Post 2: Due Friday 1/27
Choice #1:
This weekend was marked by protests throughout the country. Our textbook talks about the role of conventional and unconventional political activity. These protests would be an example unconventional political activity.
What will the significance, if any, of these protests be? Will they shape policymaking during President Trump's first 100 days?
Please use at least 2 sources in your response to this prompt.
Choice #2:
Listen to or read Donald Trump's inauguration address and respond to the following prompt.
What did you like and/or dislike in the president's speech? Was the speech persuasive? What type of a tone does it set for the president's first 100 days?
Labels: 1st Amendment, first 100 days, unconventional political activity
posted by Ms. Aby @ 4:01 PM
42 Comments:
Between 3.6 and 4.6 million people marched in Women’s March’s all across the world on Saturday, in the largest inauguration protest in history (1). This march united women, people of color, people who are LGBT+, Muslims, feminists, and everyone fearing the results of this election. It was an incredibly powerful movement - unfortunately, I’m not sure how much of an influence it will have on policymaking. As determined as they are, and as many of them as there are, Trump has no mandate to act on the wishes of people who didn’t vote for him. The hundreds of signs reading ‘My Body, My Choice’, ‘Make Margaret Atwood Fiction Again’, and ‘No Uterus, No Opinion’ didn’t stop Trump from signing an executive order within his first three days, defunding International Planned Parenthood (2). This march had many lasting effects, but few, if any, will be on Trump’s policy. As monumental and important as the march was, I highly doubt it will effect Trump’s first 100 days, or his presidency overall.
(1) https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/womens-march-protest-count/514166/
(2) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38729364
I chose to watch President Trump’s inauguration speech. What most people were looking for is whether Trump’s speech was to be conciliatory enough to unify the nation and get more support (1). After watching just the first three minutes, it is clear that he is attempting to make the people feel as though they have defeated the Washington establishment that has forgotten them. This a very powerful message to those who are living in areas affected by trade or economic hardships (like the Rust Belt states that gave Trump the election). This is embodied by his statement that “the forgotten men and women will be forgotten no longer.” This is persuasive on an emotional level to those “hurt” by Washington. The tone was very dark overall. President Trump was trying very hard to make it seem like everything needs fixing. Perhaps the most offensive statement (and clearly I’m biased) was when he said that our “education system” is “flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge.” This is just plain false… or should I say, an “alternative fact” (2). Overall, I would summarize his speech as highly hyperbolic (take “American carnage” for example). Despite all of this, the most frightening part of the speech was his “America first” pledge. This is a very selfish policy to adopt, and it damages our relationships with foreign countries. This “America first” policy will reveal itself in the first 100 days. Trump stated that every decision on trade, taxes, immigration, and foreign policy will be based on an “America first” principle -- this would lead to the assumption that Trump will spend his first 100 days with building the wall, deporting illegal immigrants, restructuring our relations with Russia and Israel, and working with businesses in an attempt to keep them in America (3). Overall I did not like the speech, because President Trump is essentially trying to take us for fools and buy into his hyperbolic rhetoric.
(1) http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Trump-s-inaugural-speech-What-experts-say-to-10870118.php
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSrEEDQgFc8&t=126s
(3) http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days
For Blog Post#2 I choose to complete choice #2 which asked about President Trumps inaugural address. In Trumps Inaugral address I liked the fact that he shows that their will be challenges to be overcome in the White House. Furthermore, the cnn.com transcript of the inaugural address shows that" Donald Trump said" We the citizens of America our joined together in the rebuilding of our nation"(1). This shows that Trump believes that America can be fixed. However, I didn't like that part about the speech because Trump wants to fix America the Trump way, which is different from reality. I also disliked the fact that Trump used the words" America first", because is showcases an isolationist sentiment that is not possible, because of America's involvement in the modern world(1). The speech, by any means, was not persuasive, because Trump backtracked(again) on some of his campaign promises. My opinon is also supported when Vox.com states" "We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones" Trump vowed in his inaugural, a near contradiction with his broadside against" defending other nations borders""(2). This shows that Trump, will not follow through with a large percentage of the campaign promises he made. In conclusion, Trump speech sets a tone of confusion, because a lot of the promises he made are vague, and probably very hard to do.
Sources:
1. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/trump-inaugural-address/
2. http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/20/14337956/donald-trump-inaugural-address-transcript-foreign-policy
I watched President Trump’s speech, and overall had mixed feelings about it. Overall he did not waver from his message and his style. He most definitely reached out to the “silent majority” who voted him into office, the people who feel let down and passed over by former governments. He called out to them and painted a picture of glory and hope. Of course, as this is a theme of his, he never really used any specifics as to how he would do as he promised. He also took on a neo-isolationist view saying that we have been sending out our money to other countries while ignoring our own, but being sure not to leave out the fight against terrorism. He tried to bring together the country by saying “whether you are black, or brown, or white we all bleed the same red blood of patriots” and using group pronouns mostly in the beginning of the speech but it was obvious who he was really referring to. The grandiose line seemed like an poorly placed ploy considering what has been happening recently. That being said, he is a marketer and such tactics have already worked out for him. I believe that the speech will not convince everybody but it will inspire the people that he needs to be inspired and sets the tone of large changes to come.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/trump-inaugural-address/
(option #1)
I think these protests are of great significance since they clearly represent a large portion of the public’s opinions and stance on the issues. (2) The Women’s March expanded to 500 hundred cities around the nation and was attended by about (3) 3.3 million people. Signs displayed discontent of the new presidency, concerns and statements of strength and female empowerment. The Women’s March also spread to cities around the world, in these “sister” marches the same hopes and ideals were expressed by the participant’s signs. The Philadelphia protests were another example of the reaction to the ideas being expressed by the new President. (1) 10,000 participants in the city protested the Dakota Access Pipeline, the repeal of the ACA, Black Lives Matter, refugee and immigration reform, because of the President’s arrival in the city. Though in the end, I do not think that the protests will influence President Trump’s policymaking done in the next 100 days of his presidency.
