The pro-conservatives are trying to fight back in the only way that they can. “It doesn’t matter, it wont have any effect, it’s childish and futile. Just sit back and let us take care of you.”
It’s about time the sleeping giant was awakened. Ignore the propaganda, especially by the mouthpieces for the orange-haired monstrosity (including himself), and keep on plugging. This bullshit can’t happen again. It’ll take long enough to fix what he gets away with for the next two years.
You’re going far out of your way to find an acceptable way of saying the unacceptable.
And far from refuting me, you prove my point. Currently, feminists no longer feel a need to pretend that abortion is a sad, regrettable thing that nobody likes. They don’t believe abortion is anything but an unmitigated good, and have largely quit shedding crocodile tears.
That’s a bizarre takeaway from one actress’s somewhat cryptic comments. You seriously think that Dunham’s comments reflect all feminists, or even a majority of feminists?
Sure glad you know so well what feminists are thinking. As if I didn’t know already, I’m guessing you’re a white man.
:dubious: If you’d bothered to look at the source in my link, you’d see from the quoted follow-up remarks from Dunham that my interpretation was in fact right:
[QUOTE=astorian]
Currently, feminists no longer feel a need to pretend that abortion is a sad, regrettable thing that nobody likes. They don’t believe abortion is anything but an unmitigated good, and have largely quit shedding crocodile tears.
[/QUOTE]
Feminists have never been in favor of people pretending to feel more guilt or regret about abortion than they actually do. It’s okay to feel relieved and happy about having had an abortion because it terminated a pregnancy you didn’t want.
But neither feminists nor anybody else thinks that there’s anything good about an unwanted pregnancy. No feminists are encouraging women to undergo unwanted pregnancies just so they can have an abortion, because yay abortions! :rolleyes: That’s ridiculous.
So your notion that feminists consider abortion an “unmitigated good” is a complete crock. Feminists in general do consider that abortion is a good solution to a very serious problem: that of unwanted pregnancy. But that doesn’t mean that abortions are good in and of themselves, because the situation that creates the need for abortion in the first place (i.e., unwanted pregnancy) is emphatically not good.
I can’t unwind this to where it makes any sense.
I am a feminist and I am in favor of education, birth control, and healthcare for pregnant women as for all.
what in the world are you for?
I think it’s a good guess that the poster you’re responding to is in favor of (a) minimal government and liberty and personal freedom for all (except women, and certainly not pregnant ones), and (b) absolute totalitarian government control of women’s bodies, because somewhere in the Bible it says that sentient human life begins at the instant of conception, and who are you gonna believe, science, or the Bible? :rolleyes:
The only way to support such a ludicrous unsupportable position is to claim, as an unassailable axiom, that anyone supporting women’s rights or the value of an adult woman’s life must be a murderous baby-killer who promotes abortion as an enjoyable hobby for all. There is actually some segment of the population that believes this, and unfortunately, instead of being confined to mental institutions they’re actually allowed to vote.
After more than eight years, you’re still clinging to that hope and change nonsense?
How’s that “president for all the people” thing working for ya?
“More than eight years”? Do you think Obama invented hope or something?
I mean, sure, more than eight years. I’ve been clinging to hope since I was aware of the concept. Have you given up all hope, that you’d ask such a question?
:dubious: You must be thinking of a different eight years from what I’m thinking of. Although I have a large number of criticisms of Obama as candidate and as President, there were a whole bunch of positive changes that happened under his administration. Such as recovery from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, one that had a lot of people around September 2008 sincerely questioning how well the US and world economies would survive it. Such as the restoration of science-focused leadership to federal agencies that deal with scientific issues, and honesty in presenting science issues on government websites. And the provision of universal healthcare coverage in the (in many other ways seriously flawed) Affordable Care Act. Not to mention the Supreme Court decision on marriage equality, and the admission of openly gay servicepeople in the military. And a lot of other things such as the Iran nuclear deal, new technology research, environmental protection, elimination of stem cell research limitations, etc.
All these things came along with a bunch of other things that were not positive changes, such as continued reliance on executive orders, drone warfare, etc. But for anyone who cares about science, the environment, civil rights, and economic stability, the Obama years were at least way better than the preceding Bush years were, or than the Trump years are shaping up to be.
So, sometimes hope does bear fruit. All the more reason to hope (and work) for effective ways to limit the assaults on all those things proposed by the Trump administration.
What did President Obama have to do with the Supreme Court decision? 
[QUOTE]
Protesting against so many things dilutes the march.
