add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

The Women's March, and what comes Next

gorkti200

37 months ago

This past Saturday, one of the largest protests in history occurred on the steps of our nation's capital, and at hundreds of sister sites around the US and the world. Millions of US citizens, the majority women, took to the streets to peacefully protest the platform and promises that Donald Trump ran on, with a cornerstone of the march being women's reproductive rights. Regardless of your perception of the march, no one can deny that it was a massive demonstration.

Rather than acknowledge or receive this message, Trump first sent his press secretary out to quibble with the press about audience sizes at the inauguration. Then he derided the march participants on Twitter. Then he signed back into law an anti-abortion policy, blatantly ignoring the march and its message to him.

The ball was in Trump's court, and instead of reaching out to the millions divided by his campaign, he popped it and went home. A crucial and irreplaceable moment arose for an unprecedentedly divisive president to extend an olive branch, and he snuffed it out contemptuously. However, this does not mean it is time for those concerned citizens to give up. Ostensibly, the government still works for us, though it often doesn't feel that way. Perhaps you have never considered how you might actually influence legislation at the national level. Perhaps this post can help.

202-225-3121

This is the switchboard for finding your district Representative in the House. You can also find them via your zip code here. Your state Senators can similarly be found here, and are often easily googled as well. You can call, write, or email any of your elected officials at any time. If you are of voting age (or heck, even if you aren't), this is a great avenue to voice your concern on upcoming legislation and other matters.

Next is to stay informed. Setup bookmarks; get a Twitter feed that isn't full of ********; use an RSS. Get to the facts. I recommend the Associated Press as an excellent source that largely sticks to facts and not opinions. I also visit Reuters and occasionally other sources. Read between the lines of partisan spin and see what is really being said, factually, if you must read partisan news.

Now maybe you think I am not being fair in my assessment above. My feelings on the matter are not hard to discern. Maybe you disagree with me vehemently. Perhaps you think Trump is the greatest thing to ever happen to America, or at least that he is "not that bad". That is ok; these resources are here for you too! Civic participation is for everyone, and I encourage everyone to bookmark these resources and use them frequently. A severe lack of participation is chronic in our society, and in my opinion a sad reality. In Congressional election years, routinely less than half the population actually votes. If you aren't even voting, I think it is fair to assume you aren't bothering to speak up to your elected officials during non-election years either.

For my part, I plan to utilize these links to an annoying degree as one aspect of my increased awareness and engagement. I encourage you all to do the same. Stay abreast of the topics of the day and the actions or inactions of your legislators. You'd be hard-pressed to avoid it, but keep in the front of your mind the actions of our new president as well. These people work for you and I and everyone around us in this nation, but only if you stay informed and speak up.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
-Thomas Jefferson


Some common reactions to the march, with responses in advance:

"What was the march even about? Its message is confusing!"

Even the barest research will tell you this answer. The march was about human rights for a broad coalition of people who were directly or indirectly attacked or disenfranchised by Trump's campaign. It was about sending a message to the government that these people cannot be ignored and that the platform he ran on critically ignores or undermines issues important to these people.

"Trump won already. Stop whining!"

This isn't about contesting who won. The election is over and nobody is more painfully aware than those who marched. Despite the popular phrase "NotMyPresident" being common among those who marched, it isn't a literal statement of "I have a different president and it is a person who is not you", lol. It is a statement exclaiming that the person elected doesn't represent you or your values.

Further, dissenting with elected officials who do not represent your policy goals is not only acceptable but necessary. It is a cornerstone of American democracy, and something that far too many have become complacent, apathetic, or even hostile towards. To criticize those who speak out as "crybabies" or "whiners" is to criticize American democracy in action.

"Protesting doesn't do anything. It's a waste of time."

Protesting has been associated with dramatic social changes, or even revolutions, in the US and across the globe throughout history. I really shouldn't have to cite examples, but here goes: the Boston Tea Party, Ghandi's Salt March, the US Civil Rights Movement, Nelson Mandela's Defiance Campaign against apartheid, the Orange Revolution, the Peaceful Revolution in east Germany... etc. The point being that even if a protest doesn't accomplish an immediate specific goal the day after it happens, it can lead to changes down the road, especially with continued pressure.

"something something Rioters something"

Rioters suck. The Women's March wasn't a riot. In fact, it was incredibly peaceful. Rioters did come out in force on inauguration day, but that is a separate matter entirely. That is not what this is about, and that is not something I support.

