Jump to content

Women's March 2018


TruthBTold
 Share

This topic is 1365 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Please remember that the Women's March for this year is being held on January 20, 2018. Many cities and towns will have a march/rally showing the resistance to the current administration. The marches are being organized in large part by the Indivisible/Resist organizations. You generally can check online for the specific place and time by searching for those organizations.

If you took part last year you know how amazing in scope the marches tend to be. In Chicago, where I am, the march was originally planned as a march but so many people turned out that it had to be turned into simply a rally (although a march did occur after the rally closing off most of the downtown). This year's focus is not only to show resistance but also the practical aspect of getting people registered to vote (for any party) so if you are not registered then you have a chance to do so. (You may want to check with your state officials to see which identification you need to do so.) Personally, I think this will be a great event to attend.

 

P.S. No tiki torches allowed.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Make America Sane Again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What's the point of marching for #resistance when the opposition party continues to enable the current administration & the Neocon warmonger establishment??????

 

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/12/the-same-democrats-who-denounce-trump-as-a-lawless-treasonous-authoritarian-just-voted-to-give-him-vast-warrantless-spying-powers/

 

Ro Khanna's tweet from a couple days ago sums it up pretty nicely:

 

When @justinamash & @VoteMeadows, chair of the freedom caucus, vote against surveillance, but scores of Democrats vote for it, then its fair to ask what does our party stand for? If we can’t be unified around the principle of civil liberties, then what is the soul of our party?

The civil libertarian in me is livid over this. I want Adam Schiff's head on a platter. Biggest POS in congress! Justin Amash has been a hero all year long since Trump took over <3

Radical Independent
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first step is to control what is controllable and go for what you want. People will be held accountable for where they stood on civil liberties, immigration, and other things when the time comes. It will never come, however, as long as the current situation persists. That much we know.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Make America Sane Again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first step is to control what is controllable and go for what you want. People will be held accountable for where they stood on civil liberties, immigration, and other things when the time comes. It will never come, however, as long as the current situation persists. That much we know.

 

So are you saying that both political parties are basically the same and should be destroyed?

 

Hugs,

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ol' Ben Franklin had it right:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

We should all march in favor of primaring every goon that voted to violate our civil liberties. I'd bring more than just tiki torches to that one!

Radical Independent
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you saying that both political parties are basically the same and should be destroyed?

Hugs,

Greg

 

No, but sometimes compromise is necessary UNTIL you are in a position to get it all or take back what you gave away in the compromise. Sometimes you have show the American that what is being proposed truly helps their cause. And unfortunately sometimes it takes a few years but it has to be put in place first.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Make America Sane Again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White Nationalists Plan to Protest Women’s March in Tennessee

 

Women’s March organizers in Knoxville, Tennessee have increased security and modified their route after white nationalists announced they plan to protest Sunday’s event, USA Today reports.

 

This weekend, more than 250 communities around the country are expected to participate in the second annual Women’s March in honor of last year’s demonstration in Washington.

 

In response, Matthew Heimbach, founder of the Traditionalist Workers Party – which seeks a whites-only nation state – said his group plans to protest the event to “take a stand” against abortion rights.

http://projects.aljazeera.com/2015/07/hate-groups/images/top.jpg

But Women’s March organizers in Knoxville say they are undeterred, and are working closely with the police to make sure all participants are safe.

 

“Our purpose is mainly a celebration,” Kimberly Peterson, spokeswoman for the Women’s March Coalition of East Tennessee told USA Today. “It’s a positive, upbeat event. Our participants have certain values, and even in a tough presidential year, there were a lot of successes. That’s been the theme of our event — to celebrate successes.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White Nationalists Plan to Protest Women’s March in Tennessee

 

Women’s March organizers in Knoxville, Tennessee have increased security and modified their route after white nationalists announced they plan to protest Sunday’s event, USA Today reports.

 

This weekend, more than 250 communities around the country are expected to participate in the second annual Women’s March in honor of last year’s demonstration in Washington.

 

In response, Matthew Heimbach, founder of the Traditionalist Workers Party – which seeks a whites-only nation state – said his group plans to protest the event to “take a stand” against abortion rights.

http://projects.aljazeera.com/2015/07/hate-groups/images/top.jpg

But Women’s March organizers in Knoxville say they are undeterred, and are working closely with the police to make sure all participants are safe.

