Open main menu

Comments:Women's March becomes largest protest in U.S. history

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
The problem315:24, 3 February 2017
Misplaced anger214:30, 3 February 2017

The problem

The problem is if I had $1. For every vote not counted I'd be a multi millionaire, the reason was she is a female, that's the core and us humankind Americans have had enough. You opened the door and we are already rolling through, no stopping us now and us mom's and grandmoms will stand between our kids in the police and military and the crowds if that is what it will take! Neither our kids or grown grandkids would Kent state a crowd in front us.

2607:fb90:22ca:b957:a941:9155:5dde:f3ab (talk)21:25, 2 February 2017

I think there are a lot of reasons why Clinton lost, but yes this was probably one. I heard a guy on the radio talking about what he liked about Trump and a pro was analyzing what he said and it was all the ability to project power and presence. Hillary can project power but not in the same way that's going to resonate with people who vote with their gut.

(sigh) I was looking forward to her first Supreme Court pick. Can you imagine? "Ladies and gentlemen of Congress, I am pleased to give you a man of consummate credentials, a man with experience in both our legislative and executive branches. I NOMINATE BARACK OBAMA!!"

Darkfrog24 (talk)14:24, 3 February 2017

Are there any theoretical limits on who can be appointed to the Supreme Court, or can one in principle appoint six babies to the Supreme Court?

BRS (Talk) (Contribs)15:00, 3 February 2017

That would be Article III. Don't see a minimum age. A great deal about the Supreme Court is based on precedent; notably, there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court any particular authority in deciding what is and isn't constitutional. As I recall the story (you've been warned), Chief Justice John Marshall was responsible for that; essentially, Congress filed suit against the President on grounds what he was doing was unconstitutional (might have been Jefferson applying military force without a declaration of war, but I'm just guessing), and if the Supreme Court had said the President wasn't allowed to do that, the President would have done it anyway and things would just have deteriorated into an even worse constitutional crisis; so instead, the Supreme Court said "we do have jurisdiction to decide what's constitutional, and our decision is that what the President is doing is allowed". The President wasn't going to object to the ruling since it was in his favor, and thus the President effectively supported the Supreme Court's claim to have jurisdiction to decide what's constitutional.

Pi zero (talk)15:24, 3 February 2017
 
 
 

Misplaced anger

So many people outraged over fabricated fears. I don't think Trump could make these people happy no matter what he did. They should try finding concrete issues of a discriminatory nature and bring attention to them. Just shouting 'We're fucking pissed" isn't going to effect any change...

72.35.40.34 (talk)19:04, 26 January 2017

I recommend paying more attention. If someone were looking for an excuse to pretend these people don't have real reason for specific concerns, they might produce a comment rather like the above; perhaps you weren't consciously doing that, but inattention can produce the same effect.

Pi zero (talk)19:51, 26 January 2017
 

Given Trump's executive order barring people from seven Muslim countries, I don't think their fears were unjustified.

The women's march looks like a general march because there were so many specific goals present. Yes, some of the signs were non-specific like "I'm %#$% Pissed," but there were also people holding signs about preserving Obamacare, keeping abortion and birth control legal, protecting gay and trans people, against "grab them by the pussy" and against Islamophobia and anti-immigrant action. Frankly, the best thing Trump could have done just then was say, "Ladies, your demonstration has moved me to reconsider some of my policies" and then given up his crass behavior, even if he didn't change any of his major goals for governance. In fact, he may have done this. The gay community was a huge presence at the march, and Trump recently announced that he's not going lift an Obama-era executive order protecting gays in workplaces run by federal contractors. (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 (talk)14:02, 3 February 2017