President Trump

To be honest, I'm really not shocked on what Trump says anymore. Maybe after the "sh*t-hole countries" comment, I've decided to just not care. Whether it be the hate fueled anti-liberal remarks, the tone-deaf and 'out of touch' comments in regards to race, and those infamous twitter rants. (Things like the 'Net Neutrally Repeal,' and all the roll backs on environmental protection measures will all be things of the past after the next election.) Like 2017: this will be more toxic drama, that goes by quickly.

Nearly more than year of this bombastic nonsense has been saturating enough, to the point where another 3 years doesn't seem all that painful.

Anyone on the same boat?

Oprah 2020

__________________

212 555 6342

Pierce & Pierce: Mergers and Acquisitions

Patrick Bateman
Vice President

358 Exchange Place New York, N.Y. 10099 FAX 212 555 6390 TELEX : () 4534

Why? Alien was such a great script!

I'm not surprised by the things he says. It bothers me when the media spends all their time pointing out when he was making fun of someone's plastic surgery, weight, etc.. However, the important stuff, upward distribution of wealth (tax reform) -- robbing Peter Paul AND Mary to pay for the Donalds - why didn't two million march then? The media has one bias - financial. The far-right was owned by Fox, so MSNBC takes another demographic.

What did that first march accomplish last year? This seems trivial, which is why nothing gets done - I think some do it because it's trendy, and because it's safe..

Haven't heard anything like this in months.

Literally hear someone repeat this lie everyday.

__________________
Letterboxd

Exactly. If they were really concerned about women's rights - as in all women, why don't they try holding one of their marches in Tehran or Riyadh?
Do something daring and take the protest to those who are not only oppressing women, but raping, selling, burning, stoning, mutilating, and murderdering them.

Yeah, you said something like this earlier in the thread, and this was my response:

Amusingly, you responded and said I made "some good points," though per the usual routine that seems to have sorta been a brush off, since you're here repeating the same things on (get this) the literal one-year anniversary of the last time you said it, and they in no way account for or incorporate those supposedly "good points."

From the "if you are so worried about global warming then why dont you go do something on Venus" deflection logic.

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

I'm going to argue this one - it's not a question of location, it's a question of "women."

Seems like if someone wants to stand up for women, it should be for all women, not just those that live in the richest, freest, most progressive country on the planet, rather it would more appropriately be for those who are defenseless and systematically abused by their own cultures or religions or fascist ideologies. Those are the ones who truly require championing.

But for anyone who still can't see the writing on the wall, here's the bottom line - PC groups are hypocritical and practice double standards. No women want to be mistreated themselves, but for those who are PC feminists that belong to groups that prop up fundamentalist Islam as one of their "protected" groups & agendas, their concern about treatment is egocentric.

What we've seen here is just another triggered SJW anti-Trump march as a result of what's being called the Trump derangement syndrome. These people would rather have a President that called the victims of her husband liars, and used all her authority to smear and slander them while simultaneously claiming she represents women and wanted to uphold their rights: hypocrisy.

To Yoda's point - yeah, same thing this year - truth is truth no matter when.

It is a question of location, because people's ability to affect change is highly contingent on where they live. This is one of the "good points" I made the last time which, oddly enough, don't seem to have resulted in any alteration of last year's talking points.

This completely sidesteps what I said, which is that you like to respond to things by admitting someone has a point (which absolves you of having to dispute it), only to come back later and repeat the same thing as if that point was never made.

I was going to respond to this silly post but I cant because I already posted in the Movie Picture Association Game post and until that thread is closed it would be "hypocritical" and apparently impossible of me to post anywhere else... Because posting in there implies that I dont care about anything going on here...

What changes are they trying to affect? Are they trying to make the stoning of women in America illegal? Maybe get someone to pass some laws in the U.S. against the genital mutilation, honor killings or throwing acid on women for leaving the house without a male handler?

We have equality laws, we have laws against rape and abuse and torture and harassment. This may be the easiest country in which to have a protest, yet it's the last that needs one.

