Women's March is the Biggest Protest on US History as an Estimated 2.9 Million March

  • Thread starter Thread starter ringil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
philipl said:
Well good, you wont use the claim that Hillary won the popular vote as a reason to discredit Trumps win.
Click to expand...
Of course not. I support the electoral college. I don’t have to claim that Trump’s election was somehow illegitimate to find him problematic.
 
RCinMT said:
No, it wasn’t on the grounds of popularity unless you’ve redefined popular to be synonymous with consequential.

Very many? Sure, as a percent of the population, it was less than 1% and my earlier post was erroneous in citing it as 2% of 50% because there were men in attendance,too.

Whatever the case may be, you didn’t answer the question about the population of the country at the time, the ease and affordability of travel, the means of Internet communication to organize or the multiple city demonstrations. Seems like 250,000 people in attendance was EXTREMELY remarkable and certainly well deserved. 2.9 million people in
Lord knows how many cities with unprecedented organizing tools available via the Internet and social media…color me nonplussed.
Click to expand...
No matter how you try to spin this, the turnout for these marches was huge.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
No matter how you try to spin this, the turnout for these marches was huge.
Click to expand...
Huge by what standard? Who is spinning and who isn’t? If an organization of 100 people hosted a fundraiser for the group and 1 person showed up, would that be huge? Is scoring 1% on a test a huge score?

How we do we measure huge? In determining the reliability and validity of an observation does the observance of the instances as measured against the total population not matter?
 
AClaire11 said:
That is a valid point. I and others see the things you mention as essential to oppose as important enough to participate, and I respect those who feel the need to not participate. I don’t claim that it represented all women or that there were not very disagreeable elements. I just don’t think we have the right to tell them what to call it or that it is proper to make rude remarks about the participants. That is my main complaint with how the topic is being treated by some on this forum. As an assault survivor who experienced an egregious amount of sexual harassment in middle school, high school, and college, and as a libertarian, I find Trump objectionable both as a person and as the head of an administration. Hopefully we can all come together to serve our communities in spite of our ideological differences. That would actually make America great again.
Click to expand...
I normally do not make comment on the politics of America unless they directly affect Europe.

I will simply say that I followed the reports of these remarkable assemblies, occurring simultaneously in different parts of the United States, with the greatest of interest and I will add that what these particular women had to say quite powerfully reached beyond their own shores, which is its own remarkable achievement.

While I am sure there are women, and men, of other thoughts on these matters than those who organised these particular demonstrations – that is always the case and is the case all around the world – these marches were nevertheless quite an achievement by those who organised them as well as those who were participants in them.
 
AClaire11 said:
Of course not. I support the electoral college. I don’t have to claim that Trump’s election was somehow illegitimate to find him problematic.
Click to expand...
All you have to do to know why trump won is to look up “Bitter clingers” and “Deplorables”

That is why trump won.
 
AClaire11 said:
I think the former is supposed to happen today, but the latter is also part of the eventual plan.
Click to expand...
I’m not anyway that informed, but I would think he could stop the international funding, but do you all think he will be able to stop funding in america?
 
simpleas said:
I’m not anyway that informed, but I would think he could stop the international funding, but do you all think he will be able to stop funding in america?
Click to expand...
The GOP controls Congress. I’m not sure what could stop them, unless the majority is not big enough to pass a bill. This is the big chance, is what I’ve been hearing people say.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
St. Paul, Minnesota is not on either coast, but we had over 90,000 in the march yesterday. So it is not just a “coastal elite” thing. Other non-coastal cities include:

Chicago: 150,000
Austin: 50,000
Houston: 20,000
St. Louis: 10,000
New Orleans: 10,000
Denver: 100,000

So it is hard to dismiss this as a mere nothing or solely the actions of coastal elites.
Click to expand...
So, 10-15% of the marchers are rich, white people from somewhere other than the Acela corridor…okay…I’m not sure that really disproves my point.
 
