Politics 2017

[HoonDing]

If he uses illegal immigrants & Chinese steel to build, it might actually cost 10 billion.

[Gromnir]

not ivanka, but a beautiful image nonetheless

 

 

protesters is gonna be charged and may even do some time, but good for them. knowing the consequences, they took a stand 'gainst a perceived wrong.  didn't resort to violence.  agree with 'em or not, we approve o' their dedication.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

With cops in the US as they are now, mass deportations is going to have a lot of people killed by SWAT teams, heh.

[Keyrock]

[Gromnir]

With cops in the US as they are now, mass deportations is going to have a lot of people killed by SWAT teams, heh.

unlikely.

 

one reason why trump needs so many additional ice agents is 'cause they is the folks who is gonna be rounding up deportees... and 'cause of the Constitution, chances are they is gonna be doing the rounding up at workplaces and on roads; kicking down doors o' homes to search for illegals is problematic. so raids is gonna typical be broad daylight and in public view.  is all gonna be extreme expensive too as temporary detention facilities will need be constructed and the legal niceties o' deportation must still be observed.

 

and numerous American cities has made it clear they ain't knuckling under to trump's attack 'pon sanctuary cities.  

 

even if all the logistical issues is dealt with, the cost o' deporting large numbers o' illegals is gonna be extreme.

 

even so, am doubting you see many illegals killed by swat.  highly unlikely for various reasons, not the least o' which is swat is hardly ever gonna be involved.

 

global warming folks were correct. 2017 is start o' a new ICE age.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 26, 2017 by Gromnir

[Elerond]

It seems that Germany is making high priority changes in their laws 

 

Germany will abolish law against insulting foreign heads of state

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-will-abolish-law-against-insulting-foreign-heads-of-state/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=33767220

[Malcador]

global warming folks were correct. 2017 is start o' a new ICE age.

Probably, just being pessimistic about SWAT being used for reasons it doesn't need to be. Good pun though, I will have to steal that for use at work tomorrow.

[213374U]

 

Venezuela remains highly dependent on oil revenues, which account for almost all export earnings and nearly half of the government’s revenue. The country ended 2015 with an estimated 10% contraction in its GDP, 275% inflation, widespread shortages of consumer goods, and declining central bank international reserves. The IMF forecasts that the GDP will shrink another 8% in 2016 and inflation may reach 720%.

Falling oil prices since 2014 have aggravated Venezuela’s economic crisis. Insufficient access to dollars, price controls, and rigid labor regulations have led some US and multinational firms to reduce or shut down their Venezuelan operations. Market uncertainty and state oil company PDVSA’s poor cash flow have slowed investment in the petroleum sector, resulting in a decline in oil production.

Under President Nicolas MADURO, the Venezuelan Government’s response to the economic crisis has been to increase state control over the economy and blame the private sector for the shortages. The Venezuelan government has maintained strict currency controls since 2003. On 17 February 2016, the Venezuelan government announced a change from three official currency exchange mechanisms to only two official rates for the sale of dollars to private sector firms and individuals, with rates based on the government's import priorities. The official exchange rate used for food and medicine imports was devalued to 10 bolivars per dollar from 6.3 bolivars per dollar. The second rate moved to a managed float. These currency controls present significant obstacles to trade with Venezuela because importers cannot obtain sufficient dollars to purchase goods needed to maintain their operations. MADURO has used decree powers to enact legislation to deepen the state’s role as the primary buyer and distributor of imports, further tighten currency controls, cap business profits, and extend price controls.

 

Cool, can you do Bolivia now please. For some reason potted rants about the evils of socialism never address Bolivia and I'm wondering why. I wait, with 'bated breath.

 

Technically "he" could, since it's straight from the CIA World Factbook.

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bo.html

 

 

I thought it was Harvard or bust. Is CIA an accredited academic institution now?

Edited January 26, 2017 by 213374U

[BruceVC]

 

 

Venezuela remains highly dependent on oil revenues, which account for almost all export earnings and nearly half of the government’s revenue. The country ended 2015 with an estimated 10% contraction in its GDP, 275% inflation, widespread shortages of consumer goods, and declining central bank international reserves. The IMF forecasts that the GDP will shrink another 8% in 2016 and inflation may reach 720%.

