Trump

[ShockTalk]

Having millions march today compared to the woeful turnout yesterday shows what our country's desires are. Why is any protest helpful?

First, I did not vote for Trump and I'm not trying to b a smartass (well, maybe I am), but I thought that's why we had the election. To find out what the country's desires are.

I agree that the right to peacefully assemble is important. I'm just not sure that the protests today are changing anyone's mind as there seems to be a deep divide. I'm pretty certain that the protests that got TV attention yesterday hurt more than helped along with what spewed out of Baldwin mouth. Is Jackson even a US citizen? I'm very tired of Hollywood trying to control US policy.

[jdshock]

First, I did not vote for Trump and I'm not trying to b a smartass (well, maybe I am), but I thought that's why we had the election. To find out what the country's desires are.

I agree that the right to peacefully assemble is important. I'm just not sure that the protests today are changing anyone's mind as there seems to be a deep divide. I'm pretty certain that the protests that got TV attention yesterday hurt more than helped along with what spewed out of Baldwin mouth. Is Jackson even a US citizen? I'm very tired of Hollywood trying to control US policy.

I really don't want an electoral college debate, that's not my point, but the election came down to key states. The marches are to show what the majority demands.

Maybe it did just divide the country more, but doing nothing also gets nothing done. There's only a risk that it continues to energize democrats and unify the progressive movement.

Here's the point: today's marches were exactly what effective protests should be. Millions of people standing up for issues they believe in. They did so peacefully. The media covered it. If this protest was dumb or just divided people more, then there isn't such a thing as an effective protest.

[Ta Town Shocker]

The statement about Trump supporters working was a petty joke. Regarding the number of views though I personally don't remember anyone watching the last two. Both were a while back and I may just not remember. By the comments on FB and seeing everyone at work streaming it I have to imagine the view count was extremely high.

Off topic but just to show how much things have changed in 10 years. I had my first class on Wednesday as part of WSU's MBA program. My last undergraduate class was 8 years ago. The professor showed a YouTube video to start the class. Roughly 9 years ago I had a marketing class at WSU in which the teacher pulled up U2's website and started talking about how it was an effective video sharing website. 90 percent of the class was dumbfounded including myself. How was the bands website relevant to anything she was trying to convey. Finally a student spoke up and noted YouTube. Pretty sure the teacher just let it bounce off and never navigated to the right website. Still makes me smile everytime I think about it.

[wufan]

I will say that I am very supportive of the marches that occurred today. First and foremost, the right to peacefully assemble is so important. Second, Trump is going to spout lies for four years that he's the most popular president in history. His press secretary has already tried to convince us that this was the most watched inauguration in history, but that's just false. Having millions march today compared to the woeful turnout yesterday shows what our country's desires are. Why is any protest helpful?

I absolutely agree with the right to protest and the right to assembly. I also agree that today's protest likely promotes solidarity in the feminist/LBGT movement. I don't really understand the message though...that's okay, I'm not sure I'm the target audience. To me, it really does look like a lot of whiney losers...Trump has done nothing yet, and the party of love hates him. It's just weird to me.

jdshock, do you believe that the pockets of vandalism that broke out earlier this week were also good for the party, or appropriate acts of assembly?

[ShockTalk]

I really don't want an electoral college debate, that's not my point, but the election came down to key states. The marches are to show what the majority demands.

Maybe it did just divide the country more, but doing nothing also gets nothing done. There's only a risk that it continues to energize democrats and unify the progressive movement.

Here's the point: today's marches were exactly what effective protests should be. Millions of people standing up for issues they believe in. They did so peacefully. The media covered it. If this protest was dumb or just divided people more, then there isn't such a thing as an effective protest.

Regarding the protests, I did not say that the peaceful protests of today divided the country more, but I do believe non-peaceful protest of yesterday probably did.

I, too, do not want to get into an electoral college debate, but will raise my point. From my point of view, I'm sure I have different key state(s) than you. For me, it is California, more so, LA county and the counties around San Fran. The US popularity vote difference we talk about is by and large those two areas. They made up 83% of the difference in California and CA, by itself, made up 25% of Clinton's electoral college total. Her popularity vote win was not across the nation, but in isolated pockets. My concern is that a few largely populated counties, in a few states, could dictate/control National elections without something like the electoral college.

[WuDrWu]

Having millions march today compared to the woeful turnout yesterday shows what our country's desires are. Why is any protest helpful?

I heard an estimate from a liberal source that said maybe 2.5 million around the world protested today. Who cares outside this country? Not me.

It in NO WAY shows what our country desires. It shows the inauguration took place in perhaps THE most whack job, living at the government teat, part of our country. I wasn't surprised the crowd was down. I doubt 6 people in attendance yesterday lived within 20 miles of the White House.

Our country's desire was shown on Election Day, and he just took office. STOP saying it's not legitimate. Geez, there's NOTHING in this world worse than an intelligent liberal. You'll argue any point of minutia. You lost. It was fair. Get over it.

[jdshock]

jdshock, do you believe that the pockets of vandalism that broke out earlier this week were also good for the party, or appropriate acts of assembly?

