HRC and Saturday
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Love HRC. But I hope she doesn't show. This March is not supposed to be about her, per se. She comes, and it turned into the sore loser brigade. Rather than focusing attention on women and minorities and immigrants and Muslims and peaceful resistance to Trump, it will shine the spotlight on HRC. We are now in a post-HRC world. We should not be giving any ammunition to the Trumpkins who meet any citicism of Trump with "sore loser" and "but Hillary". This March is about ideas and values. Not one individual person. |
Anonymous
Yawn. |
Anonymous
Yeah, maybe Alice Walton or some other woman is an investor in Albright's hedge fund? Shaking down poor countries is A-Ok, just be sure the profits go to women! |
Anonymous
Oh FFS |
Anonymous
|
Seriously, Hillary should absolutely not march on Saturday! Yes, she's a woman who believes in woman's rights. But she is also the candidate that lost to Donald Trump. Despite much discussion to the contrary, the country has decided to accept the election results and inaugurate Trump on Friday.
If Hillary marches, it will be seen as a protest against accepting Trump's election...not as a move toward women's solidarity. It will distract from the women's march *and* destabilize our democracy. But then again, I'm pretty sure OP is a troll trying to gin up this non-controversy over Hillary's not marching. |
Anonymous
| Too much of a health risk. |
Anonymous
Donald is, isn't he? Since he never released medical records, really, we're left to assume his bloated, wan body is a time bomb. |
Anonymous
Not a troll. I'm not comparing MLK to HRC by any means. Watching him in those marches really inspired people. Just sad there is so much chaos right now and nobody is shining as that person who can lead the opposition. |
Anonymous
Okay, I'm willing to accept this explanation. But based on my comment, do you understand why Hillary shouldn't/can't march? And, honestly, as much as I like her, she's not a leader in the vein of MLK. If she had inspired that kind of passionate following, we would all be preparing for her inauguration instead of for a march to protest her opponent's Administration. The problem is that leaders just happen, usually through an accident of innate qualities come to the fore at the right moment of history. Weirdly enough, Trump himself is just such a leader, even if he's one many Americans dislike. Many of his followers are quite passionate. We've been lucky in the US, historically, not to have had inspirational leaders who preached divisiveness and hate at the level that Trump is at (though we've certainly had our share)...but now we've got ours. I've been thinking a lot about the malaise in the progressive left since the election, and trying to understand its origins. Several decades ago, Americans accepted much more progressive ideas as the norm than they do today. Yes, the ACA seems to have normalized the idea of universal healthcare, but only while Americans still outright deny their desire for a universal government program. I think the MLK reference of yours is apt, though. MLK did not in any way believe that racial equality/justice was achieved by the passage of the VRA and the CRA, but upon his death the civil rights movement became marginalized and relegated to more extremism. But the lukewarm support for racial equality that we have today was actually something MLK worried about in his lifetime. I think women's rights are the same way. We got some big victories, but the small, everyday stuff remains...and most "allies" don't care so much now that outright sexism is not quite so acceptable. Anyway, no solution to the above, but I do think there's a lack of mainstream leadership on these issues. I think it's because protesting has been painted as such an extremist thing to do. Perhaps that's changing now. |
Anonymous
| Oh, she will be there. Probably not steal the spotlight, but the Clintons are ultimate politicians. Like Trump, they will not miss any chance to be in the limelight. I actually like the Clintons, but they do know how the political game is played and play it fairly well. |
Anonymous
I'm afraid you know the answer, OP. |
Anonymous
|
Prediction: She will march, but it will be in NYC. The event is at the UN and so offers a nice symbolism for her past work empowering women globally, and diminishes the focus on her meaning within the US political process.
She'll come for the Inauguration ceremony because she's a gracious loser, but she will leave DC immediately afterwards. |
Anonymous
|
She will probably make an appearance because it would be held against her when she runs in 2020.
You don't really doubt that she will run again, do you? |
Anonymous
Yay gals! Don't forget to wear your ginahats. |
Anonymous
I am thinking Qatar.....https://www.google.com/amp/s/theinternationalreporter.org/2016/10/17/hillary-clintons-sudden-move-of-1-8-billion-to-qatar-central-bank-stuns-financial-world/amp/?client=ms-android-att-us She didn't seem very gracious on election night. She had a lot of people there who put in a lot of work campaigning and supporting her. Geeze, she could have at least said "thank you" to everyone. But no, she had to be refrained from killing poor Bill and attacking creepy Podesta. |