# Womens March



## MarriedDude

Any of the Ladies here go to the Women's March? 

I had a small crew in DC that saw some of the activities...Damn


----------



## 225985

Ladies at the women's march?!?


----------



## Herschel

Is this like how February is Black History Month?


----------



## MarriedDude

The crew was 2 males and 3 females...the inauguration kinda slowed down some punch-list activities...so they time to kill...from what they told me...it was more like mass confusion...or a political movement ran by the naked guy at the rave.


----------



## TX-SC

We live in the country so my wife, daughters, and I did not attend a rally. In most areas it appeared to go quite well. I'm sorry we missed it. 

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


----------



## Itwasjustafantasy

I brought my daughter along with me. My father was a union leader back in our native country so I got my passion for activism from him. I would not have missed such a historic event. I want to teach my daughter that she has a voice and should stand up for her beliefs. We had a great time.


----------



## MarriedDude

Itwasjustafantasy said:


> I brought my daughter along with me. My father was a union leader back in our native country so I got my passion for activism from him. I would not have missed such a historic event. I want to teach my daughter that she has a voice and should stand up for her beliefs. We had a great time.


Were you in DC?


----------



## Itwasjustafantasy

MarriedDude said:


> Were you in DC?


Not in DC, but in a city in the East Coast. All I experinced was a sense of fellowship and togetherness.
And hardly anything offends me. Any particular reason you asked me this question?


----------



## FeministInPink

I didn't go, but I considered it. I've lived in the DC metro area for the last 13 years, and when you live here, you develop an aversion for protests and marches, because they happen all the time and they sometimes really **** with your everyday life, especially when one happens on a work day. And honestly, I was a little scared of violence-prone Trump supporters showing up, but that turned out to not be a problem.

I did go to the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear back whenever that was, and that will probably be the only rally/march I'll go to.

*{Moderator Note: I spelled out the profanity. Please follow forum rules in regards to the profanity filter.

8. Filter Bypass/Obscenity: A profanity filter is in place and any attempts to bypass it are forbidden. You MAY type words that are filtered, as long as they are not abusive towards other quests or violate any other rules; however, you must allow the filter to do its job. Do NOT try to filter the word yourself and do not try to use creative spelling to bypass the profanity filter. Also, posting images of videos of obscene gestures, linking to obscene web sites, posting obscene or graphic descriptions of a decidedly adult nature, and violating a standard of decent behavior is not allowed.

February 21st is the deadline for full enforcement of the measure.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/forum-guidelines/350914-posting-guidelines-forum-rules-2016-a.html }*


----------



## Diana7

There is no way that I would attend such marches, where they had vile speakers, promoted killing babies among other awful things, demonstrated against a democratically elected world leader and generally didn't act in a ladylike fashion at all. They didn't represent the normal average hardworking ladies/mothers/wives, and only a very very tiny percentage went. 
I dont know anyone who went or who would want to go, and women in the west are equal anyway so they have NOTHING to complain about.


----------



## becareful2

I thought the messages were numerous and very disorganized, and when narrowed down to the crux of the matter, I think that entire march was mainly a pro-abortion march.


----------



## Itwasjustafantasy

Diana7 said:


> There is no way that I would attend such marches, where they had vile speakers, promoted killing babies among other awful things, demonstrated against a democratically elected world leader and generally didn't act in a ladylike fashion at all. They didn't represent the normal average hardworking ladies/mothers/wives, and only a very very tiny percentage went.
> I dont know anyone who went or who would want to go, and women in the west are equal anyway so they have NOTHING to complain about.


Where I marched there was no talk about killing babies. I am a pretty average mother who holds a full time job.


----------



## FeministInPink

Diana7 said:


> There is no way that I would attend such marches, where they had vile speakers, promoted killing babies among other awful things, demonstrated against a democratically elected world leader and generally didn't act in a ladylike fashion at all. They didn't represent the normal average hardworking ladies/mothers/wives, and only a very very tiny percentage went.
> I dont know anyone who went or who would want to go, and women in the west are equal anyway so they have NOTHING to complain about.


Wow. Ok...


----------



## becareful2

Anyone here know who organized that march? It's enlightening to discover what this woman really thinks, especially about other women who disagree with her.


----------



## FeministInPink

Here's the story of how it started and who organized it:

http://www.popsugar.com/news/Who-Started-Women-March-Washington-42936282


----------



## MarriedDude

Itwasjustafantasy said:


> Not in DC, but in a city in the East Coast. All I experinced was a sense of fellowship and togetherness.
> And hardly anything offends me. Any particular reason you asked me this question?


Just Curious, heard it was kinda disorganized, but otherwise they had a nice time. Apparently, there was a lady handing out a metric ton of free cookies...thats cool. They brought me back a *****Hat..which is interesting...they also brought back a protest sign...the one with the flag burka thing...we collect them and hang them in the job trailers.


----------



## becareful2

This is the one I was referring to:

Linda Sarsour, the executive director of the Arab American Association of New York.

She co-chaired the event. Anyone know she's into Sharia Law and tried to convince others of how fair Sharia Law is?


----------



## Fozzy

Taking bets on how many people end up banned from this thread.


----------



## FeministInPink

becareful2 said:


> It thought the messages were numerous and very disorganized, and when narrowed down to the crux of the matter, I think that entire march was mainly a pro-abortion march.


There's a BIG difference between being pro-abortion and being pro-choice. The choice to have an abortion is never taken lightly, and is emotionally very difficult. To categorize or re-name pro-choice as being "pro-abortion" is really a disservice.

The pro-choice movement is about providing access to safe, legal medical services/procedures. Prior to the passing of Roe V. Wade, 5,000 women died annually from illegal abortions. (Estimates of total illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade range from 200,000 to over a million per year; the range is crazy wide because many illegal procedures are unreported, because they were --duh-- illegal.) That number has dropped to 0.6 deaths in 100,000 procedures since Roe v. Wade was passed. Source.

Pro-choice is also about education and access to birth control; the pro-choice movement wants people to be educated about birth control and safer sex so that men and women can _choose _ if and when to start a family. Studies have shown that adequate sex education and access to birth control reduces 1) teen pregnancy and 2) the overall abortion rate.

Pro-choice people don't want to kill babies. That claim is nothing more than pro-life rhetoric and propaganda, designed to vilify and dehumanize people who are pro-choice.


----------



## becareful2




----------



## becareful2

FeministInPink said:


> There's a BIG difference between being pro-abortion and being pro-choice. The choice to have an abortion is never taken lightly, and is emotionally very difficult. To categorize or re-name pro-choice as being "pro-abortion" is really a disservice.
> 
> The pro-choice movement is about providing access to safe, legal medical services/procedures. Prior to the passing of Roe V. Wade, 5,000 women died annually from illegal abortions. (Estimates of total illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade range from 200,000 to over a million per year; the range is crazy wide because many illegal procedures are unreported, because they were --duh-- illegal.) That number has dropped to 0.6 deaths in 100,000 procedures since Roe v. Wade was passed. Source.
> 
> Pro-choice is also about education and access to birth control; the pro-choice movement wants people to be educated about birth control and safer sex so that men and women can _choose _ if and when to start a family. Studies have shown that adequate sex education and access to birth control reduces 1) teen pregnancy and 2) the overall abortion rate.
> 
> *Pro-choice people don't want to kill babies. That claim is nothing more than pro-life rhetoric and propaganda, designed to vilify and dehumanize people who are pro-choice*.


Fifty-six million abortions since Roe v Wade would beg to differ with your assessment. Pregnant women who go into Planned Parenthood to seek adoption placement services are steered towards abortion. There are actual recordings of this.


----------



## uhtred

I saw the womens march as a way of saying that women are a powerful political force and should be considered in all politics. I think this is a fine message, half the population is female and they have historically not had half the political power.

Beyond that there are many issues that affect women and of course not all women will agree on all of these issues. Abortion is one of the most divisive issues because the two sides is starting from different postulates: is a fetus a person? That cannot be measured, and depending on your answer you end up on one side or the other of the abortion debate.

Abortion is either murder, or a woman's obvious right to control her own body.


----------



## FeministInPink

becareful2 said:


> Fifty-six million abortions since Roe v Wade would beg to differ with your assessment. Pregnant women who go into Planned Parenthood to seek adoption placement services are steered towards abortion. There are actual recordings of this.


That number isn't quite right. You're off by about 5 million. According to the CDC, approximately 50 million abortions have been performed since the passing of Roe v. Wade, and that number has been steadily declining since 1990. The current number is somewhere around 660,000 per year, as of 2013 (only slightly more than in 1973, in which the number was 610,000). Source. The same or less raw number than before Roe v. Wade, despite the fact that there are 105 million MORE PEOPLE in the US in 2013 than there were in 1973, the year Roe v. Wade was passed. Source. So if you look at the percentages, there is actually less abortion now, proportionally. 

Additionally, you can see from this CDC chart that teen pregnancy has dropped drastically over the last 20 yrs: https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/

Please provide legitimate (not fake news sites or right-wing propaganda sites) sources for your claims, please. I'll be more likely to take your claims seriously and with less skepticism if you do.

ETA: And Planned Parenthood is a separate issue. Please keep red herrings out of the debate. We're not talking about Planned Parenthood.


----------



## FeministInPink

uhtred said:


> I saw the womens march as a way of saying that women are a powerful political force and should be considered in all politics. I think this is a fine message, half the population is female and they have historically not had half the political power.
> 
> Beyond that there are many issues that affect women and of course not all women will agree on all of these issues. Abortion is one of the most divisive issues because the two sides is starting from different postulates: is a fetus a person? That cannot be measured, and depending on your answer you end up on one side or the other of the abortion debate.
> 
> Abortion is either murder, or a woman's obvious right to control her own body.


My dad always said this about the pro-choice/pro-life debate (I am paraphrasing, obviously)

_Many people miss the actual point of this issue. The point isn't whether abortion is morally right or wrong. The point isn't "When does life begin?" No, the point is this: "Do I have the right to impose my belief system on someone else? Does the government have the right to impose one group's belief system on an entire country?" Because the question of whether something is right or wrong is not a question of fact, it is a question of personal belief. And when it comes to belief, nothing can be proven or disproven--it is simply opinion. And opinion is a personal choice; no one can tell you what opinion to have, nor can it be legislated by the government._

And he didn't answer the question for me--he wanted me to come up with the answer for myself. And the answer I have reached is this: No, I do not have the right to impose my beliefs on another person, and neither does anyone else.


----------



## uhtred

I wish it was that simple but it isn't. 

If a fetus is a child, then abortion is wrong in the same way that murder is wrong, and as a society we have decided that we DO have the right to prohibit murder. We have decided that murder is not a matter of choice, that there are things that are simply wrong no matter what someone believes. 

Personally I do not think a fetus is a child. I think it is part of a woman's body and she has every right to do with it as she wishes. I am a strong supporter of abortion rights.

I just recognize that people who oppose abortion for everyone can be making a rational and moral choice based on their belief that a fetus is a child - just as my position is rational and moral based on my belief that a fetus is not a child.


We may see this sort of problem increasing as the lines between "human" and "not human" get blurred - whether by genetically engineered chimeras, re-created neanderthals, or AIs. 

We seem to have finally gotten to the point where we agree that all humans are... well human, regardless of race. It wasn't so long ago that many people disagreed. 







FeministInPink said:


> My dad always said this about the pro-choice/pro-life debate (I am paraphrasing, obviously)
> 
> _Many people miss the actual point of this issue. The point isn't whether abortion is morally right or wrong. The point isn't "When does life begin?" No, the point is this: "Do I have the right to impose my belief system on someone else? Does the government have the right to impose one group's belief system on an entire country?" Because the question of whether something is right or wrong is not a question of fact, it is a question of personal belief. And when it comes to belief, nothing can be proven or disproven--it is simply opinion. And opinion is a personal choice; no one can tell you what opinion to have, nor can it be legislated by the government._
> 
> And he didn't answer the question for me--he wanted me to come up with the answer for myself. And the answer I have reached is this: No, I do not have the right to impose my beliefs on another person, and neither does anyone else.


----------



## Itwasjustafantasy

Oh lordy...of course abortion is such a controversial topic. Pro choice means I get to make my choice and so do you. Pro life is just pro-birth and pro-fetus..nothing else. Pro-choice people generally believe that all life is precious, not just that of a fetus. Pro lifers often expect women to give birth to every fertilized egg and once that fetus is born, well good luck with that. Women who use public assistance are looked down upon once they had their precious babies encouraged by the very people who insist they must bring such children to this world. And it is often the same people who are against sex education! 
I have explained in a different thread how my husband and I have decided against having any more children. Period. No doubts. Hopefully this President of ours won't put people like us in the position of having to bring what would be a completely unwanted child to this world. And no, I do not care to add more children to the foster care system. I work in the social work field, I know what it is like to grow up unwanted, unloved, waiting to age out of the system..horrendous. No birth control is perfect thus having reproductive rights protected is imperative. 
Finally, the best sign I saw at the march was the one that said "The only wall we need to build is the one between church and state." Mr. Trump and (most) of his followers need to understand that this is a democracy not a theocracy...laws should not be made based on one single religion (Christianity) or any at all. If one loves religion so much perhaps it is time to move to another country ruled by religious laws.


----------



## becareful2

FeministInPink said:


> That number isn't quite right. You're off by about 5 million. According to the CDC, approximately 50 million abortions have been performed since the passing of Roe v. Wade, and that number has been steadily declining since 1990. The current number is somewhere around 660,000 per year, as of 2013 (only slightly more than in 1973, in which the number was 610,000). Source. The same or less raw number than before Roe v. Wade, despite the fact that there are 105 million MORE PEOPLE in the US in 2013 than there were in 1973, the year Roe v. Wade was passed. Source. So if you look at the percentages, there is actually less abortion now, proportionally.
> 
> Additionally, you can see from this CDC chart that teen pregnancy has dropped drastically over the last 20 yrs: https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/
> 
> Please provide legitimate (not fake news sites or right-wing propaganda sites) sources for your claims, please. I'll be more likely to take your claims seriously and with less skepticism if you do.
> 
> ETA: And Planned Parenthood is a separate issue. Please keep red herrings out of the debate. We're not talking about Planned Parenthood.


The 56 million figure I got came from Life News, a pro-life site, but you will dismiss that as right wing propaganda, so I'll go to where you are.

That 50 million figure you cited from the CDC is 1000% percent wrong, plus the link you posted to wikipedia actually shows 51,888,303, not 50 million. How do I know it's wrong? It is widely known and acknowledged that the CDC abortion stats have omitted key states like California, which also happens to be the most populous, since 1998. They also have stopped counting abortions from New Hampshire since that same year. In addition, several states have not been counted for certain years. The CDC - from the wikipedia link you cited - reduced it's reporting areas from 52 to 47 in 1998.

There are really only two sources for abortion stats: the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute. GI was a former research arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Both are incomplete since the CDC omits certain states and have reduced the number of reporting areas, while the Guttmacher Institute doesn't do an annual survey, plus they said only 58% of those they survey provides them with stats. There is no law that mandates any abortion providers to report their numbers.

Let's play with some numbers that I've lifted from the Guttmacher Institute site. *source*. 

•Approximately 926,200 abortions occurred in the United States in 2014.
• In 2014, some 157,350 abortions were provided in California.
• In 2014, some 2,540 abortions were provided in New Hampshire. *source*

Notice that I'm only low-balling it, and not using the high numbers from years like 1990 when it was 1.6 million.

From 1998 to 2016 is 16 years, so for California, it's (157,350 x 16 = 2,517,600). For New Hampshire, it's (2,778 x 16 = 44,457). 
Add CA & NH's missing years to the 51,888,303 and we get (2,778 + 2,517,600 + 51,883,303 = 54,403,681. That total is about 1.6 million shy of 56 million. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that there is a 3% undercount, so that gets it over 56 million.

