Mindwalker Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 I need to find that poem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 What exactly is the point of these marches? What do they hope to achieve? I asked the same question of somebody protesting in New York after the election and she couldn't give me a straight answer. Usually, when people march, they're marching for something specific that they'd like the government to do. This march sort of has that in the sense that they have a platform, but given that it is practically the opposite of what the recently inaugurated government has pledged to do, it is not plausible that they expect this platform to be made into policy. So, why bother with this? To show that a lot of people are seriously opposed to Trump? We know that already and the numbers that people here are trumpeting are not large enough to influence anything: a few hundred thousand in DC, maybe a couple of million across the country -- it's utterly negligible compared to the more than hundred million who voted in the last election. To maintain the anger against Trump at a boil? I suppose that this is the most likely reason, but it won't be relevant for a while and even 2 years is a long time to be angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 ^^^^^ I tend to agree. I'm not sure what the aim here is exactly. It seems to me this sort of display should be saved for Trump's first big crossing of an important line, which I assume will come sooner as opposed to later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 25 minutes ago, Altherion said: What exactly is the point of these marches? What do they hope to achieve? I asked the same question of somebody protesting in New York after the election and she couldn't give me a straight answer. Usually, when people march, they're marching for something specific that they'd like the government to do. This march sort of has that in the sense that they have a platform, but given that it is practically the opposite of what the recently inaugurated government has pledged to do, it is not plausible that they expect this platform to be made into policy. So, why bother with this? To show that a lot of people are seriously opposed to Trump? We know that already and the numbers that people here are trumpeting are not large enough to influence anything: a few hundred thousand in DC, maybe a couple of million across the country -- it's utterly negligible compared to the more than hundred million who voted in the last election. To maintain the anger against Trump at a boil? I suppose that this is the most likely reason, but it won't be relevant for a while and even 2 years is a long time to be angry. What's more powerful? A million+ people rallying in 7-10 US cities or twitter/media articles? We know people are seriously opposed but now we have a visual representation of that, one where you have a million or more people all marching/rallying to a common cause. It's not abstract anymore. I think the point is to get people focused. This is the beginning, it gives people strength to push forward and know that they're not alone in their beliefs. Will it affect Trump? Nah since he's already telling people there was 1.5 million people at his inauguration and the crowds were so big it went all the way to the Washington Monument which is demonstratively false. Will it get some politicians to take notice? Definitely. Will it give people the confidence to run at a local office? Probably. I don't think today's rally accomplishes anything in terms of what Trump will do in the future but like the Tea Party in 2009, it could be the start of driving towards more local action. If that's the case, it's a huge success. ETA: Seeing reports of 2.5 million people marching. Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 My impression (as someone outside the US) is that it is meant as a mutual encouragement as well as a sign to Trump and the rest of the world. The speeches I watched certainly had an uplifting effect on me. Very diverse women (and men) sharing their experiences and calling for long-term mutual support and resistance against backlash. Maybe some networking and synergy effects will be the result. If not. Worst case: Many scared people had a day of encouragement, mutual comfort, listened to the voices of people they might otherwise never had contact with, and to good music with horrible sound, and at least achieved some media coverage for their issues. What's not to like? I know from when I went to huge rallyes a long time ago, I enjoyed it, I took away ideas and friendships, and we showed to the world how many people dissented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Starkess said: I was supposed to go to the Charleston march, but unfortunately I've been laid up all day with a bad stomach bug. I know they had to move the location a couple days ago due to the larger than expected interest, and their Facebook page shows a pretty good crowd. Watched some coverage of the DC march on YouTube and it was very inspiring but also disheartening, because as many people and as much as we care, I don't think we can really influence anything. In fairness, similar scenes in Poland achieved a concrete change. But that was a protest against a specific law that was meant to, and didn't, come in to power, so a little different. Like Mexal says, though, this should be taken as the chance for the left to start off, and harness, a proper grassroots people's movement and generate interest in active politics, and in engaging with the specific women's issues that is the base reasoning behind these ones. I'm not really sure what the ones outside of America are hoping to