So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?
Thanks for providing the platform of principles, Giordano.
The section that supposed to explain what the march is for/what it hopes to achieve ('#WhyWeMarch') was very vague, TBH. All I got from it is that they marched because they can, thanks to women's rights people who lived before them.
There are lots of good bits in the next section (Values & Principles). Which of these principles and values will Trump erode or do away with?
The thing is, Trump may agree with some or even many of these very principles.
"And parading around dressed as female genitalia is a ridiculous shock value ploy." As ridiculous as a "pussy grabbing Donald Trump?" - yes, I think it is.
The women in this March were reacting to the disgusting Donald's references to women - ok, fine, but this isn't enough to get Trump out of the White House. The people who voted Trump don't care about his locker room banter.
"And parading around dressed as female genitalia is a ridiculous shock value ploy." As ridiculous as a "pussy grabbing Donald Trump?"
Everyone keeps using this strawman that any issue with what is being discussed somehow endorses or condones Trump.
Thanks for mentioning my mistake LoveUni I had a meeting and ran out of time..... hit Post Reply and only now realized the 2nd paragraph was not attached.
The platform calls for a broad range of reforms to address not only gender inequity but also racial and economic inequality. It supports paid family leave; anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans; access to affordable reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion; an end to the use of military-style weapons and tactics by the police in minority communities; a living minimum wage; immigration reform, with a path to citizenship; and protection of the environment and public lands.
None of these goals are particularly radical. Most appeared in some form in the platform adopted by the Democratic National Committee at the party convention in July. That such mainstream proposals — to improve safety-net programs, protect constitutional rights and promote broad-based prosperity — are the subject of a protest manifesto is a measure of how much the political debate has changed in the last few months.
^^^ ok, it seems we're getting somewhere ^^^
The thing is, people have other ideas about how the US should be run, and the argument was apparently decided at the election.
People need to argue for these above policies and against Trump's policies that contradict them.
I hope wimmin wearing star-spangled burkas or dressing as giant vaginas is just a blip.
Time will tell.
The problem with that big list is that it is so very big and mixes up so many issues.
Many of the "rights" are things that people already have so it comes across as propaganda as though they don't. Some of the things can't be "fixed" when there isn't even real evidence of an issue (like pay inequality) which will make people unhappy whatever happens.
It is also shutting the door after the horse is gone - the election just happened and those policies were rejected for various reasons which people can and will debate.
If the democratic candidate didn't talk about them enough (which she didn't) then people who care about those issues should first talk to the people who failed them. Clinton, Obama, the DNC and so on. I remember them talking a lot about Trump, even putting his name in their slogans. Marketing 101 fail.
Is that introspection happening so that better tactics are employed? Or are they trying to deflect everything by pointing at Trump? I think the latter.
Freemind fade Simon is not being thrown under the proverbial bus by anyone here. There is no issue with asking the question. The issue is his equating the majority of these protestors with the minority of the extremists that were involved.
The issue is his equating the majority of these protestors with the minority of the extremists that were involved.
They did that to themselves.
Disavow! Disavow! isn't that how it works? (and what people did with Trumpenstein / David Duke etc...?) If someone undesirable supports your cause, you need to make it clear they are not welcome otherwise your cause is tainted with their biases and agenda.
As it is, they weren't a fringe, they were organizers. A lot of the ugly rhetoric didn't come from a section of the crowd, it came from people with the mic stood on the podium.
Some of them are beyond odious: google Donna Hylton for instance and what she did. Why was she on the platform speaking? Why should we not judge a group that uses someone like that as a spokesperson? If 3rd wave feminism doesn't want to be labelled just a bunch of men-haters they should question the wisdom of having someone convicted of the horrific torture and murder of a man up there talking for them.
A lot of the ugly rhetoric didn't come from a section of the crowd, it came from people with the mic stood on the podium.
Yes. Also all my social media feeds are clogged with similar rhetoric by anyone being extreme left, which is most my feeds.
Simon is making sense. Those of you going after him for questioning the narrative need to remember what it was like when you were in the borg and how those that questioned the borg's narrative were treated. Bullied until either they conform to the narrative, or completely dismiss them and shun.
Just to get it clear:
On the one hand there is a madman who has quite literally become in control of 7000 nuclear weapons he can fire on a whim. He question the basics of the electoral process (oh he will find evidence!) and uses the old nazi technique of calling the press lugenspresse (sorry, fake news).
...or we can care about women with silly hats, that nazi who got punched, the muslim woman with unsavory ideas...
Where should our priorities be? Which of these are most important?
Steve "Wino-Goebbels" Bannon, you know, the one who used to run the propaganda mill, today told the free press today to "keep it's mouth shut".
What is that telling us? These people are walking and quacking like fascists...