The Women’s March in Danger.

[Cannot think of a name]

Go to D.C. this Saturday and ask around. Just to give you a heads up, the answers will be riddled with complexity and they won't all agree on everything. It might be a bit much to take in.

I can't, I have no way of getting there and I'm going to be at the Life March in my city on Saturday.

I am quite aware. And at what point do you start throwing people out of this March?

Who said anything about throwing people out?

[Luminesa]

I can't, I have no way of getting there and I'm going to be at the Life March in my city on Saturday.

I am quite aware. And at what point do you start throwing people out of this March?

Who said anything about throwing people out?

That's what the article said. The moment people start having qualms about certain parts of the movement, throw them out altogether.

[USS Monitor]

I see no evidence of this. Vermont's current politics are very consistent with its past, and there has not been any massive influx of population. It has always been rural, socially progressive compared to the rest of the US, and fond of guns.

What Vermont are you talking about?

Vermont’s political landscape began to change in the 1960s and 1970s. City dwellers from nearby states like Massachusetts and New York began fleeing struggling metropolises like Boston and New York City. Heading north, these migrants had a choice of where to settle, and some self-sorting took place.

......

Vermont’s population had been stagnant for decades, but with the influx of “new Vermonters” the state began to grow. When the migration began, Vermont’s population was below 400,000, small enough so that an influx of people could really affect the state’s politics. More than 625,000 people live in Vermont today, and residents born elsewhere are part of the state’s fabric. Vermont’s current governor, Peter Shumlin, is the first native governor in almost 40 years.

Funny how Vermont flipped from Republican to Democrat around the same time the parties swapped positions on social issues. That is one of the worst analyses I've seen on 538, talking about Vermont's Republican past as if it has any relation to the modern-day GOP. Population growth of a few hundred thousand of a period of 40 years isn't dramatic, and people born in Vermont do not magically become New Yorkers just because their parents moved there in 1960 instead of 1660.

[Cannot think of a name]

Who said anything about throwing people out?

That's what the article said. The moment people start having qualms about certain parts of the movement, throw them out altogether.

Nope.

[Crockerland]

Ah yes, Vermont, a state with enough trees around that nobody can see what's going on, an excellent cherry to pick. Of the 34 states with a rural populace making up at least 28.8% of the total population, only 7 (Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Minnesota, and Virginia) voted Democrat in the 2016 election.

Right, nobody can see what's going on. That's why they have low crime rates, low poverty rates, and longer life expectancy compared to the national average.

Who cares? No one was talking about that, stop derailing the conversation.

[Luminesa]

That's what the article said. The moment people start having qualms about certain parts of the movement, throw them out altogether.

Nope.

Nope is not an argument. Then again, you've spent most of your posts simply making sarcastic comments about other peoples' views, instead of building your own arguments, so if you have one I would like to see it, instead of 'nope'. I've made my arguments, I've yet to see yours.

[Cannot think of a name]

Nope.

Nope is not an argument. Then again, you've spent most of your posts simply making sarcastic comments about other peoples' views, instead of building your own arguments, so if you have one I would like to see it, instead of 'nope'. I've made my arguments, I've yet to see yours.

You mischaracterized what is happening. I'm perfectly willing to discuss what's actually happening but if you're worried I'm not going to treat your fantasies kindly you're free to talk to someone else.

[USS Monitor]

Right, nobody can see what's going on. That's why they have low crime rates, low poverty rates, and longer life expectancy compared to the national average.

Who cares? No one was talking about that, stop derailing the conversation.

We're both straying from the topic of the Women's March, but it's not fair to say no one was talking about that. My post is still relevant to your argument about whose policies best serve the interests of rural white people. If a blue state full of rural white people is doing better than most of the red states full of rural white people, that's evidence that GOP policies don't actually help rural whites. Which party people vote for is not always the same thing as which party is doing the best job of serving their interests. Sometimes people vote against their own interests because they are voting based on personality rather than policy, or they just don't realize how a policy will affect them.

[Luminesa]

Nope is not an argument. Then again, you've spent most of your posts simply making sarcastic comments about other peoples' views, instead of building your own arguments, so if you have one I would like to see it, instead of 'nope'. I've made my arguments, I've yet to see yours.

You mischaracterized what is happening. I'm perfectly willing to discuss what's actually happening but if you're worried I'm not going to treat your fantasies kindly you're free to talk to someone else.

What fantasies? The tone of the article is VERY aggressive toward people who are uncertain about their beliefs. It pushes them away instead of trying to draw them in. Once again, you have no argument, and simply try to cover for it by making "witty" remarks about others.