achieve, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivin Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 28 minutes ago, Mexal said: ETA: Seeing reports of 2.5 million people marching. Jesus. Jesus is not involved in politics. But if he was, he wouldn't be a Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 1 minute ago, WinterFox said: Jesus is not involved in politics. But if he was, he wouldn't be a Democrat. Obviously. He'd be far more radically liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 44 minutes ago, Altherion said: What exactly is the point of these marches? What do they hope to achieve? I asked the same question of somebody protesting in New York after the election and she couldn't give me a straight answer. Usually, when people march, they're marching for something specific that they'd like the government to do. This march sort of has that in the sense that they have a platform, but given that it is practically the opposite of what the recently inaugurated government has pledged to do, it is not plausible that they expect this platform to be made into policy. So, why bother with this? To show that a lot of people are seriously opposed to Trump? We know that already and the numbers that people here are trumpeting are not large enough to influence anything: a few hundred thousand in DC, maybe a couple of million across the country -- it's utterly negligible compared to the more than hundred million who voted in the last election. To maintain the anger against Trump at a boil? I suppose that this is the most likely reason, but it won't be relevant for a while and even 2 years is a long time to be angry. One protest march on any issue rarely achieves anything. But one among many, over time, or one that leads to other actions that lead to a change is worth it in retrospect. I'm sure the organisers of the marches intend this to be the beginning of things, not the end. Time will tell whether it leads to something substantial or whether it was merely an impotent expression of anger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivin Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Just now, polishgenius said: Obviously. He'd be far more radically liberal. I can't remember the name of the guy who first made that quote in the 80's, and googling it brings up a bunch of really stupid hits. To be absolutely clear, I was being snarky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, WinterFox said: Jesus is not involved in politics. But if he was, he wouldn't be a Democrat. He is actually, just not willingly, and He's been co-opted by the Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 the crowds here in Boston are bananas (size-wise, not behavior) i work about ten minutes from the common, and even down here there are shit loads of people. kickass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: One protest march on any issue rarely achieves anything. But one among many, over time, or one that leads to other actions that lead to a change is worth it in retrospect. I'm sure the organisers of the marches intend this to be the beginning of things, not the end. Time will tell whether it leads to something substantial or whether it was merely an impotent expression of anger. It also shows to others that not all agree with the status quo. Plus things have changed now. Bush pressured the media to not cover the anti war protests and Obama had the Occupy Wall Street folks arrested. Things are different now with social media and anyone being able to put a vid on youtube. So being able to organize might just easier for folks if they really commit to it. Considering the sizes of the crowds, I'd say rage and organizing was win/win today. It's what happens tomorrow tomorrow and tomorrow that is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 I'm afraid humanity has a real problem. It always strikes me how people can be so passionate about radically opposing ideologies. And this in the same country. This divide cannot be healed, in my view, and the conflict is indeed a zero sum game, sadly, if these groups have to fight it out in one political entity. Each group is effectively determined to own the future, and appears convinced that it can only do so by overpowering the opposing group, and eventually pushing it and the interests it represents into the realm of irrelevence. It troubles me. The future of the world will not be pretty. That is why I favour seperatism, and the need for unitary states to continue to sub-divide into smaller entities that can better represent a more uniform value system that is important to its citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: The DNC needs to get behind Warren as a Presidential candidate like yesterday. She is a superstar. I don't care how old she is, this needs to happen. She would have zero chance of winning the presidency, especially if Trump survives four years without an impeachment and he ran against her. She is a terrible campaigner. She could not even defend herself when she ran against Scott Brown when the Native American controversy came up. Deval Patrick saved her ass because she could not coherently answer press questions about it. If Patrick had not stepped in that day she would have blown herself up. The last thing the Dems need in their next candidate is a niche issue, identity politics focused candidate like Warren. They need someone who will have the ability to tap into some form of a populist message so they can mobilize large blocks of voters. Hillary is a better campaigner than Warren and that is not a compliment. The other thing about Warren is that she should pay a price for sitting on the sidelines of the Democrat race when she could have backed Bernie and tipped the