CDC did not count stats from states like Oklahoma, Alaska, West Virginia, Maryland, and Louisiana (OK in 1998, AK from 1998 to 2002, WV in 2003 and 2004, LA in 2005, MD from 2007 to 2012). I don't think it's a stretch to get to 56 million if those states are accounted for. It's definitely not 50 million. Mine is a layman's simplistic extrapolation, since it's not possible to get the exact figure regardless of whether the CDC stats or the GI stats are used, but if combined, it does paint a clearer picture.

I'm not disputing that there's a decline in abortions, but I'm not certain what is the reason behind that. It could be better health education or it could be a shift in how women view abortion. The CDC stats seem to say that the number of STDs have increased (source) and people are having more sex now than ever with the wide spread use of services like Tinder, AM, Match, Cupid, etc. School age kids are also having sex and sexting. There are what's known as Super STDs that are resistant to most known vaccines. It could also be due to people having less children. Every year, there's a pro-abortion march and a pro-life march. I've seen signs that read "Thank you, Mom, I am grateful", so to a certain extent, I think women's views on abortion have slowly changed from pro-abortion to pro-life. 

Planned Parenthood had a major presence in this women's march, so I think it's relevant to talk about them, and definitely not a red herring.


----------



## TX-SC

I highly recommend you guys consider moving this debate to the politics forum. 

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


----------



## FeministInPink

@becareful2 Thank you for your thoughtful, detailed response, and I will accept your estimate of 56 million.

And FYI, I reached the 50 million number because I subtracted the 3 yrs prior to Roe V Wade.


----------



## HD48

I am sick and tired of everyone protesting about EVERYTHING. It is absolutely absurd. The protests stem from that segment of the population that despise Trump, it's been that way since he announced his candidacy in the summer of 2015. Combine distaste for him with his winning the election and the disappointment from seeing him in this position of authority, and many can't stomach it. He's the President. He won the election, get used to it. Maybe someone will actually do something in the White House, rather than sit on their f***ing a** for 8 years. If you went to a protest, get a job, get a life. This politically correct, "misogynisitic", "racist", liberal crap is just unbearable. Go to work, pay taxes, take care of and protect your family, be kind to others, try to get along with others, etc. Can anyone take anyone seriously who wears a vagina costume?? And who the heck protests extreme vetting, which protects us? I don't see anyone protesting locking their doors at night. This is what those who root for Hillary, those who hate Trump, the ones protesting,those who cried during the election still don't get--this s*** is getting old, and it needs to stop.


----------



## MarriedDude

HD48 said:


> I am sick and tired of everyone protesting about EVERYTHING. It is absolutely absurd. The protests stem from that segment of the population that despise Trump, it's been that way since he announced his candidacy in the summer of 2015. Combine distaste for him with his winning the election and the disappointment from seeing him in this position of authority, and many can't stomach it. He's the President. He won the election, get used to it. Maybe someone will actually do something in the White House, rather than sit on their f***ing a** for 8 years. If you went to a protest, get a job, get a life. This politically correct, "misogynisitic", "racist", liberal crap is just unbearable. Go to work, pay taxes, take care of and protect your family, be kind to others, try to get along with others, etc. *Can anyone take anyone seriously who wears a vagina costume??* And who the heck protests extreme vetting, which protects us? I don't see anyone protesting locking their doors at night. This is what those who root for Hillary, those who hate Trump, the ones protesting,those who cried during the election still don't get--this s*** is getting old, and it needs to stop.


I have no particular aversion to a vagina costume and it would depend upon what said vagina was speaking about. 

(Hopefully it would Rhyme)


----------



## MarriedDude

uhtred said:


> *I saw the womens march as a way of saying that women are a powerful political force and should be considered in all politics. I think this is a fine message, half the population is female and they have historically not had half the political power.*
> 
> Beyond that there are many issues that affect women and of course not all women will agree on all of these issues. Abortion is one of the most divisive issues because the two sides is starting from different postulates: is a fetus a person? That cannot be measured, and depending on your answer you end up on one side or the other of the abortion debate.
> 
> Abortion is either murder, or a woman's obvious right to control her own body.


I would agree. Assembly, Protest, Marching on Washington and the like. Kinda makes me think...at least some freedom...is still alive. Not including any rioting/destruction...disagreement with a protester's message is one thing...telling them they CANT protest is quite another...and very very wrong.


----------



## Diana7

Itwasjustafantasy said:


> Where I marched there was no talk about killing babies. I am a pretty average mother who holds a full time job.


 You are one of a tiny tiny number who felt it represented them, this shows by the tiny number who went.


----------



## Diana7

HD48 said:


> I am sick and tired of everyone protesting about EVERYTHING. It is absolutely absurd. The protests stem from that segment of the population that despise Trump, it's been that way since he announced his candidacy in the summer of 2015. Combine distaste for him with his winning the election and the disappointment from seeing him in this position of authority, and many can't stomach it. He's the President. He won the election, get used to it. Maybe someone will actually do something in the White House, rather than sit on their f***ing a** for 8 years. If you went to a protest, get a job, get a life. This politically correct, "misogynisitic", "racist", liberal crap is just unbearable. Go to work, pay taxes, take care of and protect your family, be kind to others, try to get along with others, etc. Can anyone take anyone seriously who wears a vagina costume?? And who the heck protests extreme vetting, which protects us? I don't see anyone protesting locking their doors at night. This is what those who root for Hillary, those who hate Trump, the ones protesting,those who cried during the election still don't get--this s*** is getting old, and it needs to stop.


I couldnt agree more. Even in the uk there is ranting and raving and proposed marches and petitions against trump. I see it as childish and disrespectful to the the USA who voted for him democratically. What I want to ask if why oh why does no one do this about all the evil dictators in the world? Where are the protests about them? How they kill and starve and torture their own people?


----------



## uhtred

Protests are one of the solutions to the "tyranny of the majority" problems in democracies. They allow the minority opinion to still have a voice. 

I don't support violent protests except in the most excpetional situations, and this is not one of those, but I do support protests as yet another political tool. 

I think some of your characterizations or protesters may not be right. Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google was personally protesting at San Francisco airport - can't really complain that he needs to "get a job".

You are right that there is a lot a hatred for President Trump, but he has said and done things that many people fine offensive. Can he really be surprised that women are protesting when he is on video committing workplace harassment, and bragging about sexual assault? 

Can he really complain that people protest his immigration policies when they appear to have been issued with minimal thought and without the careful legal language that is so important? Did he really want to exclude perminent residents - people who LIVE in the US, many of them just waiting the many years it takes for citizenship to be approved. The wording in the order could even be read to exclude US citizens arriving from those countries because the language was not checked. 

So the womens' protest is putting politicians AND women on notice that women are a major voting force, half of the toal voters in the country. I expect and hope that women will vote in much higher numbers in the next election.





HD48 said:


> I am sick and tired of everyone protesting about EVERYTHING. It is absolutely absurd. The protests stem from that segment of the population that despise Trump, it's been that way since he announced his candidacy in the summer of 2015. Combine distaste for him with his winning the election and the disappointment from seeing him in this position of authority, and many can't stomach it. He's the President. He won the election, get used to it. Maybe someone will actually do something in the White House, rather than sit on their f***ing a** for 8 years. If you went to a protest, get a job, get a life. This politically correct, "misogynisitic", "racist", liberal crap is just unbearable. Go to work, pay taxes, take care of and protect your family, be kind to others, try to get along with others, etc. Can anyone take anyone seriously who wears a vagina costume?? And who the heck protests extreme vetting, which protects us? I don't see anyone protesting locking their doors at night. This is what those who root for Hillary, those who hate Trump, the ones protesting,those who cried during the election still don't get--this s*** is getting old, and it needs to stop.


----------



## FeministInPink

Diana7 said:


> You are one of a _*tiny tiny number*_ who felt it represented them, this shows by the tiny number who went.


Do you think if you keep saying it, it will somehow make it true? If you keep trying to marginalize this population, do you think they will be put in their place, shamed until they stop talking?

The tiny number that went? In DC alone, it's estimated at least a million people marched, according to the International Business Times. The DC metro (subway) system recorded over one million riders on the day of the march--the second busiest day in the history of Metro, second only to Obama's 2009 inauguration. That doesn't even include people who took commuter trains into the city, who drove, who took taxis/Ubers, rode bicycles, crossed the Potomac bridges on food to get to the protest. 

That doesn't factor in attendance at other marches around the country in other cities; including other U.S. cities, participation is estimated at 4.2 million. 

It doesn't factor all the supporters of the march who couldn't attend/participate for various reasons (work, childcare, cost).

*This march is likely the biggest protest in the history of the United States.*

That's than just a _tiny tiny number_.


----------



## uhtred

There are frequent protests all over the world against oppressive regimes. Remember Tiananmen square. There are protests going on in Poland right now.






Diana7 said:


> I couldnt agree more. Even in the uk there is ranting and raving and proposed marches and petitions against trump. I see it as childish and disrespectful to the the USA who voted for him democratically. What I want to ask if why oh why does no one do this about all the evil dictators in the world? Where are the protests about them? How they kill and starve and torture their own people?


----------



## MarriedDude

From what I learned from people in DC, it sure didnt seem like a tiny number. 

When the protesters destroy business and private goods, however, they not only hurt those they claim to want to help...they seriously damage their credibility. The so called anarchist....just sad....having been in locations that actually had NO law, no order...i would bet they would run in terror if they ever actually experienced the anarchy they claim to desire


----------



## Itwasjustafantasy

MarriedDude said:


> From what I learned from people in DC, it sure didnt seem like a tiny number.
> 
> When the protesters destroy business and private goods, however, they not only hurt those they claim to want to help...they seriously damage their credibility. The so called anarchist....just sad....having been in locations that actually had NO law, no order...i would bet they would run in terror if they ever actually experienced the anarchy they claim to desire


What I can say about the one women's march I attended is that it was peaceful and I could be wrong but I am not aware of any rioting or violent behavior in any of the other women's marches that happened in other cities.
I certainly would refrain fom bringing my young daughter to any march or protest where violence was anticipated or promoted. Of course not everything can be predicted but I have been very fortunate...probably because I have only supported peaceful causes and I also never supported Hillary nor Trump.


----------



## Fozzy

uhtred said:


> I saw the womens march as a way of saying that women are a powerful political force and should be considered in all politics. I think this is a fine message, half the population is female and they have historically not had half the political power.


I understand what you're saying here, but I also think it's a disservice to women to believe that they're monolithic in their political beliefs. When you can pigeon-hole an entire group of people as being in one belief system, they become taken for granted.


----------



## katies

I went. It was great, peaceful and inspirational. The women I went with are having a follow up meeting tonight where we will solidify our goal of mid term election involvement.
The folks who say what did we march for? this^^


----------



## TX-SC

Fozzy said:


> I understand what you're saying here, but I also think it's a disservice to women to believe that they're monolithic in their political beliefs. When you can pigeon-hole an entire group of people as being in one belief system, they become taken for granted.


I'm not sure where that sentiment comes from? Just because a large number of women marched for women's rights doesn't mean they all marched for the same reason or that women who did not March agree or disagree with some of their views. 

Do you remember the Million Man March in DC put together by Farrahkan? Do you think that march represented all men's views, or even all black men? 

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fozzy

TX-SC said:


> I'm not sure where that sentiment comes from? Just because a large number of women marched for women's rights doesn't mean they all marched for the same reason or that women who did not March agree or disagree with some of their views.
> 
> Do you remember the Million Man March in DC put together by Farrahkan? Do you think that march represented all men's views, or even all black men?
> 
> Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


I think many of those marches are often used to try to create that impression.


----------



## TX-SC

Fozzy said:


> I think many of those marches are often used to try to create that impression.


I'm sure some are. For others, it's a way to have their voices heard. There is strength in numbers. 

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


----------



## Yeswecan

FeministInPink said:


> I didn't go, but I considered it. I've lived in the DC metro area for the last 13 years, and when you live here, you develop an aversion for protests and marches, because they happen all the time and they sometimes really **** with your everyday life, especially when one happens on a work day. * And honestly, I was a little scared of violence-prone Trump supporters showing up, but that turned out to not be a problem.*
> 
> I did go to the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear back whenever that was, and that will probably be the only rally/march I'll go to.


I think the violence showed the day of swearing in. The non-Trump supporters. The same that block roads, break windows, burn business' and cars. Fun loving folk. Yeah, that was them. Violence prone Trump supporters. Are kidding me?


The Right to Life women were NOT invited. They had to do their own thing a week later.

Berkley is in flames. No Trump supporters there.

*{Moderator Note: I spelled out the profanity. Please follow forum rules in regards to the profanity filter.

8. Filter Bypass/Obscenity: A profanity filter is in place and any attempts to bypass it are forbidden. You MAY type words that are filtered, as long as they are not abusive towards other quests or violate any other rules; however, you must allow the filter to do its job. Do NOT try to filter the word yourself and do not try to use creative spelling to bypass the profanity filter. Also, posting images of videos of obscene gestures, linking to obscene web sites, posting obscene or graphic descriptions of a decidedly adult nature, and violating a standard of decent behavior is not allowed.

February 21st is the deadline for full enforcement of the measure.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/forum-guidelines/350914-posting-guidelines-forum-rules-2016-a.html }*


----------



## MarriedDude

katies said:


> I went. It was great, peaceful and inspirational. The women I went with are having a follow up meeting tonight where we will solidify our goal of mid term election involvement.
> The folks who say what did we march for? this^^


Awesome! 

If there is one thing entrenched elected government officals and the bureaucracy that supports them fears the most....It's informed involved citizens


----------



## MarriedDude

Fozzy said:


> I understand what you're saying here, but I also think it's a disservice to women to believe that they're monolithic in their political beliefs. When you can pigeon-hole an entire group of people as being in one belief system, they become taken for granted.


I agree...If women were monolithic...we could save big dollars and just have one vote for all women....however, I've never encountered 2 women with identical political beliefs...but similarities do exist. 

I would bet at every march there were major disagreements in both platform and proposed action...but the only way to develop a consensus (or something close to it) is to assemble and get all the ideas out there....The good usually floats to the top eventually and exposure to new ideas is rarely a bad thing.


----------



## lucy999

Diana7 said:


> women in the west are equal anyway so they have NOTHING to complain about.


Please tell me you're not serious.


----------



## MarriedDude

Yeswecan said:


> I think the violence showed the day of swearing in. The non-Trump supporters. The same that block roads, break windows, burn business' and cars. Fun loving folk. Yeah, that was them. Violence prone Trump supporters. Are kidding me?
> 
> 
> The Right to Life women were NOT invited. They had to do their own thing a week later.
> 
> *Berkley is in flames.* No Trump supporters there.


Yeah...WTH is going on at UC Berkley???? 

Actually violently protesting....a speaker? Damn, seems just...insane. 

I hope they make those kids clean up that disaster


----------



## FeministInPink

Yeswecan said:


> I think the violence showed the day of swearing in. The non-Trump supporters. The same that block roads, break windows, burn business' and cars. Fun loving folk. Yeah, that was them. Violence prone Trump supporters. Are kidding me?
> 
> 
> The Right to Life women were NOT invited. They had to do their own thing a week later.
> 
> Berkley is in flames. No Trump supporters there.


I'm not saying that all Trump supporters are violence-prone, far from it. I'm afraid of the very few who are violence-prone, and crazy enough to act on those urges.


