Women's March

[donnay]

Because 250,000 people are ignorant in a country that has over 300 milion?

Case in point:

[Anti Federalist]

This belongs in this thread;

So does this:

[euphemia]

#notmymarch
#theydon'tspeakforme

[AngryCanadian]

Some women at protest in Boston were screaming allahu akbar

[Zippyjuan]

Some women at protest in Boston were screaming allahu akbar

Link? Relevance? Are all the women protesters Muslim?

[donnay]

#notmymarch
#theydon'tspeakforme

+rep

[AngryCanadian]

Link? Relevance? Are all the women protesters Muslim?

Claims Berlin but its in Boston.

These are your people Zippy

[AngryCanadian]

Its clear liberals have no brains.

[Brian4Liberty]

The only consistent message I could get out of this "protest" is that "boys are icky", with Trump being their proof. They are behaving like kindergarteners.

The gender wars were ginned up for years in preparation for the Hillary campaign. This is what happens when divide and conquer tactics are used. They gain a life of their own, and continue on. The same with the racial divisiveness that preceded Obama's election. Look where that went.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Well, with so many on the left fired up, I wonder if we'll get a reverse result of what happened in the 2010 midterms with the right sweeping in so many seats.

[Zippyjuan]

Claims Berlin but its in Boston.

These are your people Zippy

Is that why some of the stores in the background have German names on them (you can see parts of some in the last few seconds behind the signs)?

Also: https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/stat...66907905146881

http://tundratabloids.com/2017/01/be...u-akbar-chant/

No- not "my" people.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, with so many on the left fired up, I wonder if we'll get a reverse result of what happened in the 2010 midterms with the right sweeping in so many seats.

This is actually an interesting question that I have given some thought. If you look back through history, nearly always (there may be exceptions back in the day I do not know about) when one party sweeps in the next midterm goes the other way. Just 16 years ago it was "common wisdom" that when one party wins the White House the other usually wins the mid terms. Although it is not discussed as axiom anymore, the last 16 years has done nothing but enforce the idea.

So the weight of gravity is pushing for the Democrats to gain ground in 2018 anyway.

But.

Here is something that may be a game changer, and may well affect the paradigm going forward.

Yes, you could argue that if the left stays energized they might bring the votes to the polls in 2018, but HOW they are energized is at least as important as the fact that they are energized.

Just look at what they are doing. If they manage to keep up this level of ... insanity ... over the next 18 months then Republicans maintain or even gain a little in the mid terms despite the weight of history being against it. People are utterly disgusted at the snowflakes. People on the right, on the left, in the middle. People who have never voted before want to find a snowflake and ram a boot up their crotch.

What the snowflake brigades are doing is not energizing the left, they are filling them with shame and apathy. The people the snowflakes are energizing.... are the right and the moderate right and.... wait for it ... the "silent majority" that we Ron Paulers were never quite able to tap.

Trump isn't tapping the silent majority, it's the snowflakes that are pissing them off so much that they are starting to push back.

So if the lunatic fringe of the left figures out how to energize without pissing off pretty much every other socioeconomic group in America then they may be in a position to gain ground in 2018.... but if they continue to keep doing the very things that got Trump elected in the first place, well, then come 2018 they are going to get that "Republican mandate" recently denied by the likes of Senator Tillis.

[Anti Federalist]

Well, with so many on the left fired up, I wonder if we'll get a reverse result of what happened in the 2010 midterms with the right sweeping in so many seats.

Oh, more than likely.

Crowd Sizes Matter To The Media Only When The Cause is Liberal

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ey-are-liberal

Dan McLaughlin January 21, 2017 2:10 PM

Media and social media liberals have been breathless the past two days over the contrast between the relatively small crowds for President Trump’s inauguration and (1) the large crowds at President Obama’s 2009 inauguration and (2) the large crowds gathering in DC and a number of other big, liberal cities across the country for today’s “Women’s March,” which purports to be a popular movement against Trump but which has pointedly excluded pro-life women.