(1) http://www.fox29.com/news/local-news/231879503-story
(2)http://www.vox.com/2017/1/22/14350808/women's-marches-largest-demonstration-us-history-map
(3)https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1xa0iLqYKz8x9Yc_rfhtmSOJQ2EGgeUVjvV4A8LsIaxY/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0
I think the tone of the inauguration speech is very patriotic which is what you’d expect from the president, but I think it feels as if he’s not acknowledging the lack of support that he has. Near the beginning he says, “Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power.” However, the Women’s March and other protests throughout the US have shown that this was not a peaceful transfer of power. Him being president has upset many people, especially since he had lost the popular vote therefore losing a majority of the voter’s support. His positive outlook on his first 100 days doesn’t capture the emotions of all those who oppose him and his plans.
I also feel that the tone was meant to be inspiring. He declared that he wants to transfer power to the people. He tries to show the turmoil that inflicts America now and how he’ll fix all their problems. In his list of examples of issues the US faces, he claims some as being ”an education system flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.” I dislike this statement especially because of his proposed solution. His solution was to bring businesses back to America.
He emphasizes and exaggerates all the effects of the foreign markets using weighty words like “factories shuttered” and wealth ripped from middle class. However, the problems he brought up earlier about education and drugs aren’t acknowledged by this solution at all. Instead, he moves on to inspire ideas of jobs and putting America first. The repetition of “we” is used throughout the following parts of the speech, and he tries to establish unity among us by doing this, but I feel as if his idea doesn’t characterize America at all right now, so that was something I didn’t like very much about the speech.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/trump-inaugural-address/
This comment has been removed by the author.
These protests were highly significant, but I do not think that they will affect Trump's first one hundred days. The protests were massive: experts estimate total crowds between three, and four and a half million people. This was insane turnout, and goes to show how deeply people reject Trump's rhetoric. Unfortunately, protests can not directly affect Trump's programs. He is now the president, and has control over the executive branch. Trump has already began to implement his plans, such as approving the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines, and developing plans for his "border wall". No matter how much he is opposed by the people, they are effectively powerless against him for the next four years. With a Congress that supports him, he is stronger than millions. In addition, President Trump tries to avoid the subject of the march as best he can. He went out of his way to avoid the marches, speaking at CIA headquarters in Virginia, and bragging about his inaugural crowds (which, for the record, were far smaller than than the rallies' crowds). In conclusion, the marches were significant and important, but will have no impact on Trump's administration, or his first hundred days.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/the-significance-of-millions-in-the-streets/514091/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/womens-march.html
This past Saturday, on January 21st, was the Women’s March. The protest hosted many direct stabs at the Trump administration, from signs to speeches, the widespread discontent was clear. There is no debate about whether this march will have an impact, but rather about whether it will have an impact on Trump’s policy, especially in his first 100 days. I believe that just the march is not enough to change the policies that Trump plans on enacting, a fact made clear when Trump reinstated the “Global Gag Rule” only a few days after the protest [1]. However, the march represented so much than one protest, on one day. Throughout the event many speakers made a call to action, attempting to persuade others not to stop the fighting. Many people gave examples of ways to continue making a difference, such as running for office and calling representatives in Congress [2]. If people do these things, the impact could be significant. The “Global Gag Rule” came so shortly after the march that there was little time for anything to be done. So in conclusion, I believe that the march was a very big call to action, and will have an impact, but it may not show soon, or even within the first 100 days.
1:http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-abortion-after-womens-march-global-gag-rule-where-exactly-does-president-2479735
2:http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/womens-march-speeches/
On the day of his inauguration, Donald Trump presented the country with a speech fit for the masses. Full of rhetoric, Trump clearly wrote this speech to garner support from the people and to show how he will bring change. While the speech did not incredibly bolster my belief for the President personally, there were a few aspects that I did like. Throughout the speech Trump presented the idea that politicians should respond to the people, and I believe that that is a good point. I also liked Trump’s mention of the necessity of improvements in infrastructure as that is clearly a huge problem facing our country today.
However, although I agreed with some general aspects of Trump’s speech, there were quite a few things that I found inadequate. Mostly that Trump presented many claims and few solutions. For example, Trump claimed that he would return American jobs and restore middle class prosperity but gave little to no plan for how he would do so. Another aspect that I disliked was one of the most hotly criticized lines “it’s going to be America first” (1). Although it is possible that Trump simply meant that American prosperity is top priority, it just made him seem very uncaring about the needs of our allies and of other countries.
Although not so much to me, Trump’s speech was very persuasive in itself. Throughout the speech Trump utilized incredible amounts of rhetoric to rally the people. He used ethos to establish his credibility by pushing down the previous administration by saying that they “reaped the rewards of government” while the people suffered (1). He also used tremendous pathos by saying things such as that every American bleeds red and that he would fight for America with “every breath” in his body (1). Overall, the speech was well designed to garner support if one only took it at face value. This whole speech definitely foreshadowed that Trump’s first 100 days will bring huge governmental changes, mostly aimed at benefiting the people and restoring jobs.
(1)http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/trump-inaugural-address/
Currently, Trump’s approval rating is lower than any other new president in polling history [2]. He has a disapproval rating of 45 percent [2]. There have been protests across the country since the inauguration for causes such as: disability rights, women’s rights, and protests against newly implemented and proposed policy. One of the protests that caught my eye was the protest in response to President Trump’s authorization and signing of orders to continue of the keystone pipeline projects. On Tuesday night, Trump signed executive orders that cleared the way for the projects [1]. This controversial action seems to have not been influenced by and the actions of Trump have not been affected by these protests. He still followed through with his policy decision despite the gathering of hundreds of people holding hands walking the streets of Washington D.C. [1]. I see that the weight of public opinion is not something that President Trump finds of great value in his decisions. I think that it is likely that his first 100 days will consist of many of the policy platform ideas that were a part of his campaign platform such as wall-building, and pro-life policy. It is likely that he will stick to these policies despite opposition and controversy.