 

“Our purpose is mainly a celebration,” Kimberly Peterson, spokeswoman for the Women’s March Coalition of East Tennessee told USA Today. “It’s a positive, upbeat event. Our participants have certain values, and even in a tough presidential year, there were a lot of successes. That’s been the theme of our event — to celebrate successes.”

 

With a racist and bigot in the White House...what could possibly go wrong.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8avP4Md8QAE

the greatest beauty is

Organic wholeness, the wholeness of life and things,

the divine beauty of the universe.

Love that, not man apart from that,

or else you will share man’s pitiful confusions,

or drown in despair when his days darken."

 

- Robinson Jeffers

 

B e l i e v e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White Nationalists Plan to Protest Women’s March in Tennessee

 

Women’s March organizers in Knoxville, Tennessee have increased security and modified their route after white nationalists announced they plan to protest Sunday’s event, USA Today reports.

 

This weekend, more than 250 communities around the country are expected to participate in the second annual Women’s March in honor of last year’s demonstration in Washington.

 

In response, Matthew Heimbach, founder of the Traditionalist Workers Party – which seeks a whites-only nation state – said his group plans to protest the event to “take a stand” against abortion rights.

http://projects.aljazeera.com/2015/07/hate-groups/images/top.jpg

But Women’s March organizers in Knoxville say they are undeterred, and are working closely with the police to make sure all participants are safe.

 

“Our purpose is mainly a celebration,” Kimberly Peterson, spokeswoman for the Women’s March Coalition of East Tennessee told USA Today. “It’s a positive, upbeat event. Our participants have certain values, and even in a tough presidential year, there were a lot of successes. That’s been the theme of our event — to celebrate successes.”

 

Send them to Chicago, we know how to deal with them up here.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Make America Sane Again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So True. Concerning Margaret Smith (R-Maine). She served four terms in the Senate (1949-1973). For most of those years she was the only woman in the Senate and had to use the tourist bathroom.

 

SundayReview | Op-Ed Columnist

Hillary Lost, but the Future Is Hers

collins-circular-thumbLarge-v9.jpg

Gail Collins JAN. 20, 2018Photo

21collins-master768.jpg

Election night at the Javits Center in Manhattan. Credit Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Question: Do you think Donald Trump spends more time thinking about Hillary Clinton than Hillary Clinton spends thinking about Donald Trump?

 

Sure does seem like it. The other day, President Trump was discussing Russia at a press conference with the prime minister of Norway, when he suddenly announced that Clinton “was not for a strong military and Hillary, my opponent, was for windmills, and she was for other types of energy that don’t have the same capacities at this moment certainly.”

 

Yeah, it didn’t make any sense. But he really can’t seem to get past her. Recently while promoting tax cuts and a congressional candidate in Pennsylvania, Trump veered off to remind the crowd that during the campaign, Clinton had once called his supporters “deplorables.”

 

“Who would have thought that was going to turn into a landslide?” asked the president, alluding to a contest in which he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million.

 

This weekend, we’re commemorating — acknowledging? — the first anniversary of Trump’s inauguration. And remembering the great national explosion of Women’s Marches that followed, in which millions of Americans poured out of their homes and took to the streets to announce that this was not going to be the end of anything.

 

In honor of that second anniversary, let’s think about Hillary’s side of the story. Before we begin, it’s important to agree that this is not going to involve any discussion of whether she should have gone to Wisconsin more. Therein lies madness.

 

Here’s my take: Her campaign was probably doomed from the start and utterly transformative.

 

Doomed because when a president has served for two terms, Americans are inclined to go for change and pick the other party next time — even if things have been going along rather swimmingly. That’s generally been the modern pattern and it’s probably going to become even more true now that what’s left of our attention span is being pulverized by cellphones. And in 2016 if you were going to find a candidate who seemed to promise more of the same, it would have to be the woman who had been secretary of state for the departing two-term Democratic president, and was married to the two-term Democratic president before that.

 

I suppose she could have emerged after the nomination, dressed in white for the suffragists, and said, “Look, I love those guys but I’ll be totally different.” Would have been tough. Dissing both the first African-American president and her husband, who seems to take rejection of his legacy rather badly. Anyhow, didn’t happen.

 

This is the point where we start sinking into a dark hole, mulling whether she should have spent more time in Wisconsin. Then, of course, comes the question of whether Clinton lost because she was a woman. The answer is: sort of. Her gender was both a handicap and an enormous selling point. Would the Democrats have wanted Harry Clinton to be their nominee? (Just try to construct a Harry Clinton in your mind. I dare you.)