----------



## tech-novelist

HD48 said:


> I am sick and tired of everyone protesting about EVERYTHING. It is absolutely absurd. The protests stem from that segment of the population that despise Trump, it's been that way since he announced his candidacy in the summer of 2015. Combine distaste for him with his winning the election and the disappointment from seeing him in this position of authority, and many can't stomach it. He's the President. He won the election, get used to it. Maybe someone will actually do something in the White House, rather than sit on their f***ing a** for 8 years. If you went to a protest, get a job, get a life. This politically correct, "misogynisitic", "racist", liberal crap is just unbearable. Go to work, pay taxes, take care of and protect your family, be kind to others, try to get along with others, etc. Can anyone take anyone seriously who wears a vagina costume?? And who the heck protests extreme vetting, which protects us? I don't see anyone protesting locking their doors at night. This is what those who root for Hillary, those who hate Trump, the ones protesting,those who cried during the election still don't get--this s*** is getting old, and it needs to stop.


Although this behavior is very annoying, it has a couple of benefits:

1. It will ensure that the Republican party will have far greater representation in the Senate and state legislatures after next year's elections.
2. It also virtually ensures Trump's re-election in 2020.

Both of those effects are due to the fact that the vast majority of the population is repelled by seeing such senseless behavior, and will turn toward the less hysterical side, which is the conservative side.


----------



## tech-novelist

FeministInPink said:


> I'm not saying that all Trump supporters are violence-prone, far from it. I'm afraid of the very few who are violence-prone, and crazy enough to act on those urges.


So far, all of the violence has been from the left. Perhaps you should be concerned about that.


----------



## uhtred

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that they were monolitic but that as a group they are very important and so should be considered (in all their variety) in politics. 



Fozzy said:


> I understand what you're saying here, but I also think it's a disservice to women to believe that they're monolithic in their political beliefs. When you can pigeon-hole an entire group of people as being in one belief system, they become taken for granted.


----------



## uhtred

I am never in favor of suppressing speech, no matter how offensive, unless it is actively threatening. 

In most cases extremists speakers harm their causes more by talking than by being silenced anyway






MarriedDude said:


> Yeah...WTH is going on at UC Berkley????
> 
> Actually violently protesting....a speaker? Damn, seems just...insane.
> 
> I hope they make those kids clean up that disaster


----------



## katies

"If you went to a protest, get a job, get a life. "

I have one full time job and two part time ones. I have a life. It involves being a concerned citizen, among many other things. 
Why are people so threatened by those of us peacefully protesting. Even if you think it accomplishes nothing, so what?


----------



## Fozzy

MarriedDude said:


> Yeah...WTH is going on at UC Berkley????
> 
> Actually violently protesting....a speaker? Damn, seems just...insane.
> 
> I hope they make those kids clean up that disaster


There's a reason people call it Berzerkly


----------



## EllisRedding

I typically wear my pink vagina costume when I go grocery shopping every weekend, so took more of a "been there done that" approach and skipped the march ...


----------



## lucy999

EllisRedding said:


> I typically wear my pink vagina costume when I go grocery shopping every weekend, so took more of a "been there done that" approach and skipped the march ...


Aaaah so that was you on People of Walmart. Mystery solved!


----------



## Yeswecan

FeministInPink said:


> I'm not saying that all Trump supporters are violence-prone, far from it. I'm afraid of the very few who are violence-prone, and crazy enough to act on those urges.


And what about the non-Trump supporters? You are belaying the facts that non-supporters are destroying what they can, disrupting traffic and from what I understand hurt some folks out in Berkeley. These fun loving folks don't scare you? The same that disrupted the swearing in and made a mess of a few business. Yet, at the womens march what of any violence occurred from anyone? 

Step back and take a look at who is rioting. Truth be told, many did not attend the swearing in because of the violent riots conducted by non-Trump supporters.


----------



## FeministInPink

Yeswecan said:


> And what about the non-Trump supporters? You are belaying the facts that non-supporters are destroying what they can, disrupting traffic and from what I understand hurt some folks out in Berkeley. These fun loving folks don't scare you? The same that disrupted the swearing in and made a mess of a few business. Yet, at the womens march what of any violence occurred from anyone?
> 
> Step back and take a look at who is rioting. Truth be told, many did not attend the swearing in because of the violent riots conducted by non-Trump supporters.


I can't comment on what may have happened outside of DC. But the violence that happened in DC on the inauguration was committed by individuals not associated with the women's march, and acted independent of that movement. A good number are anarchists who would have protested regardless of who won the election:



> The Disrupt J20 group on Twitter said its anger was not directed only at Trump, and that it would also have demonstrated had Democrat Hillary Clinton won the election last November.
> 
> Source: Reuters


The Women's March, on the other hand, was peaceful. The majority of the left do not endorse or support violent actions of fringe groups.

I will admit that my fears of fringe Trump supporters acting violently never came to pass, but I know it's a fear shared by other people. What I didn't consider was anarchists like Disrupt J20 using the planned (peaceful) protests as an opportunity to create havoc and intensify the division between the right and the left.


----------



## Yeswecan

FeministInPink said:


> I can't comment on what may have happened outside of DC. But the violence that happened in DC on the inauguration was committed by individuals not associated with the women's march, and acted independent of that movement. A good number are anarchists who would have protested regardless of who won the election:
> 
> *I did not specifically say the violence was woman from the march. But it does not matter. There are riots and violence by non-Trump supporters, period. Yet, you are afraid of crazy Trump fringe lunatics. So what is it, crazy Trump supporters or anarchists? You see, you simply state it is crazy Trump supporters you are afraid of. Yet, none show up at the womens march. But the previous day are anarchists and rioters but this does not scare you. I don't get it. As much as some like to point out Trump supporters are nuts, they do not point out non-trump supporters and anarchist are getting emboldened and way out of hand. . Again, I don't get were any fear of a Trump supporter is coming from. *
> 
> 
> The Women's March, on the other hand, was peaceful. The majority of the left do not endorse or support violent actions of fringe groups.
> 
> *Good for the women on being peaceful. The anarchists were busy the following day rioting. The non-Trump supporters were busy blocking roads. The Trump supporters were busy having a good time and had no real reason to disrupt anything. Yet, the crazy fringe Trump lover scares you? *
> 
> I will admit that my fears of fringe Trump supporters acting violently never came to pass, but I know it's a fear shared by other people.*(totally unfounded fears. Other than paid for disruptions at Trump rallies name off any time a group of Trump Supporters blocked traffic and burned business') * What I didn't consider was anarchists like Disrupt J20 using the planned (peaceful) protests as an opportunity to create havoc and intensify the division between the right and the left.


 
SMH that Trump supporters are seen possibly violent without much evidence of a few disruptions at a Trump rally. Yet, day after day riots and anarchists run amoke and it appears you are ok with this because more than likely these individuals would not show up at a women's march. :|


----------



## tech-novelist

Yeswecan said:


> And what about the non-Trump supporters? You are belaying the facts that non-supporters are destroying what they can, disrupting traffic and from what I understand hurt some folks out in Berkeley. These fun loving folks don't scare you? The same that disrupted the swearing in and made a mess of a few business. Yet, at the womens march what of any violence occurred from anyone?
> 
> Step back and take a look at who is rioting. Truth be told, many did not attend the swearing in because of the violent riots conducted by non-Trump supporters.


That doesn't matter because it's perfectly acceptable for "liberals" to destroy property and hurt or kill people, whereas peaceful people who aren't liberals are "literally Nazis!!!!".

I hope this explanation clears that up.


----------



## tech-novelist

FeministInPink said:


> I will admit that my fears of fringe Trump supporters acting violently never came to pass, but I know it's a fear shared by other people.


Yes, thanks to the so-called "mainstream media", which has been demonizing Trump and his supporters non-stop since he got the Republican nomination.



FeministInPink said:


> What I didn't consider was anarchists like Disrupt J20 using the planned (peaceful) protests as an opportunity to create havoc and intensify the division between the right and the left.


They aren't anarchists. They are paid rioters.


----------



## Yeswecan

tech-novelist said:


> That doesn't matter because it's perfectly acceptable for "liberals" to destroy property and hurt or kill people, whereas peaceful people who aren't liberals are "literally Nazis!!!!".
> 
> I hope this explanation clears that up.


That is what I was getting at. The anarchists and rioting is simply OK. I have YET to see a roving group of Trump supporters burning, destroying and blocking traffic. 


Berkley is burning!!!!! Not a Trump supporter insight. Well, except for the Trump supporter brutally beaten by 4 rioters. Forgot about him. 

Student Trump supporter beaten on Berkeley campus after protest



Thank the media for much of what has occurred and to come.


----------



## FeministInPink

Yeswecan said:


> SMH that Trump supporters are seen possibly violent without much evidence of a few disruptions at a Trump rally. Yet, day after day riots and anarchists run amoke and it appears you are ok with this because more than likely these individuals would not show up at a women's march. :|


Don't put words in my mouth. I NEVER said that I was OK with riot and anarchists running amok. I said I didn't even consider that it would happen, until it did.

And with all Trump's rhetoric during his campaign encouraging violence, he has a lot of people scared. It's not just me, and not just for our safety, but for our fundamental civil rights, which is why people are protesting. 

Try listening to other people and be empathetic to their fears instead of trying to shut them up by telling them they're morons.


----------



## turnera

Yeswecan said:


> Yet, day after day riots and anarchists run amok


sources, please?


----------



## turnera

Yeswecan said:


> Berkley is burning!!!!!


Really? Right now? Is the entire campus in rubble now?

Love me some hyperbole.


----------



## Yeswecan

FeministInPink said:


> Don't put words in my mouth. I NEVER said that I was OK with riot and anarchists running amok. I said I didn't even consider that it would happen, until it did.
> 
> And with all Trump's rhetoric during his campaign encouraging violence, he has a lot of people scared. It's not just me, and not just for our safety, but for our fundamental civil rights, which is why people are protesting.
> 
> Try listening to other people and be empathetic to their fears instead of trying to shut them up by telling them they're morons.



You never said it not OK. You simply looked at crazied Trump supporters. Less than a handful of them but none the less... Month after month the "anarchist" have been rioting and you did not consider these anarchists would riot at a womens march? Perhaps these folks are not anarchists but liberals?

For all the rhetoric of Trump, these were not protests. These where riots. Call it as it was and still is. Concerning violence, who is being violent? Any of the Trump supporters? 

Never said you were a moron. Do not put words in my mouth. Empathetic to your fears? 
How about those that feared attending the swearing in of Trump but were afraid of riots? There were many. Their fears were not unfounded at all. You do not appear to care about their fears.


----------



## Yeswecan

turnera said:


> sources, please?


This is just for the election year and does not include riots for criminal cases that did not go the way people thought they should. 

2016 – Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, January–February 2015. 1 killed and several dozen arrested. Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon
2016 - Anaheim, California Feb. 29. 3 People stabbed and 13 others arrested during a Ku Klux Klan rally.
2016 – 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest, March 11. Five people arrested and two police officers injured during a demonstration at the UIC Pavilion.
2016 - Democracy Spring rally in April. March to Washington D.C. and sit-ins lead to arrests.
2016 - At least 261 people were arrested across the U.S. in protests in New York City, Chicago, St. Paul, Minnesota; Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and other cities. In St. Paul, bottles and rocks flew as over twenty officers were injured. The protests were held in response to the officer-involved shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.
2016 - 2016 Milwaukee riots, Sherman Park, August 13–15. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
2016 - 2016 Charlotte riot, September 20–21, Riots started in response to the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott by police
2016 - Dakota Access Pipeline protests, 411 Protesters Arrested. Multiple skirmishes with police, with vehicles, hay bales, and tires set on fire.
*2016 - Ongoing - Anti-Trump protests, Nov. 9-27.* As a result of Donald Trump being elected 45th President of the U.S., thousands protested across twenty five American cities and unrest broke out in Downtown Oakland, California and Portland, Oregon. In Downtown Oakland over 40 fires started and police officers were injured.[2] Protests in Portland were declared a "riot" with "extensive criminal and dangerous behavior" that were labeled by police as "unlawful."[3]
2017 - Washington, D.C., Anti-Trump protests at Inauguration. Objects were thrown at police and a limousine was set on fire. More than 230 were arrested.
2017 - Berkeley, California, February 1, civil unrest ensued at UC Berkeley as Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak on the campus.[4][5]


----------



## FeministInPink

Yeswecan said:


> You never said it not OK. You simply looked at crazied Trump supporters. Less than a handful of them but none the less... Month after month the "anarchist" have been rioting and you did not consider these anarchists would riot at a womens march? Perhaps these folks are not anarchists but liberals?
> 
> For all the rhetoric of Trump, these were not protests. These where riots. Call it as it was and still is. Concerning violence, who is being violent? Any of the Trump supporters?
> 
> Never said you were a moron. Do not put words in my mouth. Empathetic to your fears?
> How about those that feared attending the swearing in of Trump but were afraid of riots? There were many. Their fears were not unfounded at all. You do not appear to care about their fears.


You and tech-novelist are certainly dumping on me a lot and are treating me like I'm a moron. You don't have to say the exact words, I can read between the lines. I've been getting a lot of disrespect on this thread, simply for voicing my opinion.

Peace out.


----------



## Yeswecan

turnera said:


> sources, please?





turnera said:


> Really? Right now? Is the entire campus in rubble now?
> 
> Love me some hyperbole.


Love some real conversation concerning the misconception that Trump supporters are crazed lunatics on the edge. Nothing supports this assertion.


----------



## Yeswecan

FeministInPink said:


> You and tech-novelist are certainly dumping on me a lot and are treating me like I'm a moron. You don't have to say the exact words, I can read between the lines. I've been getting a lot of disrespect on this thread, simply for voicing my opinion.
> 
> Peace out.


Stating the facts does not treat you like a moron. You have fears of Trump supporters doing what? They have done nothing to warrant any fears. Not attempting to dump on you.


----------



## MarriedDude

FeministInPink said:


> Don't put words in my mouth. I NEVER said that I was OK with riot and anarchists running amok. I said I didn't even consider that it would happen, until it did.
> 
> And with* all Trump's rhetoric during his campaign encouraging violence*, he has a lot of people scared. It's not just me, and not just for our safety, but for our fundamental civil rights, which is why people are protesting.
> 
> Try listening to other people and be empathetic to their fears instead of trying to shut them up by telling them they're morons.


I usually pick up on that stuff. Do you have any specific clips where he encouraged violence?


----------



## MarriedDude

turnera said:


> Really? Right now? Is the entire campus in rubble now?
> 
> Love me some hyperbole.


If it was....oh the contracts...they would be flowing. 

Not that I wish for violence and destruction.........I just help rebuild


----------



## turnera

Yeswecan said:


> Love some real conversation concerning the misconception that Trump supporters are crazed lunatics on the edge. Nothing supports this assertion.


You never heard that from me. The worst I can say about Trump supporters is that they (1) latch onto any tidbit of fake news and run with it without fact-checking first (remember those boys in Europe tried to flood the Democrats' lines with fake news but nobody bit, so they gave up and just focused on feeding it to the Republicans; I just had dinner with one last night who was spouting NOT true crap as though it was the truth); and (2) tend to throw out a lot of very unkind, unChristianlike verbiage about their opponents (have had my share of that the past few months); and (3) let the hate-mongers usurp their platform and become the 'face' of the party. I could share just as many horror stories of people hating people once Trump started down this horrific road as you did with the 'riots.'


----------



## naiveonedave

MarriedDude said:


> I usually pick up on that stuff. Do you have any specific clips where he encouraged violence?


No, because he doesn't promote violence. Unlike the mobs from the left...


----------



## FeministInPink

MarriedDude said:


> I usually pick up on that stuff. Do you have any specific clips where he encouraged violence?


https://www.google.com/webhp?source...UTF-8#q=trump's+rhetoric+encouraging+violence


----------



## tech-novelist

FeministInPink said:


> You and tech-novelist are certainly dumping on me a lot and are treating me like I'm a moron. You don't have to say the exact words, I can read between the lines. I've been getting a lot of disrespect on this thread, simply for voicing my opinion.
> 
> Peace out.


