So here’s the deal. The rights of the American people are incredibly important to the United States government, and especially to the current President of the United States: Donald Trump. However, there are a few topics that the people cannot talk about because it upsets the President of our now great again nation- women’s rights, immigration reform, and LGBTQ+ rights. Why do we need to talk about women’s rights? Women have the right to vote and make most decisions for themselves. The immigration issue has clearly already been solved by our beloved President Trump; just hurdle all of South America in, like cattle, by building a really expensive wall! Oh, but don’t worry, Mexico is totally willing to pay for it. As for the LGBTQ+ community, no one is being oppressed; everything is fine. It’s not like oppression based on race, gender, religion, and/or sexual orientation has ever been a problem in our country.
The Women’s March, according to Jay Caruso, from Red State, was simply pointless. He argues that the march happened only twenty-four hours after President Trump’s inauguration and that no rights were taken away or modified in any way. Caruso really hit the nail on the head with that observation. It’s not as though people were concerned about the future with Trump’s campaign policies and how he will execute them in office. That’s an absurd idea. Caruso also said that women expect the government to make new laws solely based off of their discomfort, or disagreement, with the existing policies- on the topic of what rights women have. Clearly, they went to the wrong place. You do not go to lawmakers to ask them to make laws based on something important and necessary for a great deal of people. When the Constitution says, “We The People,” it mostly means, “We The People (If You’re In Charge And Have Lots Of Money)” who get to make all of the decisions for us. That’s our democratic government! Just because (most) men refuse to ask for help or direction doesn’t mean women should do the same.
The best thing to do when asked a question you do not want to answer is to talk about something else that has nothing to do with what you are asked. Some authors at the Wall Street Journal embrace that idea like pros. Authors Ben Kesling, Felicia Schwartz, and Byron Tau decided to write an article about the Women’s March on Washington, but have the article talk about the violent outbreaks the day of President Trump’s inauguration, where people threw bricks into the window of a Starbucks in Washington, DC, and over 200 people were arrested for destruction of property. A completely unrelated, disconnected event that happened the day before for a reason completely different from the march is the right topic for an article on the Women’s March. Not what the march was about, who attended it, the issues being protested, how many people, etc.- no. It’s best to talk about a group of rebellious people who scared all of the hipsters drinking their 5 shot venti, 2/5th decaf, ristretto shot, 1 pump Vanilla, 1 pump Hazelnut, 4 pumps mocha, breve, 1 sugar in the raw, with whip, and caramel drizzle on top by throwing a brick through a window.
Donald Trump’s inauguration was definitely controversial, to say the least. Yes, some of America voted him into office. Yes, he got the majority of the electoral college votes. However, there is a difference between respecting the authority of your President and actually liking them. The men, women, and children who marched that day were trying to push back against the controversial policies that Donald Trump presented throughout his election campaign. Contrary to The Wall Street Journal’s belief, the march was peaceful. There are certain rights that we as humans should have, and that’s what this march was all about. There is always a downside to every situation, though. Some protesters were more negatively outspoken than others, and some were simply disrespectful to the President. Some pro-choice women excluded pro-life women because they went against their views. Just because someone doesn’t share the same view as you do does not mean you have the right to exclude them from a very public event. So, no, not every side of the story is perfect, but the fact of the matter is that these people wanted to prevent taking steps back in the improvement of rights for all people.
But, who am I to talk about such a big issue in America? I’m just another liberal millennial who has no idea what they’re talking about, right?