 

And — wait a minute, don’t get depressed. There’s another side: Even if her sex was a problem, it allowed her to transform the country more than many men who won the job. While losing, she made it normal for women to run for the most powerful office on the planet.

 

This is critical. Look at all the breakthroughs women have made in the last century, and you’ll notice how many of them involved just making their presence in some new place seem matter of fact. All that pain and struggle to win the right to vote, and what did it get us short term? Warren Harding. But long term, it created a world where the big gubernatorial election in Virginia was analyzed in terms of women in the suburbs and that knockout Senate race in Alabama was pretty much all about black women streaming to the polls.

 

Or take a more modest example. There was a time — not all that long ago — when television executives believed a woman could not be the solo anchor on the national evening news because our voices didn’t convey the proper sense of authority. Then in 2006, Katie Couric took over at CBS, to great hubbub and commentary. She did fine. Life moved on. In 2009 Diane Sawyer became the anchor at ABC. She did fine. There was barely a peep. The great triumph actually did not arrive until everybody found the whole matter boring.

 

Now, when people handicap the next Democratic presidential nomination, there are lots of women in the mix — Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand. (And, O.K., Oprah.) Whoever runs, the important thing is that primary debates will no longer resemble Shriner conventions. Women will be all over the place. Soon, they’ll be half the big decision-makers. It will be normal.

 

When Hillary Rodham Clinton graduated from law school and started her career, virtually the only women who had made it into the Senate were either honorary appointees for a brief symbolic term (the first, Rebecca Latimer Felton, got one day) or a senator’s widow. The exceptions proved the rule. The great Margaret Chase Smith came from the House, where she had succeeded her dead husband. Nancy Kassebaum happened to be the daughter of the Republican presidential candidate Alf Landon.

 

You get the idea. And there was Hillary. On the one hand, another political wife. On another, a marker for the entire country, driving home the fact that Congress was never going to be just a guy thing again. At times of despair I like to recall that when she was sworn into the Senate in 2001, my little niece watched the coverage intensely, and asked my sister whether it was possible for men to be senators, too.

 

Campaigning in 2000, almost everywhere Clinton went, she drew enthusiastic crowds. Partly, they were there to see the first-lady-turned-candidate, the one who had come through more disasters than the Titanic. Partly they were already imagining their party’s next standard-bearer. But nobody seemed more excited than women around her own age, who turned out in droves, no matter how unpleasant the weather or remote the spot. I always thought they saw her and thought about second chances: If you put in the time as a stay-at-home mother or took non-dream jobs because of all the responsibilities at home, you could still move on at midlife to something new and totally terrific. And maybe the kids would be sitting proudly behind you on the bus, like Chelsea.

 

That Senate race was the moment when she found her own identity as a politician. Floundering in the early high-profile media moments, she retreated off to long tours of upstate New York in which she went from one earnest panel discussion on economic development to another about the dairy compact. That, it turned out, was the Hillary version people liked best. Super-prepared, taking every problem seriously. She tried to resurrect it for her presidential campaign but the country was, it seemed, looking for something more exciting. Except for the 65.8 million people who voted for her.

 

It’s 2018, a big election year, and women are going to be running everywhere. We’re sort of astonished by the numbers, but not by their ambition. They’ll be elected to city councils, state legislatures and Congress and hardly anyone will give their gender a second thought. That’s Hillary’s gift.

 

Here’s the message she left us. You can have that double dip at opportunity — you can even have a third or fourth chance if things go wrong. All you need to do is ignore every setback and work like a maniac.

 

And also, you could think about changing the Electoral College.

Edited by WilliamM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So True

 

SundayReview | Op-Ed Columnist

Hillary Lost, but the Future Is Hers

collins-circular-thumbLarge-v9.jpg

Gail Collins JAN. 20, 2018Photo

21collins-master768.jpg

Election night at the Javits Center in Manhattan. Credit Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Question: Do you think Donald Trump spends more time thinking about Hillary Clinton than Hillary Clinton spends thinking about Donald Trump?

 

Sure does seem like it. The other day, President Trump was discussing Russia at a press conference with the prime minister of Norway, when he suddenly announced that Clinton “was not for a strong military and Hillary, my opponent, was for windmills, and she was for other types of energy that don’t have the same capacities at this moment certainly.”

