OK but oldandslow seems to have more direct info. I would like to either get confirmation from him that this group are not the true leaders of this movement (and therefore who is) or they are and this is the next step.

He has made Tea Party comparison (only much bigger and encompassing a larger part of the Dem platform). This group is larger and I would agree that their broad based principles mirror many of those of the D party.

You and sphere kind of went in circles. I am hoping not to with oldandslow.

EDIT: if I am going to follow and evaluate (and keep my eye on) this movement I want to confirm I am following the right thing

I was listening to a few more reasonable shows (not partisan variety) and they were generally supportive of this. But is it a movement? Apparently some women who shared conservative views like pro-life and gun rights were not allowed to talk. Caller after caller who had participated in these marches were proven to be liberals. The legitimacy of this seems to be some sort of solidarity among women, but if it is just another partisan movement, it won't last. Lets remember, the TEA Party gained most of its momentum and respect when it was geared towards gov't overstep and spending, which actually started nearly two years before bush was gone. It sort of went on steroids with Obama since he was the anti-thesis of everything the TEA party stood for, but within a year of Obama, the tea party was coopted by the far right and social conservatives, making it just another radical partisan group. How many of these women who marched were supporting partisan causes? I know a few who were. But I don't know if it was a majority.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Almost every single protest movement has been partisan. The Tea Party was always partisan (ovigirnally allied with Ron Paul supporters), its only short-term problem was that it fought against the GOP, and allowed the Dems to win a few close races. The short-term impact of this protest is that it coalesces the Bernie and Clinton/Obama wings (for now) in opposition to Trump. The protests would have been a fraction of their size if Trump had acted at all presidential over the past 2 months (or if he could make policy moves that could split Bernie an Clinton supporters). Now the strength of the movement is inversely proportional to how moderate Trump is. It will be interesting. Opposition and support have been maximized by path that he has taken. Welcome to the DSA (Divided States of America)

I agree these movements all have partisan aims, I mean it has to if it'll have any focus, doesn't it? The difference, to me, is that the Tea Party was actually fairly narrowly focused in the early days: fiscal conservatism and abiding by the Constitution, it was that second aim that allowed the religious right to take over and corrupt the whole movement.

One of the criticism's of the women's-march-now-movement is it's fairly fractured into the various liberal aims: equal pay, reproductive rights, Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ, climate change, immigrant and Muslim rights. It's clear as day in their first 'action' on the website:
Write a postcard to your Senators about what matters most to you - and how you’re going to continue to fight for it in the days, weeks and months ahead. We’re offering printable postcards for you to download.

So...what is important to a pro-life mother of four? A third wave feminist? A young black woman? A gay climate change activist (like one of my uncles)? Their messages will be VASTLY different. Here's an interesting article from a decided liberal site:
http://www.theroot.com/...te-female-1791524613

It reminds me of the abortion debate, and the whole feminist idea that men don't have a say in women's reproductive/health decisions; there are many problems with that argument but the worst is that BY FAR the strongest opposition to pro-choice women are...pro-life women.

So I don't see this 'movement' doing much more than energizing liberals for a time; how long that lasts, we'll see, but there's already confusion and infighting so I think it flames out far faster than the Tea Party, which got co-opted by the religious right within a few years.

Which protests are you talking about? The women's march was came out of a post by a Facebook post a grandmother in Hawaii made that went viral. If you're talking about the other protests - dunno.

And to whomever said don't they have to work? Direct quote from a marcher, "Bitch, it's Saturday". And everyone I know who went (which numbers about 200 people from California to Tennessee) all have very good jobs where they actually get vacation time.

Best signs in Nashville:

* Batman smacking trump saying "STOP TWEETING"

* Does conversion therapy work on old white men?

* We will overcomb

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

You think trump is ushering in the divided states of America? Funny. I might argue bush set the thing in motion. Obama ramped it up big time. Trump just might seal the deal.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Lets be honest the pro life and gun crowd were never going to be a part of this nor was it intended they were. If they were included in this it would be even more disjointed and confusing than it was/is.

Why wouldn't you be generally supportive of this. Internationally a bunch of people, mostly women, took to the streets to proclaim things they believe in and things they are against. And they did so peacefully; I would have preferred they clean up their mess when they were done vs. leaving signs behind but beyond that, I support it.

Is it a movement or the beginnings of one. I don't think so. I think it was an event; a statement; a powerful one. One that if I was on the other side of, I would take notice of and study to figure out what I could get out of it or change.

I believe "the movement" is coming. And I believe D candidates will be born from it. And I believe it will contribute to big changes in the house at mid-term. History tells me so. I'm just not convinced this was the Boston Tea Party or the Shot Heard Round The World. In part because I think that will come from an event (one single galvanizing event) Trump and or the R's do once they begin to make policy/laws/changes.

EDIT: I think it's hard to create a movement out of "I don't like this guy". That's an election. Just as many people could take to the streets this Saturday and say "I do like this guy".

Are you that naive, or just lying?


If those were the best....

PS: How old are you?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I have never said that. "We the People" have been doing it gleefully for a long time now. "We the People" seem dedicated to continuing this. You always blame various "leaders", when they are duly elected by partisans, and they grudgingly accede to the wishes of those partisans, or we find new "leaders" who will do our bidding.

Sean, is that you?