Exactly where have I been dumping on you or treating you like a moron? As far as I'm aware, all I'm doing is pointing out that the actual violence is being committed by ANTI-Trump people, not by PRO-Trump people.

If indeed I have dumped on you or mistreated you in some way, please point it out and I will be happy to apologize.


----------



## tech-novelist

turnera said:


> You never heard that from me. The worst I can say about Trump supporters is that they (1) latch onto any tidbit of fake news and run with it without fact-checking first (remember those boys in Europe tried to flood the Democrats' lines with fake news but nobody bit, so they gave up and just focused on feeding it to the Republicans; I just had dinner with one last night who was spouting NOT true crap as though it was the truth); and (2) tend to throw out a lot of very unkind, unChristianlike verbiage about their opponents (have had my share of that the past few months); and (3) let the hate-mongers usurp their platform and become the 'face' of the party. I could share just as many horror stories of people hating people once Trump started down this horrific road as you did with the 'riots.'


Please do share those stories, or at least some of them.


----------



## Yeswecan

turnera said:


> You never heard that from me. The worst I can say about Trump supporters is that they (1) latch onto any tidbit of fake news and run with it without fact-checking first (remember those boys in Europe tried to flood the Democrats' lines with fake news but nobody bit, so they gave up and just focused on feeding it to the Republicans; I just had dinner with one last night who was spouting NOT true crap as though it was the truth); and (2) tend to throw out a lot of very unkind, unChristianlike verbiage about their opponents (have had my share of that the past few months); and (3) let the hate-mongers usurp their platform and become the 'face' of the party. I could share just as many horror stories of people hating people once Trump started down this horrific road as you did with the 'riots.'


What fake news are you suggesting a supporter latched onto? No, I do not recall anyone in Europe flooding lines of Democrats with fake news. And I sure don't receive any calls from Europe feeding me fake news. In fact, I know of no one who received these calls. 

UnChristain like verbiage? Casting stones. Deplorables!!!!! Thanks Hillary!!!! 

Trump did not create the hate. Trump did not create BLM etc. The hate and divided country was there all along turnera. That is self evident in past history with groups such as the KKK, Black Panthers and the like. Trump did not start any of this but he sure is a source to point the finger. Go back and read the list of riots. Many had to do with things other than Trump. Many Obama ignored attempting to finish is term unscathed.


----------



## MarriedDude

FeministInPink said:


> https://www.google.com/webhp?source...UTF-8#q=trump's+rhetoric+encouraging+violence


Meh....Those, that I read....its a stretch to say he is encouraging violence....anymore than say Madonna...with the "Blow up the White House" stuff. 

In 94.........THAT is encouraging violence.

If you missed it....I will PM it


----------



## MarriedDude

Hell....I would bet at LEAST 80% of ALL news is fake


----------



## Yeswecan

FeministInPink said:


> https://www.google.com/webhp?source...UTF-8#q=trump's+rhetoric+encouraging+violence


If I'm not mistaken it was found that people were paid ot start trouble at Trump rallies. Read below.... 

Undercover video shows Democrats saying they hire agitators to disrupt Donald Trump events - Washington Times


http://ijr.com/2016/10/715882-dem-o...iot-that-shut-down-trump-rally-thats-not-all/


----------



## Yeswecan

MarriedDude said:


> Hell....I would bet at LEAST 80% of ALL news is fake


You would win that bet!!!


----------



## Yeswecan

MarriedDude said:


> Meh....Those, that I read....its a stretch to say he is encouraging violence....anymore than say Madonna...with the "Blow up the White House" stuff.
> 
> In 94...I worked, briefly, in Central Africa for a private logistics firm...bonus's were offered by the acting gov't for arms, feet and breasts......THAT is encouraging violence.


Dude....the DNC paid people to be agitators and start fights at rallies.


----------



## turnera

MarriedDude said:


> I usually pick up on that stuff. Do you have any specific clips where he encouraged violence?


At a Las Vegas rally in late February, as a protester was again being removed from the premises, Trump lamented that "we're not allowed to punch back anymore" and reminisced about the halcyon "old days," when a protester would "be carried out on a stretcher"; "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously." He again promised to pay for any legal fees associated with an assault; the comment about Hilary and gun owners; jokes about punching and rounding up protesters; how he could shoot someone and still get elected; "The audience hit back. That's what we need a little bit more of"; He also praised people using physical force at his rallies as "appropriate"; "In the good old days this doesn't happen because they used to treat them very, very rough"; "Get him out," he then said. "Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it"; suggested that the problem with America is that “nobody wants to hurt each other anymore.”

At a campaign rally in Kansas City on Saturday, the day after the unrest in Chicago, Trump addressed an earlier event in Dayton, Ohio, when a protester tried to storm the stage.

The candidate said he would have fought the person had he reached the lectern and mimed punching him a few times.

"I'll beat the crap out of you," he then mouthed.



> Throughout his campaign, Trump has exemplified a rhetorical strategy that mirrors the way extremists incite violence among their followers.
> In a piece published in Rolling Stone, law professor David Cohen argues that Trump is engaging in what’s known as “stochastic terrorism” — an academic term that refers to the act of using suggestive language to inspire radicals to carry out violent acts. In this scenario, a lone wolf terrorist wouldn’t be explicitly instructed to commit their crimes, but they would be encouraged by rhetoric that appears to normalize that type of activity.





> There has been escalating violence at Donald Trump rallies—incident after incident of protesters getting shouted down with crude, offensive language as well as getting shoved, punched, kicked, tackled, stripped of their signs, dragged by their hair, and more.


Trump's long dalliance with violent rhetoric - POLITICO
https://thinkprogress.org/the-rheto...out-inciting-violence-7fbf7b96d448#.kk2czfk7q
All the times Trump has called for violence at his rallies
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.html
Here's All the Evidence That Donald Trump Encourages Violence | The Huffington Post


----------



## turnera

Yeswecan said:


> No, I do not recall anyone in Europe flooding lines of Democrats with fake news. And I sure don't receive any calls from Europe feeding me fake news. In fact, I know of no one who received these calls.


Fake News: How a Partying Macedonian Teen Earns Thousands Publishing Lies - NBC News
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-11...irculated-many-false-news-stories-us-election
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38168281


----------



## MarriedDude

I think i have a very different idea of what constitutes "encouraging violence"


----------



## turnera

Yeswecan said:


> What fake news are you suggesting a supporter latched onto?





> Fake news became all too real over the weekend after a North Carolina man entered a Washington pizzeria with an assault rifle in an attempt to "self-investigate" a false but persistent conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton.
> 
> The baseless theory is that the business was a front for a child sex ring run by Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager.
> 
> Edgar Maddison Welch, a 28-year-old man from Salisbury, N.C., walked into Comet Ping Pong in the capital around 3 p.m. on Dec. 4. Police said pointed his gun at a worker, who fled, and then Welch started firing the rifle inside the restaurant, the Washington Post reported.


How Pizzagate went from fake news to a real problem for a D.C. business | PolitiFact

2016 Lie of the Year: Fake news | PolitiFact

Our top ten "fake news'' stories of the 2016 Election

Have you really not been hearing of this stuff? If not, I suggest you open yourself up to different news sources.


----------



## turnera

MarriedDude said:


> I think i have a very different idea of what constitutes "encouraging violence"


As I said:


> Throughout his campaign, Trump has exemplified a rhetorical strategy that mirrors the way extremists incite violence among their followers.
> In a piece published in Rolling Stone, law professor David Cohen argues that Trump is engaging in what’s known as “stochastic terrorism” — an academic term that refers to the act of using suggestive language to inspire radicals to carry out violent acts. In this scenario, a lone wolf terrorist wouldn’t be explicitly instructed to commit their crimes, but they would be encouraged by rhetoric that appears to normalize that type of activity.


It even has a 'name' for how people do it.


----------



## becareful2

The evidence so far shows thatmost of the violence have been perpetrated against pro-Trump people. There was a girl wearing a red Trump hat at Berkeley being pepper sprayed by an anti-Trump man. She was minding her own business and was caught off guard by the pepper spray.


----------



## uhtred

The violent rioters and anarchists that sometimes join liberal protests are a huge problem. I don't feel that they represent the mainstream liberals and that they substantially hurt progressive causes.. The protest does seem much more a tool of the left not the right.


----------



## turnera

The destructive people at the Women's March weren't part of the Women's March. They were outsiders. The destructive people at the Berkely protest were not students; they were outsiders. See a pattern?


----------



## tech-novelist

turnera said:


> The destructive people at the Women's March weren't part of the Women's March. They were outsiders. The destructive people at the Berkely protest were not students; they were outsiders. See a pattern?


Yes, I do. The violent people were "protesting" against Trump, not in favor of Trump.


----------



## becareful2

turnera said:


> The destructive people at the Women's March weren't part of the Women's March. They were outsiders. The destructive people at the Berkely protest were not students; they were outsiders. See a pattern?


If true, why don't these fringe elements latch on to the conservative protests, but always the liberal protests? The simple answer to that is they know they will not get any footing or support from the conservative protestors. That's like saying the rioters from the BLM protests were from outside the area. While that is true to some extent, we have videos of BLM members chanting death to the police and to "burn this expletive down!"

It doesn't help that the left-leaning media is spreading fake news to stir up hatred against Trump.


----------



## Vanessa1

I'm embarrassed by the women at the "Women's March". They don't represent me at all. It was a pro-ho, pro-abortion fest. These women are an absolute nightmare and I cringe at the words and costumes used to relay their message. If women want to be considered to be leaders, act like it. I will never support a feminist ever again. The cause is disgusting!!!


----------



## Vanessa1

The report that stirred my fire today was the fact that now..now...NOW, liberal media will report on U6 unemployment records. WTF!!!


----------



## 225985

turnera said:


> The destructive people at the Women's March weren't part of the Women's March. They were outsiders. The destructive people at the Berkely protest were not students; they were outsiders. See a pattern?




You know this how??? Outside of what? 

One of the famous woman talked about blowing up the White House? Yeah, that's not destructive. (Eye roll)


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

Sorry, but it's a wee bit difficult to respect - or try to listen to - fools who think THIS is the best way to get their 'point' across to the masses. Not everyone wore this crap, I'm only talking about those who did. But the ones who did wear that or wore those ridiculous hats just looked like mindless sheep. So my answer is no, I didn't join the,* "We're Sore Losers Because Hillary Lost and Trump Won so Let's Have a Protest About Our Reproductive Rights March."*

Pffffft.


----------



## Diana7

She'sStillGotIt said:


> Sorry, but it's a wee bit difficult to respect - or try to listen to - fools who think THIS is the best way to get their 'point' across to the masses. Not everyone wore this crap, I'm only talking about those who did. But the ones who did wear that or wore those ridiculous hats just looked like mindless sheep. So my answer is no, I didn't join the,* "We're Sore Losers Because Hillary Lost and Trump Won so Let's Have a Protest About Our Reproductive Rights March."*
> 
> Pffffft.


I so agree, its pathetic. A mature person will gracefully accept they were on the losing side like an adult. A proper lady will not dress up in a vagina outfit, can you imagine the outcry if men marched dressed as a penis???


----------



## Anon Pink

tech-novelist said:


> Please do share those stories, or at least some of them.



We Tracked Down A Fake-News Creator In The Suburbs. Here's What We Learned : All Tech Considered : NPR


> Coler says his writers have tried to write fake news for liberals — but they just never take the bait.







Yeswecan said:


> What fake news are you suggesting a supporter latched onto?


See above.



> Trump did not create the hate. Trump did not create BLM etc. The hate and divided country was there all along turnera. That is self evident in past history with groups such as the KKK, Black Panthers and the like. Trump did not start any of this but he sure is a source to point the finger. Go back and read the list of riots. Many had to do with things other than Trump. Many Obama ignored attempting to finish is term unscathed.


You're right, Trump didn't create the hate, he simply reached out to those who felt disenfranchised and left out and gave them a voice. All the white people sick of having to watch their speech for fear of political correctness. Boy you guys really hate not being able to use hateful speech and language. Trump to the rescue!


I was at the Women's March in DC with family and friends. I live outside of DC. Had a BLAST! Saw so many clever signs I wish I had pictures! When we walked by Trump's hotel the chanting changed to Shame! Shame! Shame! I thought that was hysterical!

I saw three women dressed as vulvas carrying signs urging Trump to keep his filthy hands off, urging congress not to legislate them. Yet the next day social media blew up with how many women were wearing vagina hats.... I thought, I guess you've never actually seen a vagina because I saw pink hats everywhere and not a single one appeared to resemble a vagina in ANY way.

We were among the last to leave the mall area so we saw the multitude of signs and posters left behind. They were all either stacked near over flowing trash cans or they were propped up with the message facing out.

The anti-choice folks could have attended, if they wanted to. They may advocate for women not to seek abortions and that's okay. But when they advocate to take that right, that choice, that personal and uniquely female right to reproductive autonomy, they may not attained. Don't like abortion, don't get one, but you don't get to take away the rights of other women. 

The anitchoice folks are also anti birth control hysterics. So not only do they want to control a woman's reproductive choices, they want to control sex in general. No hormonal birth control, no birth control pill, no IUD, and obviously no morning after pill. Why do these people dislike sex so much they want to reduce the sex lives of everyone? 

There were also the Russian Guards marching, which was also hysterical! Men draped in the Russian flag wearing those giant fur hats marching in goose step. They had signs thanking Trump and wishing him well comrade. There were groups of Latino women, many many groups of Muslim women, transgender folk, and essentially every group that Trump has targeted with his hate speech.

I don't care to spend my Sunday on Google in order to copy and past the thousands of situations where a minority group has been accosted or vandalized because Trump made it Okay to hate again. 

Those vandals at his inauguration were anarchists and they are not the Left! They themselves refuse to be labeled as such. 

The violence in Portland on Election Day was perpetrated by the anarchists, not regular citizens angry about Trumps election.

Our president lies, and his press secretary lies, and his (what the hell is Conway's job title?) lies. Trump lies about himself, he lies about others, he thinks if he insists his lies are true and repeats them often enough they will magically become true.

There was a list of Unity Principals the Women's March published. If you are unfamiliar here is the link:
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...Guiding+Vision+&+Definition+of+Principles.pdf

There were no incidents at the women's march in D.C. I am unaware of any incidents during the 100's of sister marches.

If you are clutching your pearls because women dressed as vulvas ( and they're not vaginas because the vagina is INSIDE the body and to be dressed as a vagina one would merely have to be wearing a pink tube ffs!) then perhaps you should have elected a president who didn't brag about sexually assaulting women by grabbing their pvssies!!!!!!


----------



## Anon Pink

Diana7 said:


> I so agree, its pathetic. A mature person will gracefully accept they were on the losing side like an adult. A proper lady will not dress up in a vagina outfit, can you imagine the outcry if men marched dressed as a penis???


Are you for real?

You're upset about costumes being inappropriate but you're okay with Trump?


----------



## Anon Pink

blueinbr said:


> You know this how??? Outside of what?
> 
> One of the famous woman talked about blowing up the White House? Yeah, that's not destructive. (Eye roll)


Please post a link that verifies this claim.

There were ZERO violent incidents at the women's march.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...arch-on-washington-yields-zero-arrests-report

Coincidentally, while searching for a link that supports my statemnet I saw several links that refuted my statement and every single one was from a fake news site.


----------



## 225985

Anon Pink said:


> Please post a link that verifies this claim.
> 
> 
> 
> There were ZERO violent incidents at the women's march.
> 
> 
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...arch-on-washington-yields-zero-arrests-report
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, while searching for a link that supports my statemnet I saw several links that refuted my statement and every single one was from a fake news site.