 

Yeah, it didn’t make any sense. But he really can’t seem to get past her. Recently while promoting tax cuts and a congressional candidate in Pennsylvania, Trump veered off to remind the crowd that during the campaign, Clinton had once called his supporters “deplorables.”

 

“Who would have thought that was going to turn into a landslide?” asked the president, alluding to a contest in which he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million.

 

This weekend, we’re commemorating — acknowledging? — the first anniversary of Trump’s inauguration. And remembering the great national explosion of Women’s Marches that followed, in which millions of Americans poured out of their homes and took to the streets to announce that this was not going to be the end of anything.

 

In honor of that second anniversary, let’s think about Hillary’s side of the story. Before we begin, it’s important to agree that this is not going to involve any discussion of whether she should have gone to Wisconsin more. Therein lies madness.

 

Here’s my take: Her campaign was probably doomed from the start and utterly transformative.

 

Doomed because when a president has served for two terms, Americans are inclined to go for change and pick the other party next time — even if things have been going along rather swimmingly. That’s generally been the modern pattern and it’s probably going to become even more true now that what’s left of our attention span is being pulverized by cellphones. And in 2016 if you were going to find a candidate who seemed to promise more of the same, it would have to be the woman who had been secretary of state for the departing two-term Democratic president, and was married to the two-term Democratic president before that.

 

I suppose she could have emerged after the nomination, dressed in white for the suffragists, and said, “Look, I love those guys but I’ll be totally different.” Would have been tough. Dissing both the first African-American president and her husband, who seems to take rejection of his legacy rather badly. Anyhow, didn’t happen.

 

This is the point where we start sinking into a dark hole, mulling whether she should have spent more time in Wisconsin. Then, of course, comes the question of whether Clinton lost because she was a woman. The answer is: sort of. Her gender was both a handicap and an enormous selling point. Would the Democrats have wanted Harry Clinton to be their nominee? (Just try to construct a Harry Clinton in your mind. I dare you.)

 

And — wait a minute, don’t get depressed. There’s another side: Even if her sex was a problem, it allowed her to transform the country more than many men who won the job. While losing, she made it normal for women to run for the most powerful office on the planet.

 

This is critical. Look at all the breakthroughs women have made in the last century, and you’ll notice how many of them involved just making their presence in some new place seem matter of fact. All that pain and struggle to win the right to vote, and what did it get us short term? Warren Harding. But long term, it created a world where the big gubernatorial election in Virginia was analyzed in terms of women in the suburbs and that knockout Senate race in Alabama was pretty much all about black women streaming to the polls.

 

Or take a more modest example. There was a time — not all that long ago — when television executives believed a woman could not be the solo anchor on the national evening news because our voices didn’t convey the proper sense of authority. Then in 2006, Katie Couric took over at CBS, to great hubbub and commentary. She did fine. Life moved on. In 2009 Diane Sawyer became the anchor at ABC. She did fine. There was barely a peep. The great triumph actually did not arrive until everybody found the whole matter boring.

 

Now, when people handicap the next Democratic presidential nomination, there are lots of women in the mix — Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand. (And, O.K., Oprah.) Whoever runs, the important thing is that primary debates will no longer resemble Shriner conventions. Women will be all over the place. Soon, they’ll be half the big decision-makers. It will be normal.

 

When Hillary Rodham Clinton graduated from law school and started her career, virtually the only women who had made it into the Senate were either honorary appointees for a brief symbolic term (the first, Rebecca Latimer Felton, got one day) or a senator’s widow. The exceptions proved the rule. The great Margaret Chase Smith came from the House, where she had succeeded her dead husband. Nancy Kassebaum happened to be the daughter of the Republican presidential candidate Alf Landon.

 

You get the idea. And there was Hillary. On the one hand, another political wife. On another, a marker for the entire country, driving home the fact that Congress was never going to be just a guy thing again. At times of despair I like to recall that when she was sworn into the Senate in 2001, my little niece watched the coverage intensely, and asked my sister whether it was possible for men to be senators, too.

 

Campaigning in 2000, almost everywhere Clinton went, she drew enthusiastic crowds. Partly, they were there to see the first-lady-turned-candidate, the one who had come through more disasters than the Titanic. Partly they were already imagining their party’s next standard-bearer. But nobody seemed more excited than women around her own age, who turned out in droves, no matter how unpleasant the weather or remote the spot. I always thought they saw her and thought about second chances: If you put in the time as a stay-at-home mother or took non-dream jobs because of all the responsibilities at home, you could still move on at midlife to something new and totally terrific. And maybe the kids would be sitting proudly behind you on the bus, like Chelsea.

