Red Mosquito

I guess I just don't understand why a massive march in opposition to a new administration needs to have a streamlined, linear objective (i.e. we shall do this which will lead to this specific action). There were fissures in the Civil Rights Movement and the LGBT movement, as there were in the Tea Party movement. To ask for complete clarity on what is literally the first day of an opposition seems pretty unreasonable.

Birds in Hell wrote:

digster wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

track11 wrote:Unfortunately, unless "Peppa Pig" is the only time TV is on in your house, 5-year olds are most definitely exposed to this stuff on a fairly routine basis.

I realise that's an exaggeration but is that actually that unreasonable?

I would never have the TV news on when our kids are around (for reference, our eldest is 7).

I mean, if your kids go to school they're impacted by the outside world. The presidential election permeates our country for about a year-and-a-half. And if a child is exposed to Donald Trump at a school or in a situation where the parents aren't present, I think it'd be all the more important that parents step in and address it with their kids. God forbid a kid sees Trump being Trump and thinks it's the right way to act.

I'd admit that this may reflect my experiences of elections in another country with another system of government but it's very difficult for me to grasp the election being that pervasive. I'd like to imagine most people go days, weeks without thinking much about politics or politicians (I envy these people).

All of this sounds like a great argument for home-schooling, frankly.

I doubt many parents, even the left-leaning ones, are less concerned with the Republican v. Democrat partisan issue and more worried that their child might think it's okay to mock disabled people or demean women. After all, the president did it. I think you may be underrating how much those things bother people. I don't think many of the people in the streets on Saturday view these and the many, many other examples as being something as trivial as Trump sounding 'crass.'

cutuphalfdead wrote:But...but that's how they do it. If they introduced a bill to defund domestic violence programs everyone who votes for it has to explain to their constituents why they don't want to help battered women.

See, this is what I disagree with - I understand the line of thinking, but I don't accept that it's fair to presume that cutting funding (if it even happens - my reading of that article is that it was just a generalised fear) to those services means you don't wish to support women who are victims of domestic violence or is evidence of some kind of malicious intent against them.

digster wrote:I doubt many parents, even the left-leaning ones, are less concerned with the Republican v. Democrat partisan issue and more worried that their child might think it's okay to mock disabled people or demean women. After all, the president did it. I think you may be underrating how much those things bother people. I don't think many of the people in the streets on Saturday view these and the many, many other examples as being something as trivial as Trump sounding 'crass.'

I didn't mean for my description of Trump being 'crass' to sound trivial - I meant it quite seriously, I find him to be personally abhorrent. I'm deeply uncomfortable with anybody who demeans women, who mocks people they perceive as being weaker or less powerful than them. I don't know how much clearer I need to be about this - I would never spend time around somebody like that.

Birds in Hell wrote:

digster wrote:I doubt many parents, even the left-leaning ones, are less concerned with the Republican v. Democrat partisan issue and more worried that their child might think it's okay to mock disabled people or demean women. After all, the president did it. I think you may be underrating how much those things bother people. I don't think many of the people in the streets on Saturday view these and the many, many other examples as being something as trivial as Trump sounding 'crass.'

I didn't mean for my description of Trump being 'crass' to sound trivial - I meant it quite seriously, I find him to be personally abhorrent. I'm deeply uncomfortable with anybody who demeans women, who mocks people they perceive as being weaker or less powerful than them. I don't know how much clearer I need to be about this - I would never spend time around somebody like that.

And that is why women are marching in the streets. It is a powerful message and a rallying cry. Which is a very important tactic in this country. Part of why the republican party has gone so batshit crazy and far right is due to the Tea Party and their loud contingent over the past 8 years. it is important to march if for no other reason then to say "this is not acceptable"

It just seems like this Gandhi fellow's message is dilluted and vague. Why on earth is he fixating on salt? And if a condiment is worth marching over, doesn't that imply to the rest of the world that India is doing ok? That maybe the Brits are not much of a threat?

This King fellow has too many dreams. It makes him seem unfocused.

Pick one!

Home-schooling.

Strat wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

digster wrote:I doubt many parents, even the left-leaning ones, are less concerned with the Republican v. Democrat partisan issue and more worried that their child might think it's okay to mock disabled people or demean women. After all, the president did it. I think you may be underrating how much those things bother people. I don't think many of the people in the streets on Saturday view these and the many, many other examples as being something as trivial as Trump sounding 'crass.'