Three points to bear in mind. One, it was not long ago at all – as recently as the afternoon of Election Day – when liberals were broadly united in scorning crowd sizes as a measure of popularity. As you may recall, a number of pundits had pointed to the crowds drawn by Mitt Romney in 2012 and Sarah Palin in 2008 as a sign of Republican enthusiasm, and they decisively lost the argument to Nate Silver and other data analysts who derided the idea that crowd sizes trumped polls. In 2016, Trump drew yuge crowds all across the country, and he and his supporters bragged about them incessantly. While polls were still a better way of looking at the world than crowd sizes, those crowds did speak to how he activated a particularly devoted segment of the electorate, and certainly everyone on the Democratic side was united all the way through the election in snarking at the significance of Trump’s crowds. It’s hard to credit the sincerity of those same people now getting excited about crowd sizes.

Two, there are obvious reasons of geography, demographics, and history why Obama in 2009 in particular drew large crowds for his inauguration, and Trump did not. Obama was enormously popular in DC and its surrounding areas, winning well over 90% of the vote in the District and carrying Maryland and Northern Virginia by wide margins; Trump did especially badly in those areas in the primaries and the general election. It’s always easier to get people to show up to an event within an hour’s drive than to travel in from Michigan or Iowa or Western Pennsylvania.

That’s doubly true of poor and working-class people who can’t easily take multiple days off of work and pay for hotel rooms and travel (Obama’s inauguration was on a Tuesday in 2009, a Sunday in 2013; Trump’s was on a Friday). And of course, today’s marches are hard to compare, since they’re distributed across the country and held on a Saturday. Also, it’s hardly surprising that Obama drew big crowds in 2009, given that a lot of people who knew or cared little about his politics were inspired by the simple fact of inaugurating the first African-American president.

It was already true that Hillary won tremendous support in the big cities of America, while Trump did unusually poorly there and unusually well in rural areas, so you would expect that marches and demonstrations held in big, media-friendly cities would paint an asymmetrical portrait of a nation of Hillary backers.

Three, the liberal and media enthusiasm for touting large crowds as a sign of popular sentiment is roughly 100% certain to evaporate completely next Friday when the March for Life comes to Washington to commemorate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and pray and protest for its reversal and the extension of legal protection to all human life in the United States. Held annually for four decades, the March for Life routinely draws massive crowds in DC, as well as local events across the nation, and just as routinely gets a tiny fraction of the media coverage that is being lavished on today’s marches.

Crowd sizes for the March for Life are impossible to ascertain with certainty, in part because of the enormity of the crowds, and in part because the Park Service stopped doing official crowd-size estimates following a threatened lawsuit from Louis Farrakhan twenty years ago. The Wikipedia page for the March, collecting a number of news reports, offers this: Between 2003 and 2009, the march had an attendance of around 250,000,[2] but this number has since increased. The 2011 and 2012 marches drew an estimated 400,000 each, the 2013 march drew an estimated 650,000.[3][4]

Now, organizers of events on all sides of the political spectrum tend to overstate crowd sizes, today’s and the March for Life included; that’s precisely why Farrakhan objected when the Park Service counted a lot less than a million men for his Million Man March. But even discounting some of that 650,000 high-end figure, virtually any reliable source on the March for Life acknowledges the sprawling size of the annual turnout, year in and year out, including busloads arriving from Catholic parishes and colleges across the country.

But the media annually yawns and treats this simply as a ho-hum part of the annual DC landscape, not as a sign of broad popular resistance, after all these years, to the brutality of abortion, and tends to bury the story far from the front page. I can predict with great confidence that they will do so again this year.

Is Trump an unusually unpopular new president? Yes, absolutely he is, by any number of polling measurements; even a great many of his hold-my-nose-and-stop-Hillary voters remain skeptical of the man.

