There you go again!
What happened to understanding what the first amendment is?[/QUOTE]
For clarity's sake: you can use the first amendment to march against democracy. They aren't mutually exclusive.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51706150]For clarity's sake: you can use the first amendment to march against democracy. They aren't mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]
It's not marching against democracy.
I've seen people pull that going against democracy card so many times on this forum and everytime the popular vote/electoral college is explained to the same people and they never acknowledge it.
[QUOTE=Limed00d;51706153]It's not marching against democracy.[/QUOTE]
That's fine, but the fact that they're using the first amendment doesn't mean they are not marching against democracy.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51706084]I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with other than some boogeyman image of me that you have in your head. I specifically didn't bring up the good or badness of their policies on purpose. I wasn't even trying to make it about that.
I specifically came in here to discuss the protest on it's own merits. What are it's goals? Does it have the ability to be effective? etc. We've had a lot of very massive, yet vague, protests in our modern age that haven't really led to much of anything concrete and I'm interested to see if this is just another on the list.[/QUOTE]
You keep fixating on the same points and ignoring the things other people are pointing. However, you don't seem like you're being malicious so I think that you really are just not understanding what it's about(not sure if I can put it any simpler, they were already to the point)
these protests do have the potential to accomplish real change. The failure of OWS is still in everyone's minds but a protest movement like this actually has succeeded in the late 80s to mid 90s. It was called the ACT UP movement. I recommend you read a little bit up on it because the documentary is wayyy too long to recommend since it's a chronicle of the entire movement and it's like 2 hours. It was pretty much just a protest towards the mishandling of the HIV epidemic by government officials, it's way more complicated than that but that's the simplest I can put it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51706157]That's fine, but the fact that they're using the first amendment doesn't mean they are not marching against democracy.[/QUOTE]
They're protesting the outcome of the election. Protesting is the most democratic thing anyone can do since these people are getting involved and sending a message to their government about what they want. Democracy is more than just casting a vote then forgetting about it. it's an active process.
Dude this was flown passed NYC
[media]https://twitter.com/wellerstein/status/822468381492314112/[/media]
[QUOTE=windows098;51706001]He actually deleted all of those a couple months ago. I got your back though
[t]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/250663604813168640/272179339221794816/donald-trump-tweets-2012-1478856552.png[/t][/QUOTE]
he was talking about the 2016 election
Apparently its been flying around for a while, i think I saw pictures of it yesterday.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;51706170]You keep fixating on the same points and ignoring the things other people are pointing. However, you don't seem like you're being malicious so I think that you really are just not understanding what it's about(not sure if I can put it any simpler, they were already to the point)
these protests do have the potential to accomplish real change. The failure of OWS is still in everyone's minds but a protest movement like this actually has succeeded in the late 80s to mid 90s. It was called the ACT UP movement. I recommend you read a little bit up on it because the documentary is wayyy too long to recommend since it's a chronicle of the entire movement and it's like 2 hours. It was pretty much just a protest towards the mishandling of the HIV epidemic by government officials, it's way more complicated than that but that's the simplest I can put it.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the information. I'll definitely look it up and would be totally willing to watch the full documentary. Do you know what it's called?
What do you think this movements main policy mission is comparable to the specific call for AIDs treatment for ACT UP?
[QUOTE]They're protesting the outcome of the election. Protesting is the most democratic thing anyone can do since these people are getting involved and sending a message to their government about what they want. Democracy is more than just casting a vote then forgetting about it. it's an active process.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure about that. If you want to impose your view as opposed to accepting the democratically accepted view, then it seems accurate to say that you're protesting against the democratic system.
Let me clarify that by "democratic system" I'm specifically talking about the system in the US. They may very well be against our system, but for some other democratic system.
Ladies and gents... Ian McKellen's sign :v:
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2t7hgBUAAI2ZzI.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=sgman91;51706220]Thanks for the information. I'll definitely look it up and would be totally willing to watch the full documentary. Do you know what it's called?
What do you think this movements main policy mission is comparable to the specific call for AIDs treatment for ACT UP?
I'm not sure about that. If you want to impose your view as opposed to accepting the democratically accepted view, then I'm not sure if you are in support of the democratic system.
Let me clarify that by "democratic system" I'm specifically talking about the system in the US. They may very well be against our system, but for some other democratic system.[/QUOTE]
It's called [url=http://www.unitedinanger.com/?page_id=9]United in Anger[/url] there are a few ways to watch it. The film might be too long but it has all the info you need. The only other source I can think of is an excerpt from the textbook [I]Sexuality: A very short introduction[/I] but wikipedia has an article. I haven't read it yet so I don't know if it's any good [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_UP[/url]
The objective of a democracy is majority rule with minority rights. The GOP platform specifically attacks women's rights in that it tries to control their bodies. A democracy is always going to have opposing viewpoints. This is the viewpoint opposed to that of the one in charge and they seek to hopefully change it in 2 years when house seats are up for re-election.
If you mean they're against our specific form of government and want something else, then I don't know, but from their site they say they want protections for women to be guaranteed under the constitution.
[QUOTE=pentium;51705792]
It only became anti-democratic AFTER someone they didn't want won.[/QUOTE]
if the majority didn't want that person, then them winning is pretty fucking undemocractic
on top of the fact that people have been complaining about first past the post and the EC for years before this
god damn, if anything is going to make the division worse, it's questioning everyone's motivation for pointing out what's right in front of our faces like this. Like seriously, how can you unironically imply that there's hypocrisy in calling it undemocractic when the popular choices lost, how the fuck does that even work
[editline]p[/editline]
it's not a matter of left vs. right to begin with, because the Trumpster was unpopular with conservatives too. Voter turnout was down on both sides, yet another number for everyone to ignore. What exactly do you expect to happen when the flaws in a system like this become apparent? Are people supposed to flock to the voting booths despite feeling like the system doesn't represent them?
There's nothing wrong with this, I think. They're protesting because they're not satisfied with Trumps attitude towards women. It's always some sort of symbol or message from the public. It puts pressure on the sort of attitude these people are not satisfied with, potentially affecting it in hypothetical scenarios.
Turns out one of the Organizers might have connections to Hamas.
[url]http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/21/womens-march-organizer-recently-met-ex-hamas-operative-has-family-ties-to-terror-group/?utm_campaign=thedcmainpage&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social[/url]
That and she was a hardcore critic against the Honor diaries movie.
[media]https://youtu.be/HlN7t1u5Kyc[/media]
[QUOTE=Tudd;51706406]Turns out one of the Organizers might have connections to Hamas.
[url]http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/21/womens-march-organizer-recently-met-ex-hamas-operative-has-family-ties-to-terror-group/?utm_campaign=thedcmainpage&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social[/url]
That and she was a hardcore critic against the Honor diaries movie.
[media]https://youtu.be/HlN7t1u5Kyc[/media][/QUOTE]
And what does this mean?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.