 

That Senate race was the moment when she found her own identity as a politician. Floundering in the early high-profile media moments, she retreated off to long tours of upstate New York in which she went from one earnest panel discussion on economic development to another about the dairy compact. That, it turned out, was the Hillary version people liked best. Super-prepared, taking every problem seriously. She tried to resurrect it for her presidential campaign but the country was, it seemed, looking for something more exciting. Except for the 65.8 million people who voted for her.

 

It’s 2018, a big election year, and women are going to be running everywhere. We’re sort of astonished by the numbers, but not by their ambition. They’ll be elected to city councils, state legislatures and Congress and hardly anyone will give their gender a second thought. That’s Hillary’s gift.

 

Here’s the message she left us. You can have that double dip at opportunity — you can even have a third or fourth chance if things go wrong. All you need to do is ignore every setback and work like a maniac.

 

And also, you could think about changing the Electoral College.

 

Lawd help! Ah think this would just about finish off poor ol Aunt Rocky. Fortunately, Rocky takes after mah late deceased uncle by marriage uncle, Bozo T. Clown, III-didn't read nothin he couldnt understand.

“Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”

 

-The Marx Brothers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Bozo T Clown returns here I can now provide complete verification @nynakedtop is a teacher.

 

Still a bit difficult to discuss, but you apparently missed the news of several weeks ago: Uncle Bozo passed, honey. Ask nynakedtop about it.

 

Regretfully-

 

Shuck

“Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”

 

-The Marx Brothers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still a bit difficult to discuss, but you apparently missed the news of several weeks ago: Uncle Bozo passed, honey. Ask nynakedtop about it.

 

Regretfully-

 

Shuck

I appreciate @WilliamM making the offer in case one of the BozoZombies emerges to pretend to the post once occupied by HerrBozo himself - and also especially his willingness to clarify the situation as there seems to be a reactionary ogre or two still around who are far too eager to discredit anyone they disagree with.

 

(As for me, I am still down with punching those Nazis!)

 

By the way - for those of you who remember the ill-fated threat on my school's visit to the Holocaust Museum (you know, the one that NaziBozo tried to sabotage) - we had a round of student research presentations this past week that were - almost without exception - astounding!

Edited by nynakedtop

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows....

Che Guevara: "If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They put out an estimate that here in Chicago there were 300,00 marchers. That would make it bigger than last year's march. It was Y - Y - U - U - U - G - E. There ya go Mr. T! I wonder what a pink hat would look like on top of that yellow bird's nest.

 

And here we go... you know the success of the marches will be reported as Fake News by the Trump camp , right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here we go... you know the success of the marches will be reported as Fake News by the Trump camp , right?

 

Probably. I don't know if the cities take pics like the one taken of the National Mall for the inaugurations of 2009 and 2017. The one in which Trump claims that there were more people at his inauguration.

 

crowd_split_social_y.jpg

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Make America Sane Again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mayor of L.A. tweeted that 600,000 people showed up for this year's march.

 

The problem I have with these marches is that there seems to be no real/definitive cause behind them, just people angry that a woman didn't win the election?????? Idk, they just seem like a waste of time & energy, this time they were overshadowed by the Shutdown.

Radical Independent
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have with these marches is that there seems to be no real/definitive cause behind them, just people angry that a woman didn't win the election?????? Idk, they just seem like a waste of time & energy, this time they were overshadowed by the Shutdown.

Right before the last solar eclipse a local drunk/blowhard was adamant: "I DON'T GET IT" at a local bar. We all agreed with him. He didn't get that either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mayor of L.A. tweeted that 600,000 people showed up for this year's march.

The problem I have with these marches is that there seems to be no real/definitive cause behind them, just people angry that a woman didn't win the election?????? Idk, they just seem like a waste of time & energy, this time they were overshadowed by the Shutdown.

 

You are right. They don't have one real/definitive cause behind them. They were never meant to have. They were always meant to be marches that contained various groups marching for various causes, e.g., women's right, LGBT rights, prison reform, DACA, and others. Obviously they reflect a general discontent with the direction the country is going.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Make America Sane Again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...