Falling oil prices since 2014 have aggravated Venezuela’s economic crisis. Insufficient access to dollars, price controls, and rigid labor regulations have led some US and multinational firms to reduce or shut down their Venezuelan operations. Market uncertainty and state oil company PDVSA’s poor cash flow have slowed investment in the petroleum sector, resulting in a decline in oil production.

Under President Nicolas MADURO, the Venezuelan Government’s response to the economic crisis has been to increase state control over the economy and blame the private sector for the shortages. The Venezuelan government has maintained strict currency controls since 2003. On 17 February 2016, the Venezuelan government announced a change from three official currency exchange mechanisms to only two official rates for the sale of dollars to private sector firms and individuals, with rates based on the government's import priorities. The official exchange rate used for food and medicine imports was devalued to 10 bolivars per dollar from 6.3 bolivars per dollar. The second rate moved to a managed float. These currency controls present significant obstacles to trade with Venezuela because importers cannot obtain sufficient dollars to purchase goods needed to maintain their operations. MADURO has used decree powers to enact legislation to deepen the state’s role as the primary buyer and distributor of imports, further tighten currency controls, cap business profits, and extend price controls.

 

Cool, can you do Bolivia now please. For some reason potted rants about the evils of socialism never address Bolivia and I'm wondering why. I wait, with 'bated breath.

 

Technically "he" could, since it's straight from the CIA World Factbook.

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bo.html

 

 

I thought it was Harvard or bust. Is CIA an accredited academic institution now?

 

So its irrelevant where he got this information from, the assessment of state of the Venezuelan economy  is 100 % correct 

[BruceVC]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/entry/donald-trump-border-wall_us_5888a9c3e4b0441a8f71f08e

 

Im confused and I need our American members to explain this. For years I have heard endless criticism how Obama overreached in the affairs of the various states through numerous Federal initiatives

 

Now Trump is threatening to hold back Federal funding to any city that doesnt support his immigration policies, these cities have been " sanctuary cities " 

 

How is what Trump is threatening to do not interfering in the affairs of the states? This seems very inconsistent and reeks of double standards 

[HoonDing]

"Now Trump is threatening to hold back Federal funding to any city that doesnt support his immigration policies, these cities have been " sanctuary cities " 

 

How is what Trump is threatening to do not interfering in the affairs of the states? This seems very inconsistent and reeks of double standards"

 

The 2nd Amendment people will deal with it.

Edited January 26, 2017 by HoonDing

[redneckdevil]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/entry/donald-trump-border-wall_us_5888a9c3e4b0441a8f71f08e

 

Im confused and I need our American members to explain this. For years I have heard endless criticism how Obama overreached in the affairs of the various states through numerous Federal initiatives

 

Now Trump is threatening to hold back Federal funding to any city that doesnt support his immigration policies, these cities have been " sanctuary cities "

 

How is what Trump is threatening to do not interfering in the affairs of the states? This seems very inconsistent and reeks of double standards

what Obama tried to do was take away the states right to chose to do or not something they had the right to decide. Sanctuary cities on the other hand is something a state does not have power to have and it goes against Federal law.

Obama tried to force states to do things they had the right to chose to do. Trump is trying to force states to stop doing something they do NOT have the right to do.

[Ben No.3]

It seems that Germany is making high priority changes in their laws

 

Germany will abolish law against insulting foreign heads of state

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-will-abolish-law-against-insulting-foreign-heads-of-state/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=33767220

A change brought forward by my fellow cultural Marxist so we can safely destroy America and its last defender, Trump with such evil methods like PC and social justice.

[Chilloutman]

Technically "he" could, since it's straight from the CIA World Factbook.

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bo.html

 

 

I thought it was Harvard or bust. Is CIA an accredited academic institution now?

you got me, do you read CIA often that you spotted that?

 

here is Bolivia:

 

Bolivia is a resource rich country with strong growth attributed to captive markets for natural gas exports – to Brazil and Argentina. Gas accounts for roughly 50% of Bolivia's total exports and will fund more than half of its 2015 budget. However, the country remains one of the least developed countries in Latin America because of state-oriented policies that deter investment and growth.