Sources:
[1]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/pipeline-protests-resume-after-trump-revives-keystone-dakota-projects.html
[2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/01/25/trumps-initial-approval-ratings-are-setting-new-unhappy-records/
The protestors of the march on Washington said they are marching to remind the country about the need to expand and protect women’s rights (1). Organiers were esxpecting 200,000 marchers to gather at the National Mall. I don’t think that the protests will affect the policymaking in the first 100 days. President Trump has banned funding to notorious abortion providers (2).
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/20/510706246/protesters-prepare-for-womens-march-after-trumps-inauguration
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trump-didnt-just-re-enact-the-old-ban-on-funding-international-planned-pare
I am doing the protest one. I am split a little on how all of the protests will affect Trump. I look at this two ways. I think he may be similar to Bush and basically don’t care about what other people are saying. I also think he may all of sudden react to these with violence and being crazy. I think we can see this by some of the tweets that he will send out occasionally. This could cause him to react to the protest by doing whatever he can to push back against them. For example I think that if it was a protest about gay rights, he would do whatever he can to take their rights away. I think that he is going to overreact to things like this and be spiteful to anyone who is against him. That's what I personally think he will do. I think the other thing that he could do to things like this is just ignore them. I think that he could act like Bush and basically ignore what they are saying. The protest will either really affect how he will run the next 100 days or not at all. The protest I think signify the divide in the country and how badly we need someone who is a moderate president. There has been a lot of protests recently and there is a lot of hate between people. I think we need to take a step back from this and take a deep breath. I don’t like trump and I didn’t support him, but I have friends, family, and neighbors that voted for him. No matter what I still love these people and I think the way some people are acting right now is pathetic. I know people who have lost friendships because they didn’t support the same candidate and I think that is so immature. I have seen videos online where they have a guy wearing a Trump hat and while walking down the street people will push him and take his hat and I think that is so pathetic. I think peaceful protests are good, but the types of protests we are seeing today are making things worse for not only them, but for everyone.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/trump-inauguration-protests-womens-march/
http://dailysignal.com/2017/01/20/so-much-for-tolerance-photos-of-the-violent-protests-of-trumps-inauguration/
As far as protests go, the main significance of them is that they demonstrate the sheer number of people in opposition to Trump. While I expected a large number of people to participate in the protest last weekend, I was suprised by the diversity of people who participated in them. I think this goes to show that people of many different backgrounds oppose Trump, which crushed some sterotypes about the protests. The passion and inspiring stories that came out of the protests clearly shows that they will continue to happen throughout his presidency. Even today, protestors in MPLS/St. Paul gathered to oppose Trump's executive order authorizing forward action on the Keystone XL Pipeline (1). This is just one of many issues that Trump will make decisions on during his first 100 days that could trigger more protests. Unfortunately, I do not think Trump will be swayed by these actions. He made many promises during his campaign, and as far as I can tell, he is planning on keeping them. While this means upsetting much of the nation, other countries, and even some of his initial supporters, Trump seems intent on following through with his agenda, such as building the wall on the Mexican border (personally I think maybe we should oblidge him and build a wall, but only make it one inch tall, just to say there is technically a wall there). In his first week Trump has halted federal funding to global health organizations that provide abortions (or even talk about them), frozen federal hires, started to get rid of Obamacare, signed two executive orders related to the Keystone XL pipeline, and pissed off one of the lowest rated Mexican president's so much that he had to make a video and post it on Facebook (2). Clearly, Trump plans on pushing ahead on full steam and I do not think these protests will stop him or influence his policymaking in the days to come.
(1) http://www.fox9.com/news/232196792-story
(2) http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14370594/donald-trump-policies-accomplishments-achievements
I think that the protests, specifically the Women's Marches will have a lasting impact on the public, if not the Trump administration. This is because of the magnitude of the marches, and the wide variety of supporters and causes that they included. Among their many goals, the marches focused on: equal pay, reproductive rights, LGBT rights, and open immigration. [1]
Personally, while I wish it were otherwise, I don't believe that the protests will have any effect on Trump's first one hundred days. As I said before, the marches championed reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, and immigration. Trump has already failed in these categories thus far. For example, on Tuesday, Trump signed an executive order defunding Planned Parenthood. [2] This clearly goes against the message of reproductive rights that the marches tried to express. While Trump hasn't taken concrete action against the LGBT community, a foreboding incident has been the disappearance of the LGBT rights page of whitehouse.gov immediately following his inauguration. [3] This is, of course, not a dramatic action taken, but it speaks to the tone of the new administration, and definitely goes against the LGBT aspect of the marches. Finally, Trump took serious action against immigration today. He signed an executive order effectively suspending the US refugee program and banning Syrians indefinitely. [4] Again, this is quite plainly against the marches' pro-immigration stance. In short, I don't believe that Trump will consider the marches in his decision-making.
Sources:
1. http://www.vox.com/2017/1/21/14342942/womens-march-inauguration-trump-protest-goals-feminism-demands
2. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/24/donald-trump-signs-executive-order-defunding-inter/
3. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/moments-after-donald-trump-became-president-the-white-houses-lgbt-rights-page-disappeared/
4. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38777437
Last weekend, following President Trump’s inauguration ceremony, protests including the Women’s March on Washington and its sister marches in other cities across the country occurred. According to political scientist professors reporting to the Atlantic, anywhere from 3.6-4.6 million people participated in these marches (1). The large turnouts at these protests and events emphasizes the fact that American society is still very polarized and there is still discontent over the election results from this past November. These protests are also important since they’re bringing public attention to key social issues that have not been addressed by the new president, Donald Trump. Some of the reasons why many people marched was to protect women’s abortion rights, address climate change, and to fight for equal rights for women, minorities, and LGBTQ community. Even though I support the movement behind these protests, I am afraid that the social issues advocated by the people will be ignored during Trump’s first 100 days of office. Since taking office, President Trump has already signed an executive order to ban funding international health groups that pay for abortions in other countries, encouraged the construction of the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline, begun the process of repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act, suspended the U.S. refugee admissions program for 120 days, and continued to advocate for the construction of a wall along the United State’s border with Mexico (2).