"Madonna said she was gonna blow up the white house!!!"

Madonna is an idiot lol. It obviously wasn't an actual threat, but even if it were, I feel like the Secret Service would not have much trouble foiling her evil mastermind plots...

"You're just a butthurt lib-dem who can't accept Trump."

I'm an independent who cares about human beings and how they are treated by our government, alongside other issues I have with the new administration. When you are an independent, you get real used to being disappointed by presidents. This is the first time I've had an extreme aversion(to put it mildly) to an incoming administration, and it has caused a realization in me that sitting back and voting was no longer going to be enough for me to be satisfied.

"The march was just a bunch of butthurt shrieking hysterical feminazis who want to take away our right to look at boobies!"

I really don't think anything I can say is going to get through to you.

Comments

  • 37 months ago
  • 5 points

This is a prime example of a good off-topic topic. This should be pinned to be an example.

  • 37 months ago
  • 4 points

no, don't pin political bs, pls

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Agreed. These things are how the users here get into fights and bans get handed out.

  • 37 months ago
  • 4 points

That is up to the individual to restrain themselves; shouldn't encourage censoring or discouraging conversations to save users from getting themselves banned.

  • 37 months ago
  • 6 points

The topic is fine as long as it doesn't get out of hand and devolve into personal attacks on both sides. So far so good...

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Can you cite any examplea? I don't remember users getting BANNED for political topics. Unless this was before my time during the age of Vembutech

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

I miss Vembutech and his robotness. It was like he was a AI that was learning how to interact with people.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Tell me more...

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Nah man, Efficient but cheap was the real MVP here

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Whether fights start is between the users. The topic itself doesn't start fights.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

^^^

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Is it "political bs" because you disagree with what the OP said?

  • 37 months ago
  • 3 points

No, it's political bs because it is the result of stupidity.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

I c

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Thanks!

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Agreed. If people get into fights and insult, they need to be banned. We need to have constructive discussions, not forum wars and fights. If anybody wants to say something nasty, imho, you should get your arse out.

  • 37 months ago
  • 4 points

I was amazed that it was peaceful, no people getting hit by cars for being stupid cough BLM cough, no riot police involved. What I'm amazed by that people want Trump out of office. What they fail to understand is that the VP would become president and the VP is Mike Pence who is 10 times worse than Trump. If Trump is Hitler, not saying that he is just a comparison, Mike would be Lucifer.

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

#UnpopularOpinionPuffin time but I actually think Pence has some advantages despite supporting terrible ideas, in that he is diplomatic, patient, and coordinated. He could possibly handle himself in a presidential way, even if he was enacting terrible policy. Meanwhile Trump has shown himself to be unpredictable, petty, petulant, and narcissistic.

That being said, it isn't like people would just pack up and go home if Trump got removed from office but the rest of his cabinet stayed behind. This post isn't just about Trump, but Congress and a general sense of participation in government as well.

  • 37 months ago
  • 4 points

Pence would act more president like but I rather have someone who acts bad/whatever the proper term is and has meh polices then someone who acts good and has bad polices.

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

The correct term is "acts in a manner that is deemed to be socially unacceptable"

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

I agree, I just think Trump also supports bad policies. So we have acts bad/bad policies, or behaves himself/bad policies.

Really I don't like either though. I don't want Hitler or Lucifer.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Really I don't like either though. I don't want Hitler or Lucifer.

Yup. Even if you don't think he is as bad, if you don't like Trump you won't like Mike and good luck trying to get one president out much less two presidents out of office and basically undoing the whole election.

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

See, I've been governed by pence whereas you haven't. He made a bad bill, people protested it around the country. He realized it wasn't what the people wanted, so he did the thing a great politician should do, and he changed it to fit accordingly to all the people.

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

Without getting into it, I'll just say this:

The March is regular. It's not a reaction to anything, it happens every time. It's been happening for decades regularly. Even trump and the conservative news people agree the March was well handled and peaceful, and many even praised it unlike the riots the day before from the other group.... Also, some of what you said early in the post was false information with intent to cause division and win support for the anti trump stance, which is a bad idea and wasn't needed. The March stands on its own Merritt without that unnecessary truth adjustment, which just hurts perception of the goal of this post.

Please, keep this stuff off the tech sites. Gizmodo and Engadget already became anti trump rhetoric fabrication sites... We don't want to lose another site to political bs

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

some of what you said early in the post was false information with intent to cause division and win support for the anti trump stance, which is a bad idea and wasn't needed. The March stands on its own Merritt without that unnecessary truth adjustment, which just hurts perception of the goal of this post.

