The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history(vox.com)
vox.com
The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history
http://www.vox.com/2017/1/22/14350808/womens-marches-largest-demonstration-us-history-map
62 comments
> I've never seen anything like this, and it's just the beginning.
Beginning of what? What do they want? I couldn't really distill a pattern in my mind from the signs I saw in Austin. There were marches world-wide, so I'm guessing it's more than "We hate Trump".
Beginning of what? What do they want? I couldn't really distill a pattern in my mind from the signs I saw in Austin. There were marches world-wide, so I'm guessing it's more than "We hate Trump".
Honestly I am going to say its the end not the beginning, in four years, Trump will run again and maybe we will see another tantrum protest but at least for the next four years do not expect any great resistance or movement, the time for that is over.
I think this time, there's enough of a threat to general persons' livelihoods (repeal of ACA, threat of international embarrassment or incident, etc) that we will start to see organized resistance. But only time will tell...
A normal presidency would see these protests and exercise caution. This is not a normal presidency, so I feel as though we're going to see a continuous escalation in response.
His tweets seems to suggest the opposite
"Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views." https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/82317419903654298...
"Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views." https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/82317419903654298...
Was it posted with an iphone or an android phone?
Thanks for being honest.
> the time for that is over
That's a talking point of Trump supporters, but a moment's thought shows that it's not remotely true. It seems to assume that people only participate in democracy by voting and then politicians rule on their own recognizance during their terms, almost as if voters were electing kings/queens.
In a democracy, politicians are responsive to voters' desires 365 days/year; you can call them, write them, meet with them, protest them, and if you pay any attention to democratic politics, you know it has a serious effect (along with passively collected information such as survey results).
Second, protesting government is a major part of democracy. The March on Washington led by Martin Luther King had nothing to do with an election. The U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights protects it, saying "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I don't remember the Republicans having the same attitude at all about Obama; they resisted all the time in every way possible, setting records in Congress for obstructionism, buying guns, etc. Vladimir Putin seemed to start this talking point; perhaps it's true for him, but he knows little about democratic government.
That's a talking point of Trump supporters, but a moment's thought shows that it's not remotely true. It seems to assume that people only participate in democracy by voting and then politicians rule on their own recognizance during their terms, almost as if voters were electing kings/queens.
In a democracy, politicians are responsive to voters' desires 365 days/year; you can call them, write them, meet with them, protest them, and if you pay any attention to democratic politics, you know it has a serious effect (along with passively collected information such as survey results).
Second, protesting government is a major part of democracy. The March on Washington led by Martin Luther King had nothing to do with an election. The U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights protects it, saying "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I don't remember the Republicans having the same attitude at all about Obama; they resisted all the time in every way possible, setting records in Congress for obstructionism, buying guns, etc. Vladimir Putin seemed to start this talking point; perhaps it's true for him, but he knows little about democratic government.
nice username.
I don't think it's the end. People were inspired yesterday, the crowds realized they have the numbers and the passion to fight back. People were taking action, finding their local organizations, learning how to inform their representatives, and even planning the next protests already.
We're going to see more and more of this.
We will also see more "Alternative Facts" and PR campaigns from the White House, closely following Dugin's handbook (dismiss, distract, distort, and dismay).
I don't think it's the end. People were inspired yesterday, the crowds realized they have the numbers and the passion to fight back. People were taking action, finding their local organizations, learning how to inform their representatives, and even planning the next protests already.
We're going to see more and more of this.
We will also see more "Alternative Facts" and PR campaigns from the White House, closely following Dugin's handbook (dismiss, distract, distort, and dismay).
Time is the enemy of this movement, if Trump manages to bring any sort of economic change to the poorest parts of the country, this "movement" doesnt stand a chance.
That is a big, big if. Especially considering everything he's proposed is antiquated, disproven economics when it comes to having direct economic benefits for poor communities.