I don't know how to post links

Google Madonna blow up the white house


----------



## TX-SC

My family and many of my friends are Trump supporters. My wife's family and many of my friends hate Trump. None of them have looted or been an angry mob for either side. I will say that, being southern, my family is way more anti-gay and racist than my wife's family. But, I'm not saying that's necessarily true of all Trump supporters. 

My problem with Trump is because I don't like his stance on many issues. Some, I'm okay with. But, what I am seeing from Trump supporters is a feeling that they are now more justified in their beliefs and therefore more vocal. Where my family would only talk crap about blacks in hushed tones before, they are now using the N word a lot more. Land owners I am speaking to in my line of work are now being pushy about "hating environmental regulations". I have spoken to two such land owners in the past week. Both of which were somewhat hostile about having to undergo "useless studies" in order to get their project completed. In the past 25 years I don't think I have had even one land owner be hostile about it, until now. 

The reality is that Trump's demeanor, which is quite narcissistic, is dividing this country worse than I've ever seen it divided. Obama set the tone as well. He was pretty bad too about dividing people. His stance on the police and BLM was outrageous. But, as bad as Obama was in that regard, Trump is worse. His constant Tweeting and vilification of anyone who disagrees with him will probably end in a major war before he serves a complete 4 years. 

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


----------



## turnera

TX-SC, that's what I've been projecting, too - we're going to be at war. My prediction is that the 'white people' are going to pick some states (the ones that give them the most money), claim them, and start refusing to let anyone else join them. And all the 'outcasts' or 'not good enough' people are going to end up with the rest of the country. As I keep saying, this election reminds me more and more of Atlas Shrugged; but in a reverse way. It's not the brains and the brave separating themselves from the country - it's the hateful, fearful ones who forget that this country thrives because of its diversity.


----------



## Anon Pink

blueinbr said:


> I don't know how to post links
> 
> Google Madonna blow up the white house


I did.

You said " ...famous woman talked about blowing up the White House..." Using your words it sounded as if someone famous suggested we blow up with White House, which is an outrageous thing to suggest. Your words conveyed an entirely different meaning that Madonna's actual words.

And this is why we can't have nice things (actual discussion) anymore. Ya'all just blow things outta proportion and change the meaning of what was actually said.


Madonna: 'Blowing up White House' taken out of context - CNN.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ow-up-the-white-house-comment-was-a-metaphor/

Madonna clarifies &apos;blowing up the White House&apos; comment: &apos;Taken wildly out of context&apos; - LA Times

Singer Madonna defends 'blowing up the White House' remark | Reuters

Trump has something to say about Madonna?s ?blowing up the White House? remark ? TheBlaze

https://www.theatlantic.com/enterta...p-the-white-house-womens-march-speech/514106/


1. While Madonna insists her comment was a metaphor and taken out of context, I personally think she's as much of an attention ***** as trump is. I've never liked herand think she should just shut accept the fact that she isn't 20 anymore.

2. I don't believe that her comment was intended to be a metaphor, however she didn't encourage people to blow up the whitehouse. She said she thought about it. Who gives a **** what she thinks?

3. The march organizers should have never let her on stage.

*{Moderator Note: I spelled out the profanity. Please follow forum rules in regards to the profanity filter.

8. Filter Bypass/Obscenity: A profanity filter is in place and any attempts to bypass it are forbidden. You MAY type words that are filtered, as long as they are not abusive towards other quests or violate any other rules; however, you must allow the filter to do its job. Do NOT try to filter the word yourself and do not try to use creative spelling to bypass the profanity filter. Also, posting images of videos of obscene gestures, linking to obscene web sites, posting obscene or graphic descriptions of a decidedly adult nature, and violating a standard of decent behavior is not allowed.

February 21st is the deadline for full enforcement of the measure.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/forum-guidelines/350914-posting-guidelines-forum-rules-2016-a.html }*


----------



## Anon Pink

blueinbr said:


> I don't know how to post links
> 
> Google Madonna blow up the white house


Your claim about:



> Re: Womens March
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by turnera View Post
> The destructive people at the Women's March weren't part of the Women's March. They were outsiders. The destructive people at the Berkely protest were not students; they were outsiders. See a pattern?



*You know this how??? Outside of what?* 

So you said that, above bolder, and I asked you to post links that supported your claim that there were destructive people at the women's march, and that they were part of the women's march.

Because as I've said several times already, there were ZERO incidents at the women's march in D.C. And I believe this is the same for the 100's of other marches across the GOLBE!


----------



## Anon Pink

turnera said:


> TX-SC, that's what I've been projecting, too - we're going to be at war. My prediction is that the 'white people' are going to pick some states (the ones that give them the most money), claim them, and start refusing to let anyone else join them. And all the 'outcasts' or 'not good enough' people are going to end up with the rest of the country. As I keep saying, this election reminds me more and more of Atlas Shrugged; but in a reverse way. It's not the brains and the brave separating themselves from the country - it's the hateful, fearful ones who forget that this country thrives because of its diversity.


Nya, we're going to end up in a feudal state owing our lives to our corporate overlords.

Buy land now!

:grin2:


----------



## 225985

Anon Pink said:


> I did.
> 
> 
> 
> You said " ...famous woman talked about blowing up the White House..." Using your words it sounded as if someone famous suggested we blow up with White House, which is an outrageous thing to suggest. Your words conveyed an entirely different meaning that Madonna's actual words.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why we can't have nice things (actual discussion) anymore. Ya'all just blow things outta proportion and change the meaning of what was actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madonna: 'Blowing up White House' taken out of context - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ow-up-the-white-house-comment-was-a-metaphor/
> 
> 
> 
> Madonna clarifies &apos;blowing up the White House&apos; comment: &apos;Taken wildly out of context&apos; - LA Times
> 
> 
> 
> Singer Madonna defends 'blowing up the White House' remark | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has something to say about Madonna?s ?blowing up the White House? remark ? TheBlaze
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/enterta...p-the-white-house-womens-march-speech/514106/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. While Madonna insists her comment was a metaphor and taken out of context, I personally think she's as much of an attention ***** as trump is. I've never liked herand think she should just shut accept the fact that she isn't 20 anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. I don't believe that her comment was intended to be a metaphor, however she didn't encourage people to blow up the whitehouse. She said she thought about it. Who gives a **** what she thinks?
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The march organizers should have never let her on stage.




Of course after the negative feedback Madonna is going to "clarify" her words. Imagine if someone said that about 44.

Some nut will respond. 

We have three dead cops in my city because of "harmless" rhetoric said during the BLM "protest". They all lived near me.

*{Moderator Note: I spelled out the profanity. Please follow forum rules in regards to the profanity filter.

8. Filter Bypass/Obscenity: A profanity filter is in place and any attempts to bypass it are forbidden. You MAY type words that are filtered, as long as they are not abusive towards other quests or violate any other rules; however, you must allow the filter to do its job. Do NOT try to filter the word yourself and do not try to use creative spelling to bypass the profanity filter. Also, posting images of videos of obscene gestures, linking to obscene web sites, posting obscene or graphic descriptions of a decidedly adult nature, and violating a standard of decent behavior is not allowed.

February 21st is the deadline for full enforcement of the measure.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/forum-guidelines/350914-posting-guidelines-forum-rules-2016-a.html }*


----------



## TX-SC

blueinbr said:


> Of course after the negative feedback Madonna is going to "clarify" her words. Imagine if someone said that about 44.
> 
> Some nut will respond.
> 
> We have three dead cops in my city because of "harmless" rhetoric said during the BLM "protest". They all lived near me.


Kind of like blacks killed for just being black? Yeah, I agree it's ALL wrong and needs to stop. I am not a BLM fan by any means. Their message is screwed up and they have SOME within their group doing horrible things. And, while I'm a huge fan of police and all other first responders, I'm not so ignorant as to overlook that even some police are bad people or at least let prejudice take over. 

Senseless killing and rioting needs to stop. 

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


----------



## 225985

TX-SC said:


> Kind of like blacks killed for just being black? Yeah, I agree it's ALL wrong and needs to stop. I am not a BLM fan by any means. Their message is screwed up and they have SOME within their group doing horrible things. And, while I'm a huge fan of police and all other first responders, I'm not so ignorant as to overlook that even some police are bad people or at least let prejudice take over.
> 
> Senseless killing and rioting needs to stop.
> 
> Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk




No, not kind of like what you mentioned. 

They were ambushed and assassinated. No comparison. Not even close. 

They rushed in at the report of a man with rifle walking along the road. A main road in town. Some of them were off duty. My wife and I were planning to eat breakfast right near there when it happened. 

A fourth cop was shot in the head. A fifth was shot in arm. 

They were not pulling a gun on someone at a gas station attempting robbery. 

Your attempt to compare the two is disgusting.


----------



## TX-SC

blueinbr said:


> No, not kind of like what you mentioned.
> 
> They were ambushed and assassinated. No comparison. Not even close.
> 
> They rushed in at the report of a man with rifle walking along the road. A main road in town. Some of them were off duty. My wife and I were planning to eat breakfast right near there when it happened.
> 
> A fourth cop was shot in the head. A fifth was shot in arm.
> 
> They were not pulling a gun on someone at a gas station attempting robbery.
> 
> Your attempt to compare the two is disgusting.


Really? Have you not heard of how blacks were treated in the early part of the previous century (through the 50s)? Very much similar. 

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


----------



## 225985

TX-SC said:


> Really? Have you not heard of how blacks were treated in the early part of the previous century (through the 50s)? Very much similar.
> 
> Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk




Well the Christians were thrown to the lions. How far back do you want to go?

Btw, this happened in a city with a black mayor. One of the killed cops was black

I didn't mention race. You did.


----------



## TX-SC

Not 2000 years, for sure!  

Recent history is certainly relevant. Many people are still alive who lived through that period. These people have children and grandchildren who are told first hand about how it was. There is still a lot of racial tension in the south and I'm seeing this tension increasing as of late. 

I 100% agree that killing innocent people is wrong, but this isn't happening in a vacuum. I believe that, as I said, BLM is wrong and the way some are acting is very wrong. I am, however, able to acknowledge that the pain runs deep. 

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


----------



## Anon Pink

blueinbr said:


> Of course after the negative feedback Madonna is going to "clarify" her words. *Imagine if someone said that about 44.*
> 
> .


You know what's funny? The most common hits google returned on "racist memes 2009 obama" were memes calling obama the racist. 

However... In 2016 there was an explosion of "racist memes obama" Which completely supports my statement that 

*Trump is so popular because racist bigots no longer have to stay in the closet and whisper their bigotry.*


----------



## 225985

Anon Pink said:


> You know what's funny? The most common hits google returned on "racist memes 2009 obama" were memes calling obama the racist.
> 
> 
> 
> However... In 2016 there was an explosion of "racist memes obama" Which completely supports my statement that
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump is so popular because racist bigots no longer have to stay in the closet and whisper their bigotry.*




I know many people that voted for both 44 and 45. Your statement is your personal opinion not based on any fact. 

If a white person doesnt vote for a black they are racist. But not the other way around. 

My city had a recent election for mayor. A black woman was elected. Against a white man. The majority of voters are white. I live in the deep South. 

She was the best candidate. 

How does that fit your racist sexist theory?

Oh, it does. I guess the racist white bigots were at the truck show, Nascar or white only bar and forgot to vote.


----------



## Anon Pink

blueinbr said:


> I know many people that voted for both 44 and 45. Your statement is your personal opinion not based on any fact.


Correct.



> If a white person doesnt vote for a black they are racist. But not the other way around.


Who suggested that? Wasn't me.



> My city had a recent election for mayor. A black woman was elected. The majority of voters are white. I live in the deep South.
> 
> She was the best candidate.
> 
> How does that fit your racist theory?


Aside from this being a straw man it is also a red herring because it has nothing to do with my statement above.



> Oh, it does. I guess the racist white bigots were at the truck show, Nascar or white only bar and forgot to vote.


Cute but try to keep up with the class.

Trump has given voice to all the closeted racists and bigots. Who did all the racists and bigots vote for? Trump.

Does this mean everyone who voted for Trump are bigots? Ask me and you'll find out.


----------



## 225985

Anon Pink said:


> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who suggested that? Wasn't me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from this being a straw man it is also a red herring because it has nothing to do with my statement above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute but try to keep up with the class.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has given voice to all the closeted racists and bigots. Who did all the racists and bigots vote for? Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean everyone who voted for Trump are bigots? Ask me and you'll find out.




Oh, so you know the bigot status of every voter. So can you want to share such supreme wisdom with this racist?

I gave you a real example of voting and race and gender to dispute your statement. 

You give me FB memes as your source. 

Cmon Pink. You can do better than that. Even I'm not claiming all the welfare cheats or minorities or criminals or societal deadbeats voted for your candidate.


----------



## Anon Pink

Anecdotal ain't support

The question I answered was yours; you asked what would have happened had [someone changed about burning down the White House] when 44 was elected. [" ...imagine if someone had said that about 44"]

They did, they said an awful lot for 8 years. But instead of calling Obama a racist, they switched to their original speech patterns and reverted to racist memes and jokes about Obama.

You need to stay on topic Blue.

Google hits aren't anecdotal because they are duplicatable. When something can be duplicated time and time again it is called.............................................. ?

Blue, I tire of this.


----------



## turnera

Anon Pink said:


> Nya, we're going to end up in a feudal state owing our lives to our corporate overlords.
> 
> Buy land now!
> 
> :grin2:


Well, yeah, that too. 

Personally, I'm going to be looking for ownership of water. That's going to be the global commodity soon. Or maybe ownership of desalination processes.


----------



## turnera

blueinbr said:


> Well the Christians were thrown to the lions. How far back do you want to go?
> 
> Btw, this happened in a city with a black mayor. One of the killed cops was black
> 
> I didn't mention race. You did.


Oh please. You aren't making this about color?


----------



## tech-novelist

TX-SC said:


> My family and many of my friends are Trump supporters. My wife's family and many of my friends hate Trump. None of them have looted or been an angry mob for either side. I will say that, being southern, my family is way more anti-gay and racist than my wife's family. But, I'm not saying that's necessarily true of all Trump supporters.
> 
> My problem with Trump is because I don't like his stance on many issues. Some, I'm okay with. But, what I am seeing from Trump supporters is a feeling that they are now more justified in their beliefs and therefore more vocal. Where my family would only talk crap about blacks in hushed tones before, they are now using the N word a lot more. Land owners I am speaking to in my line of work are now being pushy about "hating environmental regulations". I have spoken to two such land owners in the past week. Both of which were somewhat hostile about having to undergo "useless studies" in order to get their project completed. In the past 25 years I don't think I have had even one land owner be hostile about it, until now.
> 
> The reality is that Trump's demeanor, which is quite narcissistic, is dividing this country worse than I've ever seen it divided. Obama set the tone as well. He was pretty bad too about dividing people. His stance on the police and BLM was outrageous. But, as bad as Obama was in that regard, Trump is worse. *His constant Tweeting and vilification of anyone who disagrees with him will probably end in a major war before he serves a complete 4 years.*
> 
> Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


I'll take the other side of *that*. Of course, if you can name a time that a war was started by tweeting or insulting people, I might reconsider.


----------



## tech-novelist

turnera said:


> TX-SC, that's what I've been projecting, too - we're going to be at war. My prediction is that the 'white people' are going to pick some states (the ones that give them the most money), claim them, and start refusing to let anyone else join them. And all the 'outcasts' or 'not good enough' people are going to end up with the rest of the country. As I keep saying, this election reminds me more and more of Atlas Shrugged; but in a reverse way. It's not the brains and the brave separating themselves from the country - it's the hateful, fearful ones who forget that this country thrives because of its diversity.


I've read Atlas Shrugged quite a few times, and I don't see the slightest resemblance between its heroes and those who are hysterical about Trump's election win. In fact, quite the reverse: Trump, although he is certainly not perfect, is more like one of her heroes than any President in memory.