Is he likely to be a galvanizing force that allows the Democrats to regroup and reorganize? Probably. And the ability to draw crowds to today’s marches could be the start of that process, as it was for the Tea Party in 2009. It could also be a dead end of preaching to the converted and dividing into increasingly narrow ideological factions, as Occupy Wall Street was.

It won’t achieve much of anything if the people marching today are almost all people who already voted for Hillary. That all remains to be seen. Democrats may end up learning nothing at all from 2016, and needing to learn nothing, if Trump turns out to be a disaster in office. But the ability to draw crowds consisting mainly of people in big cities who were already reliable Democratic voters doesn’t necessarily tell us very much we didn’t already know. And don’t expect the people telling you otherwise to get excited about the crowds at the March for Life.

[AngryCanadian]

Is that why some of the stores in the background have German names on them (you can see parts of some in the last few seconds behind the signs)?

Also: https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/stat...66907905146881

http://tundratabloids.com/2017/01/be...u-akbar-chant/

No- not "my" people.

Yes your people because you support them

[Anti Federalist]

#notmymarch
#theydon'tspeakforme

Well, I hear that a lot, but you better put a leash on these people because they do claim to speak for you.

[Zippyjuan]

Yes your people because you support them

Link?

[Anti Federalist]

I'd say it's almost a sure thing, except for what you mentioned and a couple of other things.

A lot will depend on Trump's performance: if he does well, delivers on promises, and keeps the die hards happy, then they will be motivated to get out to vote as well. If he crawfishes, crimps, folds and acts like a typical spineless GOP'er, then yeah, those majorities will be gone in a flash.

It also depends on how further along the country gets divided. As enclaves of frothing progressives continue to expand in the cities they tend to limit their political clout, even with proportional representation. And another census is not until 2020.

This is actually an interesting question that I have given some thought. If you look back through history, nearly always (there may be exceptions back in the day I do not know about) when one party sweeps in the next midterm goes the other way. Just 16 years ago it was "common wisdom" that when one party wins the White House the other usually wins the mid terms. Although it is not discussed as axiom anymore, the last 16 years has done nothing but enforce the idea.

So the weight of gravity is pushing for the Democrats to gain ground in 2018 anyway.

But.

Here is something that may be a game changer, and may well affect the paradigm going forward.

Yes, you could argue that if the left stays energized they might bring the votes to the polls in 2018, but HOW they are energized is at least as important as the fact that they are energized.

Just look at what they are doing. If they manage to keep up this level of ... insanity ... over the next 18 months then Republicans maintain or even gain a little in the mid terms despite the weight of history being against it. People are utterly disgusted at the snowflakes. People on the right, on the left, in the middle. People who have never voted before want to find a snowflake and ram a boot up their crotch.

What the snowflake brigades are doing is not energizing the left, they are filling them with shame and apathy. The people the snowflakes are energizing.... are the right and the moderate right and.... wait for it ... the "silent majority" that we Ron Paulers were never quite able to tap.

Trump isn't tapping the silent majority, it's the snowflakes that are pissing them off so much that they are starting to push back.

So if the lunatic fringe of the left figures out how to energize without pissing off pretty much every other socioeconomic group in America then they may be in a position to gain ground in 2018.... but if they continue to keep doing the very things that got Trump elected in the first place, well, then come 2018 they are going to get that "Republican mandate" recently denied by the likes of Senator Tillis.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, I hear that a lot, but you better put a leash on these people because they do claim to speak for you.

Just as much as the males at the event claim to speak for all rational men.

For all their public spectacle, I guarantee you that the percent of the 'general public' who would even entertain the idea that these lunatics are actually speaking for women will be at an all time low. The thing that makes this moment different from most in history, is that uniquely in this hour, almost no American trusts anything that is being told to them. Even to a blue liberal moderate this spectacle is probably just "more ridiculousness that will drive me to apathy."