I’m increasingly appalled by the conduct I’ve seen. I’ve lost a lot of respect for Democrats. I guess that’s the area I’ll have to grow in charity. Just compare the Women’s March and the Pro-Life Marches, and one can easily see where the class and dignity are. Disgusting. I’m pretty disgusted with women right now. We’re better than this.
 
ucfengr said:
So, 10-15% of the marchers are rich, white people from somewhere other than the Acela corridor…okay…I’m not sure that really disproves my point.
Click to expand...
It disproves the point that you made.

And rich?
 
RCinMT said:
Huge by what standard? Who is spinning and who isn’t? If an organization of 100 people hosted a fundraiser for the group and 1 person showed up, would that be huge? Is scoring 1% on a test a huge score?

How we do we measure huge? In determining the reliability and validity of an observation does the observance of the instances as measured against the total population not matter?
Click to expand...
A group of 100 members of an organization is not comparable to a nation of 320 million. There is no reason to think that assumptions made about reasonable turnout would scale up proportionally. A more appropriate standard would be to compare with other demonstrations or marches in the US. If you don’t like my MLK comparison because times have changed, then find for me a more recent march that drew more people but was less consequential than yesterday’s march.
 
Della said:
Actually, these gals are reacting to overblown rhetoric and scare tactics left over from the election. None of the “horrors” they think will happen are going to happen. No one will be taking any true freedoms away from them. Rather, under the new administration, agendas of the few will no longer be imposed on the many, as is only right and proper in a representative democracy.
Click to expand...
👍 This is my view as well! But, my gollies, so many reacting…
 
😃
Don_Ruggero said:
I normally do not make comment on the politics of America unless they directly affect Europe.

I will simply say that I followed the reports of these remarkable assemblies, occurring simultaneously in different parts of the United States, with the greatest of interest and I will add that what these particular women had to say quite powerfully reached beyond their own shores, which is its own remarkable achievement.

While I am sure there are women, and men, of other thoughts on these matters than those who organised these particular demonstrations – that is always the case and is the case all around the world – these marches were nevertheless quite an achievement by those who organised them as well as those who were participants in them.
Click to expand...
More of an impressive achievement was that of the Third Riech! 😃
 
Remember the headlines after the third debate when Trump declined to comment on accepting election results until after the election.
He was vilified and the fact that Hillsry publicly came out for partial birth abortion
Which by even loose interpretation is murder plain and simple.somehow was omitted from the narrative,
Winning the popular vote is akin to having a pair of aces and a deuce kicker and saying that if only deuces were wild I would have beat your three Kings.
It’s true but Irrelevant.
 
gus said:
Winning the popular vote is akin to having a pair of aces and a deuce kicker and saying that if only deuces were wild I would have beat your three Kings.
It’s true but Irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Winning the popular vote is irrelevant to the question of legally winning the election. But it is highly relevant when assessing the degree of public support one has. Politicians, for some strange reason, seem to care about that too.
 
I saw earlier that it was just over a million. I think 2.9 million is well too many
 
LeafByNiggle said:
A group of 100 members of an organization is not comparable to a nation of 320 million. There is no reason to think that assumptions made about reasonable turnout would scale up proportionally. A more appropriate standard would be to compare with other demonstrations or marches in the US. If you don’t like my MLK comparison because times have changed, then find for me a more recent march that drew more people but was less consequential than yesterday’s march.
Click to expand...
The March for Life has been turning out over 500,000 in DC alone. In 2015 there were 650,000 people in DC alone.

But the,point stands, less than 1% of the population turned out. The consequences of the event? More animus it would seem as the vile and hate filled speeches and exclusion of the wrong kind of women make banal and trite any claims of inclusivity and diversity.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Winning the popular vote is irrelevant to the question of legally winning the election. But it is highly relevant when assessing the degree of public support one has. Politicians, for some strange reason, seem to care about that too.
Click to expand...
No, politicians care about winning elections. Which is unfortunate regardless one one’s political views, but true. Trump proved that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top