I agree with you, however it is a hypothetical statement, if he does do it, do you agree the opposition is toast?
If he manages to do a complete 180° and be someone completely antithetical to the person he's been thus far?
Yes, the opposition is toast if that happens.
Yes, the opposition is toast if that happens.
> but at least for the next four years do not expect any great resistance or movement, the time for that is over.
Its certainly difficult to mobilize a mass political movement in the US without an imminent election and outside of the immediate aftermath of one, but the great and influential movements all were movements that managed to do that.
The time for a movement is not over. Whether it will hold together or not is, certainly, a thing about which there can be legitimate differences of opinion, but the signs I see suggest that there is something there.
Its certainly difficult to mobilize a mass political movement in the US without an imminent election and outside of the immediate aftermath of one, but the great and influential movements all were movements that managed to do that.
The time for a movement is not over. Whether it will hold together or not is, certainly, a thing about which there can be legitimate differences of opinion, but the signs I see suggest that there is something there.
What are the goals and demands of this movement, other than objecting to Trumps presidency something they have no legal basis for ending?
Emoluments.
What a shame they're not coming out in those sorts of numbers to protest the wars going on all over the world, drone killings, mass surveillance and so on.
Start organizing! There's a lot of momentum right now, and I'm sure you could get a lot of people on board.
The thing that is really confusing for me is how Trump managed to get elected despite all this opposition to him.
Because 3 million women motivated enough to protest doesn't outweigh 30 million women motivated enough to vote.
The fact of the matter is Trump's support base is broader than his opposition - at least, in the states where it matters.
The fact of the matter is Trump's support base is broader than his opposition - at least, in the states where it matters.
In this case, it bears repeating that Trump lost the overall vote, and lost women's votes 54-41%.
The country is a democracy, not an elected dictatorship. Voters and their desires don't disappear the day after the election. Republicans took resistance of Obama's presidency to record levels; only their propagandists can say with a straight face that those who oppose Trump should be quiet for the next four years.
The country is a democracy, not an elected dictatorship. Voters and their desires don't disappear the day after the election. Republicans took resistance of Obama's presidency to record levels; only their propagandists can say with a straight face that those who oppose Trump should be quiet for the next four years.
I don't think anyone expects them to be quiet.
> Trump lost the overall vote, and lost women's votes 54-41%.
I guess I don't see the point you're trying to make here.
The GP asked how Trump got elected. He overwhelmingly won white, Christian, middle-class (and above) families - a group that has felt left out of American politics for the past decade or so.
> Trump lost the overall vote, and lost women's votes 54-41%.
I guess I don't see the point you're trying to make here.
The GP asked how Trump got elected. He overwhelmingly won white, Christian, middle-class (and above) families - a group that has felt left out of American politics for the past decade or so.
It is also important to point out the overall vote is not important and never has been. It is a way for losers to complain be it republican or democrat, however when you get down to it is symbolic at best.
Mao may not think popular opinion matters, and maybe he could ignore it in his dictatorship, but it's wrong in the U.S. The President leads a democratic political system, the heart of which is the will of the voters. Those in government need to keep the voters happy or they will lose their jobs; that's the way it was designed and the way it works.
It shows the cynicism of the GOP that they would adopt a talking point from Putin, endorse something so undemocratic, and pretend to suddenly forget the unprecedented resistance the engaged in when Obama was President.
Also, my point was relevant to the comment I was responding to.
It shows the cynicism of the GOP that they would adopt a talking point from Putin, endorse something so undemocratic, and pretend to suddenly forget the unprecedented resistance the engaged in when Obama was President.
Also, my point was relevant to the comment I was responding to.
I think it is disingenuous to say popular vote matters in a country where voting is voluntary, to extrapolate the popular vote over the rest of the non voting population isnt fair. At best he lost the popular vote of the people who bothered to vote.