----------



## tech-novelist

blueinbr said:


> I know many people that voted for both 44 and 45. Your statement is your personal opinion not based on any fact.
> 
> If a white person doesnt vote for a black they are racist. But not the other way around.
> 
> My city had a recent election for mayor. A black woman was elected. Against a white man. The majority of voters are white. I live in the deep South.
> 
> She was the best candidate.
> 
> How does that fit your racist sexist theory?
> 
> Oh, it does. I guess the racist white bigots were at the truck show, Nascar or white only bar and forgot to vote.


I think it is interesting (but not in a good way) that when people who voted for a black man for President refuse to vote for a white woman (as happened in quite a few counties in Pennsylvania and Ohio), that makes them racist.


----------



## Yeswecan

turnera said:


> Or maybe ownership of desalination processes.


 The military can do this already.


----------



## 225985

tech-novelist said:


> I think it is interesting (but not in a good way) that when people who voted for a black man for President refuse to vote for a white woman (as happened in quite a few counties in Pennsylvania and Ohio), that makes them racist.




And sexist too.


----------



## tech-novelist

blueinbr said:


> And sexist too.


While that is wrong, at least it isn't totally ridiculous; that is, it is *possible *that people wouldn't vote for a woman due to sexism, although I'm pretty sure that's not why Hillary lost.


----------



## 225985

tech-novelist said:


> While that is wrong, at least it isn't totally ridiculous; that is, it is *possible *that people wouldn't vote for a woman due to sexism, although I'm pretty sure that's not why Hillary lost.


Yes, but I meant if you DON'T vote for H, regardless of any other reason - like she is a war-mongering socialist criminal - you are considered sexist and hate women.


----------



## uhtred

Lots of people voted for lots of reasons. Some of those reasons were racist or sexist, some were not. Some were self interest, some believed that they were voting for the common good. Some thought very carefully, others just reacted to the media. 

It would take a very careful study to separate *why* various demographics voted the way that they did. 




tech-novelist said:


> While that is wrong, at least it isn't totally ridiculous; that is, it is *possible *that people wouldn't vote for a woman due to sexism, although I'm pretty sure that's not why Hillary lost.


----------



## 225985

turnera said:


> Oh please. You aren't making this about color?


Did you read the thread? The other posters brought up the issue of racism.

I actually gave an example of un-racism. But hey, I don't have any fancy FB memes so my rebuttal is ignored.


----------



## Yeswecan

tech-novelist said:


> While that is wrong, at least it isn't totally ridiculous; that is, it is *possible *that people wouldn't vote for a woman due to sexism, although I'm pretty sure that's not why Hillary lost.


Many would vote a woman for President. However, Hillary is not the woman. Hillary had too much negative from her own doing that was her undoing(IMO).


----------



## Yeswecan

blueinbr said:


> Yes, but I meant if you DON'T vote for H, regardless of any other reason - like she is a war-mongering socialist criminal - you are considered* sexist and hate women*.


The Dems did their very best to point this out during the campaign. Obama was included as one that pushed this idea. 

I would believe that it is true for some individuals but not enough to matter because Hillary won the popular vote. Therefore we can kind of put that notion to bed.


----------



## Yeswecan

Anon Pink said:


> Those vandals at his inauguration were anarchists and they are not the Left! They themselves refuse to be labeled as such.
> 
> The violence in Portland on Election Day was perpetrated by the anarchists, not regular citizens angry about Trumps election.


I'm just cherry picking this from your post. First, these are not vandals. These are rioters. Second, anarchist are not left? What are they then? What do these folks use as a label? What do these anarchist want exactly? 

Anarchists are regular citizens upset with something. Government not doing enough? 1% should be doing more? Sound oddly like the left.


----------



## tech-novelist

Yeswecan said:


> I'm just cherry picking this from your post. First, these are not vandals. These are rioters. Second, anarchist are not left? What are they then? What do these folks use as a label? What do these anarchist want exactly?
> 
> Anarchists are regular citizens upset with something. Government not doing enough? 1% should be doing more? Sound oddly like the left.


Anarchists are people who don't believe in government. Period.

The people who destroyed property and threatened harm to people are rioters, not anarchists. Since they are apparently trying to influence the government via violence, they could also be called terrorists.


----------



## Diana7

Yeswecan said:


> Many would vote a woman for President. However, Hillary is not the woman. Hillary had too much negative from her own doing that was her undoing(IMO).


Absolutely. I am all for female leaders(we have a great one here in the UK right now) but clinton wasn't a good one.


----------



## Yeswecan

tech-novelist said:


> Anarchists are people who don't believe in government. Period.
> 
> The people who destroyed property and threatened harm to people are rioters, not anarchists. Since they are apparently trying to influence the government via violence, they could also be called terrorists.


I believe anarchists is incorrectly being used. Agreed, simply rioters. Rioters that the left are attempting to disassociate. And for what reason? The rioters are left leaning? I would have to say yes.


----------



## becareful2

*This Yarn Store Owner Received Rape Threats For Opposing The Women’s March, But She Won’t Back Down*


When Elizabeth Poe saw video footage of the Women’s March in Washington DC the day after President Trump was inaugurated, she was horrified by all of the vulgarity on display. Women carried signs emblazoned with genitals, many repeatedly chanted curse words, and celebrities delivered speeches riddled with explicit content and threats of violence.


----------



## TX-SC

becareful2 said:


> *This Yarn Store Owner Received Rape Threats For Opposing The Women’s March, But She Won’t Back Down*
> 
> 
> When Elizabeth Poe saw video footage of the Women’s March in Washington DC the day after President Trump was inaugurated, she was horrified by all of the vulgarity on display. Women carried signs emblazoned with genitals, many repeatedly chanted curse words, and celebrities delivered speeches riddled with explicit content and threats of violence.


Of course, we should all believe what we read on the federalist.com!  


Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


----------



## becareful2

TX-SC said:


> Of course, we should all believe what we read on the federalist.com!


What's wrong with the federalist? Are you suggesting it's fake news?


----------



## Diana7

becareful2 said:


> *This Yarn Store Owner Received Rape Threats For Opposing The Women’s March, But She Won’t Back Down*
> 
> 
> When Elizabeth Poe saw video footage of the Women’s March in Washington DC the day after President Trump was inaugurated, she was horrified by all of the vulgarity on display. Women carried signs emblazoned with genitals, many repeatedly chanted curse words, and celebrities delivered speeches riddled with explicit content and threats of violence.


Good for her, and the threats she has had, show the mind set of these people. 
As she said, these people on the marches were far more vulgar that trump ever was which is sort of ironic.


----------



## TX-SC

becareful2 said:


> What's wrong with the federalist? Are you suggesting it's fake news?


Perhaps I worded that incorrectly. As an independent, I tend to try and stay away from news sources that are overly biased to the right or left. The federalist is heavily right biased. 

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


----------



## Yeswecan

becareful2 said:


> *This Yarn Store Owner Received Rape Threats For Opposing The Women’s March, But She Won’t Back Down*
> 
> 
> When Elizabeth Poe saw video footage of the Women’s March in Washington DC the day after President Trump was inaugurated, she was horrified by all of the vulgarity on display. Women carried signs emblazoned with genitals, many repeatedly chanted curse words, and celebrities delivered speeches riddled with explicit content and threats of violence.


Say it ain't so!!!


----------



## EllisRedding

Supposedly the next planned march is a day long strike for all women in this country to not go to work. This will show the world how important women are in the workplace (was that ever in question ...). Of course part of this is meant to protest the so called "wage gap". Pretty funny, burn through one of your personal days ...


----------



## Yeswecan

EllisRedding said:


> Supposedly the next planned march is a day long strike for all women in this country to not go to work. This will show the world how important women are in the workplace (was that ever in question ...). Of course part of this is meant to protest the so called "wage gap". Pretty funny, burn through one of your personal days ...


I heard about this second march. 

It is to my understanding the march after the inauguration was a spin off of what was to be a march/celebration for the first woman president(Hillary) that obviously never came to pass.


----------



## Steve1000

HD48 said:


> I am sick and tired of everyone protesting about EVERYTHING. It is absolutely absurd. The protests stem from that segment of the population that despise Trump, it's been that way since he announced his candidacy in the summer of 2015. Combine distaste for him with his winning the election and the disappointment from seeing him in this position of authority, and many can't stomach it. He's the President. He won the election, get used to it. Maybe someone will actually do something in the White House, rather than sit on their f***ing a** for 8 years. If you went to a protest, get a job, get a life. This politically correct, "misogynisitic", "racist", liberal crap is just unbearable. Go to work, pay taxes, take care of and protect your family, be kind to others, try to get along with others, etc. Can anyone take anyone seriously who wears a vagina costume?? And who the heck protests extreme vetting, which protects us? I don't see anyone protesting locking their doors at night. This is what those who root for Hillary, those who hate Trump, the ones protesting,those who cried during the election still don't get--this s*** is getting old, and it needs to stop.


Did you feel the same way about the Tea Party?


----------



## Wolf1974

EllisRedding said:


> Supposedly the next planned march is a day long strike for all women in this country to not go to work. This will show the world how important women are in the workplace (was that ever in question ...). Of course part of this is meant to protest the so called "wage gap". Pretty funny, burn through one of your personal days ...


Or get fired lol

The term cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind

Doesn't matter though I don't know anyone participating in this stuff


----------



## EllisRedding

Wolf1974 said:


> Or get fired lol
> 
> The term cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind
> 
> Doesn't matter though I don't know anyone participating in this stuff


The funny thing, at least where I live. The two biggest employers of women are healthcare (in particular nurses) and education (in particular the public school districts). For these two areas there is no pay gap whatsoever, and don't believe there is any doubt the importance they play in the workforce. I don't know anyone either who would be participating in such a "strike".


----------



## Wolf1974

EllisRedding said:


> The funny thing, at least where I live. The two biggest employers of women are healthcare (in particular nurses) and education (in particular the public school districts). For these two areas there is no pay gap whatsoever, and don't believe there is any doubt the importance they play in the workforce. I don't know anyone either who would be participating in such a "strike".


No pay gap whatsoever in my field either (government). I have no doubt that a pay gap does exists in certain fields though. Guess my question has always been why would anyone,male or female,work in an environment where they are treated, paid, or valued less than their counterparts especially knowing you have other alternatives. I wouldn't.


----------



## Yeswecan

EllisRedding said:


> The funny thing, at least where I live. The two biggest employers of women are healthcare (in particular nurses) and education (in particular the public school districts). For these two areas there is no pay gap whatsoever, and don't believe there is any doubt the importance they play in the workforce. I don't know anyone either who would be participating in such a "strike".





Wolf1974 said:


> No pay gap whatsoever in my field either (government). I have no doubt that a pay gap does exists in certain fields though. Guess my question has always been why would anyone,male or female,work in an environment where they are treated, paid, or valued less than their counterparts especially knowing you have other alternatives. I wouldn't.


So what you are saying effectively...it is all made up.


----------



## Wolf1974

Yeswecan said:


> So what you are saying effectively...it is all made up.


Umm no did you even read what I wrote where I said that it does likely exist in certain career fields??


----------



## EllisRedding

Wolf1974 said:


> Umm no did you even read what I wrote where I said that it does likely exist in certain career fields??


This, I am sure they do exist in other fields, I can only point to the ones that I am familiar with. Since it is illegal to do so, you hope all avenues legally are taken to address.


----------



## uhtred

Changing jobs is not easy.



Wolf1974 said:


> No pay gap whatsoever in my field either (government). I have no doubt that a pay gap does exists in certain fields though. Guess my question has always been why would anyone,male or female,work in an environment where they are treated, paid, or valued less than their counterparts especially knowing you have other alternatives. I wouldn't.


----------



## Wolf1974

uhtred said:


> Changing jobs is not easy.


no doubt and I have had to change jobs before so I get that.

It's also not easy to live year after year working 40+ hours a week where you are not valued or looked down upon because of (insert reason here).


----------



## Yeswecan

Wolf1974 said:


> Umm no did you even read what I wrote where I said that it does likely exist in certain career fields??


Ah. Reading up on it, it appears women are on average 80% pay to men counterparts.


----------



## Yeswecan

uhtred said:


> Changing jobs is not easy.


That's an understatement.


----------



## Diana7

In the uk where I live, I am not aware of any jobs where women are paid less for the same job. Women in the west have nothing to complain about.


----------



## Wolf1974

Yeswecan said:


> Ah. Reading up on it, it appears women are on average 80% pay to men counterparts.


Maybe in some career fields but not all. Several have already been identified. My question is still if you are in a career field where legitimately you can't get equal treatment why stay? Sometimes I hear this quote you made and wonder well why is that happening. Is it truely gender biasis or could it be that culturally we teach women not to be assertive in the workplace.

Three examples.

My mother was the head administrator of nursing in my home town. She was the highest paid in the position in the region which encompassed 10 counties. Most of her counterparts were male and yes they worked for other agencies, larger and smaller, so the pay isn't going to straight across the board. One of my female cousins did a day career shadow of her, wanted to follow in her footsteps, and asked her why she was the highest paid. Her answer was she always knew what she was worth and how hard she worked and if she wasn't getting it where she was she would go someplace else. she always had offers to leave. She never did. Keep in mind this was a 70's and 80's era woman and she had loyalty to her her company and they to her.

One of my female friends was the highest grossing advertising tv sales for 6 years straight before she moved to other things. This area where it's male dominated and pay scales are all over the place, no one is getting paid the same because it's all direct commission based sales. Do the work and you make well over 6 figures, don't and you barely make enough to get by. She always told me she made the most because she worked the most. And she did, always on the phone, always trying to make a sale. And she was very good at it

Finally my GF works for an eye doctor selling glasses. Highest paid in her office full of women. Her office manager resents her because she has gotten a raise every year for the last 4 she has worked there and her office manager is making the exact same. How can this be? She just smiles and says because I ask for a raise every year and worked hard to make myself valuable to the company my manager has never asked.

My point is that if you know you are good at something you should never tolerate not being compensated for it. It's not enough to just be good you have to be assertive and ask for things like raises and promotions. We do a great job teaching men this path but not so much women who are much more culturally taught to be reserved and go along with it.


----------



## Yeswecan

What gets me with some of my jobs is the pay and a new higher after me. I get hired for XXX dollars. Work a year or so. Get a pay raise. New higher comes in and bam...making he same as me after being with the company for a while. Is it cost of living at the certain the new higher is taken on? In my case, no. Not really. This has never sat well with me.


----------



## Wolf1974

Yeswecan said:


> What gets me with some of my jobs is the pay and a new higher after me. I get hired for XXX dollars. Work a year or so. Get a pay raise. New higher comes in and bam...making he same as me after being with the company for a while. Is it cost of living at the certain the new higher is taken on? In my case, no. Not really. This has never sat well with me.


Totally get where you are coming from but Yeah you would really hate my career field then :grin2:

I recently got promoted to Sgt. the moment I got promoted I made the exact same as the Sgt who has been at that rank for the last 25 years. And I mean exact same to the dollar.


----------



## Yeswecan

Wolf1974 said:


> Totally get where you are coming from but Yeah you would really hate my career field then :grin2:
> 
> I recently got promoted to Sgt. the moment I got promoted I made the exact same as the Sgt who has been at that rank for the last 25 years. And I mean exact same to the dollar.


That is what I have experienced. It made me feel less than valuable and lesser valuable compared to the new higher.


That's it man. I'm marching!!!!!


----------



## tech-novelist

If all women went on strike, the main harm to the public, and it is a serious harm, would be to those who need nursing care.
If all men went on strike, Western civilization would come to a halt very quickly.

Which of these would be worse?


