"A sea of pink-hatted protesters"

[Wahrheit]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/womens-march-on-washington-a-sea-of-pink-hatted-protesters-vow-to-resist-donald-trump/2017/01/21/ae4def62-dfdf-11e6-acdf-14da832ae861_story.html

 

This article is about the march in DC, but here in Chicago there were hordes of people flooding the sidewalks when I got downtown at about 7:30am, and it hasn't stopped. I'm proctoring an exam today, so I can't report from the front lines, but there are just tons of people. It's pretty cool.

 

It's also predicted to be a much, much larger crowd than showed up for Trump's inauguration.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

The butthurt is palpable. A sea of palpable butthurt!

[Wahrheit]

The butthurt is palpable. A sea of palpable butthurt!

QED.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well yes, leftists thugs beat and brutalized Trump voters yesterday. Y'all set 14th street on fire, and torched a 94% democrat city in your crazed psychotic anarchism dick measuring contest

 

And most of us are employed and have work to do. It's quite logical that the protesters show up in greater numbers than people who have to work for a living.

[Wahrheit]

Well yes, leftists thugs beat and brutalized Trump voters yesterday. Y'all set 14th street on fire, and torched a 94% democrat city in your crazed psychotic anarchism dick measuring contest

 

And most of us are employed and have work to do. It's quite logical that the protesters show up in greater numbers than people who have to work for a living.

If you get to attribute that to the entire left, I guess the entire right is Richard Spencer.

 

Learn to use nuance.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If you get to attribute that to the entire left, I guess the entire right is Richard Spencer.

 

Learn to use nuance.

I said leftists not the entire left. I myself am a registered Democrat and a liberal who find the sanders wing just as detestable as the Spencer wing.

 

Also didn't Spencer get his ass beat yesterday lol

 

---

 

Wait, doesn't the alt-right want to destroy the traditional right? So how would the entire Right be under his banner.

 

Trump's been president almost a full day. No concentration camps for Muslims? No gulags for gays? No thermonuclear war? SLACKER!

 

All that's happened is Russia re-invited us to the Syrian peace talks...what a mess!

 

---

 

Also, read about the Milo event at University of Washington. Can't say I agree with everything Milo says, but they had to lead him and people listening to him through a back tunnel and the police had them hide anything pro-Trump because they could not guarantee safety against the mob outside. One man was shot. C'mon.

[Wahrheit]

I said leftists not the entire left. I myself am a registered Democrat and a liberal who find the sanders wing just as detestable as the Spencer wing.

 

Also didn't Spencer get his ass beat yesterday lol

 

---

 

Wait, doesn't the alt-right want to destroy the traditional right? So how would the entire Right be under his banner.

 

Trump's been president almost a full day. No concentration camps for Muslims? No gulags for gays? No thermonuclear war? SLACKER!

 

All that's happened is Russia re-invited us to the Syrian peace talks...what a mess!

lol you can register for whatever party you want, party registration =/= party identity =/= ideological alignment

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I think this is tremendous, I really do.

 

The people getting out there, assembling and speaking their minds. Just like the WBC. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

lol you can register for whatever party you want, party registration =/= party identity =/= ideological alignment

Sure, but I promise you I'm more left than you a fair number of issues

[Wahrheit]

Sure, but I promise you I'm more left than you a fair number of issues

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I think this is tremendous, I really do.

 

The people getting out there, assembling and speaking their minds. Just like the WBC. 

This really, as long as they're peaceful, I don't see what's wrong with it. I think the movement is a sham and a scam, based partly on the fact they rejected pro-life women who wanted to march with them, and a major leader is a supporter of Sharia law, but they should march all the same.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I don't think the 'have to work for a living' is an excuse. If one is passionate, one will find a way. Look at

 

This pair of image, which show the crowd for Obama's inaguration, and the crowd for Trumps. I can't verify if they are fair photo's (I.E. I don't know if say the Trump one was taken when crowds only started to turn up, and the Obama one was during it), but if they are look at he difference. Obama's inaguration was on a tuesday even, not a friday and he attracted a suspected 1.8 million people. People found a way to get tickets and to go to Obama's inaguration in spite of work, but they apparently didn't for Trump's despite an inaguration being a fairly important event. It's possible that despite winning, a lot of people just aren't as passionate for Trump.