I didn't mean for my description of Trump being 'crass' to sound trivial - I meant it quite seriously, I find him to be personally abhorrent. I'm deeply uncomfortable with anybody who demeans women, who mocks people they perceive as being weaker or less powerful than them. I don't know how much clearer I need to be about this - I would never spend time around somebody like that.

And that is why women are marching in the streets. It is a powerful message and a rallying cry. Which is a very important tactic in this country. Part of why the republican party has gone so batshit crazy and far right is due to the Tea Party and their loud contingent over the past 8 years. it is important to march if for no other reason then to say "this is not acceptable"

Do you think Trump has anything to do with the legacy of the Tea Party, etc? Surely one of the reasons Trump was so successful is that he appeared to run against both the Democrat and Republican Parties. He's not a traditional GOP'er in virtually any respect.

Trump has everything to do with the Tea Party, he's a direct result of it.

Birds in Hell wrote:

Strat wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

digster wrote:I doubt many parents, even the left-leaning ones, are less concerned with the Republican v. Democrat partisan issue and more worried that their child might think it's okay to mock disabled people or demean women. After all, the president did it. I think you may be underrating how much those things bother people. I don't think many of the people in the streets on Saturday view these and the many, many other examples as being something as trivial as Trump sounding 'crass.'

I didn't mean for my description of Trump being 'crass' to sound trivial - I meant it quite seriously, I find him to be personally abhorrent. I'm deeply uncomfortable with anybody who demeans women, who mocks people they perceive as being weaker or less powerful than them. I don't know how much clearer I need to be about this - I would never spend time around somebody like that.

And that is why women are marching in the streets. It is a powerful message and a rallying cry. Which is a very important tactic in this country. Part of why the republican party has gone so batshit crazy and far right is due to the Tea Party and their loud contingent over the past 8 years. it is important to march if for no other reason then to say "this is not acceptable"

Do you think Trump has anything to do with the legacy of the Tea Party, etc? Surely one of the reasons Trump was so successful is that he appeared to run against both the Democrat and Republican Parties. He's not a traditional GOP'er in virtually any respect.

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.




Yea, doesnt sound like Trump at all.

"Mr President, you're needed upstairs."
"On my way."

Hey it's even gold.

This isn't real is it?

lol. I dont know but i love it.

Birds in Hell wrote: That aside, the march itself seems pretty harmless, if kind of trivial and vague. How are women specifically threatened by Trump's administration? Is it just because they find him so personally objectionable? If so, is it reasonable to extrapolate one from the other? As with much social activism, I suspect it's less about the stated issue and instead motivated primarily by a desire to share in a feeling of connectedness with other people who share similar values in a society where we often feel fragmented.

I agree that the threats to American women from the Trump admin are overblown, especially when referenced in straw-man comparisons to Gandhi/MLK/etc., but that doesn't mean that pressure should not be applied to remind him that his actions during the campaign were not acceptable and he will are under the microscope now more than ever... and from a move cynical standpoint, it's best to do it right now before people's attention drifts to something else.

digster wrote:Unfortunately, I think parents in America would pretty much have to lock their kids away to avoid them knowing who Donald Trump is by this point. And I think since that is the case, I completely understand why parents would take pains to try to point their children in the direction of Trump being a clear example of how someone should not conduct themselves, and a clear example of how someone still learning how to interact with people should not treat others.

I gotta side with Spenno on this one. There is no reason to 'educate' any child as young 7 or 8 about the tangerine asshole's antics. If they ask, you should tell them the truth, but to intentionally expose them to that is pretty ignorant of how developmental psychology works. Young women, say 4th or 5th grade, should absolutely be exposed not only to him like you say as an example of what to avoid, but to the motives and emotions behind this march as a way to educate them in how to peacefully engage in political dissent and remind them that they are every bit as important and strong as loud mouthed men.

It's going to be very hard to not be constantly enraged for the next four years. Goddammit.

dimejinky99 wrote:This isn't real is it?

That's an awkward turn. I'd say it was probably being played backwards but it also doesn't seem like many people in the Trump family have mastered the art of moving like a regular human.