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/womens-march-protest-count/514166/
2. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14370594/donald-trump-policies-accomplishments-achievements
I listened to Trump's inaugural address. I liked how Trump seemed to depart from his harmful and narrow-minded rhetoric at least for this speech and tried to address all listeners. Although he mainly stuck to his campaign promises, he branched out slightly and spoke about how he wanted to help redevelop impoverished parts of the country and reestablish the middle class, and although I can't say I agree with much Trump says, his speech was rather persuasive. If he truly follows through with what he said in his speech about being a president for all Americans and listening to all political interests, then his presidency might not be as bad as many predicted. Whether or not Trump follows through on his goals he spoke of during his campaign, his speech made it clear that Trump intends to have a productive first 100 days. Since his term started, Trump has issued numerous executive orders, and although many of his actions have been controversial, he is definitely taking action.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/trump-inaugural-address/
I watched Trump’s inaugural address and I didn’t like very much of it. If I had to pick out something that I liked I would say that he seemed very optimistic that all of his plans are going to work, and somehow make the country better. It’s always good when a president is optimistic about the future of the country, but I personally do not agree with his vision for the country. Trump did not talk about all of the legislation he promised during his campaign. Instead he just talked about everything he was going to help Americans with, without saying how he was going to do it. I was also surprised that he did not spend the whole time bashing other people like most of his previous speeches were during his campaign. I thought his speech was persuasive, the overall message was that the government was finally going to give back to the American people. Through his words and promises it was very persuasive in creating more optimism for his presidency. I predict that Trump’s first 100 days as president will be ones of action, and him trying to get as close to his promises as he can within those days. As we have already seen with his recent executive orders, I predict that they will continue for his first 100 days, as he tries to create as many policies as possible.
These protests are significant because it shows a response to the uneasy feeling of Trump’s presidency not only within the United States but around the world. The women’s march sparked conversation and controversy between Democrats and Republicans nationwide, and the significance of social media during these protests pertains to what seems like a harshly divided country in which Trump as created. The protests happening are directly against Trump’s presidency and his plans for his first 100 days. These protests will not positively impact Trump’s plans or executive orders, but if his approval rating from Republicans drops it is likely that the legislative and executive branch may have to overcome difficulties and obstacles in creating policies that the public won’t oppose.(1) I think with social issues such as immigration and human rights, there will be a continuation of public outrage and discontent that will lower approval ratings. For the economy however, fiscally conservative politicians and citizens will likely see a positive change for themselves. (2) Yet with research I’ve found that it is hard to find a clear map of what exactly Trump will do versus what he thinks he can do. Considering what Trump has already accomplished, I highly doubt that he will have a change of heart no matter how many people disapprove of him.
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13335121/1/if-donald-trump-was-president-here-s-what-would-happen-to-the-u-s-economy.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-response-womens-march/
As the women's march was the biggest one-day protest in US history, there is significance in that. About 2.9 million women marched. I admire their dedication to the cause of women’s rights. With all of their efforts, I believe that there will be little effect on President Trump’s first 100 days. The most he did after the protests was acknowledged that the people have the right to protest. (2) "Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views." said President Trump. In a way this is a good thing, it shows that he hears what they have to say. He supports the right to protest, which is in the Constitution, although he may disregard what the protest is about, because it does not benefit his and his party's political views.
1. http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/21/womens-march-biggest-protest-history- estimated-2-4-million-march.html
2. http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trump-responds-to-womens-march-protests-w462359
The Womens March on Washington that took place on January 21st 2017, was a historical and massive march. The march expanded beyond Washington D.C., with sister marches across the United States and the world. The Womens March is a movement that has a wide range of goals from supporting black lives matter, abortion rights, and putting an end to climate change. But many question the effectiveness of the Womens March and protests alike. The Womens march had support from many varying parts of society. The diverse support from these different parts of society shows that it is a matter affecting a lot of people (1). The Womens March also drew attention from a lot of elected government officials which makes a movement more likely to succeed because members are in a position of power. But did it grab the attention of the new President. President Trump took to twitter, of course to share his frustrations with the marchers, tweeting “watched protests yeaterday but was under the impression that we just had an election! Why didn’t these people vote?” (2). Maybe they were a part of the 3 million votes that went to Hillary Clinton that won her the popular vote. Trump continues to show frustration when people display their first amendment rights, and these protests will probably continue to have zero effect on his first 100 days. Trump has made it clear where he stands on womens rights issues and all other issues womens marchers marched for. Trump has been signing executive order after executive order, from banning muslims from 7 different countries from entering the United States, to reinstating the global gag rule. Trumps first week was full of decisions that will forever change our country, we will have to see what else his first 100 days will bring.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/30/why-the-womens-march-may-be-the-start-of-a-serious-social-movement/?utm_term=.4cfdf6c28317
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/donald-trump-twitter-womens-march-inauguration-tv-ratings/
Protests around the country in recent weeks, from the Women's March to protests about Trump's executive order that prevents citizens of many Middle Eastern countries from entering the United States, have been some of the largest ever seen. Around 2.6 million people all over the world took part in the Women's march, and protests about Trump's executive order are still ongoing in cities all around the United States (1, 2). These protests have significance because they're widespread and not isolated to a single area. The Women's March took place in all 50 states and 32 different countries, which shows that this resistance is happening all over the world (1).The level of disapproval shown for Trump and his presidency shown by these protests is also significant, as it demonstrates how divided our country is and how many Americans are unhappy with the current United States. I'm not sure if these protests will shape Trump's policymaking, as he tends to ignore any opposition to him, but I think they will have an impact on other policymakers in the government. The protests over Trump's executive order pushed many lawmakers to call the order unconstitutional, and a large number of Congress members have spoken out against it. Such a large showing of public discontent pushes members of the government to speak out and make changes for their constituents, so the future policy of America will likely be a battle between Trump and Congress.
1. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/21/womens-march-aims-start-movement-trump-inauguration/96864158/
2. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/inside-the-huge-jfk-airport-protest-over-trumps-muslim-ban-w463615
These protests, both the Women's March on January 21st, as well as those that have taken place in the days since, will be significant not because they will have a political impact, but because of their social impact. They say to the Trump supporters, and to Trump himself, that though he may have won the election (though even that is unsure), he has not won public support. These protests will almost assuredly have a historical impact, and even now there is a growing Wikipedia Page about the numerous protests against him [1] Even more impressive than the number of protests and the number of people taking part, is how widespread they are. The Women's March alone had sister marches across the globe, with women in Antarctica taking place in it [2] meaning that people across all 7 continents took part in it. Based on his response to the protests that have already occurred, I don't think that Trump will be too affected by them, though his supporters in Congress may withdraw their support of him when faced with widespread public dissent. If they haven't already begun to waver in their support of Trump, the fact that there are already two more major marches planned [3][4] may shake their resolve.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Donald_Trump
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/21/world/womens-march-pictures.html?_r=0
[3] http://taxmarch.org/
[4] https://www.marchforscience.com/#
The protests that have occurred since Donald Trump's inauguration, I think are representative of a trend towards lack of any faith in our government. Clearly, the is a significant amount of vitriol and vehemence around Trump's election from both sides of the argument. I for one, practically couldn't believe he got elected but I've moved on. Evidently, there are many people who do not share this sentiment. The Washington Post has had several posts given a view of these protests as a growing social movement (1). I would argue that it was already there and that it simply reared its head when politicians who disagreed with those views were elected. It of course doesn't help that certain politicians have shown blatant disdain to these protests (cough cough Michael Speciale) which just exacerbates the problem (2). Of course, my view on the matter is being held at matter-of-fact because of the presence of people whose belief is that people who share a number of parts of my demographic makeup are evil because past transgressions. In any case, I think that it is important to heed the existence of these protests as they contain representatives of a movement which has gained enough traction to scare universities into firing Nobel Prize winning Ph.Ds (3). I do not think that the protests will even remotely affect the first 100 days of Trump's presidency because honestly, the current Congress doesn't have the representation of the variety that sympathizes in this movement enough to change the current course. The second issue to note alongside this that if these protests aren't backed up with productive actions (lobbying, petitions, etc.) beyond mass protests, I cannot support it on principle. Think of it this way: no matter how "correct" an idea is, if those that support it fail to vie for it in a way that makes progress, I consider the movement as "causing trouble rather than helping".
(1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/30/why-the-womens-march-may-be-the-start-of-a-serious-social-movement/?utm_term=.28ea676df64b
(2) http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article129591629.html
(3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/15/nobel-laureate-tim-hunt-says-he-was-forced-to-resign-i-have-been-hung-to-dry-by-academic-institutes/?utm_term=.900b3193968c
On the day of his inauguration, Donald Trump delivered a speech that was charged with spite and nostalgia, and sounded quite similar to one of his campaign speeches. There were strong and weak parts to it. What confounded me the most about the speech was actually the crowd, which was slow to respond and cheer for the President's rhetoric compared to the inaugurations of previous presidents. The speech seemed confident and persuasive, but now having seen his first week in office, I found that his inauguration speech was very literal. When he spoke of all Americans regardless of skin color all bled the same blood, I was enlivened with the hope of some sort of support for race equity. But, he meant this quite literally, that only American's in America have rights. His recent Muslim immigration ban showed that you were only safe if you were an American citizen, which is comforting to some, but perplexing to others. I prefer the way his speech sounded, and enjoyed the way that he seemed to value all races equally, and I support this idea instead of his practical application of this idea.
Another fascinating part of his speech which I enjoyed was his focus on the creation of jobs. This part was persuasive and positive, though I know the reality of American jobs surging is highly unlikely. What I appreciated about this comment is that it echoed the sentiments of FDR, a highly liberal President. Trump's seeming support for infrastructure upgrade mirrors FDR's plan for recovery from the Great Depression. I have no doubt that those present at the inauguration failed to realize Trump's parallels to the liberal President, which is humorous to the educated observer. I appreciate these ideals for American advancement, but I'm guessing Trump's actions in the first 100 days to get America "proud again" will be through orders and actions I do not agree with, despite the positive rhetoric.
Since Trump has taken office, there have been several protests throughout the whole country. These protests show the opinions of many American citizens, and how they may compare to the ideas and plans of Trump. One protest that I find interesting is the Women’s March that took place on January 21st in locations across the country, and also in several other countries around the world. It is estimated that between 1% and 1.5% of the US population was on the streets on this day to protest in support of women's rights(1). I think that these protests will be significant to our country because their sizes are unprecedented. The protests that occurred on January 21st are the largest inauguration protests, the second biggest in size being the Vietnam protests during Nixon’s inaugurations(2). These seem to set a tone for the rest of the presidency of Trump, they show that people are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in and are willing to work together to keep their voice heard. I think that this could impact Trump’s policy making because he might be more careful with what policies he pursues in the first 100 days. Although I am not convince Trump is too worried about what the American people think, he may want to cooperate with the majority views held in the country. By seeing these massive protests, and especially the women’s march, he might want to hold off on making any policy decisions relating to this topic. It also may show Trump that he needs to be more careful with what he says and does because the American public are not afraid to stand up against him.
