Sharpton 'Betrayed', Abandoned, by Protege and Competing March / Protest

[easyt65]

Al Sharpton, Betrayed by Protege, Faces Embarassingly Low Turnout for Inaugural March

"Al Sharpton will be marching on Washington on Martin Luther King Day, just five days before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. It may be a lonely walk.

Sharpton’s “We Shall Not Be Moved” march has piqued the interest of fewer than 1,000 people on Facebook. A rival event, the Women’s March on Washington, has already secured 175,000 RSVPs, with an additional 250,000 people saying they’re interested in attending.

Two key organizers of the Women’s March are former executive directors of National Action Network, the civil-rights nonprofit Sharpton founded in 1991. Led almost exclusively by women of color, the Women’s March is expected to draw a diverse crowd, which will include much of the same black audience Sharpton has long dominated.

If Facebook’s numbers are any indication, they’re abandoning Sharpton by a ratio of at least 175 to one.


Sharpton remains president of National Action Network, where he has drawn a six-figure salary for years, even as the nonprofit grappled with massive tax liabilities and negative net assets. In 2015, the latest year disclosures are available, Sharpton drew a $256,00 salary; the nonprofit ended the same year with just $212 in net assets, though it has finally managed to pay off that pesky tax debt."

 

[OldLady]

We have women from all over Maine taking red eye buses to Washington for the Women's March and they are holding anti-harrassment trainings to be ready--both verbal and physical moves to combat interference.
I wouldn't suggest grabbing their pussies.

 

[easyt65]

I am pretty sure there will be no threat of that, OL.

 

[OldLady]

Well, you should be pleased that women are putting their gender above race--according to your article, anyway. Not chosing the race option has been your suggestion all along, yes?

 

[easyt65]

Well, you should be pleased that women are putting their gender above race--according to your article, anyway. Not chosing the race option has been your suggestion all along, yes?

I personally wasn't 'choosing' sex or race, let alone sex over race or vice versa. I was just commenting about how Sharpton was finding his support eroding for this march.

I don't care what sex you are, what race you are, what party you belong to - I do not judge anyone by any of those. I believe actions are what is important. I also believe none of those matter above loyalty to God and country. If 'you' do not adhere to the same beliefs in 'God' as I do that is also fine, as long as your loyalty is to country over party.

 

[imawhosure]

Well, you should be pleased that women are putting their gender above race--according to your article, anyway. Not chosing the race option has been your suggestion all along, yes?

I am glad you get to march peacefully to show your displeasure. I hope it is a great march, and I hope it rains like hell, lol! Show everyone how determined you are by marching in a downpour! I would usually proclaim, "WET TEE SHIRT CONTEST," but if the women I have seen bitching up a storm are any indication, we don't want cameras on their Ta-Ta's anyway, lol!

 

[Moonglow]

Well, you should be pleased that women are putting their gender above race--according to your article, anyway. Not chosing the race option has been your suggestion all along, yes?

I am glad you get to march peacefully to show your displeasure. I hope it is a great march, and I hope it rains like hell, lol! Show everyone how determined you are by marching in a downpour! I would usually proclaim, "WET TEE SHIRT CONTEST," but if the women I have seen bitching up a storm are any indication, we don't want cameras on their Ta-Ta's anyway, lol!

Fortunately you have your own ta-ta's to fiddle with in the mean time...

 

[OldLady]

Well, you should be pleased that women are putting their gender above race--according to your article, anyway. Not chosing the race option has been your suggestion all along, yes?

I am glad you get to march peacefully to show your displeasure. I hope it is a great march, and I hope it rains like hell, lol! Show everyone how determined you are by marching in a downpour! I would usually proclaim, "WET TEE SHIRT CONTEST," but if the women I have seen bitching up a storm are any indication, we don't want cameras on their Ta-Ta's anyway, lol!

I'd go but some of the equipment isn't working the way it used to. My marching days are over.
I am fervently hoping for rain like hell on the 20th. Poor D.C. will be flooding if we all get our wish! LOL

 

[imawhosure]

Well, you should be pleased that women are putting their gender above race--according to your article, anyway. Not chosing the race option has been your suggestion all along, yes?

I am glad you get to march peacefully to show your displeasure. I hope it is a great march, and I hope it rains like hell, lol! Show everyone how determined you are by marching in a downpour! I would usually proclaim, "WET TEE SHIRT CONTEST," but if the women I have seen bitching up a storm are any indication, we don't want cameras on their Ta-Ta's anyway, lol!

I'd go but some of the equipment isn't working the way it used to. My marching days are over.
I am fervently hoping for rain like hell on the 20th. Poor D.C. will be flooding if we all get our wish! LOL

Hey OL, I am not a spring chicken either, but politics aside, I wish you the best, and best of health.

 

[OldLady]

Well, you should be pleased that women are putting their gender above race--according to your article, anyway. Not chosing the race option has been your suggestion all along, yes?

I personally wasn't 'choosing' sex or race, let alone sex over race or vice versa. I was just commenting about how Sharpton was finding his support eroding for this march.