> extrapolate the popular vote over the rest of the non voting population isnt fair
I don't know what you mean by "fair", but the non-voting population has much less influence over politics than the ones who vote. Regardless, we have surveys showing the opinions of non-voters and Trump, at least a couple weeks ago, was at record levels of unpopularity among Presidents-elect.
But I don't see how it's relevant to the point, which is that elected officials are compelled to and do respect the opinions of voters.
I don't know what you mean by "fair", but the non-voting population has much less influence over politics than the ones who vote. Regardless, we have surveys showing the opinions of non-voters and Trump, at least a couple weeks ago, was at record levels of unpopularity among Presidents-elect.
But I don't see how it's relevant to the point, which is that elected officials are compelled to and do respect the opinions of voters.
>Regardless, we have surveys showing the opinions of non-voters and Trump, at least a couple weeks ago, was at record levels of unpopularity among Presidents-elect.
They should have voted then. They didn't vote, and when the guy they don't like get voted into office, they get all angry. Well, they should have voted.
>...elected officials are compelled to and do respect the opinions of voters.
Trump does. He's going to implement his policies, since the voters have voted him to do so.
They should have voted then. They didn't vote, and when the guy they don't like get voted into office, they get all angry. Well, they should have voted.
>...elected officials are compelled to and do respect the opinions of voters.
Trump does. He's going to implement his policies, since the voters have voted him to do so.
> They should have voted then.
They did. First, Trump was behind the leading better by an historic margin for a candidate that won the electoral vote. And, second, Trump's popularity has fallen since the election.
In any case, your implict idea that public-to-elected-official interaction is limited to elections is contrary to the founding principles of this country.
They did. First, Trump was behind the leading better by an historic margin for a candidate that won the electoral vote. And, second, Trump's popularity has fallen since the election.
In any case, your implict idea that public-to-elected-official interaction is limited to elections is contrary to the founding principles of this country.
> Trump does. He's going to implement his policies, since the voters have voted him to do so.
All voters have influence, not just the ones who voted for you and not just for one Tuesday every four years. He's the President of all Americans, not just Trump supporters.
All voters have influence, not just the ones who voted for you and not just for one Tuesday every four years. He's the President of all Americans, not just Trump supporters.
> The fact of the matter is Trump's support base is broader than his opposition
No, its not.
> at least, in the states where it matters.
Even there it likely isn't now -- even if it was in the most trivial sense on election day -- given the degree to which his support has fallen since then.
No, its not.
> at least, in the states where it matters.
Even there it likely isn't now -- even if it was in the most trivial sense on election day -- given the degree to which his support has fallen since then.
Who is measuring this support? The same people who called the election for Hillary 99%. I think a dose of skepticism is warranted after such a monumental failure to measure the temperature of the nation.
> Who is measuring this support? The same people who called the election for Hillary 99%
Wrong. You are confusing pollsters with an exaggeration of a subset of the set of analysts working with data from those pollsters (and the subset in question is whose approach was criticized by the most well-regarded in the broader set for the exact thing that led to overstating Clinton's likelihood of victory.)
This error though reflects exactly a frequent propaganda line from the Trump camp, and when it gets echoed here and in other forums its often corrected the, so at this point I have begun to doubt whether is ever an honest error rather than deliberate injection of "alternative facts" into the discussion as a distraction.
Wrong. You are confusing pollsters with an exaggeration of a subset of the set of analysts working with data from those pollsters (and the subset in question is whose approach was criticized by the most well-regarded in the broader set for the exact thing that led to overstating Clinton's likelihood of victory.)
This error though reflects exactly a frequent propaganda line from the Trump camp, and when it gets echoed here and in other forums its often corrected the, so at this point I have begun to doubt whether is ever an honest error rather than deliberate injection of "alternative facts" into the discussion as a distraction.
Sorry I dont really understand what you are saying, are you saying Trump calling the pre-election polls incredibly biased , which turned out to be true, propaganda?