 

The protests aren't limited to the US either; There's something like 700 marches about this issue occuring globally today. I walked past the one in Cardiff earlier. The one in London has about 100,000 people in it according to a BBC report. (Which is probably the biggest one outside of Washington I'd say.) Protests have happened in Japan, New Zealand, Australia as well.

 

There is a legitimate global concern for what the Trump adminstration may do to women's rights in the US, and it's gotten an awful lot of people passionate about it. As one would expect for such a big issue. I think it's wrong to just dismiss those concerns, especially given that the adminstration has announced next to nothing on what it's social agenda is thus far relative to it's economic one.

 

Likewise the protests today aren't like the ones yesterday, where they protested Trump's appointment, it's a protest for women's rights. It's a seperate issue, even if there will be overlap between crowds.

[Wahrheit]

This really, as long as they're peaceful, I don't see what's wrong with it. I think the movement is a sham and a scam, based partly on the fact they rejected pro-life women who wanted to march with them, and a major leader is a supporter of Sharia law, but they should march all the same.

1) Can you understand why they might do that?

 

2) Source?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Try me.

Don't think single-payer goes far enough

Want a 100% transition to nuclear energy

We should have regressive tax breaks (middle class gets tax breaks, upper class gets tax bumps)

Trump isn't going far enough with a 1 Trillion Dollar infrastructure program

Incest should be legal

 

there's a couple

[Wahrheit]

 

Don't think single-payer goes far enough
Want a 100% transition to nuclear energy
We should have regressive tax breaks (middle class gets tax breaks, upper class gets tax bumps)
Trump isn't going far enough with a 1 Trillion Dollar infrastructure program
Incest should be legal

 

there's a couple

Say more.
This is bad policy. Nuclear is good, but diversification is necessary.
That's progressive, not regressive?
I'll be really surprised if he follows through on that, but infrastructure has been a leftist cause for a long time and why would I disagree with that?
It's legal between consenting adults.

 

Live video of Chicago:

 

https://www.facebook.com/WGNTV/videos/10154179478922411/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Say more.

This is bad policy. Nuclear is good, but diversification is necessary.

That's progressive, not regressive?

I'll be really surprised if he follows through on that, but infrastructure has been a leftist cause for a long time and why would I disagree with that?

It's legal between consenting adults.

Gov being the sole seller of insurance still leads to higher than ideal prices based on the development. Gov should be a competitive contestant in the development market also.

 

As for the selling portion, I could see a public-private option working if the gov was immune from patents  

 

It's not, the rest are unreliable, and there's things you can do with nuclear waste. For all the crying about C02 releasing energy sources, do you have any idea what an over-use of wind power would do to the world? Same with Hydro. I'm not opposed to them, just think that nuclear is the best bang for the buck 

 

Progressive = gets larger as group increases, tax break would get smaller (and then negative) as the wealth increased. It's passive aggressive communism based on the fact that as the income bracket increases, the avg mpc gets smaller

 

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

 

Doesn't seem like it

1) Can you understand why they might do that?

 

2) Source?

 

1) I do not. If the goal is to promote woman's rights, you should also protect a woman's right to free speech and thus dissent on a matter

 

2) https://twitter.com/almostjingo/status/822411501247938560

 

 

I don't think the 'have to work for a living' is an excuse. If one is passionate, one will find a way. Look at

 

This pair of image, which show the crowd for Obama's inaguration, and the crowd for Trumps. I can't verify if they are fair photo's (I.E. I don't know if say the Trump one was taken when crowds only started to turn up, and the Obama one was during it), but if they are look at he difference. Obama's inaguration was on a tuesday even, not a friday and he attracted a suspected 1.8 million people. People found a way to get tickets and to go to Obama's inaguration in spite of work, but they apparently didn't for Trump's despite an inaguration being a fairly important event. It's possible that despite winning, a lot of people just aren't as passionate for Trump.

 

The protests aren't limited to the US either; There's something like 700 marches about this issue occuring globally today. I walked past the one in Cardiff earlier. The one in London has about 100,000 people in it according to a BBC report. (Which is probably the biggest one outside of Washington I'd say.) Protests have happened in Japan, New Zealand, Australia as well.