(1)https://www.socialistalternative.org/2017/01/30/millions-women-march-trump/
(2)http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/01/17/womens-march-washington-where-when-logistics/96156298/
People near and far love to argue that protesting is just means for vandalizing and violence. They often argue that it doesn't get anything done, or that it's better to partake in peaceful conversation instead of protesting. Most people who have views like this are because they're privileged to not be apart of any demographic that is being oppressed. We're currently dealing with a president who has just put forth a travel ban that is inciting global chaos. This ban is deeply rooted in nationalism and islamophobia. Even better yet, the Trump team never official ran the order by officials at the Justice Department, so now we have a president who is withholding information from our own government and taking the rules by the reigns (1).
I don't know if protesting this atrocity is going to help anything, or change anything, but we're going to keep doing it until it does. People are not going to stop protesting until our brothers and sisters are protected to their full capacity, and not oppressed by our government and those who run it.
I am interested to see if Trump is going to start to crumble under the populations pressures. MAny people are incredibly displeased with the travel ban (look, we tried warning y'all) and were upset with the latest changes with the ACA (2). It's easy to say things are faulty when they're not actually being taken away. The people are beginning to get mad, and I don't think Trump is going to actually listen to them. Whatever happens after that will be catastrophic.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/trump-travel-ban-q-and-a/
(2)http://www.forbes.com/sites/kateashford/2017/01/30/aca/
This comment has been removed by the author.
Within the first 10 days of Trump's presidency, protests like the Women's March and the #NoBanNoWall protests have already broken out. The Women's March was a peaceful demonstration protesting issues regarding women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and immigration reform. With the number of marchers amounting to over 3 million from all 50 states and over 30 countries, The Women's March became one of the biggest single day demonstrations, and is also a huge signifier for the major disapproval of Trump (1). Many conservatives have spoken out about how protesting won't change anything directly regarding Trump's policy making decision, and regrettably I'd have to agree. Within his first week and a half in office, Trump has already signed 10+ executive orders and presidential memorandums, including the Muslim ban, defunding of Planned Parenthood, and the allowance for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline (2). Unfortunately, Trump has made his stance clear on the issues being protested, like women's rights and immigration reform, so it seems very unlikely that these protests will affect his policy making in these areas. However, I believe that protesting is necessary because it shows our voice and raises awareness to Trump's repulsive policies. With so many people showing their dissent towards Trump, incumbents will most definitely be prompted to rethink their decisions regarding Trump's policies.
(1) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/womens-march-we-showed-up-in-numbers-too-large_us_58861ec4e4b0d96b98c1de3e
(2) - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/01/30/president-trump-executive-actions-complete-list-so-far-orders/97229452/
Trump's first 100 days will undoubtedly be affected by the recent protests. The protests that will affect him the most is the Women's March. As protesters made their voices heard, as more than one million people all over the globe showed up to march, far more people than who showed up for Trump's inauguration.[1] Everywhere from Texas to Minnesota, women marched. According to the Texas Tribune, "Tens of thousands of Texans took part in women's marches across the state on Saturday flooding the streets around the state Capitol in Austin."[2] I believe this will impact who Trump panders to during his first days in office, as he realizes the power and numbers of women who are standing up for their rights and could be the difference between reelection or loss. These marches will probably discourage him from signing executive orders or passing legislation that would be unfavorable to women, although he hasn't been off to a good start.[3] If Trump wants any hope of being reelected, I believe he will at least withhold some less important legislation to him that women and Democrats may view negatively.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/womens-march-donald-trump-inauguration-sizes/
[2] https://www.texastribune.org/2017/01/21/thousands-expected-participate-texas-womens-marche/
[3] http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trump-mexico-city-policy/
I read President Donald Trump's Inaugural Address. I liked the sentence “We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.” I liked that he was addressing all of America. In addition, I liked his statement, “We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.” This shows that he is ready to get to work right away. This is not good for all of Americans because some of Trump’s policies will negatively affect some of Americans. In my opinion, President Trump’s speech was not persuasive. It was more like a rally speech for people who supported Trump. A lot of what he said during his speech were issues that he talked about while campaigning. He promised to make America great again. However, because of his reputation, many Americans do not believe Trump will do these things. Many believe that Trump will be bad for America. The tone was very enthusiastic. Trump hopes to accomplish a lot of his agenda that he talked about on the campaign trail.
I read Donald Trump’s Inauguration Address. I liked his remarks about coming together as a country and acknowledges that there will be hardships and challenges but we as a country still needs to get the job done. I also liked the quote, “the nation exists to serve its’ citizens.” It is good that he says we and talks about America as a whole as well. I did not like how a lot of the speech was talking about the forgotten Americans, but when he refers to that he is pretty much referring to the people who voted for him. I also did not like how he said “What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people” because I do not think Trump will back track on some of the things he said he would like to do as president, even if there are mass protests and it is not in favor of the people of America. Overall, it sets the tone that President Trump plans to make many moves in his first 100 days of office. It seems like he is determined to get as much as he can done.
I want to comment on the Women's March and the possible effects that it may have on the first 100 days of Trump's presidency. First of all, I would like to state that the amount of people that joined in the march was astounding, clocking in at around 680 total marches around the country, and around 5 million people joining in (1). This is an astonishing number of people and I truly believe that it shows that no matter who is in control, we as a nation will have a constitutional right to protest the government peacefully. However, I still believe this will have a very limited way in affect Trump's 100 day plan, as I have some criticism, especially in 2 major ways.
The first criticism I have about the protest is that the overall message to me is confusing. With a name like the "WOMEN'S March" I expect to be the overall message to be about female empowerment and gender equality, which I think is a great message and needs to be stood up for, as many women in this country still get discriminated against in a too often basis. But the problem was, that wasn't what the protest was about, as this message was diluted by multiple others like Black Lives Matter and just overall Trump protesters(2). In some cases, diversity of opinion doesn't help a cause become more convincing (labor unions in the late 1800s like the AFL, or civil rights groups in the 1950s had this same problem of too many viewpoints diluting a cause). I argue that this dilution of message makes the overall meaning less appealing to many conservatives and moderates, including myself.