Please point out any false information and I will correct it. Regarding Trump:

He did send Sean Spicer out to fight the press over numbers on Saturday.
He did Tweet a dismissive note about the march.
He did reinstate the anti-abortion Mexico City Policy this past Monday.

I think that is all I said about him specifically.

Please, keep this stuff off the tech sites.

No, that is why I put it in Off Topic.

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

This is a good example of a measured and effective form of civil advocation, and while all forms of protest are allowed, Protest prompting people to get involved in government if they really want change is much more welcome than screaming as the president took his oath, If you truly want change, take the time out of your day to go to the ballot box, and get others to go as well, just because everyone you know is voting a certain way doesn't mean the majority of citizens will follow your opinion, and contrary to popular belief, every single vote does in fact, matter

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

I hate talking politics

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

Although I expected the protests to be peaceful, in all of the marches across the U.S., I heard there were 0 arrests.

A great example of "you don't need to destroy / deface things to make your voice heard."

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

President Donald Trump reinstated the "Mexico City policy" on Monday, issuing an executive order barring foreign aid or federal funding for international nongovernmental organizations that promote or provide abortions.

"The United States will end the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortion overseas, along with coercive abortions and sterilization practices," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in the White House press briefing Monday, explaining the move.

The policy is also known as the " global gag rule;" it has been instituted by every Republican president since Ronald Reagan, and correspondingly rescinded by all Democratic presidents. Source: http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-01-23/donald-trump-reinstates-mexico-city-policy-banning-international-abortion-funding

Why do we need to pay for abortions across the world when we have money that can be spent domestically and are severely in debt?? This is purely a fiscal issue and does in no way mean that abortions will be illegal stateside.. Just because the Clinton News Network is acting like this is the first time this is happening, it is not! lol

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

Why do we need to pay for abortions across the world when we have money that can be spent domestically and are severely in debt??

It isn't about needing to do it, but whether a small contribution here can make a big impact to the lives of human beings.

This is purely a fiscal issue and does in no way mean that abortions will be illegal stateside..

No one said it would be illegal stateside because of this. That being said, abortion access continues to be challenged in the states and this is not a promising signal in that fight. Also, no, not purely a fiscal issue.

Just because the Clinton News Network is acting like this is the first time this is happening, it is not! lol

Not relevant to this discussion at all.

[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

After reading that website i still don't understand what the march was about since men and women from all colours are equal according to US law. Trump never said he is planning to change this he can't even change this. I would understand it if those people were protesting for example for women who live under sharia law like in Saudi arabia were women are not treated equally and are treated like cattle. Or for the women in Congo were rape is being used as a weapon of war.

The march was also about muslims it seems. Trump never said 1 bad word about muslims. He talks about extremist muslims and islamic terrorism. And just look at Europe how great it is. Trump wants to avoid this at all cost.

About lgbt. After Orlando Trump said he will support them and fight for them against islamic terrorism. Trump has already stated that nothing for these people will change. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/15/donald-trump-will-be-friend-ally-and-advocate-for-lgbt-community.html

About immigration. Trump will continue and increase the deportation of ILLEGAL immigrants just like Obama did. Under Obama more then 2,5 million people were deported. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

I am a European and all of this comes from what i have read and seen If i said anything wrong then pls tell me.

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

After reading that website i still don't understand what the march was about since men and women from all colours are equal according to US law

America has a pretty long history of "everyone is equal" being in the texts, and yet somehow it isn't that way in day to day life.


I would understand it if those people were protesting for example for women who live under sharia law like in Saudi arabia were women are not treated equally and are treated like cattle. Or for the women in Congo were rape is being used as a weapon of war.

As I stated elsewhere in this thread, this is a red herring. Quoting myself:

This is a red herring, and one that I used to subscribe to. The suffering of other people in other places does not mean we should forego action here at home. You can be concerned about the treatment of women in the Middle East, and still be concerned about access to healthcare and abortion here at home.

It is akin to saying something like "why are we arguing about the deficit so much here, maybe we should focus on the really struggling nations like Greece." I have a feeling most of you will find that statement absurd, and you should.


The march was also about muslims it seems. Trump never said 1 bad word about muslims. He talks about extremist muslims and islamic terrorism. And just look at Europe how great it is. Trump wants to avoid this at all cost.