 

There is a legitimate global concern for what the Trump adminstration may do to women's rights in the US, and it's gotten an awful lot of people passionate about it. As one would expect for such a big issue. I think it's wrong to just dismiss those concerns, especially given that the adminstration has announced next to nothing on what it's social agenda is thus far relative to it's economic one.

 

Likewise the protests today aren't like the ones yesterday, where they protested Trump's appointment, it's a protest for women's rights. It's a seperate issue, even if there will be overlap between crowds.

 

 

It was, they took it at the start. Sister tells me it was comparable to when she went to see the president in 2013, but not 2009. Dishonest media is dishonest. If you don't know if it's true, why bother spending disinformation to people seeking confirmation bias?

 

I'll ask mom what the woman's march is like when she gets home eventually.

 

As for the rest, he's not their president, it's not his problem to please them.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Single Payer Healthcare systems generally don't have the government as the only insurance providor, because most Single Payer systems don't require one to have insurance. Some argue the entire point of the single payer system is that it circumnavigates the requirement for an insurance company in the middle, and that then drives the price down because there is no third party trying to profit. Even then, single payer systems don't invalidate private insurance companies, they exist within the UK, it's just supplimental for those who feel like they want a slightly higher standard of care, or for certain non essentially things to be covered.

 

It's part of the reason why ACA failed; the existance and nessecity of insurance companies in the US healthcare drives up the price of medical procedures, and thus the amount that people have to pay when the procedures are defaulted on.

 

As I said, I hadn't seen anything confirming whether it's accurate or not. We will have to wait for actual numerical values to come out for sure. But I will say that you can't use that photo alone to disprove it, because it's from a different perspective that favours crowds amassing at the front of there respective sections, and those that are closer to the podium, both of which are things that occured within the pair of photo's I posted. It is plausable (Though unlikely) that the Trump photo I had could produce the same effect that your photo showed if taken from that angle.

 

The point of the 700 protests isn't that Trump isn't that Trump has to please them, it's that Trump has managed to make 700 different locations around the world worried about the issue of women's rights. Women's rights are a global concern in some form or another, and people don't want to see regression around them. It's still shown to be a fear within the US as well; He can offer platitudes and reassurance about it if so many people find it worrying.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I don't believe health insurance should have a for-profit motive at all. It's not right to weigh human life against profit. Don't sell what you cannot buy is my stance. I'm fine with private corps if needed, but the gov should be excluded from patents and be required to sell non-profit

 

Well you can, cause there's literally no people on the side in your original picture on some of the tarmats, and that's never the case in mine

 

And do these fine souls march infront of the Saudi Embassies daily? Cause last I checked, Trump isn't taking away the right to drive or wear the clothes you want unlike some other fine leaders

[Wahrheit]

I don't believe health insurance should have a for-profit motive at all. It's not right to weigh human life against profit. Don't sell what you cannot buy is my stance

Then you should be in favor of what Aerion describes. The point of Single Payer is it forces companies to internalize the costs of their conduct, or at least much more than the current regime.

 

Anyway, let's get back to the march.

 

W/r/t the disinvitation, it looks like the group in question may have been dodgy about what they actually represented. Their materials say "make abortion unthinkable" not "make abortion unnecessary" - that's an important difference, and while they may call themselves feminists, shaming women for their choices is sort of the opposite of the very core of feminism. I'm reasonably confident that a pro-life group with a different philosophy would have been invited, and would be unsurprised if there aren't already groups of that nature co-sponsoring.

 

W/r/t "free speech," they're not like banned from showing up, they're just not cosponsoring. Free speech just means the government can't put you in jail for what you say - it doesn't mean people have to associate with you if they don't want to.

 

 

 

I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I was initially for Sanders until he was out of the running. Then it was a question of the lesser of two evils. It's one thing to be a warmonger. HRC is a comparatively quiet and polite warmonger with Goldman-Sachs for a donor and Henry Kissinger for a mentor. Politeness should not be mistaken for compassion. Nor should the advent of being a woman, which is why I find this whole "women's march" so odiferous of vacant identity politics.    

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Then you should be in favor of what Aerion describes. The point of Single Payer is it forces companies to internalize the costs of their conduct, or at least much more than the current regime.