Oh, that's right - they're trying to raise "awareness" AGAIN. Get off it! It's just more PC SJW anti-Conservative sore-loser crap. This has nothing to do with women, it's all political. I realize where the veil falls on this site, but in the real world most people can see right through it.

The fact that these groups refuse to ever protest against or even mention the true oppression and abuse of women where it happens in the world as a matter of systematic ideology speaks volumes.
You don't have to go to those places to raise a voice - but they won't do that because it's not part of the PC agenda that's dictated to them as their thought playbook that they have to stick to. So obvious.

I dunno why you think talking past the counterarguments and repeating yourself is ever going to work; you should know by now that I'm going to call you on it every time. Like right now:

Your entire argument is contingent on pretending the ability to affect each type of change is identical, otherwise the disparity in the injustice becomes arguable, rather than hypocritical. For example: if you have an equal chance of preventing two crimes, but one is worse, you should obviously stop the one that is worse. But what if you have a GREATER chance of preventing the lesser crime? That's more complicated, obviously.

And that--not the straw man you're attacking--is the actual situation for most feminists in first-world countries. They have a much greater ability to affect change in their home country than they do in an oppressive regime, both because those regimes usually lack the basic democratic institutions which allow protests to be effective, and because of the immense logistical difficulty of being located half a world away.

The entire premise here is wrong. Protests, almost by definition, are only viable and effective in countries that are already moderately free. The places that you suggest "need them" lack the government and/or culture for them to affect change.

Who are "these groups," and on what evidence do you claim they never "even mention" this oppression? Be specific, please. Because I know from experience that most of these overly broad assertions end up being a stew of cable news ephemera and confirmation bias.

Sounds like what Trump uses - "with love".

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Again - what are the changes that these marches hoping to achieve?
Are there some laws not already on the books that need to be enacted in a moderately free country such as ours?

My question begs: what is the current state of our country that it requires protests by women over their position in the U.S. to influence legislative changes because the scales are somehow so unfairly tipped against them?

Oh wait, I know one change they want to achieve - replacing the elected President!

And, IMO, if you want to protest the President that's fine as long as it's peaceful and you're not making public threats to blow up his home, but don't try to disguise it as a women's rights march on the date of the President's first year anniversary, in a country where women have the same rights as everyone else and a standard of living greater than anywhere else on Earth - and where those rights are documented in the country's laws.

Testify Tomi...

See? You just did it again. I made several substantive points, and asked you several direct questions, and you've literally just repeated yourself without addressing any of it.

Like, what do you imagine's going to happen when you do this stuff? If you repeat yourself enough times, I magically forget whatever was said before and you never have to address any of counterarguments? Explain the thought process to me.

I'm not ALWAYS debating, sometimes I'm just stating my opinion.

But just for fun - one of the premises of your argument (debate term) is that these women are protesting for changes - you've asserted that several times now. So what are the changes? I'm questioning their motivation that you've used as a premise. If you can't answer the question and thus support the premise, then much of the rest of your argument doesn't stand.

It's not all about you. Sometimes people just want to spout off. Who cares what happens? How many people make posts that never get responded to, get reps or even get read - are they all supposed to sit and wonder what's going to "happen" before they post a random thought about something? People just post - that's what the Internet is for!

Just because you're in the mood for debate, doesn't mean everyone else is at the same time. And I haven't seen any rules that says you have to have a debate, you HAVE to defend your position and you have to engage anyone or everyone who feels like engaging you or that you have to do it on their timeframe.

Good of you to admit the very thing I've been contending for awhile now: that you're not actually interested in discussion on these issues, and effectively just want to lecture people about them.

Sure it does. If I say someone is doing X because they want something, the validity of that claim is unaffected by whether or not I can describe what they want. Example: someone robbed my house because they wanted something I had. That statement is true even if I don't know what they were trying to steal.

Also, notice that you just made an argument, and expected me to answer it. So how's this work, exactly? When you make a claim, it's just your opinion and you're not obligated to defend it, but you'll still come back at others with arguments they're supposed to answer?