My second reason for thinking that there will be little to no effect on Trump's 100 day plan is that the protest seems a little too late. The time to band together against Trump (if that was the actual purpose because I really couldn't tell by the protests, again because of the mixed messages) should have been before the election to gather support and mobilize voters for Hilary Clinton, a women who could have been elected if gotten more support in a few more states (aka Florida, Pennsylvania, etc). Because the protest seems a little too late, and Trump and the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress are already elected, I don't believe that there will be a major effect on policy-making due to the fact that the officials elected already have a plan set out and ready, so no amount of dissenting protest will affect that.
1)http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444182/womens-march-washington-conservative-experience
2)http://nypost.com/2017/01/16/the-very-mixed-messages-of-the-womens-march-against-trump/
I thought that overall, Donald Trump’s inaugural address was representative of his campaign strategies. His words, while powerful, revealed very little on his plans for policy decisions and his ideas. I personally think that Donald Trump will, at least, do what he thinks is best for current American citizens, and nothing in this speech appeared to be a “red flag” in that regard. However, there are billions of people that are not current american citizens. Millions of these people live in America. While I appreciate what Trump is attempting to do for the American people, I have always taken pride in the way America has aided other countries and their citizens. Although it is the job of the president to make American citizens a top priority, the wording of Trump’s address made it sound like American citizens would be the only priority. The so-called “America first” that foreign citizens are apparently no longer the President’s problem, to me, greatly disconcerting.
I did think the speech was fairly persuasive, in a Trump-esque sort of way. Similar to his campaign, Trump has appealed to the discontent of many Americans, as well as promise to fix the grievances of average citizens without intricate knowledge of foreign relations and policy. His inaugural address was about as persuasive at any given one of his rallies, albeit in a less region-specific manner. I think anyone who voted for Trump would’ve been encouraged by this speech, but those who didn’t might remain neutral.
Finally, I think this address has very clear implications for Trump’s first 100 days. Amidst speculation that Trump may become more moderate now that he has won the election. However, there is no evidence in this speech to support such a shift. All of Trump’s promised actions, such as a Travel Ban, a renegotiation of TPP and NAFTA, and an aggressive shift in Iraqi troop movement are consistent with the “America First” stance.
Speech: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/20/donald-trumps-full-inauguration-speech-transcript-annotated/?utm_term=.1547114e7756
Although Trump's first 100 days have started off quite tragically, they are predicted to worsen still. There have been many recent protests scattered across the country such as the Women's March and protests against the ban on seven Muslim countries coming to America Trump issued. Although it is unlikely that protests of any sort will change Trump's mind and attitude towards specific policy implementations,they are still vital in displaying how the majority of Americans are affected by his decisions. Protests against common issues like discrimination against LGBT individuals, women, and different races (1) "can’t solve themselves without making the public aware that it’s even an issue." When large groups of people come together to fight for a common cause, allows the said issues to be given attention and ultimately, in some cases, a solution. (2) Newsweek comments on the Muslim ban as "not only conflicting fundamentally with long-standing American values, but also seriously undermining the country’s economic dynamism and its ability to harness the talent and enthusiasm of immigrant workers." Without equal rights for all, America will go back in time instead of becoming more progressive.
(1) http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2017/01/column-never-forget-the-importance-of-protest
(2) http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-muslim-ban-us-economy-immigration-551616
However much I don’t like to admit it, I actually partially liked reading Donald Trump’s inauguration speech. He spoke a lot about how he was bringing America back to America and how he was focusing on us first and other nations second. He tried to portray that the American people would be put first, which appeals to most people because people are selfish. He also talked about how we were going to become a strong, independent country.
I didn’t like how he kept making religious references, even though church and state should be separated. He said, “The Bible tells us, ‘How good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity.’” He also said, “we are protected by God,” and “the same almighty Creator.” Personally, that turned me away from the speech and probably would have done the same for anyone who is not Christian. I also didn’t like how he kept bashing the Obama Administration without naming names, and not giving it any of the credit it deserves for the last 8 years. He kept saying things like, “we are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country,” and other similar phrases in order to make him seem better. I feel like his speech would have been more impactful if he had acknowledged that the previous administration had helped the country at least in some way, instead of only saying what they did wrong.
The speech was fairly persuasive in its arguments, but it didn’t actually have many facts to back it up. A few times, Trump talks about how jobs left and factories closed, but he didn’t really give any specifics. He did use repetition and did appeal to people’s personal interests, talking about how the government was going back to the people. These parts were pretty persuasive, along with his new hope for how our country should be run.
As for the first 100 days, Trump’s address sets the tone of major change. He spoke about how this change of administrations was going to give the government back to Americans and do things very differently than the Obama Administration. He spoke of reform in education, immigration, employment and even transportation. His first 100 days in office will surely be eventful ones.
(Option #1)
The protests hold significance because they show the discontent of hundreds of thousands of people with Trump’s presidency. For example, the Women’s march was held on January 21, and symbolized the union of women, the LGBT community, people of color, and countless other minorities (1). This was a powerful movement held to protest Trump’s questionable policy ideas towards minorities within the US. Unfortunately, I do not believe this show of unity will have much of an effect on Trump’s plans. Trump still chose to defund Planned Parenthood, despite the march. He still placed a ban on travel, despite the march. I doubt this strong, monumental show of unity will do much to his plans for the future. Trump even chose to criticize the participants in the Women’s march, asking why they didn’t care enough to vote (2). If the president chooses to criticize a group of protesters I don’t believe that he will change his plans to fit what the protesters want.