Following a disastrous economic crisis during the early 1980s, reforms spurred private investment, stimulated economic growth, and cut poverty rates in the 1990s. The period 2003-05 was characterized by political instability, racial tensions, and violent protests against plans - subsequently abandoned - to export Bolivia's newly discovered natural gas reserves to large Northern Hemisphere markets. In 2005, the government passed a controversial hydrocarbons law that imposed significantly higher royalties and required foreign firms then operating under risk-sharing contracts to surrender all production to the state energy company in exchange for a predetermined service fee. The global recession slowed growth, but Bolivia recorded the highest growth rate in South America during 2009 and has averaged 5.3% growth each year since 2009. High commodity prices between 2010 and 2013 sustained rapid growth and large trade surpluses. The global decline in oil prices in late 2014 exerted downward pressure on the price Bolivia receives for exported gas and resulted in lower GDP growth rates and losses in government revenue in 2015.

A lack of foreign investment in the key sectors of mining and hydrocarbons, along with conflict among social groups, pose challenges for the Bolivian economy. In 2015, President Evo MORALES expanded efforts to court international investment and boost Bolivia’s energy production capacity. MORALES passed an investment law and promised not to nationalize additional industries in an effort to improve the investment climate.

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/entry/donald-trump-border-wall_us_5888a9c3e4b0441a8f71f08e

 

Im confused and I need our American members to explain this. For years I have heard endless criticism how Obama overreached in the affairs of the various states through numerous Federal initiatives

 

Now Trump is threatening to hold back Federal funding to any city that doesnt support his immigration policies, these cities have been " sanctuary cities "

 

How is what Trump is threatening to do not interfering in the affairs of the states? This seems very inconsistent and reeks of double standards

what Obama tried to do was take away the states right to chose to do or not something they had the right to decide. Sanctuary cities on the other hand is something a state does not have power to have and it goes against Federal law.

Obama tried to force states to do things they had the right to chose to do. Trump is trying to force states to stop doing something they do NOT have the right to do.

 

States dont have right to receive degrees of Federal funding and Trump has a right to just take it away? Did you read the link I posted?

 

What you saying is not what New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman  says

 

 " he said in a statement that Trump lacked the authority to take away funding from cities and states " 

 

There is a whole section underneath this in the article that clarifies this that I cant paste , please read the link below  so you are familiar with the point.

 

https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/824362523529007104/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Raithe]

Scientists Planning the Next Big Washington March

 

 

Last weekend, a massive milieu of women in pink hats descended on Washington, D.C. for the Women’s March. The next big protest being planned for the nation’s capital could involve a sea of lab coats (and likely a few pink hats as well).

 

A group of researchers have proposed a March for Science. What started as a discussion on Reddit has quickly blossomed into a movement.

 

Organizers started a private Facebook group and Twitter account on Monday. By Wednesday afternoon, the former boasted more than 300,000 members and the latter had nearly 55,000 followers. A public Facebook page had more than 11,000 likes just five hours after going online. The explosion of support caught organizers off guard, but they’re meeting this weekend to discuss details about the date and full mission statement.

 

The march would be the latest in a string of actions taken by scientists following Donald Trump’s election and his inauguration as president. His administration has been widely viewed as hostile to science — from the transition period through hearings for his cabinet nominees through silencing key federal science agencies and freezing grants.

 

“This is not a partisan issue. People from all parts of the political spectrum should be alarmed by these efforts to deny scientific progress,” Caroline Weinberg, a medical researcher who is helping organize the march, said. “Scientific research moves us forward and we should not allow asinine policies to thwart it.”

 

Researchers have been getting more vocal about the value of science and evidence-based policymaking in recent months. Earth scientists took to the streets in San Francisco last December during the annual American Geophysical Union meeting. Researchers and librarians are also racing to save climate data from federal websites. And more recently, scientists flooded Twitter during Friday’s inauguration with updates about how science impacts everyday people.

 

The March for Science represents a next step, with a groundswell of support behind it and the potential to dwarf the December San Francisco rally of a few hundred earth science researchers. While details are forthcoming, Weinberg underscored that scientists and science lovers of all disciplines and backgrounds will be welcome.

