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

by Simon 401 Replies latest social current

• 

  Simon

  Well I did. Didn't find anything concrete

  I didn't imagine you would, which is why I didn't waste my time.
  

  Ah, they ARE in fact taking in a whole bunch of refugees :-). Isn't it something like 500'000 in Saudi Arabia and about 20'000 in the USA?

  Well, there's some debate on whether they actually take refugees. They seem to be counting people already there who are foreign workers.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians_in_Saudi_Arabia

  re: who gave the orders ... Trump can appoint whoever he wants subject to approval when required and take advice from whoever he wants. Same as Obama, Bush, Clinton and all the presidents before. Some are less likeable than others. I hope Bannon is disgraced and ousted ASAP.

  The ideology of Islam is much closer to Nazism than anything (Hitler was inspired by it and Muslim countries fought on their side and made up their own SS brigades). So it's ironic that the left is so adamant to support it (I mean the general left, not just the extremists).

  The Christians and Yazidis are the modern day equivalent of the Jews. But all we hear are cries of "Islamphobia" when the authoritarianism is questioned. The modern equivalent of telling the Jews not to be so "Naziphobic".

  We've already repeated the mistake of shutting the door to those most at risk just like boatloads of Jews were turned away from the US to die in concentration camps.

  Why not check who is allowed in and who isn't? It would be a bad idea to let the modern day nazis in after all wouldn't it?
• 

  bohm

  Simon:

  The ideology of Islam is much closer to Nazism than anything (Hitler was inspired by it and Muslim countries fought on their side and made up their own SS brigades). So it's ironic that the left is so adamant to support it (I mean the general left, not just the extremists).

  It is impossible to have a reasoned discussion on this topic if you will not acknowledge I have the opinions I do in fact have. I know that you know this is a fallacy in other contexts so I do not know why this has to be an issue.

  We've already repeated the mistake of shutting the door to those most at risk just like boatloads of Jews were turned away from the US to die in concentration camps.

  Why not check who is allowed in and who isn't? It would be a bad idea to let the modern day nazis in after all wouldn't it?
  

  ..which is why a country-by-country ban is a bad idea, especially when not banning the countries that have actually send terrorist (curiously, Trump does not have business ties to those countries banned).

  You did not say if we should fear muslims by the way. General Flynn believes that is rational...
  
  
• 

  Balaamsass2

  
  
• 

  bohm

  Balaamsass2: Delegitimization at all costs...

  Here is the opinion of a lawyer:

  https://lawfareblog.com/malevolence-tempered-incompetence-trumps-horrifying-executive-order-refugees-and-visas
  

  The malevolence of President Trump’s Executive Order on visas and refugees is mitigated chiefly—and perhaps only—by the astonishing incompetence of its drafting and construction.
  (...)
  This order reads to me, frankly, as though it was not reviewed by competent counsel at all.
  (...)
  Let’s start with the malevolence of the document, which Amira Mikhail summarized and Adham Sahloul analyzed earlier today. I don’t use the word “malevolence” here lightly. As readers of my work know, I believe in strong counterterrorism powers. I defend non-criminal detention. I’ve got no problem with drone strikes. I’m positively enthusiastic about American surveillance policies. I was much less offended than others were by the CIA’s interrogations in the years after September 11. I have defended military commissions.
  Some of these policies were effective; some were not. Some worked out better than others. And I don’t mean to relitigate any of those questions here. My sole point is that all of these policies were conceptualized and designed and implemented by people who were earnestly trying to protect the country from very real threats. And the policies were, to a one, proximately related to important goals in the effort. While some of these policies proved tragically misguided and caused great harm to innocent people, none of them was designed or intended to be cruel to vulnerable, concededly innocent people. Even the CIA’s interrogation program, after all, was deployed against people the agency believed (mostly correctly) to be senior terrorists of the most dangerous sort and to garner information from them that would prevent attacks.
  I actually cannot say that about Trump’s new executive order—and neither can anyone else.
• 

  azor

  Interesting article today in USA today titled "Women's activists aim for movement". The article interviewed women who are raising money and capitalizing on the energy generated to support candidates in key swing states. It's happening as I stated it would. The march was just a start. Fortunately there are some smart political leaders out there jumping on this rather than condemning it as so many here are doing.
• 

  Simon

  It is impossible to have a reasoned discussion on this topic if you will not acknowledge I have the opinions I do in fact have. I know that you know this is a fallacy in other contexts so I do not know why this has to be an issue

  That statement seems to bear no relation to the quote you attached it to.

  I try to backup my opinions with reason and facts, sorry if that is somehow offensive to you. When I talk about "the left" I talk about the generally agreed consensus of opinion. Of course individuals might not agree 100% with 100% of things. But you are perfectly happy and willing to treat "the right" as an amorphous blob, so it seems fair.

  There's a great quote in the atlantic, talking about Trump's immigration controls and how the left has enabled the current policy:

  "When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won’t do."

  https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/an-immigration-order-as-stupid-as-it-is-counterproductive/514847/
  
• 

  westiebilly11

  Why are women and others marching to gain rights? Surely, if Obama had done a good job all such rights would exist anyway. If not, then he is to blame for what he didn't do, not Trump for what he hasn't yet done. Time will tell.
  
• 

  Simon

  In memory of the Women's March Movement. Jan 2017 to well, Jan 2017.

  Hope y'all enjoyed the day out from being chained to the cooker ...

  I wonder how many people open their wardrobe, see the pussy outfit and think "my god, who could have imagined we would achieve all that we did?".

  BTW: What was achieved?
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  What was achieved? - it was a fun day out, a pleasant journey into the city from sunny suburbia.

  Mommy gave little Chloe or Jeremy to the nanny for the day and was a right-on student once again for a few hours.

  Most of these protestors were probably middle class 'activists' - the kind of people who wash their kale salads down with fair-trade coffee whilst reading The Guardian. Currently in the UK, these kind of people are talking about our upcoming general election: should they be loyal to the party of their choice, or should they vote tactically - all in a bid to keep the Tories out.

  Although right-wingers often put the words 'middle class activists' and 'self-guilt' in the same sentence, these activists actually try their hardest to make other people feel guilty over a whole range of issues.

  They probably have a big wardrobe, stocked full of various clothes & items so that they won't miss out on any protest.

  When there's a need to march for the gays, they whip out their rainbow flags and leather-trousers-with-the-bottom-cut-out.

  In cases of Islamophobia, they all wear identikit burkas and carry 'save the Muslims!' placards.

  On black issues, they dutifully dust off their chains & shackles and whine that black people are still treated like slaves.

  And when Yazidis and Iraqi Christians are massacred, or when atheist bloggers are hacked to death in Bangladesh, these activists probably ask why the Yazidis, Iraqi Christians and atheist bloggers aren't embracing diversity.
• 

  nonjwspouse

  Though I've not read through the thread fully ( sorry time constraints) . The question I have, which may be here ( sorry again) . Where are those marching for the rights of those little girls of Islam that are being sexually mutilated?

  Where are those vagina suits marching for those little girls? Where is the outrage publicly displayed on a regular basis, as it should be.

  Where is the outrage of the abuse/punishment of women in Islam if a covering is not worn correctly.

  Of course, there is more. So why are the vagina suits not protesting these practices of extreme abuse towards women and little girls. It happens here in America too, not just in Islamic countries ( as evidenced in Michigan recently)