Well, since the 'chump' is the one that got furthest of those two candidates, I don't know if a valuable lesson was learned at all. I think it's equally likely that the system will get more polarized along that axis as well - that the Republicans will double down on the crazy populism next time around, continuing the trend of Palin to Cain to Trump, and the Democrats will want to play it even safer* and more establishment because of the gaping maw of insanity on the other side.

It might even be that this is the preferred way for this to shake out in their eyes - the Democrats go on to take the White House this term and the next, and the Republicans lose the presidency but gain more ground on the local level. I'm not saying that the Republicans want to lose the presidency, but since almost every local Republican runs on the premise that they'll stand up to Washington, it doesn't hurt to be in opposition. Supporting Trump might not get you the white house but it might make you mayor. Plus, that's where the Koch money is, for now.

*On the other hand, let's not go nuts. Right now, given how the election's turned out, Clinton seems like an incredibly establishment, incredibly traditional politics, choice - but when they made the decision to run, it must have still seemed like a risky move, since no woman had ever made it all the way before. I can't imagine that anyone predicted what this race would look like (?), so maybe the 'lesson' from 2016 can't be accurately applied by either party.

Try "Donald Trump crim "

Bing autocomplete has "criminal charges" and "criminal record" second and third in the search.
Google doesn't return any of those results.

Try "Donald Trump moro " or "idio "
Bing and Yahoo have predictable autocomplete hits.
Google won't complete those words at all.

This doesn't look like a scandal.

Or let me put it in terms that some people will understand better:

OMG! Marissa Mayer is the CEO of Yahoo! Yahoo backs ALEC which is a right wing public policy organization that's also backed by the Koch Brothers and Walmart.

Yahoo! autocomplete returns disparaging results when you search Hillary Clinton. Now Marissa Mayer, due to her political associations, has to prove that she has not used her influence at Yahoo to manipulate autocomplete results to negatively bias against Hillary Clinton.

I was thinking of what's probably called second wave, or what I think was being called 'the modern feminist movement' back then, but I'm pretty sure even that started in the early/mid 60's, well before I was involved, or even breathing....so yes, it was tongue in cheek.
I was a kid in the 70's, not a political organizer, but I did see Joan Baez twice before I was 10 at two of the dozens of woman's rights events I attended as a kid/teenager, so I say I get credit for being 'part of the movement'...especially since I continued to support, and sometimes actively work towards their goals, and consider them when voting to this day.

I understand I often fail at communication, please let me try again. My point was that when the name of a movement is so focused on one small (or in the case of feminism, large) segment of humanity, it can turn off many that agree completely with the motive.

EDIT: I do take your point, though, about end goals/primary targets. It may be an impossibility, but it would be nice to find names that can invoke both without being exclusionary. It would help people like me that get hung up on minutia and detail not be distracted by imperfect labels, and keep ammunition out of their opponent's guns.

Yes, I understand the reason the movement is 'black lives matter', and agree that they are the MOST oppressed, so deserving of the most attention. I don't claim to have a perfect solution that would both be all inclusive AND focus on the most oppressed.
With "you matter", I was thinking that is a way to say that the issues that matter to 'you' also matter, that your being oppressed and receiving unfair treatment matter, that your opinion matters, and that your life matters, no matter who 'you' are, black, white, woman, man, and all people in-between. Yes, even the Koch Bro's matter, just not more than anyone else.

Of course, you and others are free to focus on any issue, or any specific part of any issue you please, or not. I usually prefer a big picture approach for me, because it's all too easy for me to get myopic and dwell on (often meaningless) detail if I over focus, one of many character flaws. I think both mindsets have their merits and their drawbacks, and I think it's a good thing to have people in both camps.

As a small sidenote, I think it's slightly risky to indicate, even tongue in cheek, that any of us were involved at the start of a movement that began in the 1800s... even if you're kidding, people might get the wrong idea. Third wave feminism, which coincidentally I think you're more opposed to than the first two waves, did begin (I think?) in the US in the 1980's or 90's, but the overall movement was a well-established global phenomenon at that point. None of us were close to being involved in starting it.

As far as your main point goes, I think it's partly a question of whether you define your own vision by the end goal you want to achieve, or the first problem you want to solve. "Black Lives Matter" is not the end goal, it's the first problem we need to solve on the way to a state free of police murder. Egalitarianism, on the other hand, can be the end goal. It doesn't tell me which problem areas you want to address though.

For some feminists, feminism is the end goal - a woman-centric world would be better, more sane, and more sustainable in their view than any other world. For other feminists, feminism is the first problem area to address, ie that we are literally living in a culture of undeniable male supremacy.