Trump did not long ago support creating a new registry for Muslims, though he later backed away from this statement. He also is already drafting a proposal to stop refugee Muslims from entering the country. To quote:

Trump, according to his yet-to-be-signed executive order, will cut that program by more half to 50,000. The order said while the program is suspended, the U.S. may admit people on a case-by-case basis "when in the national interest" and the government would continue to process refugee requests from people claiming religious persecution, "provided that the religion....is a minority religion in the individual's country." That suggests that would allow the admission of Christians from Muslim-majority countries.

Essentially if you are a Christian refugee, you are welcome.


About lgbt. After Orlando Trump said he will support them and fight for them against islamic terrorism. Trump has already stated that nothing for these people will change.

That was literally an example of Trump using the Orlando shooting to stir up fear of terrorism in his base. Terrorism is not what one would normally consider "an LGBT issue", so trying to make this about him being a champion of those voters is kind of dishonest on his part at best. Worse, he has brought on Steve Bannon and Mike Pence, with quite staunch anti-LGBT records. He also is gearing up to appoint another conservative supreme court justice, which could critically affect issues related to these voters for decades. It is wait and see at this point, but there is no cause for optimism, and definitely some for pessimism, for this community.


About immigration. Trump will continue and increase the deportation of ILLEGAL immigrants just like Obama did. Under Obama more then 2,5 million people were deported.

Oh come on. He basically kicked off his campaign with labeling Mexican immigrants as largely drug lords, murderers, rapists, or some combination of the three. He has also been wishy-washy over repealing DACA, repealing part of the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to those born here (which is actually how all US-born citizens gain citizenship, myself included), and he wants to build the Berlin Wall redux.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Oh come on. He basically kicked off his campaign with labeling Mexican immigrants as largely drug lords, murderers, rapists, or some combination of the three. He has also been wishy-washy over repealing DACA, repealing part of the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to those born here (which is actually how all US-born citizens gain citizenship, myself included), and he wants to build the Berlin Wall redux.

He has talked about ILLEGAL immigrants. And is backed up by data from the FBI. For example data from the FBI Country of Citizenship for Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal Prisons pg9 68% is mexican. pdf here and alot more http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-187.

And thats just 1 example.

The Trumpwall is needed to not only stop illigal immigrants from entering the country but to also stop the mass influx from weapons and cash from the US into Mexico that support the drug cartels.

Trump did not long ago support creating a new registry for Muslims, though he later backed away from this statement. He also is already drafting a proposal to stop refugee Muslims from entering the country. To quote:

Cutting in half is not stopping it. And bringing in those people doesn't work. Just look at Europe were everyone is allowed to enter and nobody is doing check ups to see if those people have a record and then people are suprised that bombs go off or people getting raped and shot.

Trump wants to send these people into safezones inside Syria with help and funding from the US and Europe. Whats so bad about that? And ofcourse should a country allow people if they can truly add something to society. Every country is doing this besides the west.

That was literally an example of Trump using the Orlando shooting to stir up fear of terrorism in his base. Terrorism is not what one would normally consider "an LGBT issue", so trying to make this about him being a champion of those voters is kind of dishonest on his part at best. Worse, he has brought on Steve Bannon and Mike Pence, with quite staunch anti-LGBT records. He also is gearing up to appoint another conservative supreme court justice, which could critically affect issues related to these voters for decades. It is wait and see at this point, but there is no cause for optimism, and definitely some for pessimism, for this community.

Stir up fear? It was a muslim who killed those people. Terrorism not an LGBT issue? They throw gays from buildings in syria and hang them in Iran and Saudi arabia. The rest is wait and see indeed.

Essentially if you are a Christian refugee, you are welcome.

Any refugee could be welcome (case by case basis) if the person was persecuted because of its religion and is part of a minority religion (full text https://www.silverdoctors.com/headlines/world-news/leaked-read-the-full-draft-of-trump-executive-order-restricting-muslim-entry-into-us-total-ban-on-syrian-refugees-biometric-tracking-systems/) . I have no problems with that because then we are talking about a real refugee being saved from genocide.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

He has talked about ILLEGAL immigrants. And is backed up by data from the FBI. For example data from the FBI Country of Citizenship for Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal Prisons pg9 68% is mexican.