 

Anyway, let's get back to the march.

 

W/r/t the disinvitation, it looks like the group in question may have been dodgy about what they actually represented. Their materials say "make abortion unthinkable" not "make abortion unnecessary" - that's an important difference, and while they may call themselves feminists, shaming women for their choices is sort of the opposite of the very core of feminism. I'm reasonably confident that a pro-life group with a different philosophy would have been invited, and would be unsurprised if there aren't already groups of that nature co-sponsoring.

 

W/r/t "free speech," they're not like banned from showing up, they're just not cosponsoring. Free speech just means the government can't put you in jail for what you say - it doesn't mean people have to associate with you if they don't want to.

 

I don't fully understand how it's a woman's right to choose, when half the lives exterminated though that choice are woman?

 

Maybe the march should have been clear that it was protecting some right of some women?

 

I mean political correctness doesn't often results to arrests, but it's still an infringement on the motive of free speech and discourse? I'm curious, was Susan B. Anthony not a feminist then? Cause under your definition she would not be today?

 

If the goal is to protect woman's right, it's perfectly reasonable to protect the life of all women before going to protect the liberty of some women. 

 

Flame's idea gives too many opportunities for firms to hide loss on the people. The VA should show you, how Single Payer if not showered with money, will slowly push costs back on the people

[Wahrheit]

I was initially for Sanders until he was out of the running. Then it was a question of the lesser of two evils. It's one thing to be a warmonger. HRC is a comparatively quiet and polite warmonger with Goldman-Sachs for a donor and Henry Kissinger for a mentor. Politeness should not be mistaken for compassion. Nor should the advent of being a woman, which is why I find this whole "women's march" so odiferous of vacant identity politics.    

The idea that Trump is less likely to start a nuclear war than Clinton is absolutely hilarious.

I don't fully understand how it's a woman's right to choose, when half the lives exterminated though that choice are woman?

 

Maybe the march should have been clear that it was protecting some right of some women?

 

I mean political correctness doesn't often results to arrests, but it's still an infringement on the motive of free speech and discourse? I'm curious, was Susan B. Anthony not a feminist then? Cause under your definition she would not be today?

 

Flame's idea gives too many opportunities for firms to hide loss on the people. The VA should show you how Single Payer if not showered with money will slowly push costs back on the people

No life is exterminated. It's a cluster of cells.

 

Thanks for admitting you didn't do any research. :)

 

https://www.womensmarch.com/mission/

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I was initially for Sanders until he was out of the running. Then it was a question of the lesser of two evils. It's one thing to be a warmonger. HRC is a comparatively quiet and polite warmonger with Goldman-Sachs for a donor and Henry Kissinger for a mentor. Politeness should not be mistaken for compassion. Nor should the advent of being a woman, which is why I find this whole "women's march" so odiferous of vacant identity politics.

I'm sorry, no Bernie voter should support Trump. They are completely different. Bernie has lost his mind on the social scale. There small agreements on Trade should not push you from Bernie to Trump, Clinton, in all fairness, said much of the same.

 

People disgusted about how the democratic party has left them, are the better fit for Trump democrats

 

The idea that Trump is less likely to start a nuclear war than Clinton is absolutely hilarious.

 

No life is exterminated. It's a cluster of cells.

 

Thanks for admitting you didn't do any research. :)

 

https://www.womensmarch.com/mission/

[REMOVED]

 

This is a 8 week old fetus, the likes of which a heartbeat bill (that I support) would protect. Doesn't seem like a clump of cells to me

 

"In the spirit of democracy and honoring the champions of human rights, dignity, and justice"

 

I've read it, and this sounds hypocritical to me, what justice or dignity is there to death without fair trial

[Wahrheit]

It's a cluster of cells. You're derailing the thread. Again. Why do you always do this?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's a cluster of cells. You're derailing the thread. Again. Why do you always do this?

We're all a cluster of cells by that logic.

 

I'm saying that the marchers don't give a flying funk about woman's rights and are fake feminists. In the marcher's view people like Susan B. Anthony, who funking helped get the woman a right to vote, would not be a feminist. 

 

Say a bunch of people are protesting Trump, but don't insult feminism by saying they're feminists or fighting for female rights