I wasn't even aware there was going to be an international event last Saturday until It was underway. But millions of people knew and participated. I'm guessing the primary media used to inform and organize was probably Facebook. We've seen flash mobs quickly reign down on malls and Walmart, large riots form in Egypt, and a revolution take place called Maidan in Ukraine in the past half dozen years. All of these events were made possible by using social media to alert target audiences, plan an action, and spread the word. Social media is the ultimate tool to organize movements for better or worse. Donald Trump is using Twitter for PR purposes and his opponents are using social media to oppose him. It will be interesting to see who gains the upper hand. The left no longer focuses on economics. In decades past, the left targeted the corporate world in order to represent labor. Today, the left focuses on social issues, identity politics. Things like reproductive rights, black incarceration rates, deportation of illegals, and politically correct language are what matters and stir up crowds.
One is the President and can/will put actions behind his words. The opposition is just noise that rarely results in any action following suit by lawmakers. After spending the last 4 years watching Obama do as he pleases (Iran deal, etc) without much the opposition (even with Congress majority) could do about it, it's very calming to know DT has an even easier playing field to impose his agenda. Let them keep protesting, the agenda is coming whether they like it or not. Obama showed exactly how to execute a dictatorial style when his unpopular actions were heavily opposed by the people and Congress.
Hope you are right. Soros has a lot of money and experience financing and organizing disruption campaigns. Perhaps the events of last weekend fizzle out and Trump can govern. I rather doubt this will happen because I think the opposition is only getting started.
It takes a majority to win a vote count. A revolution or disruption is another story. A determined, well-armed minority can turn the tables. I doubt the revolutionaries who overthrew the Shaw, the Russian Czar, or any number of regime changes represented the majority of the population or anywhere near it. For that matter, when the colonists revolted against King George, I don't think the majority of the colonists were all in. Most were against or neutral. Libya and Syria are two recent examples where well-armed minorities disrupted the government.
All that needs to happen is Trump and the Reps in Congress find common ground and develop a solid working relationship. This is easier said than done as Reps aren't as unified in gang warfare voting as Dems. Sure it seemed that way the last several years as opposing Obama's radical actions was easy to coalesce around. Now that they're in charge and emboldened, there will be factions and in-fighting. Ultra conservatives have a history of threatening to pull support if new actions don't go far enough to their liking. However, if relative unity between DT and Rep controlled Congress is achieved, there's little Soros or wealthy radical clowns can do but temporarily obstruct. Tons of lawsuits will be filed, which makes the Scotus confirmation a high priority. Once the new conservative joins Scotus, all lawsuits can do is delay the inevitable.
Mus My point was not that a minority group can influence the outcome. My point was that Soros failed to influence the Election, I do not think he will significantly change Trump's agenda. But he will create a lot of destruction and trash like he did with OWS.
Congress isn't the epicenter in this battle. The anti-Trump strategy would be to project an allusion of mass opposition. The media would amplify this perception resulting in Congress not uniting behind the President. In other words, before Trump can solidify support from the government, he'll need to find away to keep public opinion from interfering.
It's a good thing the MSM's credibility is shot and continues on it's downward death spiral with each passing day. Thanks to the collusion of the election cycle, alternative media has exploded and become a much more trusted source for non-Liberals. I made the switch months ago and it's been much more productive. The sites I visit take the often opinion-based MSM claims and reject them with facts. Which is exactly why Dems coined and tried to ban counter-punching sites as fake news (Breibart, etc.). Stefan Molyneau on Youtube is a must. His "The truth about ____" specials are facts based presentations on high traffic current topics. They unveil deeper facts the MSM would never present in a million years, as it would kill their Lib narratives. The media can try to paint all the gloom and doom they want. And countless millions will continue to ignore and enjoy the factually supported counter-narratives that now flourish on the Alt media sites they forced us to turn to. Just as the fake Dossier died an easy death. MSM spread it and Alt news debunked it within days. That's the cycle now.
Yes, the MSM continues to discredit itself, and that helps Trump. But there is always a large portion of the population that will be susceptible to the big lie when repeated over and over.
It may seem that the case is closed on MSM media but I'd argue that Trump's 40% approval rating counters that idea. Furthermore, the ~1.5M Womxn march shows there is more than an insignificant "resistance" effort mounting. Historically, a POTUS political capital is strongly tied to his approval rating. This is what allowed Obama to railroad the stimulus package and Obamacare. With Trump starting so low, Dems and Reps are more likely to stand in the way of some of is changes. Sure, they won't do so on popular items like Obamacare repeal but could easily do so on less popular changes.
I see a lot of bs coming from "alternative news" and, at least as a percentage of content, less from the mainstream media. The mainstream media seems to have a better handle on facts and attribution. The ones I trust divulged nothing about what was in the content of the Trump dossier (NPR, New York Times). I can tell facts from opinions and usually can tell when facts are distorted. I think all news sources should face critical thinking from their readers ... no matter if their politics align with your opinions.
If you're still reading and valuing MSM outlets then you are in the camp who wasn't forced to weed through the garbage of alt news to find the gems. There are millions who turned away from MSM during this election and found other sources. Of course much out there is bs if you just toss every site that's not MSM into a basket and call it "alternative news". That's exactly how Libs discredit everything that opposes them. Stereotype the whole bunch with a name, devalue it as a whole, and try to shut down any truth in one swoop. I agree there are plenty of hit and run alt sites that are garbage on both sides. However, over the many months of the election cycle a large mass of people weeded through them and began to bring heavy traffic to the credible ones. For those who opposed HC there was a starvation for the truth (polling bias, etc) and people found answers on these highly trafficked alt sites. There are some now that blow MSM out of the water in daily views. Once you find the credible ones, MSM reporting quickly looks like a steaming pile of propaganda garbage if one prefers facts-based information. I can't even tell you how many MSM fake news hit pieces on DT I've seen these credible alt news sites debunk within days. As a matter of fact the better ones are way ahead of Fox in exposing the truth. I often see Fox pick up the debunkings a few days later by repeating the alt sites' content.
Isn't that also an apt description of those critical of the MSM on this board? You could say the same for polls and other elements not willing to aggrandize Trump.
Thanks for validating my statement with an example! I appreciate the assist. I'll just use Brad's quote right here.
This photograph wasn't taken at the women's march, but I think it captured the spirit of the event; or at least my perception of much of the participant mind set.
Ummmm...Is the one on the left a tranny? She seems to be missing something. I didn't attend any of the marches myself but know several pretty normal people that did. I don't think you could find ~1.5M people like that in the US.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...arch-linda-sarsour-pro-sharia-law-ties-hamas/ http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265...rganized-womens-march-washington-john-perazzo
It's more than that. The hips and shoulders look like they belong on a dude - not a very masculine dude but a dude nonetheless.
No, I am surprised you missed some critical details like thigh length to waist ratio, etc. to make it sound more convincing. Just messing with you.
So I viewed the video where topless women and women dressed up as a uterus waved signs in the Austin march. I listened to Madonna, Maxine Walters, Ashley Judd, and a Muslim women who advocates sharia. I'm now posing a question. If Trump backers are primarily composed of deplorables, what is the appropriate term for these multitudes of Trump bashers?