I don't care what sex you are, what race you are, what party you belong to - I do not judge anyone by any of those. I believe actions are what is important. I also believe none of those matter above loyalty to God and country. If 'you' do not adhere to the same beliefs in 'God' as I do that is also fine, as long as your loyalty is to country over party.

Since I have no party, I guess I'm okay then.
And I'll be glad to see less division over race and gender and political party, but not at the expense of stopping change.

 

[easyt65]

Since I have no party, I guess I'm okay then.

It is ok to be affiliated with a Party; however, we are seeing misguided and - IMO - Un-American - loyalties today by the Liberals declaring they will do nothing for the next 4 years but make it their lot in life to be Obstructionists, opposing everything Trump wants to do, for the benefit of the PARTY, rather than what is best for the country. Politicians are not elected to go to Washington to represent their political party - they are elected by the people to represent the people, to be servants OF the people, not to be servants of the party and rulers OF the people.

 

[imawhosure]

Well, you should be pleased that women are putting their gender above race--according to your article, anyway. Not chosing the race option has been your suggestion all along, yes?

I personally wasn't 'choosing' sex or race, let alone sex over race or vice versa. I was just commenting about how Sharpton was finding his support eroding for this march.

I don't care what sex you are, what race you are, what party you belong to - I do not judge anyone by any of those. I believe actions are what is important. I also believe none of those matter above loyalty to God and country. If 'you' do not adhere to the same beliefs in 'God' as I do that is also fine, as long as your loyalty is to country over party.

Since I have no party, I guess I'm okay then.
And I'll be glad to see less division over race and gender and political party, but not at the expense of stopping change.

Just out of curiosity, and not trying to yank your chain---------> I know women would really like a female President. I also know an actual liberal who is business minded, and could be middle of the road when eligible in a few years, along with having the money to do it.

What do you think of Ivanka Trump?

You see OL, I am all for liberal policies, and I mean that, as long as the policies are paid for, and that the bill doesn't get pushed down the line over, and over, and over again, leaving those that come after us screwed. If someone says to me--------> Hey Whosure, what do you think about single payer healthcare, and it is gonna cost you a 1% raise in your income tax rate. If it goes above that, it goes back to congress for a revote, and the revote doesn't happen until 60 days after the new congress is voted in.

OL, I am in on that! Why? Because it FORCES them to control expenditures, and if they can't, it comes up for a revote meaning.............the only time I have a choice is NOT when they 1st vote. After that, they get to tax me to death to support the plan doesn't happen, because I have a choice with my vote down the road to kill the program, along with everyone else, by voting in people that will kill it.

Anyway, Ivanka is left. I know you probably won't believe this but Ivanka's husband is also left; the guy Trump said he wanted as a senior advisor, so I am fascinated what the Trump administration is actually going to do. Still, Ivanka for President would be good down the road, and she would probably win!

Why?

No offense OL, but ya know the men are going to love looking at her, lol. May be sexist, but it is true. Can't ignore biology, no matter how hard some people try!

 

[OldLady]

Since I have no party, I guess I'm okay then.

It is ok to be affiliated with a Party; however, we are seeing misguided and - IMO - Un-American - loyalties today by the Liberals declaring they will do nothing for the next 4 years but make it their lot in life to be Obstructionists, opposing everything Trump wants to do, for the benefit of the PARTY, rather than what is best for the country. Politicians are not elected to go to Washington to represent their political party - they are elected by the people to represent the people, to be servants OF the people, not to be servants of the party and rulers OF the people.

Not to fear. I've e-mailed my representatives. Straightened them right out, I'm sure.
What we are seeing is,
Picture the pendulum on a grandfather clock. Pull it all the way to the left and let it go. It will swing so far right it hits the case and bangs back to other wall. Action = reaction. Eventually it will gentle and the clock will perform as intended. There are anti-American forces at work, and I agree we need to keep our thinking caps on, but the obstructionist stuff in Washington? That's not it.

 

[easyt65]

If the swinging becomes too violent the clock could also break.....

I respect your opinion, but I also respectfully disagree. When you declare that your mission is to be total Obstructionists, to stand in the way of whatever those who won the latest election want I do believe you are being 'Un-American', putting Party above country. Not only declaring they are going to oppose the will of their political opponents...they are also opposing the will of the people who elected those leaders and put them in the positions of power in Washington.

 

[OldLady]

Well, you should be pleased that women are putting their gender above race--according to your article, anyway. Not chosing the race option has been your suggestion all along, yes?

I personally wasn't 'choosing' sex or race, let alone sex over race or vice versa. I was just commenting about how Sharpton was finding his support eroding for this march.

I don't care what sex you are, what race you are, what party you belong to - I do not judge anyone by any of those. I believe actions are what is important. I also believe none of those matter above loyalty to God and country. If 'you' do not adhere to the same beliefs in 'God' as I do that is also fine, as long as your loyalty is to country over party.

Since I have no party, I guess I'm okay then.
And I'll be glad to see less division over race and gender and political party, but not at the expense of stopping change.

