So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon 401 Replies latest social current

• 

  azor

  Still not the majority. No one has condemned questioning or the raising of concerns. It's the blanket condemnation of the march itself and comparing it to a bunch of whiny babies like the troll did about ex-jw's from a previous post that just got cut.

  Freemind fade and jehalepeno you are both now trying to play the victim card for Simon. Have I walked into the twilight zone. Go back and read some of the broad brush comments made by him and others that agree with him.

  I and others that have posted similar things to what I have are reflecting bbalance, and agreed to many of the problems the regressive left presents. And that they need to be fixed.
• 

  Jehalapeno

  Trump is only a madman to those that disagree with him because he's Trump.

  I disagree with his stances on Climate Change and Grabbing Genitals, but I agree with him on some points too, like withdrawal from TPP, screening muslim immigrants, and trolling the press. (Honestly, it's a lot of fun to see the press get their panties in a twist.)

  He's currently polling at a 59% job approval rate, BTW. So...not everyone agrees with your diagnosis of him being a "madman."
• 

  Simon

  Where should our priorities be? Which of these are most important?

  Can't we care about both? I can oppose some of Trumps decisions, applaud others while still criticizing and pointing out the hypocrisy of the womens march and the dangers it poses.

  If you think Trump is the biggest danger (and it's possible and likely that he is) then identifying the reason for his election so it doesn't happen again seems to me to be the most important thing we could be doing right now.

  I'd rather have 4 years of a madman than 8 + follow-on dynasty.

  What is that telling us? These people are walking and quacking like fascists...

  Yeah, but then the left has been calling everyone a nazi since forever.

  See why it's wrong yet? Why the labeling and identity politics have real consequences.

  Still not the majority.

  What a strange point of view. Trump isn't the majority, just the leader, so is he OK now? You don't think the leadership of any movement reflects or represents it at all?

  Go back and read some of the broad brush comments made by him and others that agree with him.

  So ... if I say something, it's about all the women in the march, every last one. But when the actual leaders of the march say something, they are a minority and represent no one and we shouldn't judge anyone based on it?
• 

  Simon

  He's currently polling at a 59% job approval rate, BTW. So...not everyone agrees with your diagnosis of him being a "madman."

  He is getting a lot done. What did other Presidents do in their first week?

  By comparison, Obama had low average popularity / approval ratings. I suspect a lot of his recent "rise in popularity" is more due to the realization that one of Clinton or Trump was going to replace him.
  
  
• 

  bohm

  Yeah, but then the left has been calling everyone a nazi since forever.

  Simon: Yes I agree and that is terrible etc. etc. as I have said so many times in this thread.

  The point is that now we got a guy who really behaves like Hugo Chavez did when he grapped power and that is what I speak out against. I did not spend the last 8 years calling everyone a nazi (I dare you to find a quote) and I don't think trump is a Nazi (or Bannon for the matter), but they ARE pushing really dangerous ideas with deep ties to totalitarian agendas; the concept of a lying press and a pro-state "trusted" press being one of them.

  The solution to that can't be to try and make the radical left shut up about nazis because it won't happen for 30 years --- trust me, I have tried to communicate with some of them and it ain't going to work ever (I got shouted down in the usual manner), they are as impossible to talk with as any breitbot.

  We got to prioritize our resources. Trump will only galvanize the radical left and make them more extreme; he is basically the single best piece of evidence for Patriarchy ever. The solution to that is to call out extreme thinking, left and right, to draw the parallels there are there and have people step out of their echo-chambers.
• 

  talesin

  nic, I saw your post on the first page of this thread. THUMBS UP! :)

  Edit: to bohm: We agree. OMG, that is so weird, after all these years, but I like it. xx
• 

  Spoletta

  Look up the reliability of Rasmussen to decide if 59% is Trump's true favorability rating. I'm expecting Conway to announce it very soon.
• 

  Jehalapeno

  Look up the reliability of Rasmussen to decide if 59% is Trump's true favorability rating. I'm expecting Conway to announce it very soon.

  On Jan 17, President Obama's Job Approval according to Rasmussen Reports was 62%. Do you dispute those numbers also?
• 

  bohm

  Simon: I thought about what you said yesterday, that the recount perhaps wasn't some stupid random shit but Trump might know something (I think that was what you said).

  Here is my current line of thinking:

  • According to the NSA/FBI/CIA Putins strategy for influencing democracy both in Russia and abroad has always been to primarily delegitimize democracy rather than influencing it, to show it is every bit as fake as any other form of government.
  • According to the report, there is no evidence the cyberattack against the USA tried to affect the vote count, rather it was about stealing emails and spreading them via wikipedia as well as disseminating propaganda via putinbots and propaganda outlets such as RT today.
  • HOWEVER voting databases were hacked. This piece of information has gotten very little coverage.
  • Now Trump is performing an investigation which will involve these same databases...

  I don't know if this has any relevancy, it might just be random shit from Trump. But it is an odd coincidence. On the plus side Trump can do little to affect voting laws (I checked and they are determined at state level). But if you want to delegitimize democracy you first go after the free press (done!), then you go after the fairness of the elections...

  Bonus fact: Voting databases were also hacked in the Philipines a month before the election, a country where the elected president (a populist much like Trump) can't stop telling the world how much he adores Putin.
• 

  Simon

  I still have doubts on Russian involvement in the hacking, the email hack looked fairly amateurish, certainly not requiring Russian hacking sophistication, and was more to do with inept incompetence by the DnC / campaign and then someone giving it to WikiLeaks.

  Another reason is that I doubt WikiLeaks would risk having links to Russian state sponsored hacking and be shown to be partisan.

  Trump is either on to something with the election fraud or he isn't. If he isn't, he'll look a schmuck. If it turns out he is, and there is strong evidence that he might be from some reports, then the people who've been shouting "no way!" will look silly and it will be pretty devastating to dems.

  One reason I think he might be is because the first reaction was "where is the evidence?!" and then when he announced the investigation it became "no, no need, forget it". Surely, everyone should welcome the chance for him to make himself look a complete tool, no?

  There's also the chance that it's a corrupt investigation but that would be at the federal and state level by both parties and seems less likely (but not impossible).

  And of course it could just be another distraction tactic.