I repeat: where are you getting this vaguely articulated notion about what the WMW “claimed” to be?
From the Central Committee.
Dang, that’s an interesting fight if they pursue it. Madge may be a bit creepy and slutty, but she’s a major creative talent, and a far bigger “celebrity” than the Donald. I hope they do prosecute her; they’ll have bitten off more than they can chew. You thought “Free Chelsea” was obnoxious? Madge is already a superstar. Locking her up would rock the world, and destroy Trump.
But, but, but, she’s a liberal! No, they have to do it; they have no choice. 
Ah, I see.
One thing I found interesting in the March was the prevalence of signs explicitly advocating for science. The WMW unity principles included support for environmental justice and safeguarding the environment, but there must have been as many as 1 in 100 or 200 signs directly emphasizing the need to resist suppression of science and research. The importance of related abstract concepts like truth and facts was also a very common theme.
Some favorite examples:
“What do we want? Evidence-based science! When do we want it? After peer review!” 
“Respect Science!”
“Stand Up for Science”
“Let’s Make America Think Again”
“Facts Matter”
That, I think, is ultimately going to be a problematic issue for the Republicans. They are steadily entrenching themselves as the recognized “anti-science” party, which is just fine with that segment of their electorate that mistrusts or despises science in general, but will be increasingly more awkward when it comes to dealing with reality, and with the rest of the world.
You think Trumps going to abolish the scientific method?:dubious:
Of course since Trump just handed the Pacific to China on a platter; he might not need to do anything.
I’d be surprised, but I hope they do it too, and for quite opposite reasons. Far from “rock the world, and destroy Trump”, I imagine that locking up one aging celebrity would happen with relatively-little practical impact.
Insofar as it would require him to set any policies that his fundamentalist electoral base and industry cronies would disapprove of, absolutely.
Of course, Trump can’t actually abolish the scientific method itself: he can simply direct his administrators to impede and ignore it as much as they can in the workings of US scientific agencies. George W. Bush did the same, with considerable success.
I don’t know about the electorate, but fortunately in 2008 we did end up with a candidate with an appreciation of science and facts, and a willingness to let scientific agencies pursue their activities under competent professional leadership according to the scientific method. Thank goodness that long national nightmare is finally over, eh? :rolleyes:
:dubious: So, let me get this straight. Are you saying that you do think Madonna’s remarks were such a national-security threat that she deserves to be “locked up” for them? Or are you merely saying that you support the “locking up” of anti-Trump protestors on whatever flimsy pretext can be found that would play well with Trump’s base?
Such civil liberties. So freedom.
I think a jury ought to decide if her comments were a violation of the law or not. At a glance, it would certainly seem to be along the same lines as this man’s tweets, and he got charged. As you might imagine, I detest special treatment for Hollywood’s elitist buffoons, so if prosecution is good enough for Mr. Benson, it ought to be good enough for Mrs. Ciccone. If a jury decides that either of them are guilty, then they ought to serve whatever punishment the judge deems appropriate, within the bounds of the law. Whether that were to end up being imprisonment, fines, community service, I’d defer to the judge on the case.
I would oppose locking up anti-Trump protesters who don’t violate the law, just as I’d oppose locking up any protester that was expressing their opinion within the bounds of the law.
:dubious: Seriously? You think this:
is really “along the same lines” as this?
You are sincerely maintaining that you think a literal assassination threat with no retraction or apology (until the agents caught up with him in person, that is), is “along the same lines” as a speaker admitting that she had some violent fantasies of assassination that she immediately rejected and denounced in favor of a commitment to love and hope?
HurricaneDitka, you disappoint me. That’s a truly Trumpian level of false equivalence.
[QUOTE=HurricaneDitka]
As you might imagine, I detest special treatment for Hollywood’s elitist buffoons
[/quote]
On the contrary, sounds like special treatment is exactly what you’re in favor of, as long as the treatment is specially bad.
Either that, or you literally cannot tell the difference between actually threatening assassination and renouncing and denouncing assassination. I’m astounded that you can seriously try to portray those two sets of remarks as basically equivalent, when they’re fundamentally opposites.
Are you honestly not aware that the GOP has been hostile to science, especially as it relates to climate change? You seem to have this narrow lane of things people are allowed to be upset about the Trump administration and you’re the keeper of valid outrage.
Still waiting for a response to my question whether you seriously think Obama’s presumed lying rises to Trumpian levels.
TL;DR - If you think your wife cheated on you and suspect the baby isn’t yours take her to the temple and make her drink a potion. If nothing happens, it’s all gravy. If she’s a no good dirty whore then God will make her miscarriage. Amen.
for historical reference -
(post shortened, underline added)
for historical reference -
(post shortened)
(post shortened)
Maybe you should have read the title of this thread? Or your thread? You said you didn’t realize it was your responsibility to explain the goals of the protests in a thread that asked, “So what is the womens’ march supposed to accomplish?”
Wait wait wait. It is your serious claim that leftists make more presidential death threats than right wingers!?
You are aware that we just had a black president, right?
I would love to see your cite on this.
Sorry for the poor wording in my post. I didn’t mean to sound like I was claiming that liberals make more death threats than conservatives. I’m not trying to make that claim. The cites I had handy were all individual examples of anti-Trump death threats, presumably by liberals. I’m confident that the Secret Service spent much of the last 8 years investigating threats mostly by conservatives, and the 8 years before that investigating threats mostly by liberals, etc.
I don’t know which side has the highest total overall, don’t have a cite for it, and truly don’t know where, if anywhere, that sort of information would be tabulated.
And yes, I have some inkling that our previous president was black.
Then we have not labored in vain. Baby steps are still steps.
Alternative facts is the best, can’t wait for SNL next week!
re: Tea Party gettin er done vs the women’s march
Koch Bros
savvy?