Vandalism is definitely not a constitutional right. Those acts also absolutely added to the division in our country.

While we are on the subject, I will say that every once in a while I'll entertain a devil's advocate position on this subject. After the Ferguson stuff and every time we have protests for race issues, it seems to me that the peaceful protests and marches don't receive media coverage. The non-peaceful ones do (two notes: 1. There might not be a "control" test here, so it's possible if we had only peaceful protests they would get covered, but non peaceful protests get the air time. 2. Those peaceful protests were significantly smaller than the ones yesterday.) If you assume that media coverage is necessary to enact change in our country, maybe there is an ounce of validity to the acts?

Ultimately, I believe it's unhelpful. I believe it's not covered by our constitutional rights. That said, it might be a "steal bread to feed your family situation." It's illegal. There are probably other options. Etc. But, every once in a while, I entertain the notion that they might have some reason for doing it that isn't evil.

Absolutely zero justification this week though. Everyone knew the events on Saturday were going to be huge.

[jdshock]

Our country's desire was shown on Election Day, and he just took office. STOP saying it's not legitimate. Geez, there's NOTHING in this world worse than an intelligent liberal. You'll argue any point of minutia. You lost. It was fair. Get over it.

That's not what I'm trying to say. Trump obviously won the election. Any argument otherwise is silly.

I'm saying the protests show what millions of Americans demand on this one subject. I get that there probably weren't many, but Trump voters could've marched yesterday too. It wasn't a demand that he forfeit the presidency and give it to Clinton. It was a demand that he re-think the portions of his platform and persona that are harmful to women. His rhetoric and his policy positions are much worse for women than President Obama's, so it's just a demand that he recognize the millions of energized individuals who support those issues.

[MoValley John]

Was Madonna's speech acceptable? I have no problem with women marching, in fact, now that Trump is actually president, protest away! I'm just wondering where the line is drawn on peaceful protest.

[wufan]

That's not what I'm trying to say. Trump obviously won the election. Any argument otherwise is silly.

I'm saying the protests show what millions of Americans demand on this one subject. I get that there probably weren't many, but Trump voters could've marched yesterday too. It wasn't a demand that he forfeit the presidency and give it to Clinton. It was a demand that he re-think the portions of his platform and persona that are harmful to women. His rhetoric and his policy positions are much worse for women than President Obama's, so it's just a demand that he recognize the millions of energized individuals who support those issues.

What would Trump supporters be protesting? Please list examples of Trumps "platform" that are harmful to women. He's not even very pro-life, and in fact, a cosponsor of the Women's march yesterday were booted at the 11th hour because they are pro-life feminists. The second part of your statement, "Trumps persona is harmful to women", is harmful in what way? Because of the claims of harassment? Because of what he said 12 years ago? Are we protesting non-PC bevavior? While I condemn such comments, I can't get behind that. Again, I don't understand what they are protesting except that the opposition won. I seriously want to know what the protests are all about.

[wufan]

Vandalism is definitely not a constitutional right. Those acts also absolutely added to the division in our country.

While we are on the subject, I will say that every once in a while I'll entertain a devil's advocate position on this subject. After the Ferguson stuff and every time we have protests for race issues, it seems to me that the peaceful protests and marches don't receive media coverage. The non-peaceful ones do (two notes: 1. There might not be a "control" test here, so it's possible if we had only peaceful protests they would get covered, but non peaceful protests get the air time. 2. Those peaceful protests were significantly smaller than the ones yesterday.) If you assume that media coverage is necessary to enact change in our country, maybe there is an ounce of validity to the acts?

Ultimately, I believe it's unhelpful. I believe it's not covered by our constitutional rights. That said, it might be a "steal bread to feed your family situation." It's illegal. There are probably other options. Etc. But, every once in a while, I entertain the notion that they might have some reason for doing it that isn't evil.

Absolutely zero justification this week though. Everyone knew the events on Saturday were going to be huge.

Even from a Devils advocate standpoint, I can see no way that a race relation protest justifies stealing. If it's a poverty protest or a food shortage protest, I get it. People are looting grocery stores. Man gets shot, steal a TV to buy bread...nope.

[pinstripers]

Are pro-life woman welcome to participate in this event?

[wufan]

Are pro-life woman welcome to participate in this event?

They were NOT allowed to participate in the march yesterday. Again, I feel that the liberal/progressive movement isn't about bringing people together, rather it is about exclusion; the same exclusion that elected Trump. The black movement isn't for all black people, only those that feel that racism is the cause of the majority of the issues. It's not for white people that are against racism, it's for white people that embrace their "fragility". The progressive feminist movement isn't for women, it's for women that believe men have to apologize for their privledge. These are very egocentric and exclusionary beliefs to me.

Again, I'd really like to hear the other sides take on my views. Are these views correct (in their core, not their outcome as two intelligent people can disagree on the legitimacy of the opinion)? Do progressives embrace all people, or only special people? If only special people, who do they exclude and why?

[MoValley John]

1611462395175036123498967795406045245867096562495n.jpg

[ShockingButTrue]

That's called keepin' it "One Hunderd" %