----------



## Diana7

tech-novelist said:


> If all women went on strike, the main harm to the public, and it is a serious harm, would be to those who need nursing care.
> If all men went on strike, Western civilization would come to a halt very quickly.
> 
> Which of these would be worse?


Not sure where you live, but in the uk we have many female doctors, paramedics, policewomen etc so its far far more than just nurses who would risk our safety.


----------



## tech-novelist

Diana7 said:


> Not sure where you live, but in the uk we have many female doctors, paramedics, policewomen etc so its far far more than just nurses who would risk our safety.


We have female doctors here too, but they don't work nearly as much as men, nor in difficult specialties. I'm sure there are female paramedics too, although I've never seen one; women don't have the upper body strength (nor do most men). There are policewomen but we could do without them.

The vast majority of jobs necessary to the fabric of Western civilization are performed by men. Their loss would be catastrophic in just a few days.

Notice that I'm not saying that women are unnecessary to the survival of our species; obviously that is not true. But a women's strike would not have much effect compared to a men's strike.


----------



## Yeswecan

tech-novelist said:


> If all women went on strike, the main harm to the public, and it is a serious harm, would be to those who need nursing care.
> If all men went on strike, Western civilization would come to a halt very quickly.
> 
> Which of these would be worse?


Well, for those requiring nursing care it would be worse. I do not see nurses leaving their patients to go march. It takes a special kind of women to be a nurse. It is a hard thankless job but these wonderful women have it in them to take on the task. God bless them! I sure would not want the job.


----------



## tech-novelist

Yeswecan said:


> Well, for those requiring nursing care it would be worse. I do not see nurses leaving their patients to go march. It takes a special kind of women to be a nurse. It is a hard thankless job but these wonderful women have it in them to take on the task. God bless them! I sure would not want the job.


Having electricity, clean water, HVAC, telephones, etc., is very important too, and after all there are a lot more male nurses than there are female power plant operators and the like.

Neither one would be good, but one would be bad and the other would be catastrophic.


----------



## becareful2

TX-SC said:


> Perhaps I worded that incorrectly. As an independent, I tend to try and stay away from news sources that are overly biased to the right or left. The federalist is heavily right biased.


But are they factually wrong? Which sources do you consider not overly biased to the left or right?


----------



## TX-SC

becareful2 said:


> But are they factually wrong? Which sources do you consider not overly biased to the left or right?


Factually, they might be correct. But, has been argued before, these news sites report on ONLY those stories that are pro to their side/cause. So, they will report on a negative thing about the March, but not about positive things. They will show the hateful side, but not the many loving families that showed up and caused no harm. A small percentage dress up as vaginas and they get the attention, but 99 percent were just normal people marching for their own causes.

Personally, like bulk news sources that report from various sources, like News 360. Then I'll look up the same story on Google to get various sides. 

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk


----------



## Anon Pink

If Trump can get elected after talking about sexually assaulting women "grab them by the pvssy" WTF is your problem with a VULVA costume? 

Once again, a VULVA is the entire area surrounding the vagina. Labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, urethra and vaginal opening. That is the vulva. That is what is being represented in those costumes because the slang term, or Presidential in this case, is PVSSY. However, in slang the pvssy includes the vagina.

The vagina is INSIDE the body, thus a vagina costume would look like a pink tube.

Since when is it considered inappropriate to be dressed like a body part?

Considering how many people, women included, who don't know that a vagina is not what the costumes represented, we should probably have more vulva parades so everyone knows what a clitoris is and more importantly, where to find it!


----------



## Anon Pink

Also, the rioters where anarchists. Anarchists who were rioting.

Anarchists are not part of the left. They don't want ANY government at all so I guess they are closer to libertarians than progressives.


----------



## becareful2

Anon Pink said:


> If Trump can get elected after talking about sexually assaulting women "grab them by the pvssy" WTF is your problem with a VULVA costume?
> 
> Once again, a VULVA is the entire area surrounding the vagina. Labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, urethra and vaginal opening. That is the vulva. That is what is being represented in those costumes because the slang term, or Presidential in this case, is PVSSY. However, in slang the pvssy includes the vagina.
> 
> The vagina is INSIDE the body, thus a vagina costume would look like a pink tube.
> 
> Since when is it considered inappropriate to be dressed like a body part?
> 
> Considering how many people, women included, who don't know that a vagina is not what the costumes represented, we should probably have more vulva parades so everyone knows what a clitoris is and more importantly, where to find it!


What women who want to be respected and taken seriously would wear a p*ssy hat to a protest?
On one hand, they insist that men not objectify them, that they are far more than their lady parts, 
but then they go and pull off this ridiculous stunt. Do you know of anyone who takes Code Pink seriously?
The left is very good at using arts & crafts in their protests, but that's not how they win over middle
America. Win people over with ideas, not with childish costumes. Sorry but I don't take those p*ssy
hat wearing protestors seriously. The others, I've no problem with. And why is it that the violent
elements almost always find their way to a liberal protest? Think about it.


----------



## EllisRedding

Anon Pink said:


> If Trump can get elected after talking about sexually assaulting women "grab them by the pvssy" WTF is your problem with a VULVA costume?
> 
> Once again, a VULVA is the entire area surrounding the vagina. Labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, urethra and vaginal opening. That is the vulva. That is what is being represented in those costumes because the slang term, or Presidential in this case, is PVSSY. However, in slang the pvssy includes the vagina.
> 
> The vagina is INSIDE the body, thus a vagina costume would look like a pink tube.
> 
> Since when is it considered inappropriate to be dressed like a body part?
> 
> Considering how many people, women included, who don't know that a vagina is not what the costumes represented, we should probably have more vulva parades so everyone knows what a clitoris is and more importantly, where to find it!


I would take a woman parading around in a vagina costume as seriously as a guy parading around in a penis costume. You want to be taken seriously, don't dress like your genitals to get a point across >


----------



## Itwasjustafantasy

EllisRedding said:


> I would take a woman parading around in a vagina costume as seriously as a guy parading around in a penis costume. You want to be taken seriously, don't dress like your genitals to get a point across >


I agree that such costume may lead to not being taken seriously. 

What I find ridiculous is when people complain a vulva, vagina, uterus or any other female genitalia costume is "offensive."!!! Lol. You didn't but someone else did earlier. They are just body parts, nothing gross or offensive about them. And like a previus poster indicated, people (especially women since we are the ones who happen to have such body parts) need to be educated about human anatomy and using the proper name for each body part just as they do with any other. 

My guess is that dressing up in such costumes has more to do with getting attention which is exactly the point of doing a march/protest. Of course preferably we want positive attention but again finding human body parts offensive is simply laughable. My 8 year old daughter knows the proper name for each of her body parts and has access to age appropriate books where she has learned about human anatomy (both male and female). Recently a friend of hers was at our house and that child couldn't stop giggling when I said I had a full bladder. She asked why was I talking about a body part where babies grow!!???
Poor kid. I refrained from going further than telling her what a bladder is, the rest is up to her parents to explain to her. Seriously? Since when are we to be offended by being educated? When my daughter and I went to the march together she was completely indifferent to any costumes or signs representing female genitalia. She has such organs, nothing mysterious there. Ignorance is nothing to be proud about.


----------



## EllisRedding

Itwasjustafantasy said:


> I agree that such costume may lead to not being taken seriously.
> 
> What I find ridiculous is when people complain a vulva, vagina, uterus or any other female genitalia costume is "offensive."!!! Lol. You didn't but someone else did earlier. They are just body parts, nothing gross or offensive about them. And like a previus poster indicated, people (especially women since we are the ones who happen to have such body parts) need to be educated about human anatomy and using the proper name for each body part just as they do with any other.
> 
> My guess is that dressing up in such costumes has more to do with getting attention which is exactly the point of doing a march/protest. Of course preferably we want positive attention but again finding human body parts offensive is simply laughable. My 8 year old daughter knows the proper name for each of her body parts and has access to age appropriate books where she has learned about human anatomy (both male and female). Recently a friend of hers was at our house and that child couldn't stop giggling when I said I had a full bladder. She asked why was I talking about a body part where babies grow!!???
> Poor kid. I refrained from going further than telling her what a bladder is, the rest is up to her parents to explain to her. Seriously? Since when are we to be offended by being educated? When my daughter and I went to the march together she was completely indifferent to any costumes or signs representing female genitalia. She has such organs, nothing mysterious there. Ignorance is nothing to be proud about.


If you want to dress up like a vagina or a scrotum, go for it lol. It isn't something I find offensive either, bad taste and immature maybe. In this case, all I find is that it detracts from the point/message of the march, it doesn't bring the attention necessary.


----------



## Anon Pink

Those women who dressed up as vulvas where making a point and drawing attention to their point. We are more than our assembled body parts, contrary to how 45 thinks of women.

I laugh every time I hear anyone complain about those "pvssy hats" because I was there, and I looked and I didn't see any hat that resembled any body part. I still don't get the symbolism implied by the two pointed pink hat. What are they supposed to be?

Just as the group of "Russian soldiers" who marched carrying signs in cryllic "Благодарим вас товарищ" who were not actually Russian and not actually tanking 45, they were drawing atttention to 45's likely relationship with Russia and how Russian involvement in our election is being overlooked. Thought those guys were hilarious!

None of these taken separately make the point. But when the entire message is actually about individual rights of millions of people, they make complete sense.


----------



## CuddleBug

HD48 said:


> I am sick and tired of everyone protesting about EVERYTHING. It is absolutely absurd. The protests stem from that segment of the population that despise Trump, it's been that way since he announced his candidacy in the summer of 2015. Combine distaste for him with his winning the election and the disappointment from seeing him in this position of authority, and many can't stomach it. He's the President. He won the election, get used to it. Maybe someone will actually do something in the White House, rather than sit on their f***ing a** for 8 years. If you went to a protest, get a job, get a life. This politically correct, "misogynisitic", "racist", liberal crap is just unbearable. Go to work, pay taxes, take care of and protect your family, be kind to others, try to get along with others, etc. Can anyone take anyone seriously who wears a vagina costume?? And who the heck protests extreme vetting, which protects us? I don't see anyone protesting locking their doors at night. This is what those who root for Hillary, those who hate Trump, the ones protesting,those who cried during the election still don't get--this s*** is getting old, and it needs to stop.



Completely 100% agree.


Instead of always protesting about anything and everything, get a real full time job, a career, go into politics and run for a position. Singing and protesting in the end does nothing.

Women today are the same to men. Go to school, get a job, stay single or get married, have kids or not, work for a company or start your own, etc.

If you want to have an abortion, not a decision to make easily, then make that decision. Or you chose to keep the child and maybe give it up for adoption to a family who can't have kids, then you can do that as well.

The protests will never end and when they are running out of steam and have nothing to protest, they will find something else again and get different celebrities who are multimillionaires who don't need to work or have a job to protest with them.

Women want to be treated with respect but did you see how they dressed or lack there of? And the swearing!!! What a joke and unprofessional!! Another notch down for the women's movement.....

Did you hear what Madonna said? I would like to blow up the white house and with explicit language. That also set the women's movement back......I would of had her arrested and thrown in prison and that goes for all other celebrities and protestors who were way out of line.


----------



## Anon Pink

CuddleBug said:


> Completely 100% agree.
> 
> 
> Instead of always protesting about anything and everything, get a real full time job, a career, go into politics and run for a position. Singing and protesting in the end does nothing.
> 
> Women today are the same to men. Go to school, get a job, stay single or get married, have kids or not, work for a company or start your own, etc.
> 
> If you want to have an abortion, not a decision to make easily, then make that decision. Or you chose to keep the child and maybe give it up for adoption to a family who can't have kids, then you can do that as well.



You must live under a rock or something because you clearly missed the point of the women's march on Washington. 

So here it is, from one of the protesters who was there:
Our rights are threatened because this guy was elected, not by the people, but by the electoral college and a little help from Putin. 

Our Rights Are Threatened!
Right to safe and legal abortion
Right to equal pay for equal work
Right to marry
Right to be protected against discrimination
Right to vote
Right to have our vote counted
Right to worship whichever God we want, or not.
Right to affordable healthcare
Right to affordable healthcare that doesn't penalize us if we don't want to become pregnant
Right to not be pulled over because we're the wrong color in the wrong place.


Please put down Fox News and read something from a different source. BBC America? PBS? NPR?


----------



## CuddleBug

Anon Pink said:


> You must live under a rock or something because you clearly missed the point of the women's march on Washington.
> 
> So here it is, from one of the protesters who was there:
> Our rights are threatened because this guy was elected, not by the people, but by the electoral college and a little help from Putin.
> 
> Our Rights Are Threatened!
> Right to safe and legal abortion
> Right to equal pay for equal work
> Right to marry
> Right to be protected against discrimination
> Right to vote
> Right to have our vote counted
> Right to worship whichever God we want, or not.
> Right to affordable healthcare
> Right to affordable healthcare that doesn't penalize us if we don't want to become pregnant
> Right to not be pulled over because we're the wrong color in the wrong place.
> 
> 
> Please put down Fox News and read something from a different source. BBC America? PBS? NPR?



Trump was elected by the majority of the country. Time to support your President instead of trying to destroy him.

Do you honestly believe and think Trump will get rid of women's right to vote, chose an abortion, get a job and get similar pay, can't chose what to believe and worship, eliminate health care, etc, etc, etc.?? And an alternative to Obama care is in the works. But if you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

Of course these rights will never be taken away from women. It's all talk. He got a lot of peoples attention, that's how Trump works.

America was founded in God we trust, primarily a Christian nation. That is what Trump supports. Go to a Muslim country and they do the same, support Islam. Nothing wrong with that. In America you can worship whatever faith you want. In a Muslim country, if you worship as a Christian you will be killed, beheaded, nailed to a cross, etc. Churches being burned to the ground, Christianity being wiped out fast. Trump sees this.

Women will always vote, to get married, get whatever job they want, go to school, start their own business, chose to have an abortion, etc. That will never change. 

And yes, when there is a really qualified lady running for President, she will be elected. Just a matter of time. But its not about being black or a woman. It's who has the experiences. 

Trump is a businessman billionaire and is turning America more into a business so jobs come back again, companies manufacture in the US more, increasing security so less of a chance for terrorism. He's not targeting Muslims, he's targeting radical Islam from those major Muslim countries. He screwed up and went too fast and is paying for that now. He didn't get away with it. The courts stopped him like they will with anything else he does wrong against the constitution and human rights.

Cops being racist and racism in general from the slavery days isn't from Trump. That's how the US was unfortunately founded, on slavery until the civil war.

If this was a dictatorship like Russia, China, North Korea, Middle East, etc. then yes, I'd be worried and all your points are serious concerns. But this is America, a democratic country and not a dictatorship. Trump would never get away with that.

He can also be impeached. Nixon, remember?

I will say this, Trump is following through with what he said he would do and quickly. I can't say that about Obama and other politicians. Give him a chance. You've already killed him off 3 weeks into office. If Hillary won, I guarantee you she wouldn't be going through any of this because she is a woman.


----------



## Anon Pink

CuddleBug said:


> Trump was elected by the majority of the country. Time to support your President instead of trying to destroy him.


Hilary won the popular vote by 3 million votes. 3 million more people voted for Hilary than Trump.

45 seems to think he got a mandate from the people, he did not.

Resist and protest is what we do when we are threatened.



> Do you honestly believe and think Trump will get rid of women's right to vote, chose an abortion, get a job and get similar pay, can't chose what to believe and worship, eliminate health care, etc, etc, etc.?? And an alternative to Obama care is in the works. But if you do, I have a bridge to sell you.


If I was a black woman, hell yes!
If I was a poor woman, hell yes!
If I was a Muslim woman who wore a hijab, hell yes!



> Of course these rights will never be taken away from women. It's all talk. He got a lot of peoples attention, that's how Trump works.


The women's march, and all the protests since the election, are NOT just about women.