[deleted]
[deleted]
The tl;dr is voter apathy in key midwest states. IIRC Trump underperformed but Clinton underperformed even more. It is difficult to say with certainty but the FBI letter probably cost her the election by slightly depressing turnout.
It also looks like the Republican effort to disenfranchise people by reducing early voting, voting hours, closing polling stations, enacting voter ID laws, purging voter rolls, etc has worked in the sense that it slightly reduced Dem turnout which was enough in this election. Their efforts to steal elections by gerrymandering themselves into power has also given them outsized control of the House and various state governments.
It is really embarrassing that the majority of the country votes D and the Rs have control over the government. It's pure subversion of democracy.
Russia certainly tried to influence the election but if it had been Obama running (or anyone charismatic) instead of Clinton it wouldn't have mattered; Trump would have lost by a huge EC margin.
I'm far more worried about the long-term damage to the country now that the FBI has once again become an open political weapon, and that Rs are unapologetically disenfranchising people in an attempt to maintain power permanently.
It also looks like the Republican effort to disenfranchise people by reducing early voting, voting hours, closing polling stations, enacting voter ID laws, purging voter rolls, etc has worked in the sense that it slightly reduced Dem turnout which was enough in this election. Their efforts to steal elections by gerrymandering themselves into power has also given them outsized control of the House and various state governments.
It is really embarrassing that the majority of the country votes D and the Rs have control over the government. It's pure subversion of democracy.
Russia certainly tried to influence the election but if it had been Obama running (or anyone charismatic) instead of Clinton it wouldn't have mattered; Trump would have lost by a huge EC margin.
I'm far more worried about the long-term damage to the country now that the FBI has once again become an open political weapon, and that Rs are unapologetically disenfranchising people in an attempt to maintain power permanently.
> Russia certainly tried to influence the election but if it had been Obama running (or anyone charismatic) instead of Clinton it wouldn't have mattered; Trump would have lost by a huge EC margin.
While I don't agree with a great deal of the rest of your assertions, this stands out to me as the important one. If the Democrats had run almost anyone other than Hillary Clinton, they would have likely won.
They ran Hillary Clinton.
While I don't agree with a great deal of the rest of your assertions, this stands out to me as the important one. If the Democrats had run almost anyone other than Hillary Clinton, they would have likely won.
They ran Hillary Clinton.
The DNC definitely backed the wrong horse in the Clinton vs Sanders primaries.
> the FBI letter probably cost her the election by slightly depressing turnout.
Of course it's hard to point to one factor in such a complex, real world situation, But look at a chart of Clinton's poll numbers; she was comfortably ahead, and as soon as Comey's letter came out, her number dropped like a rock and never recovered.
> It is really embarrassing that the majority of the country votes D and the Rs have control over the government.
Note that the Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 national elections. Other than George W Bush's second election in 2004, the GOP hasn't won a nationwide majority since 1988.
Of course it's hard to point to one factor in such a complex, real world situation, But look at a chart of Clinton's poll numbers; she was comfortably ahead, and as soon as Comey's letter came out, her number dropped like a rock and never recovered.
> It is really embarrassing that the majority of the country votes D and the Rs have control over the government.
Note that the Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 national elections. Other than George W Bush's second election in 2004, the GOP hasn't won a nationwide majority since 1988.
This was such a squeaker of an election, that it seems that any one of the multitude of factors changes, and Hillary wins.
You could say the same the other way. A rainy day in a major city in a key state and Trump gets a better result.
I'm limiting it to political events centered on the candidates, almost all of which in the near lead-up to the election were focused on Hillary. And the only really close states were PA, MI and WI, all of which went to Trump by a sliver.
He won more electoral votes than Hillary.
The Dems shot themselves in the foot by running Clinton.
I was curious and checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_peaceful_gathe.... It includes all gatherings of people, not just marches or demonstrations.