I don't think anyone really needs to make a special effort to disassociate themselves with the lunatic brigades, unless that someone is say a "liberal feminist" and they too are appalled at it, then they would likely need to make that clear.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'd say it's almost a sure thing, except for what you mentioned and a couple of other things.

A lot will depend on Trump's performance: if he does well, delivers on promises, and keeps the die hards happy, then they will be motivated to get out to vote as well. If he crawfishes, crimps, folds and acts like a typical spineless GOP'er, then yeah, those majorities will be gone in a flash.

I want to split that hair a little. Performance. Operational performance vs Theatrical performance.

The reality is over the last 100 years government power slowly waxes but on an 8 to 16 year scale nothing changes enough to shock the conscience. Operationally, performance is almost irrelevant. Theatrically, however, performance means the difference between a happy or a sad, or a rich or a poor America, because 90% of what is happening around us is based on what people get into their heads.

My biggest fear is that this administration will be Operationally destructive (which people will not notice) but Theatrically sublime (which will energize people into behaving as though prosperous, spending money and voila) and then blame his policies for the success, when the long term effect will be, well, utterly terrible.

It also depends on how further along the country gets divided. As enclaves of frothing progressives continue to expand in the cities they tend to limit their political clout, even with proportional representation. And another census is not until 2020.

Yes, especially when the "right" gets fed up and starts shouting, "THIS FAR, AND NO FURTHER" then the lunatic fringe left will tend more to segregate themselves into rainbow sanctuary cities to centralize their power, and the group (mostly composed of millennials) will still fail to grasp the effect of the Electoral College.

One thing I find interesting is something I've been screaming at Republicans since 2004, that the origin of power on the "right" is not found in compromising with liberals but in standing your ground. Not that the current group identified as the "right" will do anything good with it lol, but the sociological impact of these factors is kind of fascinating.

[Anti Federalist]

Raise ya, and call....

Classy.

And the idiot males there as well.

[Anti Federalist]

One thing I find interesting is something I've been screaming at Republicans since 2004, that the origin of power on the "right" is not found in compromising with liberals but in standing your ground. Not that the current group identified as the "right" will do anything good with it lol, but the sociological impact of these factors is kind of fascinating.

Oh boy this +1776

There is no compromise or common cause to be found with these people.

Ignore them and carry on about the business you were sent to do.

[timosman]

Classy.

And the idiot males there as well.

There might be a pussy in there for you if you support our cause.

[AZJoe]

Funny comment

Trump has gotten more fat women to walk in one day then Michelle Obama did in eight years.

[Origanalist]

Claims Berlin but its in Boston.

These are your people Zippy

They don't look like women...???

[Origanalist]

[donnay]

Well, I hear that a lot, but you better put a leash on these people because they do claim to speak for you.

Did the million man march speak for you?

[timosman]

They don't look like women...???

I am guessing they don't taste like women either.

[Origanalist]

I am guessing they don't taste like women either.

I'm gonna say you're probably right on that.

[dannno]

I don't really agree with that. There are still a number of situations where women are treated unfairly or downright terribly based purely on being women..

Ya, let's compare that with the fact that mostly men have fought and died in wars, by the tens of millions or more for the last few thousand years, and continue to do so, to protect women.

Then there is divorce courts that take half of men's stuff and make them pay alimony just because the woman wakes up some day and says "she isn't satisfied" with her marriage anymore.

Did you know that they made labor saving devices such as washing machines for women before they invented masks to help protect men in the coal mines from black lung?

The death rate of men on the job is STILL significantly higher for men than women, and always has been.

Do you like toilets? Running water? Rooves? Having your garbage and your neighbor's garbage removed from your property and taken far away? Not a lot of women out there making that happen.

[GunnyFreedom]

I am guessing they don't taste like women either.

I'm gonna say you're probably right on that.

http://gifsoup.com/view/3408783/fire...on-cruise.html
http://gifsoup.com