1 - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/womens-march.html?_r=0
2 - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/donald-trump-criticizes-women-march-participants-article-1.2952858
President Trump’s inaugural address actually surprised me, as it was different from many other speeches I have heard from him. Trump attempted to appeal to the people throughout his speech, by saying that he is giving power “back to the people”, and saying that “the United States of America, is your country”. This rhetoric attempts to reach out to the American people and metaphorically give the power to them. This particular aspect is persuasive, as it follows the rhetoric of one of the most famous presidential speeches, the Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln. The famous quote from this speech, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” has similar attributes to Trump’s rhetoric in his address (1). However, despite Trump’s attempts at historically a well-taken way of addressing the public, his speech appeared robotic to me. Although his words were talking a lot about how important the American people are, he struggles to successfully connect with them in his speech. He stares blankly off into the distance at the start for an entire 13 seconds. This and many other awkward stares reduces his credibility and persuasiveness, as it seems like he doesn’t understand what he is talking about. According to an article by Sims Wyeth, failing to make eye contact actually makes a person “look less authoritative, less believable, and less confident” (2). However, regardless of how he delivered the speech, I do commend him on a respectful address. A quote that stood out to me was “We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow”. I think this really shows what Trump has in mind for his first 100 days, as it appears Trump wants to be deliberate about making change. However, with what I have seen of Trump in the campaign process, I would predict that I am not going to generally support the means he uses to make a change.
(1)https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
(2)http://www.inc.com/sims-wyeth/10-reasons-why-eye-contact-can-change-peoples-perception-of-you.html
One of the most prevalent of the protests that have occurred after Trump’s inauguration is the women’s march. This march represented women’s rights issues and was an attempt to show the Trump administration that the public will not stand by when discriminatory laws are put in place against women or any minority group (1). I think this act of protest is very significant as it’s the first time this many people have come together in favor of women’s rights across the globe (2). Despite its significance, however, I do not believe this will affect Trump’s first 100 days at all. Trump has shown that he does not care about public approval on a large scale, he just does what he believes is best for the country and himself, and I don’t think this will be any different. In fact, Trump’s reaction to these protests so far indicates that he in fact does not care about the message these protests aim to send. He has reacted by saying that the protests are fake and are organized by people hired by Democrats and don’t represent the true voice of the people, which is simply not true (2).
1-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/womens-march.html?_r=0
2-http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/21/womens-march-aims-start-movement-trump-inauguration/96864158/
After arguably one of the most controversial elections, then inaugurations, protests erupted. Most notably after the inauguration, the Women’s March. The Women’s March holds a significance in that it truly shows the magnitude of the public’s disdain and distrust in President Trump. While it’s estimated that a protest of this magnitude would take six months to a year to execute, the organizers of the march not only managed to do it in two, but made it one of the largest public protests in American history (1). The march not only spanned over 600 locations, both national and international (2). Despite being titled “The Women’s March,” the crowd wasn’t just limited to females, as people of all walks of life gathered to show support (2). Despite the founders of the march insisting the march was non-partisan, people holding pro-choice and pro-LGBTQ signs, amongst others, took away from this initial intent (1). For this reason, I believe the march will not be as effective, if at all effective in shaping policymaking during Trump’s first 100 days. While the march was initially intended to simply stand up against Trump’s disrespectful comments towards women, the march quickly also turned into protestors protesting for pro-choice and gay rights, thus decentralizing the focus of the march giving it an unclear message to outsiders, and making the march appear as if it was leaning left, rather than remaining neutral, thus alienating centrists and conservatives also against Trump. Besides that, Trump has a reputation for making decisions even his teams doesn’t know of, that are changed last minute, or that are completely random. He’s made it clear that he isn’t under the influence of anyone and will make his own decisions as he pleases. For these reasons, I believe that while the Women’s March was initially well intended, the failure to control a protest of this magnitude to stay on topic and Trump’s past history will not have a significant influence on Trump’s policymaking during his first 100 days.
(1) http://www.vogue.com/article/meet-the-women-of-the-womens-march-on-washington
(2) http://time.com/4649891/protest-donald-trump/
When both watching the address live as well as rereading the speech for this post, I felt conflicted as towards my feelings of both Trump and the future. Whilst he does make some good points about the negatives of the stagnant middle class and the state of the education system, the overall nationalistic rhetoric of the second half of his speech (especially "America First") sends shivers down my spine. "Our jobs, our borders, our wealth, etc" completely shuts down the globalist narrative that the United States has strived to pursue over the past eight years. Whilst I believe in the importance of preserving American infrastructure and jobs, it's apparent that we were achieving these goals under the Obama administration considering the devastating state our economy was in when he arrived. This drives my main point home: the negative hyper-nationalistic tone of this acceptance speech completely undermines all of the progress that we as a nation have accomplished recently. Yes, all of these issues are important, but without international unity and support, it sets a bad image of what the US has become. In the first 100 days of his administration, I believe that he will use all of his power to push his initiatives by means of executive orders and the Republican Congress. Only time will tell how this will affect our international image, but I'm not too hopeful.
I highly disliked the speech, likely mostly biased by my dislike of the president himself, but I disliked it regardless. While the tone superficially was that of hope, change, and unity, the underlying feeling I was left with was discomfort and distrust. Many of the points made in the speech seem to go directly against some of Trump's opinions, making the speech seem like pandering and twisting the truth to gain trust. While this is not uncommon for a politician, it seems a bit unnerving that such a major speech would include these themes. I feel those without strong opposition to Trump could be easily persuaded by the speech. Those who already support him are wrapped around his finger, taking what he says as law, while those who are indifferent could likely be inspired by the powerful wording of the speech. However, those who are strongly opposed to Trump will likely find the speech either hypocritical or simply not very persuasive. The idea that Trump will bring together all Americans is one that does not seem plausible to the various minorities who have been and will be targeted by Trump, his administration, and his supporters. Most notably, people of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community, women, and immigrants will feel that the message of unity extends only to those privileged enough to live freely in America, especially with Trump's history of bigoted speech. Trump's first 100 days will likely attend to the needs and wants of cisgender straight white American men, promoting unity among them, while alienating minorities and the oppressed.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home