 

“Diversity in science, both in the researchers who participate and the topics we are focused on, is a critically neglected area,” she said. “We fully intend to emphasize diversity in both the planning of and mission statement for this march.”

 

Whatever becomes of the march, it won’t be the first time scientists have turned out to protest what they view as federal policies ungrounded in science. The 2014 People’s Climate March turned out an estimated 310,000 people in New York, including a large number of climate scientists.

Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at Harvard, said that looking further into the past reveals another telling example of scientists organizing.

 

“It is the scientists who mobilized against the arms race in the late 1950s and 1960s,” she said. “So that tells you how scientists feel now. This is an existential threat.”

[Raithe]

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Scientists Planning the Next Big Washington March

 

 

Last weekend, a massive milieu of women in pink hats descended on Washington, D.C. for the Women’s March. The next big protest being planned for the nation’s capital could involve a sea of lab coats (and likely a few pink hats as well).

 

A group of researchers have proposed a March for Science. What started as a discussion on Reddit has quickly blossomed into a movement.

 

Organizers started a private Facebook group and Twitter account on Monday. By Wednesday afternoon, the former boasted more than 300,000 members and the latter had nearly 55,000 followers. A public Facebook page had more than 11,000 likes just five hours after going online. The explosion of support caught organizers off guard, but they’re meeting this weekend to discuss details about the date and full mission statement.

 

The march would be the latest in a string of actions taken by scientists following Donald Trump’s election and his inauguration as president. His administration has been widely viewed as hostile to science — from the transition period through hearings for his cabinet nominees through silencing key federal science agencies and freezing grants.

 

“This is not a partisan issue. People from all parts of the political spectrum should be alarmed by these efforts to deny scientific progress,” Caroline Weinberg, a medical researcher who is helping organize the march, said. “Scientific research moves us forward and we should not allow asinine policies to thwart it.”

 

Researchers have been getting more vocal about the value of science and evidence-based policymaking in recent months. Earth scientists took to the streets in San Francisco last December during the annual American Geophysical Union meeting. Researchers and librarians are also racing to save climate data from federal websites. And more recently, scientists flooded Twitter during Friday’s inauguration with updates about how science impacts everyday people.

 

The March for Science represents a next step, with a groundswell of support behind it and the potential to dwarf the December San Francisco rally of a few hundred earth science researchers. While details are forthcoming, Weinberg underscored that scientists and science lovers of all disciplines and backgrounds will be welcome.

 

“Diversity in science, both in the researchers who participate and the topics we are focused on, is a critically neglected area,” she said. “We fully intend to emphasize diversity in both the planning of and mission statement for this march.”

 

Whatever becomes of the march, it won’t be the first time scientists have turned out to protest what they view as federal policies ungrounded in science. The 2014 People’s Climate March turned out an estimated 310,000 people in New York, including a large number of climate scientists.

Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at Harvard, said that looking further into the past reveals another telling example of scientists organizing.

 

“It is the scientists who mobilized against the arms race in the late 1950s and 1960s,” she said. “So that tells you how scientists feel now. This is an existential threat.”

 

 

 

science is just another tool of cultural marxist oppression and in taking away the rights of white men

 

down with politicized SJW science, go alternative science

Edited January 26, 2017 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Ben No.3]

 

Scientists Planning the Next Big Washington March

 

 

Last weekend, a massive milieu of women in pink hats descended on Washington, D.C. for the Women’s March. The next big protest being planned for the nation’s capital could involve a sea of lab coats (and likely a few pink hats as well).

 

A group of researchers have proposed a March for Science. What started as a discussion on Reddit has quickly blossomed into a movement.

 

Organizers started a private Facebook group and Twitter account on Monday. By Wednesday afternoon, the former boasted more than 300,000 members and the latter had nearly 55,000 followers. A public Facebook page had more than 11,000 likes just five hours after going online. The explosion of support caught organizers off guard, but they’re meeting this weekend to discuss details about the date and full mission statement.