[Cannot think of a name]

You mischaracterized what is happening. I'm perfectly willing to discuss what's actually happening but if you're worried I'm not going to treat your fantasies kindly you're free to talk to someone else.

What fantasies? The tone of the article is VERY aggressive toward people who are uncertain about their beliefs. It pushes them away instead of trying to draw them in. Once again, you have no argument, and simply try to cover for it by making "witty" remarks about others.

No one is kicking anyone out. Ask me a real question reflecting the facts. And quit whining, its unbecoming.

[Luminesa]

What fantasies? The tone of the article is VERY aggressive toward people who are uncertain about their beliefs. It pushes them away instead of trying to draw them in. Once again, you have no argument, and simply try to cover for it by making "witty" remarks about others.

No one is kicking anyone out. Ask me a real question reflecting the facts. And quit whining, its unbecoming.

Yep. Still no argument.

[Cannot think of a name]

No one is kicking anyone out. Ask me a real question reflecting the facts. And quit whining, its unbecoming.

Yep. Still no argument.

Well, when you want to talk about what's really happening...

[The Lone Alliance]

I never thought of the GOP as doing anything to help them.

Neither party had much interest in actually giving them what they actually want.

[Stormaen]

Clinton was the wrong woman to be president. The US deserves far better.

Look out for Nikki Haley (former Governor of South Carolina; incoming UN envoy) on that front, though. I don't think Trump will be re-elected in 2020 (I'm not wholly convinced he'll run again or even see out his first term). Will a Democrat win? In 2020? It's likely (demographics are turning in their favour). However, Haley could make a run for 2024. Not only would she be first female president (if she ran and won), she'd be the first Indian-American president.

Either way, there will be a woman run for president, if not in 2020 definitely in 2024. Whilst Hillary didn't win, she's made it probable the next will and that first woman president will have Hillary to thank (amongst many other historic women, e.g. Geraldine Ferraro) for paving the way. And it pains me to say that because I am not a fan of Hillary (or Trump, I add).

[Hammer Britannia]

Clinton was the wrong woman to be president. The US deserves far better.

Look out for Nikki Haley (former Governor of South Carolina; incoming UN envoy) on that front, though. I don't think Trump will be re-elected in 2020 (I'm not wholly convinced he'll run again or even see out his first term). Will a Democrat win? In 2020? It's likely (demographics are turning in their favour). However, Haley could make a run for 2024. Not only would she be first female president (if she ran and won), she'd be the first Indian-American president.

Either way, there will be a woman run for president, if not in 2020 definitely in 2024. Whilst Hillary didn't win, she's made it probable the next will and that first woman president will have Hillary to thank (amongst many other historic women, e.g. Geraldine Ferraro) for paving the way. And it pains me to say that because I am not a fan of Hillary (or Trump, I add).

This, so much this.

I mean after all, in my eyes anyways, it would be like if Mr. Slave from South Park (Oh boy kiddies, don't search that up) was the first openly gay president. There is just so much wrong with it.

[Targovia]

Clinton was the wrong woman to be president. The US deserves far better.

Look out for Nikki Haley (former Governor of South Carolina; incoming UN envoy) on that front, though. I don't think Trump will be re-elected in 2020 (I'm not wholly convinced he'll run again or even see out his first term). Will a Democrat win? In 2020? It's likely (demographics are turning in their favour). However, Haley could make a run for 2024. Not only would she be first female president (if she ran and won), she'd be the first Indian-American president.

Either way, there will be a woman run for president, if not in 2020 definitely in 2024. Whilst Hillary didn't win, she's made it probable the next will and that first woman president will have Hillary to thank (amongst many other historic women, e.g. Geraldine Ferraro) for paving the way. And it pains me to say that because I am not a fan of Hillary (or Trump, I add).

This, so much this.

I mean after all, in my eyes anyways, it would be like if Mr. Slave from South Park (Oh boy kiddies, don't search that up) was the first openly gay president. There is just so much wrong with it.

I'm fine with any kind of president, as long as they: Do their job, Counter foreign aggression, protect the U.S. from Islamic Terrorism, Fix the economy, and take care of the rampant immigration problem.

[Hammer Britannia]

This, so much this.

I mean after all, in my eyes anyways, it would be like if Mr. Slave from South Park (Oh boy kiddies, don't search that up) was the first openly gay president. There is just so much wrong with it.

I'm fine with any kind of president, as long as they: Do their job, Counter foreign aggression, protect the U.S. from Islamic Terrorism, Fix the economy, and take care of the rampant immigration problem.