The blatantly obvious problem with citing this figure, is that Mexico is the largest population from which illegal immigrants arrive in the first place, and with the most intensely scrutinized border. So it is wholly consistent that you would see the most incarcerations from this population. In 2010, the DHS stats show us that out of an estimated 10,790,000 illegal immigrants residing in the US, 6,640,000 were from Mexico. This is around 61-62%, so it is entirely within reason to see that of all incarcerated immigrants you would see 68% arising from this figure.

The Trumpwall is needed to not only stop illigal immigrants from entering the country but to also stop the mass influx from weapons and cash from the US into Mexico that support the drug cartels.

The thing is, and this is something many Americans seem to forget, we already have hundreds of miles of fencing along the Mexican border. We did this before; Trump is just proposing a more expensive version of the same thing. Also despite what movies may make it seem like sometimes, America is not actually barely hanging on in a sea of Mexican drug cartels.

Cutting in half is not stopping it. And bringing in those people doesn't work. Just look at Europe were everyone is allowed to enter and nobody is doing check ups to see if those people have a record and then people are suprised that bombs go off or people getting raped and shot.

We already have strict measures in place to vet incoming refugees, and he has in fact said he will cut off refugees for at least 4 months (it was the first paragraph in the same article I linked above). You'll notice that 99% of the murders and rapes we have here are from US citizens, so those vetting procedures must be working to some degree... and/or refugees maybe are largely not murderers and rapists, also.

Stir up fear? It was a muslim who killed those people. Terrorism not an LGBT issue? They throw gays from buildings in syria and hang them in Iran and Saudi arabia. The rest is wait and see indeed.

It was an American muslim who killed those people, yes. When an American politician begins talking about Terrorism, that person is not talking to the LGBT community specifically. There are specific policies that one would normally call LGBT issues in American politics, referring to domestic policy, which (getting back on track finally) is what the march was largely about. Conflating the "war on terror" concept with being "in defense of the LGBT community" is ridiculous, but it is precisely what Trump did.

Obviously LGBT people are horribly mistreated overseas, yes. So is literally everyone, just depending on where you are. People have had their doors kicked in in Pakistan and been butchered to death with a machete in front of their families, for having the gall to post about atheism online. Like I have pointed out many times already in this thread: foreign problems are important, but they do not preclude us from concerning ourselves with domestic problems. This is just not a logical argument.

You realize the overwhelming reason for the refugees in the world today is the war in Syria right? Which is not being fought along religious lines. So then why ban all refugees except those in the religious minority. "I have no problems with that because then we are talking about areal refugee being saved from genocide". So the non-religious-minority refugees are not real refugees? This is absurd.

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

"The march was just a bunch of butthurt shrieking hysterical feminazis who want to take away our right to look at boobies!"

I really don't think anything I can say is going to get through to you.

Yes, lol

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

You left out the fact that Trump is being sued for being in contradiction with the US constitutional laws regarding companies with interests in other countries that receive dignitaries and funds from outside the US.

Trump was given a chance to correct the infrigements but he said no and kept everything as is meaning he will be sued by the US attorneys over this point that would allow him to receive discreete and undisclosed amounts from foreign powers without being seen to the US. Even more so that he still refuses to show up his tax income as a president of the US which I find somewhat funny.

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/top-ethics-lawyers-take-trump-court-citing-constitutional-violations/?utm_content=inf_10_1164_2&tse_id=INF_8a82ccf0e17511e6a03c354c456e1db2

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Despite my obvious feelings showing through, the post wasn't to point out all the problems with Trump. Perhaps a different post could be made for that lol. But I appreciate the contribution regardless!

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

While I really don't want to hold an opinion (because I'll get roasted for it no matter how neutral of a stance I'll take on it), I want to thank you for the links. I'm tired of trying to getting my news from other sources that are "biased" (because literally everyone says everyone is biased), and to see that you linked some sources that are neutral in stance or just flat out facts. Thank you

(Also I hope something happens about this protest, this is great to see that people are still willing to go out there and let their voices be heard WITHOUT murdering everyone, being an arson, spraying signs of anarchy everywhere, and llamas, apparently)

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

lol @llamas. I don't even know what to say about that.

You're still going to get the personal preferences of the specific writers coming through, even with the AP and Reuters. The AP at least is a nonprofit, so you don't have corporate interests backing it. That being said, it is largely run by union members which historically are liberal-leaning.