 

The march would be the latest in a string of actions taken by scientists following Donald Trump’s election and his inauguration as president. His administration has been widely viewed as hostile to science — from the transition period through hearings for his cabinet nominees through silencing key federal science agencies and freezing grants.

 

“This is not a partisan issue. People from all parts of the political spectrum should be alarmed by these efforts to deny scientific progress,” Caroline Weinberg, a medical researcher who is helping organize the march, said. “Scientific research moves us forward and we should not allow asinine policies to thwart it.”

 

Researchers have been getting more vocal about the value of science and evidence-based policymaking in recent months. Earth scientists took to the streets in San Francisco last December during the annual American Geophysical Union meeting. Researchers and librarians are also racing to save climate data from federal websites. And more recently, scientists flooded Twitter during Friday’s inauguration with updates about how science impacts everyday people.

 

The March for Science represents a next step, with a groundswell of support behind it and the potential to dwarf the December San Francisco rally of a few hundred earth science researchers. While details are forthcoming, Weinberg underscored that scientists and science lovers of all disciplines and backgrounds will be welcome.

 

“Diversity in science, both in the researchers who participate and the topics we are focused on, is a critically neglected area,” she said. “We fully intend to emphasize diversity in both the planning of and mission statement for this march.”

 

Whatever becomes of the march, it won’t be the first time scientists have turned out to protest what they view as federal policies ungrounded in science. The 2014 People’s Climate March turned out an estimated 310,000 people in New York, including a large number of climate scientists.

Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at Harvard, said that looking further into the past reveals another telling example of scientists organizing.

 

“It is the scientists who mobilized against the arms race in the late 1950s and 1960s,” she said. “So that tells you how scientists feel now. This is an existential threat.”

 

science is just another tool of cultural marxist oppression and in taking away the rights of white men

 

down with politicized SJW science, go alternative science

KNOWLEDGE FOR EVERYONE, FUNDED BY EVERYONE!!!! Make Science communist Edited January 26, 2017 by Ben No.3

[BruceVC]

 

Scientists Planning the Next Big Washington March

 

 

Last weekend, a massive milieu of women in pink hats descended on Washington, D.C. for the Women’s March. The next big protest being planned for the nation’s capital could involve a sea of lab coats (and likely a few pink hats as well).

 

A group of researchers have proposed a March for Science. What started as a discussion on Reddit has quickly blossomed into a movement.

 

Organizers started a private Facebook group and Twitter account on Monday. By Wednesday afternoon, the former boasted more than 300,000 members and the latter had nearly 55,000 followers. A public Facebook page had more than 11,000 likes just five hours after going online. The explosion of support caught organizers off guard, but they’re meeting this weekend to discuss details about the date and full mission statement.

 

The march would be the latest in a string of actions taken by scientists following Donald Trump’s election and his inauguration as president. His administration has been widely viewed as hostile to science — from the transition period through hearings for his cabinet nominees through silencing key federal science agencies and freezing grants.

 

“This is not a partisan issue. People from all parts of the political spectrum should be alarmed by these efforts to deny scientific progress,” Caroline Weinberg, a medical researcher who is helping organize the march, said. “Scientific research moves us forward and we should not allow asinine policies to thwart it.”

 

Researchers have been getting more vocal about the value of science and evidence-based policymaking in recent months. Earth scientists took to the streets in San Francisco last December during the annual American Geophysical Union meeting. Researchers and librarians are also racing to save climate data from federal websites. And more recently, scientists flooded Twitter during Friday’s inauguration with updates about how science impacts everyday people.

 

The March for Science represents a next step, with a groundswell of support behind it and the potential to dwarf the December San Francisco rally of a few hundred earth science researchers. While details are forthcoming, Weinberg underscored that scientists and science lovers of all disciplines and backgrounds will be welcome.

 

“Diversity in science, both in the researchers who participate and the topics we are focused on, is a critically neglected area,” she said. “We fully intend to emphasize diversity in both the planning of and mission statement for this march.”

 

Whatever becomes of the march, it won’t be the first time scientists have turned out to protest what they view as federal policies ungrounded in science. The 2014 People’s Climate March turned out an estimated 310,000 people in New York, including a large number of climate scientists.

Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at Harvard, said that looking further into the past reveals another telling example of scientists organizing.

 

“It is the scientists who mobilized against the arms race in the late 1950s and 1960s,” she said. “So that tells you how scientists feel now. This is an existential threat.”

 

 

This is so important, the whole  " GG is going to lead to real changes in.....gaming journalism " to  " you cant trust ANY  media " to " alternative facts"  is a huge concern to me as in many cases this leads to people believing comments on social media and unquestioningly following Breitbart opinion or other similar websites 

 

It can cause unnecessary invective  and  controversy around public commentary by people, we lose the ability to use objective reasoning and formulate opinions based on facts as we become selective around what parts of a story we dont like or we just believe what someone says on Twitter

 

I am very supportive of this march, I wish I could attend 

[redneckdevil]

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/entry/donald-trump-border-wall_us_5888a9c3e4b0441a8f71f08e

 

Im confused and I need our American members to explain this. For years I have heard endless criticism how Obama overreached in the affairs of the various states through numerous Federal initiatives

 

Now Trump is threatening to hold back Federal funding to any city that doesnt support his immigration policies, these cities have been " sanctuary cities "

 

How is what Trump is threatening to do not interfering in the affairs of the states? This seems very inconsistent and reeks of double standards

what Obama tried to do was take away the states right to chose to do or not something they had the right to decide. Sanctuary cities on the other hand is something a state does not have power to have and it goes against Federal law.

Obama tried to force states to do things they had the right to chose to do. Trump is trying to force states to stop doing something they do NOT have the right to do.

States dont have right to receive degrees of Federal funding and Trump has a right to just take it away? Did you read the link I posted?

 

What you saying is not what New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says

 

" he said in a statement that Trump lacked the authority to take away funding from cities and states "

 

There is a whole section underneath this in the article that clarifies this that I cant paste , please read the link below so you are familiar with the point.

 

https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/824362523529007104/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Which is false. Good example, in the 60s the government pulled and refused funding to cities that did allow segregation in schools. Here in my home state of NC, the govt can legally if they chose to pull funding from our education because of the issue of transgender bathrooms.

 

Also we have to address the elephant in the room. The govt CAN pull funding for sanctuary cities BUT u have to realize that states come up and have their own funding. States can do their own thing against federal law. Federal law is the overlapping laws of the land whereas states have the right within their own rights to chose to obey or disobey a federal law by making one of their own.

states can make laws in some areas superseding federal such as legalizing weed and gay marriage but federal can make laws superseding state laws such as immigration and war and such.

So to keep a balance and cooperation between federal and states is funding.

 

Illegal Immigration is a federal level which states have to bow down to. Cutting funding is more of a quick jab to show u are ready to fight and if u do fight, ur resources are gonna be limited.

[Gfted1]

All these variously titled marches make me belly laugh. There's at least 4 years of sand about to be impacted into their various orifices, they better pace themselves.

 

The Feds twist the states arm with money all the time. Back in the day they threatened to withhold highway monies until the states raised the drinking age to 21. Its just another tool in the box.

[Malcador]

Always find it odd how people sneer at protesters so much. Almost as much as people hating unions for some reason - though sometimes it does get amusing when it boils down to envy.

 

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316216-trump-cited-pro-golfer-as-voter-fraud-example-report

 

Ah, FOAF

[BruceVC]

Always find it odd how people sneer at protesters so much. Almost as much as people hating unions for some reason - though sometimes it does get amusing when it boils down to envy.

 

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316216-trump-cited-pro-golfer-as-voter-fraud-example-report

 

Ah, FOAF

In SA  white people generally never march or protest, its not our culture

 

But for me people must  protest in the interests of a progressive, open society around  whatever they want if that is what they believe in, I support many protests in spirit ....I just wont actually participate unless it was very important to me on a personal level. And I have to be honest I have never attended any march in 42 years

[Gfted1]

I don't care about protesters, go on and get your protest on for whatever you want, its the protest names that are tickling my funny bone. "Womens march", "Awoke mens march", "Scientist march". Oh lordy. If they blow their wad too early they are going to be down to "Generally upset about stuff march" before the end of next week.