The problem with only defining your end goal is that it can become a little unclear what, if any, action you want to take. "You matter" is certainly fine, but I have no idea what you want to change in society, or if you want to change anything. I matter, you matter, and the Koch brothers matter - but we still have very different ideas about what society should be. In a perfect world I might want to join up under the egalitarian banner, but in the current mess we're in, I tend more towards environmentalism, socialism and feminism - because those are the problem areas I want us to address first.

It seems like it's time to petition the white house to go after ANYONE named in the papers, and let them prove in court that they weren't really evading taxes and that they had a legitimate, legal reason to have their money there, or go to jail for tax evasion like Capone. If 95% of what they do there is tax evasion, it's reasonable to presume their customers guilty until proven innocent.
If we aren't going to prosecute these people for clearly and massively stealing from the country, then there is no rule of law and it's already Mad Max times, and the Koch brothers are really the Lord Humongous and Immortan Joe .

...more like a Koch punch.

Saying that "Taxation is the price we pay for a decent civilization" is the same as saying that "Human sacrifice is the price we pay for having a sun."

Such "primitive" ideology (with its absurd beliefs, fetishes, taboos, and weirdnesses) is reflected by a belief in strange elites as being either godlike ("Bernie!") or demonic ("Koch!"), along with a total ignorance about the functioning of the (alien) banking system and the military empire that it feeds.

A couple of reasons I don't like her are that she kind of represents political royalty in this country (which is why I'm glad Jeb! is out as well) and 2 I don't see her as being that far away from the Republican stance. On the Republican side, they're all wackadoodle except for maybe Rubio, but I think he may be a Koch brother candidate.

There is now such thing as Rise of the Far Right. The Right has never changed. It the RISE of THE FAR LEFT which has push this country in the wrong direction for the last 6 decades.

The Kochs are just trying to steer the country back to its origins.
There is no radical right. There is only the RADICAL LEFT.

The tea party started out with good intentions, but it quickly got hijacked by the koch brothers. It's the party of making rich people richer using the anger of right wing people.

You have heard of constitutional amendments, haven't you? In fact, one of the quotes I produced from former Mayor, Ed Koch, even discussed that fact.

Please explain which FACTS that I have repeated are incorrect. So far all you have been able to do is curse me, accuse me of being retarded, and literally ignored anything I have said so that you can continue with your vitriol. I don't even know you and you seem to have a major issue with me.

The reason why I put up the list of deaths is because you don't see knee jerk actions in the news over those methods of dying, typically. You do see it over gun deaths because they are sensationalized far beyond the level of anything else, part of which is the reason I think we are having more mass shootings. If you want to go out in a blaze of glory, get your 15 minutes of fame, then shooting people is a guaranteed method.

I do believe we need additional controls on weapons; one that I think would help greatly is ACS (http://www.ammocoding.com/). I am also not an NRA member and don't agree with a lot of the methods they use. I DO believe wholeheartedly in my right to own semi automatic handguns and rifles. If you still have a problem with me over that, I can't help it. But if you continue to be confrontational, then I don't think we have anything further to talk about.

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
- Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center

“If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.”
– Nancy Pelosi, US Congresswoman

“US Senator, If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
– Diane Feinstein, US Senator

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of Harvard School of Public Health

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell, Actress

“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)

“We must get rid of all the guns.”
- Sarah Brady, Widow of James Brady

“I believe for example when Washington, D.C., passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, that we should overrule the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns.”
- Ed Koch, former NYC Mayor

“Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”
- Andrew Cuomo, NY Governor

“an assault weapons ban is just the beginning...a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.”
- Jan Schakowsky, llinois Congresswoman

“governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms
- Dan Muhlbauer, Iowa state Rep.

Now, this was with a quick search on Google. I am sure there are more, but I just thought I would give a sample. Additionally, the really rabid activists have learned to rephrase statements to avoid the term ban. They aren't stupid, they know that they have to soften the phrasing to make it more palatable to the everyday citizen.

The idea here is not to take people out. Straights would never "allow" this. It is like saying we need to petition to go back in time to unelect Obama before he got into office! Spend as much time and money as necessary! You get the point. It is a facetious argument.

Hell, "if" it did happen (Which it can't) every billionaire would file for a gay-cemption immediately. The Koch brothers would be claiming dick-mouth exemptions immediately.

In fact I passed this before a few conservative "thinkers" and they were pretty defeated. "Oh wait, you'll take gay dollars and put them in the government to support baking cakes but you won't take their dollars to make a cake directly?"

It's kind of sad that the homeless in America can't even live in a shanty town, or under a bridge (they put spikes under bridges). I'd much rather my taxes went to putting a roof over their heads then say the f-35 or the new stealth bomber. Maybe they could live on the Koch Brothers yacht... you know the one trimmed with dinosaur bones.

Apparently no one is allowed to laugh at the Koch brothers.

EDIT - And wow, I think I just experienced meta-buffering.