I was impressed by the numbers of some of the top gatherings. The shared record is for two religious events at ~30 million people in India and Iraq.
I was impressed by the numbers of some of the top gatherings. The shared record is for two religious events at ~30 million people in India and Iraq.
Earth Day 1970 was the largest protest across the whole world, at 20 million. (http://www.earthday.org/about/the-history-of-earth-day/)
I can't find how many protested in Earth Day 1970 just in the US.
This one will definitely be in the history books, though.
This one will definitely be in the history books, though.
Well so long as Soros keeps footing the bill in the shadows for all these "grassroots" organizations...
Just how much per head do you think Soros paid for the largest protests in modern American history?
Slightly more than pocket change
Well, shoot, do you have an address or phone number for the Soros protest fund? My friends and I all paid out of our own pockets to go to the march and it would be nice to get reimbursement or something.
If I may ask, what exactly were you and your friends hoping to accomplish by participating? What were your goals?
Making it easy for young women to get good sex education and contraceptives is easily one of the best investments the U.S. government could make. Every time a society has tried it, it has produced good results across the board: reductions in teen pregnancies, abortions, and venereal disease, and improved educational outcomes and economic growth.
And best of all, it is moral to permit human beings to make their own choices about their own bodies.
Unfortunately, the incoming administration and Congress have collectively said some pretty dumb things, and tried to pass some pretty dumb laws, against these ideas.
There are also potentially government issues related to race and ethnicity and sexual orientation and gender, and I think a lot of people marched with those in mind too.
The fundamental question of the Trump presidency is: who is going to own the narrative? Who gets to decide what is true, what is real, what matters, and what the government should do or not do?
The purpose of a mass protest is to seize the narrative, or at least to demonstrate that Trump does not own it. The larger the gathering, the greater its demonstrative power. Each person who decides to go knows that they are individually only a tiny little drop, metaphorically. But they hope to help make a big flood.
Most of Congress is up for re-election in 2018. The President is up for re-election in 2020. Contrary to popular belief, politicians (including Trump) do care a lot about what people think, and they will change, moderate, or slow their efforts if they get the sense that they'll lose an election over it.
This strategy is not new or unique. Republicans used it to great effect in 2009-2010, killing the public option out of Obamacare, and blocking the cap-and-trade global warming bill--even though the Democrats held the White House and Congress.
And best of all, it is moral to permit human beings to make their own choices about their own bodies.
Unfortunately, the incoming administration and Congress have collectively said some pretty dumb things, and tried to pass some pretty dumb laws, against these ideas.
There are also potentially government issues related to race and ethnicity and sexual orientation and gender, and I think a lot of people marched with those in mind too.
The fundamental question of the Trump presidency is: who is going to own the narrative? Who gets to decide what is true, what is real, what matters, and what the government should do or not do?
The purpose of a mass protest is to seize the narrative, or at least to demonstrate that Trump does not own it. The larger the gathering, the greater its demonstrative power. Each person who decides to go knows that they are individually only a tiny little drop, metaphorically. But they hope to help make a big flood.
Most of Congress is up for re-election in 2018. The President is up for re-election in 2020. Contrary to popular belief, politicians (including Trump) do care a lot about what people think, and they will change, moderate, or slow their efforts if they get the sense that they'll lose an election over it.
This strategy is not new or unique. Republicans used it to great effect in 2009-2010, killing the public option out of Obamacare, and blocking the cap-and-trade global warming bill--even though the Democrats held the White House and Congress.
Can't speak for above, but for me, establishing an axis of opposition to Trump and his agenda, as well as attacking the narrative that he has any kind of popular mandate, which is a narrative his campaign and administration has pushed ever since barely winning the presidency.
Estimated crowd in DC on Saturday was 1.2 million. Nationwide, it was 3 million. Just one of the six Los Angeles area protests had 750,000 people.
Even Witchita, Kansas had thousands.
I've never seen anything like this, and it's just the beginning.