Reuters I just find tries to be very middle of the road in general with its reporting. Another benefit to both of these sites is they aren't plastered with popups or other annoying ads, though they do run fairly standard sidebar ads.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

trump gets several standing ovations and laughs at the cia if you see the full feed @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMBqDN7-QLg#t=21.008416 but the media says it went poorly

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

You are not staying on topic at all.

However, this is just another event where instead of being on topic, Trump started arguing over his audience numbers and self-aggrandizing. The reason the press gave him crap over it is he was standing in front of the memorial wall of fallen employees while doing it.

He literally said nothing about the wall except in his first two minutes, "the wall behind me is very very special".

[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Politics is utterly ridiculous for anyone to discuss. No argument or speech is going to change anything, the only thing that can can change according to us is who the president is through us voting.

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

president is through us voting.

Except... That's not how your political system really works.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

well, that has a small amount of power behind it compared to complaining about how some white dude called you a stupid woman or a racial slur

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

well, that has a small amount of power behind it compared to complaining about how some white dude called you a stupid woman or a racial slur

I think protesting has great power behind it... I just don't agree with some protests and do indeed think some are just mindless complaints

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

I can only imagine what this amount of people could have done for a greater cause such as disease fundraising and volunterring elswhere.

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

I can only imagine what you could have been doing to raise funds or volunteer instead of commenting on the internet. /s

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm in school in a free period and I can't leave, but I do volunteer at the USO some times.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

My sarcastic comment was to indicate the obvious fallacy in assuming that just because someone is doing X (that you don't care about it), that doesn't mean they don't do Y as well (that you actually care about).

Also, by highlighting how they are not doing Y at this precise point in time, it does not somehow undermine or devalue X.


Obviously it wasn't actually about you. You can use the internet however you wish and I won't judge you lol. Kudos on volunteering.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Ah

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

I love how our society has the ability to have these demonstrations, and while I fully support their right to do this, I don't agree with a lot of what they're protesting for and against (and no, I don't support Trump either before anyone accuses me of being on the Trump-train). I agree with many of the points you brought up regarding getting in contact with elected representatives and following reputable news source outlets though. A lot of that was very well worded.

That being said, I did "like" a video of a Fed-Ex guy spraying a fire extinguisher on a group of protestors so they couldn't burn an American flag in the street. Sue me. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

lol thanks. And that is fine, I think flag burning is a pretty stupid way to protest as it is really just a way to provoke people who take the flag very seriously. You're not going to be able to convey any messages to that person once they're provoked either as they're going to be blinded by anger about what you did.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

I agree. I don't condone either side trying to coax violence or anger out of the other in order to make themselves and their argument look better. Extremely childish imo.

  • 37 months ago
  • 0 points

CNN's aerial shot being circulated is 2.5 hours before trump even spoke! See the real crowd size when trump is speaking on CNN GIGAPIXEL @ http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/ See the real crowd size when trump is speaking @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SbFGQVSaiYoriginal source @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WVf_0b4nIk

Full spicer press conference shows pictures that more accurately show crowd size @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8llFHHAkGcw ... other networks cropped out the pictures from the feed

Early estimates put Trump's inauguration attendance at about 900,000. Trump's attendance may have been greater than George W. Bush's and greater than at least Bill Clinton's second inauguration. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/inauguration-crowd-size-photos-trump-obama-bush-clinton-comparisons-how-many-attended-people-pictures/2/

I love getting my lengthy well put together comments constantly deleted... guess the moderators don't believe in free speech....

  • 37 months ago
  • 3 points

If you want to be civil and not troll then your comments will not be deleted. We have rules - if you want to participate you need to follow them. Commenting in a forum is not first amendment protected - you know that right?

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

you know that right?

Obviously not, people tend to think that the constitution applies to private property(which is what this is i think?) and that isn't always the case bc the people who own the private property have rights of their own that trump the more communal rights of the owners.

I think, didn't really understand it when my teacher told me about it.

  • 37 months ago
  • 3 points

The first amendment provides protection against government censorship - detailing what the government cannot do. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". As a private company, it is legal for us to make our own rules about what people are allowed to post (and then moderate accordingly). It does not mean people can say anything they want here and be free of censorship.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

So, I was on track. lol

I'm happy

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

I wish everyone on the big sites knew that basic concept... People on Facebook tend to think the definition of censorship is the same as freedom of speech... Its rather annoying when they see a news site censored something and they suddenly think it's a rights violation lol

  • 37 months ago
  • 3 points

Ok look, this really isn't supposed to be about disputing the numbers. This post is about encouraging participation in government. I think Trump really missed an opportunity when he made such an effort at disputing the numbers versus reacting to the message of the people.

