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.
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...
It quite easy to dismiss. Trump is the President and he has a 50% Plus majority in the senate and a majority in the house. He also gets to pick at least one supreme court justice maybe as many as 4. These females can march all they want, but the GOP will be in charge.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
What makes you think they didn’t vote? There were more votes for Clinton than there were for Trump.
Click to expand...
Yet the enabler,HC still couldn’t pull off a victory.Thats really what this " March" is about.A bunch of angry feminists who didn’t get their way.Too bad so sad…
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Wow! That is huge! Only 250,000 attended MLK’s “I have a dream” speech, and look how consequential that was!
Click to expand...
Becaus it’s being hailed as women and it’s not universal. Also, what was the population when Dr. King made that speech, was travel as easy it is now and was the speech held simultaneously in cities across the country or just in DC?

Also, Dr. King’s speech was not hateful rhetoric directed toward a person or people with whom he disagreed. It’s improper for you to dare to make the comparison.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I thought we were just disqualifying coastal elites.
Click to expand...
I thought yesterday was also about Black Lives Matters, angry Democrats, pro-abortion groups, angry leftists with all kinds of causes, etc. At least that is what it looked like when I watched it. Given that subset, it isn’t surprising there was a crowd in blue states.
 
RCinMT said:
Also, Dr. King’s speech was not hateful rhetoric directed toward a person or people with whom he disagreed. It’s improper for you to dare to make the comparison.
Click to expand...
The comparison was only on the grounds of popularity, which was the characteristic being questioned. It was being stated that these marches did not represent very many people. The numbers say otherwise.
 
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 agree Claire. I noted a sense of sadness in my wife’s tone, too, when she said that what pro-abortion political operatives have achieved is essentially to tie up femininity, womanhood with abortion. As she said about the marches: it wasn’t agree to disagree, it was agree to disagree but if you disagree keep it to yourself.

But that doesn’t mean, as you said, that we cannot continue to oppose abortion while working on other vitally important good initiatives. It’s just that as some social justice oriented Catholics would desire, the Church and several of their co-religionists are never going to go along to get along. Evil must always be opposed.
 
gilliam said:
I thought yesterday was also about Black Lives Matters, angry Democrats, pro-abortion groups, angry leftists with all kinds of causes, etc. At least that is what it looked like when I watched it. Given that subset, it isn’t surprising there was a crowd in blue states.
Click to expand...
No, it was not surprising. These are popular issues.
 
RCinMT said:
You have posted this elsewhere. The comments make it quite clear that some of these women are dissenting Catholic religious. They are, in the opposite direction, like SSPX: the Church isn’t sponsoring them, doesn’t ordain nuns so there’s really only so much the Church can do but I am quite certain their local bishops weren’t providing invocations at the various marches or sponsoring their attendance.

It’s a nice story for democrats and liberals to hold out these four nuns as representing the Church but they don’t.

Also, at least one of these women is a member of the nuns on the bus funded by George Soros, who was a sponsor of the marches and who is dumping millions into Poland and Ireland to support abortion.

No, Sy, these women don’t prove or say anything about the Church except that their are Catholics who oppose some Church teaching.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to make disparaging remarks about the level of assent to Church teaching by these Catholic religious.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The comparison was only on the grounds of popularity, which was the characteristic being questioned. It was being stated that these marches did not represent very many people. The numbers say otherwise.
Click to expand...
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.
 
RCinMT said:
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...
Playing this up seems like more licking of wounds over losing the election. The left has to win something
 
RCinMT said:
Very many? Sure, as a percent of the population, it was less than 1% and my earlier post was erroneous I’m 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...
Kind of like “Meet The dePressed” this morning, overly obsessed with numbers
 
Sy_Noe said:
I’m not going to make disparaging remarks about the level of assent to Church teaching by these Catholic religious.
Click to expand...
It’s disparaging to say somebody who is pro-choice is dissenting from Church teaching? Weird, is it disparaging to say a pro-life democrat dissents from the party platform?
🤷
 
Click here, here, and here to understand why I’m particularly concerned.

Oh, did I mention that the singer known as Madonna dropped an f-bomb?
 
AClaire11 said:
It’s also proper for the rights of the minority to be protected against the tyranny of the majority. That’s why we have a representative democracy instead of a pure democracy. As they say, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.
Click to expand...
Well good, you wont use the claim that Hillary won the popular vote as a reason to discredit Trumps win.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top