I don't know, I don't think Mr. Slave would make a good president.

Alright in all seriousness, Hillary Clinton would of been a mess and would of just prevented for a short while the fall of the popularity of the Democrats.

Anyways, we need to stop derailing this thread.

[Proctopeo]

I'm bored, so I'll give my take on the OP.

As some of you probably know, after the stunning “victory”

He won fair and square based on the system that we have.

of a candidate widely characterized as a fascist

He's not fascist, even in the general-use sense. At most, his views are intolerant.

misogynist

muh soggy knees
This is debatable and needs backing.

over what might have been America’s first female president

Clinton would have been an awful choice for that. I'd even to go so far as to say that Palin would be better, even if just by a little. Granted, Trump isn't much better than Clinton would have been...

a lot of women had enough of this

And a lot of women haven't even seen this as an issue. This is an empty statement.

We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights

The first half is perfectly reasonable, but the second half is blatant supremacy.

Support increased accountability for perpetrators of police brutality and racial profiling.

I thought there already was a lot of accountability? Just because you hear about cases where there isn't on the news isn't enough in of itself.

Also calls for the demilitarization of American law enforcement

Depending on what this means, I'm actually for this. If we could bring police to a low level of militarization (armored cars, mostly) and have a paramilitary force for when military-grade stuff is necessary, that would work fine.

and an end to mass incarceration.

While a proper response to this would require an analysis of what people are in prison for, I'm certain that incarceration rates could be reduced by making most drug possession situations without the intent to sell not carry a prison sentence, but instead community service. I'm not sure how this section is in any way related to feminism, however.

Support access to safe, legal abortion and reproductive health care to demand the right to abortion for women of all incomes.

I agree, but men should also be able to opt out of parenthood. That counts as a reproductive right, I believe, and would be equal.

Gender-affirming identity documents for LGBTQ people.

Sure. No real complaint here besides, well, I'm not sure how this relates to feminism.

Calls unions “critical to a healthy and thriving economy” and aligns the march with movements for the rights of sex workers, farmworkers, and domestic workers.

Yep. Just as long as unions don't get so strong that bad workers can't be penalized/fired, I'm good with this.

“We believe migration is a human right and that no human being is illegal.”

Migration is a human right, but you must do so by the laws of the land you originated in and by the laws of your destination. Technically, I agree with the last part, since it's technically an illegal presence, but the difference is blurry. Surely trespassing is wrong, right?

That’s just fine. And if some women decide they can’t get behind Medicaid-covered abortions, a humane immigration system, and police who answer for their crimes against people of color, the march won’t miss them.

Thank goodness I don't have an allergy to straw.

So, I ask you – what’s better? A broad platform plus vide inclusiveness or the laser like powerful forcefulness with voices ignored before brought in the fore for a change?

Something broad might not be as powerful, but agreeability is integral to getting things done. Being radical and appealing to a small subset of people doesn't always go well, even if it does work for a time.

I skipped over some stuff that wasn't as interesting to me.

[Arkinesia]

and take care of the rampant immigration problem.

I feel like I'll regret this, but…

What rampant immigration problem?

misogynist

muh soggy knees
This is debatable and needs backing.

*spits out drink*

[Hammer Britannia]

misogynist

muh soggy knees
This is debatable and needs backing.

[Blernovo]

Some say people who view themselves as better because all those traits but i hardly actually heard everyone with those traits being a bad thing.
Is your argument really "But...the stereotype says so therefore they're lying"?

No. My argument is "I know what radical feminist are like".

What Is a 'radical feminist' to you?

[Hammer Britannia]

No. My argument is "I know what radical feminist are like".

What Is a 'radical feminist' to you?

To me A radical Feminist is someone who wants to have more control and uses Feminism as a means to get that control. Such as this

although, many hide their want for control. But I am pretty sure the question was for someone else, so sorry.

[Cannot think of a name]

No. My argument is "I know what radical feminist are like".

What Is a 'radical feminist' to you?

They can do sick ollies over male oppression.

[Costa Fierro]

No. My argument is "I know what radical feminist are like".

What Is a 'radical feminist' to you?

A radical feminist is someone who is against equality, against transgenders, sex-negative and for the continuation of sex-based discrimination as long as it benefits women.

[Sharania]

I mean after all, in my eyes anyways, it would be like if Mr. Slave from South Park (Oh boy kiddies, don't search that up) was the first openly gay president. There is just so much wrong with it.

Kinkshaming is disgusting.