> America was founded in God we trust, primarily a Christian nation. That is what Trump supports. Go to a Muslim country and they do the same, support Islam. Nothing wrong with that. In America you can worship whatever faith you want. In a Muslim country, if you worship as a Christian you will be killed, beheaded, nailed to a cross, etc. Churches being burned to the ground, Christianity being wiped out fast. Trump sees this.


This is patently false, every, single word. Again, stop watching Fox and start watching BBC, PBS, or NPR.



> Women will always vote, to get married, get whatever job they want, go to school, start their own business, chose to have an abortion, etc. That will never change.


Not if I'm a poor woman.
Not if I'm a gay woman.
Not if I'm a trans woman.



> And yes, when there is a really qualified lady running for President, she will be elected. Just a matter of time. But its not about being black or a woman. It's who has the experiences.


Resist and protest has very little to do with Hilary. It has everything to do with 45, his administration, and his cabinet picks that threaten everything, and more, I mentioned above.



> Trump is a businessman billionaire and is turning America more into a business so jobs come back again, companies manufacture in the US more, increasing security so less of a chance for terrorism. He's not targeting Muslims, he's targeting radical Islam from those major Muslim countries. He screwed up and went too fast and is paying for that now. He didn't get away with it. The courts stopped him like they will with anything else he does wrong against the constitution and human rights.
> 
> 45 is a liar, a braggart, a philanderer, and has the emotional maturity of an 8 year old who was pampered.
> 
> 45 also has many characteristics of an early dictator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this was a dictatorship like Russia, China, North Korea, Middle East, etc. then yes, I'd be worried and all your points are serious concerns. But this is America, a democratic country and not a dictatorship. Trump would never get away with that.
> 
> 
> 
> China and Saudi Arabia are not dictatorships. Russia and North Korea are.
> 45 is now attempting to discredit the independent judiciary, as he has already made great progress in discrediting the media. No trust worthy media, no independent judiciary, no way to stop 45 from becoming a dictator.
> 
> Nixon went after special prosecutors and his own attorney general, see "Saturday night massacre"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will say this, Trump is following through with what he said he would do and quickly. I can't say that about Obama and other politicians. Give him a chance. You've already killed him off 3 weeks into office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall will cost us consumers, not Mexico.
> His immigration ban is unconstitutional not to mention very poorly rolled out.
> He has appointed a climate change denier as head of EPA, a guy who tried to prosecute civil rights workers as head of justice, a guy who has never worked for another other company but the first one that hired him and has billions at stake with Russian oil fields as Sec of State, his chief of staff is a known anti Semitic bigot and propaganda minister...
> 
> So far he has proven himself to be much more dangerous than I anticipated.
> 
> No. Resist and protest.
Click to expand...


----------



## CuddleBug

Anon Pink said:


> Hilary won the popular vote by 3 million votes. 3 million more people voted for Hilary than Trump.
> 
> 45 seems to think he got a mandate from the people, he did not.
> 
> Resist and protest is what we do when we are threatened.
> 
> 
> 
> If I was a black woman, hell yes!
> If I was a poor woman, hell yes!
> If I was a Muslim woman who wore a hijab, hell yes!
> 
> 
> 
> The women's march, and all the protests since the election, are NOT just about women.
> 
> 
> 
> This is patently false, every, single word. Again, stop watching Fox and start watching BBC, PBS, or NPR.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if I'm a poor woman.
> Not if I'm a gay woman.
> Not if I'm a trans woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Resist and protest has very little to do with Hilary. It has everything to do with 45, his administration, and his cabinet picks that threaten everything, and more, I mentioned above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a businessman billionaire and is turning America more into a business so jobs come back again, companies manufacture in the US more, increasing security so less of a chance for terrorism. He's not targeting Muslims, he's targeting radical Islam from those major Muslim countries. He screwed up and went too fast and is paying for that now. He didn't get away with it. The courts stopped him like they will with anything else he does wrong against the constitution and human rights.
> 
> 45 is a liar, a braggart, a philanderer, and has the emotional maturity of an 8 year old who was pampered.
> 
> 45 also has many characteristics of an early dictator.
> 
> 
> 
> China and Saudi Arabia are not dictatorships. Russia and North Korea are.
> 45 is now attempting to discredit the independent judiciary, as he has already made great progress in discrediting the media. No trust worthy media, no independent judiciary, no way to stop 45 from becoming a dictator.
> 
> Nixon went after special prosecutors and his own attorney general, see "Saturday night massacre"
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will cost us consumers, not Mexico.
> His immigration ban is unconstitutional not to mention very poorly rolled out.
> He has appointed a climate change denier as head of EPA, a guy who tried to prosecute civil rights workers as head of justice, a guy who has never worked for another other company but the first one that hired him and has billions at stake with Russian oil fields as Sec of State, his chief of staff is a known anti Semitic bigot and propaganda minister...
> 
> So far he has proven himself to be much more dangerous than I anticipated.
> 
> No. Resist and protest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support Trump. He's doing what he said he would do.
> 
> He's not a politician, he's a businessman billionaire.
> 
> Trump will never be allowed to be a dictator and you know it. You can't compare America to say WW2 Germany, Russia, China and Middle Eastern Countries. That's comparing apples and oranges.On the surface may seem similar but underneath completely different.
> 
> He does need to be the center of attention and he has a mouth. Gets him into trouble, but I find that refreshing for a change.
> 
> I support strengthening security against radical Islam and illegal immigrants. Something different and more effective besides a wall? Instead of complaining, have a better working solution or you're part of the problem and nothing gets solved. Better measures against possible radical Islamic terrorists coming to America from the Middle East, I'm listening for better ideas? Otherwise, more whining with no solutions.
> 
> China is still communist and a dictatorship like Russia.
> 
> Women's rights will never be taken away. Just wait and see. Many women are employed by Trump and in high paying positions.
> 
> Some people protest because that's what they do. Instead of wasting all that energy, why not go into politics and run for a position. Get voted in and start making changes.
> 
> When I see women wearing vagina's, topless, saying they want to blow up the white house, extreme bad language, threats, vandalism, etc, etc, etc., that is not going to help the women's movement. It just shows how unprofessional they really are.
> 
> Trump supports the majority of the country, not minorities. We already noticed that didn't we?
> 
> Poor woman? I am a poor man and I'm not protesting. Get a loan, go to school and get a better job.
> 
> If Trump is as bad as the liberals think, then he will be impeached or gone at the end of his 4th year term. But if it turns out its the kick America really needed and he's really good, I'm sure the liberal protesters will still find something, guaranteed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Betrayedone

FeministInPink said:


> I can't comment on what may have happened outside of DC. But the violence that happened in DC on the inauguration was committed by individuals not associated with the women's march, and acted independent of that movement. A good number are anarchists who would have protested regardless of who won the election:
> 
> 
> 
> The Women's March, on the other hand, was peaceful. The majority of the left do not endorse or support violent actions of fringe groups.
> 
> I will admit that my fears of fringe Trump supporters acting violently never came to pass, but I know it's a fear shared by other people. What I didn't consider was anarchists like Disrupt J20 using the planned (peaceful) protests as an opportunity to create havoc and intensify the division between the right and the left.


Peaceful except for that nut job Madonna who wants to blow up the white house and the riot inciting ****** Judd.......Oh yes, they were quite peaceful......


----------



## Anon Pink

Right because all those riots ****** Judd inspired were just terrible!

Madonna is not someone who has any influence and the proof is that the White House has not been burned. That would be like setting your own house ablaze because it's time to reprint. She is an idiot!


----------



## Diana7

Trump was democratically elected like it or not. Women who live in the west have NOTHING to complain about. They should live in many countries in the world where they would have REAL problems.


----------



## becareful2

Anon Pink said:


> You must live under a rock or something because you clearly missed the point of the women's march on Washington.
> 
> So here it is, from one of the protesters who was there:
> Our rights are threatened because this guy was elected, not by the people, but by the electoral college and a little help from Putin.
> 
> Our Rights Are Threatened!
> Right to safe and legal abortion
> Right to equal pay for equal work
> Right to marry
> Right to be protected against discrimination
> Right to vote
> Right to have our vote counted
> Right to worship whichever God we want, or not.
> Right to affordable healthcare
> Right to affordable healthcare that doesn't penalize us if we don't want to become pregnant
> Right to not be pulled over because we're the wrong color in the wrong place.
> 
> 
> Please put down Fox News and read something from a different source. BBC America? PBS? NPR?


Lots of emotions and very little facts. I see you're accusing those of us who disagree with you of taking talking points from Fox News, but I notice you have started referring to Trump as just 45. Where did you get that talking point from? I remember reading about it on Twitter sometime last week or so, and right on cue, his critics have stopped addressing him by his name. It came from Bernice King, daughter of Coretta Scott King. Here's her list.

Unfortunately, you didn't get the latest update to those talking points, in which Bernice King said Trump deserves the dignity of being addressed by his name. Her FaceBook page.


----------



## Anon Pink

becareful2 said:


> Lots of emotions and very little facts. I see you're accusing those of us who disagree with you of taking talking points from Fox News, but I notice you have started referring to Trump as just 45. Where did you get that talking point from? I remember reading about it on Twitter sometime last week or so, and right on cue, his critics have stopped addressing him by his name. It came from Bernice King, daughter of Coretta Scott King. Here's her list.
> 
> Unfortunately, you didn't get the latest update to those talking points, in which Bernice King said Trump deserves the dignity of being addressed by his name. Her FaceBook page.



1. You would have to live under a rock to be unfamiliar with my list of endangered rights....or watch Fox News exclusively.

2. No, I don't believe he does deserve the dignity of being referred to by his name. Using only his presidential number is neither factually incorrect nor directly insulting.


----------



## Anon Pink

Diana7 said:


> Trump was democratically elected like it or not. Women who live in the west have NOTHING to complain about. They should live in many countries in the world where they would have REAL problems.


Actually, there is significant doubt that he was democratically elected because we know that the Russians tampered with the election but we don't know the extent. I personally believe, with no proof I admit, that they tampered with the actual vote tabulations somehow.

His opponent won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Three MILLION! In your country, that would have been a landslide to his opponent.


----------



## Betrayedone

Anon Pink said:


> Actually, there is significant doubt that he was democratically elected because we know that the Russians tampered with the election but we don't know the extent. I personally believe, with no proof I admit, that they tampered with the actual vote tabulations somehow.
> 
> His opponent won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Three MILLION! In your country, that would have been a landslide to his opponent.


Oh Lord......the conspiracy theory again....3 million votes is nothing....assuming that vote tally is true (double and triple voting by non citizens).. Take away the east and west coast liberal nut job high density states and Trump wins handily across the vast majority of "normal" America.


----------



## tech-novelist

Anon Pink said:


> Also, the rioters where anarchists. Anarchists who were rioting.
> 
> Anarchists are not part of the left. They don't want ANY government at all so I guess they are closer to libertarians than progressives.


True, anarchists don't want any government. There are some misguided people who think that it is possible to have communism without government. They are called anarcho-communists, or AnComs for short. Other people realize that without government people would trade with one another voluntarily. They are called anarcho-capitalists, or AnCaps for short.

I'm an AnCap.


----------



## uhtred

Women in the west have less to complain about because they have stood up for their rights in the past. 

We want the US to be the best, simply not being the worst is not acceptable. 




Diana7 said:


> Trump was democratically elected like it or not. Women who live in the west have NOTHING to complain about. They should live in many countries in the world where they would have REAL problems.


----------



## Yeswecan

Anon Pink said:


> Actually, there is significant doubt that he was democratically elected because we know that the Russians tampered with the election but we don't know the extent. I personally believe, with no proof I admit, that they tampered with the actual vote tabulations somehow.
> 
> His opponent won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Three MILLION! In your country, that would have been a landslide to his opponent.


The Russians did not make people physically push the vote button for Trump. Russian tampering was only with emails fed to Wikileaks. The very emails that contained truths of one Hillary Clinton.

Further...the game is won by electoral votes. As long as Clinton has been in the game she should have run her campaign as such.


----------



## Anon Pink

Betrayedone said:


> Oh Lord......the conspiracy theory again....3 million votes is nothing....assuming that vote tally is true (double and triple voting by non citizens).. Take away the east and west coast liberal nut job high density states and Trump wins handily across the vast majority of "normal" America.


:lol: Wait wait wait....

You accuse me of conspiracy theory and yet repeat 45's thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory about 5 million illegal votes? 

Take away the half illiterate country folk who want creationism taught in school and think the national religion is Christianity and we would have a normal America.

Works both ways champ.


----------



## Anon Pink

Yeswecan said:


> The Russians did not make people physically push the vote button for Trump. Russian tampering was only with emails fed to Wikileaks. The very emails that contained truths of one Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Further...the game is won by electoral votes. As long as Clinton has been in the game she should have run her campaign as such.


Go back and read the thread again.
1. I said I had no proof
2. I also said they tampered with vote tabulations...means counting.

Go back and read the thread again.
1. Someone said 45 was democratically elected. The electoral college is not actually a democratic means of electing a president. A democratic election is a majority vote and 45 lost that resoundingly!
2. I agree Hilary's campaign was weak because she was a weak candidate. However, should would have made a MUCH better president than 45.


----------



## Anon Pink

tech-novelist said:


> True, anarchists don't want any government. There are some misguided people who think that it is possible to have communism without government. They are called anarcho-communists, or AnComs for short. Other people realize that without government people would trade with one another voluntarily. They are called anarcho-capitalists, or AnCaps for short.
> 
> I'm an AnCap.


Hiya Tech! Miss me? Don't you feel out of sorts when we agree?
@uhtred correct. Being "not the worst" is not something to which we aspire.


----------



## Yeswecan

Anon Pink said:


> Go back and read the thread again.
> 1. I said I had no proof
> 2. I also said they tampered with vote tabulations...means counting.
> 
> Go back and read the thread again.
> 1. Someone said 45 was democratically elected. The electoral college is not actually a democratic means of electing a president. A democratic election is a majority vote and 45 lost that resoundingly!
> 2. I agree Hilary's campaign was weak because she was a weak candidate. However, should would have made a MUCH better president than 45.


1. Good on the no proof. No one else has any either. Smoke and mirrors
2. Russian did not tamper with vote tabulations. If someone within the country can not tamper it is highly unlikely the Russians tamper with tabulations. It has been established Russians got a hold of emails from a one John Podesta. Said emails fed to Wikileaks. That is the extent of Russian intervention.

1. Again...who gives a rats butt about majority vote? The electoral college is anti-democratic. The writers of the US Constitution meant it to be that way. 
2. You can not say Hillary would make good President. She was certainly crappy as Sec of State. If her tenure as Sec of State was any indication...Hillary would not have been a good President.


----------



## Anon Pink

Yeswecan said:


> 1. Good on the no proof. No one else has any either. Smoke and mirrors
> 2. Russian did not tamper with vote tabulations. If someone within the country can not tamper it is highly unlikely the Russians tamper with tabulations. It has been established Russians got a hold of emails from a one John Podesta. Said emails fed to Wikileaks. That is the extent of Russian intervention.
> 
> 1. Again...who gives a rats butt about majority vote? The electoral college is anti-democratic. The writers of the US Constitution meant it to be that way.
> 2. You can not say Hillary would make good President. She was certainly crappy as Sec of State. If her tenure as Sec of State was any indication...Hillary would not have been a good President.




Now you're just being pointlessly argumentative and that's boring.


----------



## Yeswecan

Anon Pink said:


> Now you're just being pointlessly argumentative and that's boring.


Not when someone points out that vote tabulations means counting. I did not mean to bore you with the facts.


----------



## tech-novelist

Anon Pink said:


> Hiya Tech! Miss me? Don't you feel out of sorts when we agree?


Not at all. Any non-violent anarchist is a friend of mine.


----------