momentum to him. Instead she played Switzerland and Trump is president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: I'm afraid humanity has a real problem. It always strikes me how people can be so passionate about radically opposing ideologies. And this in the same country. This divide cannot be healed, in my view, and the conflict is indeed a zero sum game, sadly, if these groups have to fight it out in one political entity. Each group is effectively determined to own the future, and appears convinced that it can only do so by overpowering the opposing group, and eventually pushing it and the interests it represents into the realm of irrelevence. It troubles me. The future of the world will not be pretty. That is why I favour seperatism, and the need for unitary states to continue to sub-divide into smaller entities that can better represent a more uniform value system that is important to its citizens. I believe that's referred to as democracy. You know, "the worst form of government except all those other forms of government that have been tried from time to time". Or perhaps "dissent is the highest form of pariotism". It troubles me a lot more that there seems to be a type of person that is willing to put all of those decisions into the hands of one person, simply so they themselves don't have to be bothered with forming an opinion or forming an ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: The DNC needs to get behind Warren as a Presidential candidate like yesterday. She is a superstar. I don't care how old she is, this needs to happen. I've recently seen Sanders supporters condemning her as a sellout more than once. This sort of thing is what the US left needs to avoid. 1 hour ago, Altherion said: What exactly is the point of these marches? What do they hope to achieve? What is any demonstration supposed to achieve? It's supposed to demonstrate (the clue is in the name) the strength of feeling among voters about an issue or range of issues for the benefit of those who are seeking their votes. You've done little for months but talk about how great it is that Donald Trump is acknowledging ordinary people whose voices were ignored. Now that people he is ignoring are using their voice, you're asking why they're bothering. It seems only some voices are worth heeding in your democracy. 5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: That is why I favour seperatism, and the need for unitary states to continue to sub-divide into smaller entities that can better represent a more uniform value system that is important to its citizens. You've said this before and it was then, and remains now, utter blather. Differences of opinion don't magically disappear in smaller countries. Not unless those countries consist of one person each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 1 minute ago, mormont said: I've recently seen Sanders supporters condemning her as a sellout more than once. This sort of thing is what the US left needs to avoid. What is any demonstration supposed to achieve? It's supposed to demonstrate (the clue is in the name) the strength of feeling among voters about an issue or range of issues for the benefit of those who are seeking their votes. You've done little for months but talk about how great it is that Donald Trump is acknowledging ordinary people whose voices were ignored. Now that people he is ignoring are using their voice, you're asking why they're bothering. It seems only some voices are worth heeding in your democracy. You've said this before and it was then, and remains now, utter blather. Differences of opinion don't magically disappear in smaller countries. Not unless those countries consist of one person each. If we take a broader, longer term view, then the time will come when people prefer living under a value system that they feel affinity to over living in a particular geographic area. So the end result will be moving to areas where your ideology is in the majority. A kind of natural "purging" of differences, out of personal choice. The alternative is for minorities to become irrelevant the moment a slight majority can push their values into oblivion, leading to social discord, civil unrest and eventually violence. We see it all over the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 First press briefing with Trump as President and Sean Spicer blasts the media and proclaims yesterday's crowd was the largest inauguration crowd ever. Nothing more important to discuss. Oh and then he stormed off after claiming the Press will be held accountable. Lord help us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 37 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: I'm afraid humanity has a real problem. It always strikes me how people can be so passionate about radically opposing ideologies. And this in the same country. This divide cannot be healed, in my view, and the conflict is indeed a zero sum game, sadly, if these groups have to fight it out in one political entity. Each group is effectively determined to own the future, and appears convinced that it can only do so by overpowering the opposing group, and eventually pushing it and the interests it represents into the realm of irrelevence. It troubles me. The future of the world will not be pretty. That is why I favour seperatism, and the need for unitary states to continue to sub-divide into smaller entities that can better represent a more uniform value system that is important to its citizens. Don't be so melodramatic. The rebublicans will grab pussy (consensual I hope) while the democrats will knit pussyhats (consensual I hope) for a few years and nothing will change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.