No law was broken. I can’t imagine this is more than 0.1% of your marching reason.
Would you march against Hillary receiving money from a Saudi prince, a country where gays are killed?
If you like ACA, this is a good reason. DT’s website has interesting answer to the “no coherent plan”.
Do you oppose any form of targeted immigration bans? I mean, like Canada does? If not, good march, but I can’t see how (good or not) “let all muslims come into the US without limit” is a winning argument in any election or that many people will repeatedly march for it.
If he keeps torture to Obama levels, would it be ok?
Aside from marriage, I can’t see DT doing anything that could be “denial of equal rigths”. Maybe get the whole bathroom problem solved out before women’s bathroom stop being safe for women.
When has DT attacked abortion rights? If he has, kudos for him. Defunding PP will be the target.
You like Solindra or giving money to Elon Musk for selling cars to rich people?
You mean like making nuclear power impossible even if it’s the cleanest?
Corporate friendly, you mean like Obama?
You mean like electric car with hard-to-recycle, dirtier construction?
Police violence is terrible, of course; I can’t remember him saying anything in favor of it; mostly against protest that destroy public and private (mostly black-owned) property I hope he also work on black-on-black violence, the greatest killers of African-Americans.
Very simple. Societies in which people march freely and peacefully don’t go into extremism overnight.
People who condone or are indifferent with the violence in the peaceful protests, targeting those against who simply want to go on with their lives, takes away from any good objectives.
You are not and you will not even remotely live under a fascist regime under Trump. Even saying it is like those morons the thought Obama was the Kenyan-Muslim-socialist-antichrist. Once you frame any discussion into “Trump is fascist” then it’s clear no debate can happen, because you don’t know what fascist mean.
Interestingly enough, most of the signs are either about abortion, generic “love trumps hate”, or Nazi/KKK/Fascist stuff.
Sorry, it wasn’t the Montgomery bus boycott. Those guys really went all-in, with actual disruption of their daily lives, for a year.
I can’t remember a single TP sign even when they were a thing, even if I did, they were better than your poor attempt at condescension. I get it, you are sooooo worried sooo well-informed.
I said they rarely worked, not that the don’t work. And I listed the only 2 examples I could think of in my life experience that resulted in significant policy changes, with one of them iffy as a primary cause. If we had to look at a primary cause, it was probably Walter Cronkite’s famous broadcast. It’s not “interesting” as posted.
Missed the edit window: Where “interesting” is used as a synonym for “odd”.
This is a highly reductive view of what protest marches can do.
Bringing together people who don’t have the exact same agenda is one of them; you can build momentum first, and focus it later.
It’s fair to say the march yesterday included Sanders supporters who didn’t like Hillary and even some anti-Trump conservatives. The early Tea Party was similarly inchoate, and only later became mostly about intra-GOP politics.
Galvanizing support is another. Going to a protest or rally -or taking any other concrete action - creates a visceral identification with that movement in a way mere words cannot. People who were not necessarily all that liberal and/or who might have been persuadable for Trump/GOP down the road are now less likely to do so. They’ve worn a hat, carried a sign, identified themselves. Going back on that is a much bigger deal than changing your mind. Again, the Tea Party liked to brag about how many of its members had never been active as before, and they were right to. To the extent these kinds of marches make people think of themselves as committed to a cause, that’s very valuable.
If only they put half as much effort into getting out the vote for HRC…
Like the Brexit, buyer’s remorse can be painful.
Hindsight is too often 20-20.
After further reading and reflection, I have some thoughts:
Okay, it looks like rather than a women’s march, this is a liberal women’s march, with a manifesto that is basically the Green Party’s platform. Which means it is doomed to irrelevance politically.
That does not mean the women’s march isn’t an event of great historical importance. As an expression of solidarity among liberal women and their male allies, it matters in a symbolic sense.
It looks like the organizers wanted the march to be a unifying force for ALL women, but it broke down pretty quickly into squabbling over whether one could be pro-life and a feminist. That was a mistake. Those pro-life organizations can bring the marchers and the marches would have been even huger if they’d been allowed to share sponsorship and rally their troops. And it also would have been impossible for conservatives to ignore. Since it degenerated into a strictly liberal women’s march, we are free to ignore it now. It poses zero threat to us politically.
Once again, how kind of you to offer leftists your advice! If only the women’s march were more open to conservatives, you opine, and less progressive, it would be able to accomplish your–excuse me, I mean their–goals!
Thanks, man.