Just out of curiosity, and not trying to yank your chain---------> I know women would really like a female President. I also know an actual liberal who is business minded, and could be middle of the road when eligible in a few years, along with having the money to do it.

What do you think of Ivanka Trump?

You see OL, I am all for liberal policies, and I mean that, as long as the policies are paid for, and that the bill doesn't get pushed down the line over, and over, and over again, leaving those that come after us screwed. If someone says to me--------> Hey Whosure, what do you think about single payer healthcare, and it is gonna cost you a 1% raise in your income tax rate. If it goes above that, it goes back to congress for a revote, and the revote doesn't happen until 60 days after the new congress is voted in.

OL, I am in on that! Why? Because it FORCES them to control expenditures, and if they can't, it comes up for a revote meaning.............the only time I have a choice is NOT when they 1st vote. After that, they get to tax me to death to support the plan doesn't happen, because I have a choice with my vote down the road to kill the program, along with everyone else, by voting in people that will kill it.

Anyway, Ivanka is left. I know you probably won't believe this but Ivanka's husband is also left; the guy Trump said he wanted as a senior advisor, so I am fascinated what the Trump administration is actually going to do. Still, Ivanka for President would be good down the road, and she would probably win!

Why?

No offense OL, but ya know the men are going to love looking at her, lol. May be sexist, but it is true. Can't ignore biology, no matter how hard some people try!

To me, gender has nothing to do with choosing a President or anyone else. I would do same as any other year and listen to their proposals. As far as her being "liberal," we'll see. So far her childcare proposals are for the well heeled, not the families who really need it. And if she takes after Daddy and swings Pro-choice, I'd have a real problem with her. If goddamned Congress gets through the Obamacare repeal that includes defunding Planned Parenthood, you'll see sparks going off, for sure. Her rubbing elbows with such an administration would kill her among women.
But like I said, we'll see.

 

[OldLady]

If the swinging becomes too violent the clock could also break.....

I respect your opinion, but I also respectfully disagree. When you declare that your mission is to be total Obstructionists, to stand in the way of whatever those who won the latest election want I do believe you are being 'Un-American', putting Party above country. Not only declaring they are going to oppose the will of their political opponents...they are also opposing the will of the people who elected those leaders and put them in the positions of power in Washington.

Yes, Easy, but the Republicans did it with the Supreme Court pick and shutting down the government a few years ago, and every piece of legislation that Democrats proposed. It is how the pols are strategizing these days. I hate it, but it's pretty ridiculous for conservatives to cry when their exact tactics are being used on them by the other side. Work quietly to break the log jam. E-mail your representatives.

 

[ClosedCaption]

And the OP sees more groups to hate to make the day interesting

 

[easyt65]

"...and shutting down the government a few years ago...

You and I see things alike in some ways and other things very differently. For example, the GOP has hardly ever 'shut the government down'. When the Democrats do not get their way - which is usually when they refuse to compromise and demand the GOP offer almost all concessions - Democrats are content with letting the govt shutdown and blaming the GOP for it happening. During the last shutdown Obama ordered agencies to make the shutdown as painful as possible for Americans so it would generate even more hatred a for the GOP.

During that shutdown Obama spent more money closing off open-air monuments / sites and guarding them than would have been spent to keep them open. He even tried to close public/private historical sites the govt did not even own / run. Intentionally trying to inflict pain on the American people for Party benefit is exactly what I am talking about when I say 'Un-American'.

 

[OldLady]

"...and shutting down the government a few years ago...

You and I see things alike in some ways and other things very differently. For example, the GOP has hardly ever 'shut the government down'. When the Democrats do not get their way - which is usually when they refuse to compromise and demand the GOP offer almost all concessions - Democrats are content with letting the govt shutdown and blaming the GOP for it happening. During the last shutdown Obama ordered agencies to make the shutdown as painful as possible for Americans so it would generate even more hatred a for the GOP.

During that shutdown Obama spent more money closing off open-air monuments / sites and guarding them than would have been spent to keep them open. He even tried to close public/private historical sites the govt did not even own / run. Intentionally trying to inflict pain on the American people for Party benefit is exactly what I am talking about when I say 'Un-American'.

For example, the GOP has hardly ever 'shut the government down'. When the Democrats do not get their way - which is usually when they refuse to compromise and demand the GOP offer almost all concessions - Democrats are content with letting the govt shutdown and blaming the GOP for it happening.

I'm no political genius, but as I recall the Republicans were insisting on defunding Obamacare. Which OF COURSE the Democrats weren't going to "compromise on."

And "hardly ever"? LOL Should be never, on both sides, imo.

 

[easyt65]

I'm no political genius, but as I recall the Republicans were insisting on defunding Obamacare. Which OF COURSE the Democrats weren't going to "compromise on." And "hardly ever"? LOL Should be never, on both sides, imo.

As you should remember, the GOP had been ratting its sabers about defunding the ACA for a while - they had executed 'show-votes' to oppose their base in which they unanimously agreed they would defund the ACA...but when it came time for them to do so....they funded the ACA. They did not shutdown the govt.

I agree - should be never on both sides.