That being said, someone accused me of misinformation earlier. And I can't let this misinformation go unchallenged either.

Yes the aerial shot is prior to Trump speaking. You can see that the shot was taken around the 2h11m mark using the video you provided here and comparing it to the photo. In the same video, Trump's speech takes place around the 3h40m mark, so 1.5 hours later, not 2.5. Timestamps of the infamous photo list it as having taken place at 11:49am, so this is substantially earlier than that.

Now, look here, at Obama's 2009 inauguration (which is what those "deceptive" photos was actually comparing, not GW or Clinton as you mention above). This is the 1h1m mark of this 2009 inauguration video. All those blank spaces are clearly filled in during this inauguration at this point in time. Further, Obama doesn't start his speech (again, your arbitrary benchmark, not mine) until the 3h10m mark of this video, a very similar amount of time later (2.0 hours later). So your first comment is invalid.

The photos from Spicer's press conference, which are clearly visible in the link I provided above to his conference, don't give us any greater information (and again, miss the point of the post).

Once more you cite examples that work against you. Your heavy.com link states:

Early estimates put Trump's inauguration attendance at about 900,000 maximum.

This implies no higher than, and possibly lower than. Which is not quite the same as saying "about 900,000" but whatever, let's assume it is exactly spot on at 900K. It doesn't matter because it is immediately followed with:

Obama's first inauguration was estimated to be 1.8 million, so that was at least twice Trump's.

Why on earth would you cite this as supposed evidence of the media lying about Trump's inauguration attendees??? It literally is supporting what the media has reported!

[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 3 points

Although, really, inauguration crowd size should hardly be an issue.

This 100%.

It appears that the photos taken of Trump's inauguration were taken at an earlier time, as opposed to Obama's inauguration. It's dishonest media at best, to keep promoting the idea that Trump's inauguration crowd was somehow much smaller, than former president Obama's.

Read my post responding to Fl0w.


We tend not to be especially critical when presented with evidence that seems to confirm our prejudices.
-Carl Sagan

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 37 months ago
  • 3 points

Keep it civil and don't insult people, indirectly or not.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 37 months ago
  • 4 points

If you're going to talk like "The Fake News Clinton News Network", your stuff is going to get deleted. Mixing trolling with your arguments is just going to get yourself banned. If you want to discuss and debate like a rational and mature human being, you're welcome to. Otherwise you need to leave.

[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 3 points

This is a red herring, and one that I used to subscribe to. The suffering of other people in other places does not mean we should forego action here at home. You can be concerned about the treatment of women in the Middle East, and still be concerned about access to healthcare and abortion here at home.

It is akin to saying something like "why are we arguing about the deficit so much here, maybe we should focus on the really struggling nations like Greece." I have a feeling most of you will find that statement absurd, and you should.

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 3 points

You know specifically that all these people didn't vote?

They got exactly what they deserve then. Granted, NY went Blue and there wasn't much fear of it going Red anyways, so if they are feeling anti-Trump, their uncast votes literally wouldn't have mattered.
#ElectoralCollege

[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

They openly admit not voting but now they want things to change.

They are idiots =)

And no upstate is Red by majority but voting doesn't matter much here as it only counts for blue thanks to how they state and local governments are run but that's probably the reason that the number federal cases for corruption are about the average for the rest of the country in this state alone lol

Gerry-mandering is a serious problem, and this is just one more example of why the Electoral College is nonsense (something I've supported since before this election). All those Republican votes in NY literally don't count under the EC. Just like all Democrat votes in Texas don't count. Every four years, millions of Americans cast votes that will never, ever, affect the outcome of the election one way or the other, because their State is locked in one way or the other.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Make NYC its own state... It already has its own laws separated from the NY state laws... It will save upstate tax dollars from going to them while making our votes actually count...

[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Thanks lol

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 37 months ago
  • 4 points

Hey if you want to join in, let's talk like a reasonable person. Calling people orangutans and other assorted hyperbole is only inflammatory and doesn't lead to meaningful discussion.

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

Dang philip you're really giving people alot of chances today lol

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

I hope you realise Philip here is PCPP's big boss. I'd listen to him. I've seen you make nasty comments on other posts so I'm not particularly on your side so to say.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Obviously the people protesting didn't put him there.

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Was it like the last day or something? That sucks dude.

[comment deleted by staff]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube