Donald! Trump!

ninfan - Member

Wake up call, you all, literally, laughed at the suggestion he could ever become president

I'm still laughing - every time I hear the term "President Trump" being used I chuckle to myself........it's so unbelievably ridiculous, and yet it's true!

I look forward to seeing the United States influence and prestige in global affairs becoming significantly reduced. And judging by the reaction of many foreign governments it's already started.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot America! I'm so glad they didn't choose Hillary Clinton. But then I'm not an American so what do I care 🙂

[b][i]"The government you elect is the government you deserve" [/i][/b] ..... Thomas Jefferson

Northwind - Member

Aye, I'm not denying he's taking it to new levels. It's more the left reaction that annoys me than trump tbh, all very toys out the pram type stuff, but I guess that'll change over time. There's still shock happening.

@Nipper thanks, looked that up. Didn't know the book, not big on Feminist fiction.

The trouble for septics is this will never wash with them, in the US healthy wealthy people hate paying for poor ill people.

Rich Democrat voters on East and West coasts won't pay higher taxes to pay for Healthcare for the less well off. That's why Obama went with the insurance/Obamacare way.

In other news .. Netanyahu speaking to Trump tonight. Expect announcement on Monday about moving US Embassy to the capital of Israel.

I look forward to seeing the United States influence and prestige in global affairs becoming significantly reduced. And judging by the reaction of many foreign governments it's already started.

People listen to the US as it's very powerful economically and militarily. It's not a popularity contest. China and Russia aren't powerful because people think they are lead by "good guys". Trump is going to make the US more powerful economically and militarily.

It's good to see The Doughnut smashing through politics and moving global relationships forward on a base of business and trade relations, if only we had had the foresight.

The sentiment behind that isn't actually far off, the left have dissappeared up their own arse, no doubt about that! Not that I agree with the right either, politics on all sides these days is rotten.

+1

Trump is a reaction to 2015/2016 identity politics, in fact, it's white identity politics.

I look forward to seeing the United States influence and prestige in global affairs becoming significantly reduced. And judging by the reaction of many foreign governments it's already started.

China and Russia aren't powerful because people think they are lead by "good guys".

Brilliant....the US's influence and prestige in global affairs will be based on the same criteria as China's and Russia's 😆

Btw jambalaya it's interesting that you believe Trump will "make the US more powerful economically" because the economic policies which he says he will follow are significantly different to the economic policies pursued by the UK's Conservative government.

Interesting because you also claim to be a strong supporter of the UK's Conservative government economic policies.

The contradiction is obvious.

I look forward to seeing the United States influence and prestige in global affairs becoming significantly reduced. And judging by the reaction of many foreign governments it's already started.

In other news .. Netanyahu speaking to Trump tonight. Expect announcement on Monday about moving US Embassy to the capital of Israel.

I'm sorry ernie but at times you seem to fall in with Jamby and ninfan as people who just want to watch the world burn.

You think the world is going to burn because the US has elected Donald Trump as president? Get a grip ffs.

Different policies appropriate for different countries ? Isolationism will not suit us hence us going global, we need to focus on the growth regions. US has been exporting far too much wealth at the expense of their own citizens.

Big and strong has always been powerful. Why else would the US spend 3.6% GDP on the military, it's 20% of their entire government spending ?

You think the world is going to burn

Those nukes make stuff pretty hot when they go off.. maybe even burn everything..

jambalaya - Member

Different policies appropriate for different countries ?

Oh that's a good one......the US is a different kind of capitalist country to the UK so it needs different kind of economic policies? 😆

[url= https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-18/even-trump-is-a-keynesian ]Even Trump Is a Keynesian[/url]

[b][i]"What does the election of Donald Trump mean for macroeconomics? Above all else, it means that the half-century-long challenge to Keynesian ideas is over. The insurgents lost."[/i][/b]

I have no idea what economic policies Trump will [i]actually[/i] pursue. I don't think anyone can be sure about anything when it comes to Trump. I doubt that he's even sure himself - the whole thing was just a huge ego trip for Trump imo, and the consequences never really seriously considered. I very much doubt that he expected to win, if he had he would never have repeatedly claimed that the result would be rigged.

But I do know that even if he does pursue some fairly effective economic policies the fact that the American people have chosen a man who boasts of sexually assaulting women, calls Mexicans rapists, mocks the disabled, and is generally odious and obnoxious, will affect the United States influence and prestige in global affairs.

ernie_lynch - Member
But I do know that even if he does pursue some fairly effective economic policies the fact that the American people have chosen a man who boasts of sexually assaulting women, calls Mexicans rapists, mocks the disabled, and is generally odious and obnoxious, will affect the United States influence and prestige in global affairs.

I don't see why President Trump cannot influence the world. He can. Trust me he can. For whose good I don't know but it will definitely be good for Merican because they have sank so low the only way is up.

Globally nobody cares about his private life because in other part of the world they are worst, really nobody cares ... They just laugh but will continue doing business with him. They want business.

Oh ya consider yourself lucky and blessed because Merican and British are cousins.

You think the world is going to burn because the US has elected Donald Trump as president? Get a grip ffs.

At least I am in good company with those who said he could not win. BBC Newsnight

Size counts ernie 🙂 yes it is a different sort of capitalist country, it has no welfae state for a start.

ernie_lynch - Member
[b]Get a grip ffs[/b].

mikewsmith - Member
stop being so literal FFS.... you want to see the US do badly that was the point. It may suit your politcal narrative but it's not going to be good for the world long term. Also like a drug withdrawal coming off quick never ends well.

I'll just move this one over here

he tried to explain to me ... it was very hard for me to sit still trying to pretend I know what he was on ..

you want to see the US do badly that was the point.

I want to see the US's hegemony/global dominance reduced - I don't think it's healthy, a view shared by very many people across the world. Why should the US president have so much global power when so few people in the world get to choose who he or she is?

Under George Bush the US administration was openly talking of "full-spectrum dominance"...... see the "Project for the New American Century".

And yes, I think it would be very [i]good for the world long term,[/i] and democracy, if the US's influence and prestige in global affairs was reduced.

EDIT : And btw I don't think having a warmongering hawk like Hillary Clinton would have been "good for the world long term". I believe the complete opposite in fact.

EDIT 2 : My first choice for US president would have been Bernie Sanders, my second choice was Trump.

mikewsmith - Member

I'll just move this one over here

... he tried to explain to me ... it was very hard for me to sit still trying to pretend I know what he was on ..

Ernie, I can't believe that you are so stupid so as to be pleased that Trump will hurt Americas prestige and image when his economic policies will actually hurt real people in the developing world.

You have the trappings of an actual Marxist, that is alleigiance to your ideology at the expense of people.

Main problem with Trump reducing the US influence is it's BS.
Supporting Isreal in moving the US Embassy - petrol + fire
Agression towards China - petrol + fire
Very relaxed attitude towards Russia and destablising NATO - petrol + fire
Desire to wipe IS off the map - you get the point...
He wants to cripple the Mexican economy which in turn will push more migrants to the US.
The "policy" statements don't make any sense

I have no problem with global powers so long as they keep to themselves but this is just an ideal. Hence, I prefer them all to be balance and respectful of each other ...

and here is why he will never get it

Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump
Watched protests yesterday but was under the impression that we just had an election! Why didn't these people vote? Celebs hurt cause badly.

White House vows to fight media 'tooth and nail'

Mr Trump spent his first day in office berating the media over their coverage of his inauguration, using a bridge-building visit to CIA headquarters on Saturday to air grievances about "dishonest" journalists and overstating the size of the crowd that gathered on the National Mall as he took the oath of office.

Mr Trump said throngs "went all the way back to the Washington monument," despite photos and live video showing the crowd stopping well short of the landmark.

In Sunday morning interviews, top advisers defended Mr Trump's anger at journalists for correctly reporting that his inauguration drew a smaller crowd than Barack Obama did eight years ago.

President Donald Trump's team says his inauguration was watched by more people than any other. It wasn't.
Chief of staff Reince Priebus told Fox News Sunday that Mr Trump was trying to keep the media "honest" when they levied charges of false reporting the day before.

"The point is not the crowd size. The point is the attacks and the attempt to delegitimise this president in one day. And we're not going to sit around and take it," Mr Priebus said.

EDIT 2 : My first choice for US president would have been Bernie Sanders, my second choice was Trump.

I saw quite a few interviews with people who did exactly that, supported Bernie in the Primaries but voted for Trump.

So, it turns out that the "2017" photo was taken an hour before the inauguration, whereas the "2009" one was just before the ceremony started

#fakenews caught out once again

where is your source for that ninfan?
http://fortune.com/2017/01/22/dc-transit-statistics-inauguration/
http://europe.newsweek.com/trump-inauguration-numbers-how-many-attended-545467?rm=eu

Metro Ridership lowest for an inauguration in at least 12 years

Metro’s ridership numbers from this morning illustrated what many riders were seeing: sparse crowds and less hassle than usual for an Inauguration Day.

By 11 a.m., Metro said 193,000 trips had been taken on Metro on Inauguration Day. By contrast, ridership for President Obama’s 2009 inauguration was nearly three times that: 513,000 trips by 11 a.m. Friday’s ridership was the lowest for an inauguration in more than 12 years, with 2005 figures edging out this morning’s by about 4,000.

[img] [/img]Not an empty seat in the house...

Straw man

I said the [b]photographs[/b] - which many had pointed to as symbolic/proof - were taken at different times of day, with the 2009 one closer to the ceremony. (Source: Time)

You also seem to be using the metro statistics to 'prove' something that was never claimed - another straw man - I will put this down to horrifically poor reporting of what the WH press sec actually claimed, his exact words were

[i]"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe"[/i]

He didn't claim the crowd was bigger, he claimed that the [u]combined global audience[/u] was bigger

The same empty spot in the middle also appeared in sworn in for ex-President Obama second term. i.e. that spot is deliberately left empty even during ex-President Obama second term sworn in with his family standing behind him. I don't know exactly the reason for some of the empty spots but it was the park's management that wanted them empty or something ...

The whole place does not look that empty to me. Compare to the empty spaces that you can see from miles away.

[img] ?1484942286[/img]

Compare ...

[img] ?uuid=xIUzNN2XEeaJAmEP5IZ5HA[/img]

1st President Obama inauguration. (notice girls height)

The middle patch could still be occupied then.

[img] [/img]

No ninfan the preciuous little darling that is the president can't cope with the fact people don't actually like him. Was the global audiance bigger? In person it was down, on US tv is was down

What about TV viewership?

Nielsen estimates 31 million people in America watched TV coverage of the inauguration.

That audience total, measuring continuous coverage by 12 broadcast and cable networks, did beat the 20.6 million who viewed Mr Obama's second inauguration in 2013.

But a president's second swearing-in typically sees a drop-off in viewership. Mr Obama's first inauguration in 2009 was seen by 37.8 million people.

The most-watched inauguration since 1969 was President Ronald Reagan's first oath-taking in 1981, which was seen by 41.8 million people.

"Humans against killing: that sounds like a junkie against dope".

"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe"

He didn't claim the crowd was bigger, he claimed that the combined global audience was bigger

in person

He definitely did.

The source of the photos I saw said they were taken about 25 minutes apart. I don't know the time of the ceremony, but I doubt that 25 minutes would be that different.

Nielsen estimates 31 million people [u] in America [/u] watched

Straw man again

Read what the whitehouse press sec said once again

[i]"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe"[/i]

but I doubt that 25 minutes would be that different.

Got any data on crowd build up or dispersal times to back that [i]opinion[/i] up with? Otherwise it sounds like you are accepting what I said was true, that the 2009 photo was taken much closer to the time of the ceremony than the 2017 one, although this wasn't mentioned in most of the press articles that carried the pictures - so, like we said #fakenews

"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe"

[b]both in person [/b]and around the globe

Got any data on crowd build up or dispersal times to back that opinion up with?

"Both in person and around the globe"

"Both in person, and around the globe"

Different things, non - like helping your Uncle Jack off a horse.

Try applying some of that thought process to what you're arguing ninfan.

I see you haven't refuted my 1st point, as you can't.

Otherwise it sounds like you are accepting what I said was true, that the 2009 photo was taken much closer to the time of the ceremony than the 2017 one

I'd argue that 25 minutes isn't much closer, and that I doubt that the number of people that would be required to make it the largest ever audience [b]in person[/b] could of appeared in that time.

Lets be honest, if Trump and Spicer want to argue about the crowds its much easier to point at the protests and say that put people off/stopped people arriving etc, instead of playing the shite fakenews card.

FFS ninfan your adding puntuation to a spoken answer and yet again you spending your time debating the tiny point rather than the issues. Where are the numbers that support what was said? Either way, in fact any way at all.
They DO NOT EXIST otherwise we would be reading them.
It really does just sum up your nothing but a a pathetic troll as you would have to be completely deluded to believe the stuff your posting these days.

whatnobeer - Member

Try applying some of that thought process to what you're arguing ninfan.

I see you haven't refuted my 1st point, as you can't.

Otherwise it sounds like you are accepting what I said was true, that the 2009 photo was taken much closer to the time of the ceremony than the 2017 one

I'd argue that 25 minutes isn't much closer, and that I doubt that the number of people that would be required to make it the largest ever audience in person could of appeared in that time.

Lets be honest, if Trump and Spicer want to argue about the crowds its much easier to point at the protests and say that put people off/stopped people arriving etc, instead of playing the shite fakenews card.

Two attractions that can be crowd puller for the Presidential inauguration.

The first one President Obama being the first African-American that becomes the President.

(actually he is mixed and there were at least 3 other Presidents like him previously with African heritage, but they just did not have his "look" and if I am not mistaken the founding father Jefferson was one of them with mixed race African heritage, so I don't know what the big deal is tbh)

The second attraction is President Trump being the outspoken person he is also draw in the curiosity from all over the world.

Therefore, they can both attract large crowds by comparison to Bush or Clinton.

Finally, let's be honest President Trump is being inaugurated in Washington so do you expect the opposition to cheer for him? 😆

I mean look at them protesting outside during the inauguration.

NY Times reports both photos taken 45 minutes before inauguration...

The second attraction is President Trump being the outspoken person he is also draw in the curiosity from all over the world.

Therefore, they can both attract large crowds by comparison to Bush or Clinton.
Finally, let's be honest President Trump is being inaugurated in Washington so do you expect the opposition to cheer for him?

Lifer - Member
NY Times reports both photos taken 45 minutes before inauguration...

If I am not mistaken both President Trump & ex-President Obama did better than ex-President Clinton and ex-President Bush ...

mikewsmith - Member
His US TV audiances were also down, want to carry on down this road? Bring some actual facts with you

Bear in mind he has probably offended most if not all of the TV channels so show me the "facts".

My only "facts" are those of the 31 million viewers ... 😛

Jefferson was mixed race?

Found the Time article, 26 minutes difference between the photos according to them.

6.8 million less than Obama's first inauguration

My only "facts" are those of the 31 million viewers ...

and for those who have not seen the clip judge for yourselves how the adminsitration feels about people asking questions
http://www.smh.com.au/world/alternative-facts-fake-news-and-trumps-war-on-mainstream-media-20170122-gtwmdl.html

Got to admit, the whole crowd size thing is indicative of modern day politics, why the hell is it even an issue and why are people still talking about it?

If trump is the devil incarnate, the smart thing to do is wait till the ramifications of his policies start happening then hammer him for it.

I really don't understand these hysterical pre-emptive attacks on trump.

As I said earlier, the reaction to trump, and what is essentially the childishness of the "left" is pretty staggering.

If you attack him on everything, and project the fears people have into ever little insignificant thing, then you are just drowning yourselves out in a cacophony of noise when there is actually something to criticise.

It's self defeating, trivialising, and doing no favours to anyone(bar upping the tv ratings of news channels).

I'll go as far as to say if it continues as a theme for the next 4 years, people/media will eventually discredit themselves and it will lead to a 2nd trump term.

People need to engage their brain and strategize, not just lash out.

I really don't understand these hysterical pre-emptive attacks on trump.

As I said earlier, the reaction to trump, and what is essentially the childishness of the "left" is pretty staggering.

I'll go as far as to say if it continues as a theme for the next 4 years, people/media will eventually discredit themselves and it will lead to a 2nd trump term.

mikewsmith - Member
er????
This one was simple

I don't think so. Not often you'll see me doing this, but look at chewkws photo above and the photo the press chose to make the image that will stick in peoples mind. There's dishonesty on both sides here.

I'm not saying trump and his team aren't bullshiting, i'm saying I don't care and the smart thing would be to let it go in favour of reporting something of more substance down the line.

It's not just this though, it's been open season and jumping on every little stupid thing he says since he started running, in contrast to actually discussing his policies(yes he does actually have some if you listen to any of his speachs, another myth propogated). It's a ratings games you are all arguing about, it ain't politics.

Tbh trump does actually have a point about being attacked by the media. And that actually does suit him. People need to realise they are getting done up like kippers here, it's what got him elected. The smart thing would have been to say, right you're president now, that carry on stops here, we're only here to report on your political activity and let him fall on his own sword with rational discussion of his policies.

But nup that'll not happen. And I fear there won't be proper scrutiny of his presidency because of it.

You think the republicans will go after him before 4 years? No chance. They and Trump are getting gave a free reign as no one really seems willing to discuss his policies with any form of seriousness.

How can they, if all trump needs to do is say something daft or move a bust, and the media goes into a hysterical frenzy.. How is it even possible to get proper scrutiny out to the general public in that scenario? It's not. But it's bloody good for the ratings though isn't it...

This game between trump and the media suits both. People should remember that.

I'm not saying trump and his team aren't bullshiting, i'm saying I don't care and the smart thing would be to let it go in favour of reporting something of more substance down the line.

It's not an either-or situation. When Obama became president, the number of people who came was used as a barometer for the enthusiasm for the new president. I vaguely recall the same for George W Bush as well. Just because it's Trump, it doesn't mean the press has to keep their powder dry, to save their comments for some time he does something really wrong. If a fact is that his inauguration had less people than Obama, the best thing for the Trump white house to do is to say nothing, or say "It's clear from the crowd and the protests that whilst we have a lot of the American people are on-board, a significant number are not which means we'll be working especially hard to unite the country behind President Trump". Instead they had an easily disproved tantrum and used phrases like "alternative facts" as if people outside their base believed them.

Obamas campaign didn't have the ridiculousness of Trumps campaign and the media hysteria to go with it.

You're not comparing like for like.

You think the republicans will go after him before 4 years? No chance. They and Trump are getting gave a free reign as no one really seems willing to discuss his policies with any form of seriousness.

He is currently a nessacary evil for them. He will be gone when they are sick of him one way or another.

Obamas campaign didn't have the ridiculousness of Trumps campaign and the media hysteria to go with it.

You're not comparing like for like.

No, it's like for like. One inauguration's attendance compared to another inauguration's attendance is fair. That the man on the stage is more divisive is the reason for lower turn out which is fair comment. Trump needs to own that not just have people saying it's unfair.

ninfan using Junkyard's "straw man" technique 😆 they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

A better perspective, and probably PBS' final act.

Tom_W1987 - Member

that is alleigiance to your ideology at the expense of people.

😆 I'm actually doing the complete opposite - I'm putting the people before ideology.

The world is more likely to be a slightly more peaceful place without Hillary Clinton as US president, without aggressive US interventionist policies, without US hegemony/full-spectrum dominance.

Besides, I remain unconvinced that the Trump administration's economic policies will not benefit ordinary Americans for certain - I adopt a more wait and see attitude.

Certainly a Trump presidency is extremely bad news for the plight of the Palestinian people - the greatest injustice of modern times imo. And there is no doubt that the bigotry and vile persona which comes with Trump and is likely to cause some US isolation from the rest of the world will, and has already, caused division and hatred within US society.

Nevertheless when it is seen in the context of the whole picture the positives of a Trump presidency rather than a Hillary Clinton presidency outweigh the negatives imo. I certainly don't think it's quite the disaster many seem to think it is.

And it is precisely those who put ideology before the interests the people who are blinkered and fail to see this.

atlaz - Member
No, it's like for like. One inauguration's attendance compared to another inauguration's attendance is fair. That the man on the stage is more divisive is the reason for lower turn out which is fair comment. Trump needs to own that not just have people saying it's unfair.

I'm not just talking about the inauguration. That's your focus.

ernie_lynch - Member
The world is more likely to be a slightly more peaceful place without Hillary Clinton as US president,

hmmm, lets see how operation eradicate ISIS plays out firstly.

ernie_lynch - Member

Certainly a Trump presidency is extremely bad news for the plight of the Palestinian people

yip.. 🙁

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/22/israel-reveals-plans-for-nearly-600-settlement-homes-in-east-jerusalem

This is like watching a prequel to Orwells 1984.

I'm not just talking about the inauguration. That's your focus.

Yes. My post was about the inauguration. That's why I was talking about the inauguration rather than, say, nuclear proliferation. You quoted part of my post on the inauguration which is why I assumed, obviously wrongly, that you were talking about the inauguration.

And yes, I think it would be very good for the world long term, and democracy, if the US's influence and prestige in global affairs was reduced.

seosamh77 - Member

Got to admit, the whole crowd size thing is indicative of modern day politics, why the hell is it even an issue and why are people still talking about it?

The numbers thing isn't an issue, the "declare war on the media and try to threaten them for not faithfully reporting your fictional version of the news, at the first post-inauguration press conference" thing is an issue. Unless you believe that this will only happen with trivial things like inauguration numbers but never with anything important.

I'm not sure the Trump guys really care that much about the numbers- it's possible they do but mostly it seemed to be the first opportunity to pick a fight.

I think the worrying thing is still that if Trump gets ousted during his term, Pence will replace him. With Trump in the whitehouse he is likely to get blocked with much of his agenda (if he actually has one beyond bullshitting the crowds). But with Pence in charge, he will get the full support of the Republican party to go hell bent delivering a tea party agenda.

mostly it seemed to be the first opportunity to pick a fight.

And continue the pushing the narrative that the liberal media are against him and cannot be trusted.

And issue a warning shot to the media that the [s]lies[/s] [i]"alternative facts"[/i] of the Glorious Leader cannot be questioned.

If they manage to cast doubt and spin on something as measurable, obvious and public as this, then it puts them in a really good position when it comes to more subtle debates.

Yup. You tend to think about these things as a reasonable person, "Why pick such a stupid fight- "BLACK IS WHITE. PERIOD" "We're putting forward alternative colours". But if you can win the stupid fight then you know you can win any fight, or at least cast doubt on any fact.

Meanwhile the other guy is going "why are we arguing about this stupid thing, let's not bother, and save it for something that matters"- but when it does there's already a false narrative in place and they've created a history of having "won" the last argument that you walked away from because it was too dumb to matter, and "proved" you to have been wrong, or lying

True and false and right and wrong aren't the same as winning or losing an argument, everyone knows that.

But as the fans of dishonesty on here have pointed out repeatedly, arguing about the lie keeps it in the public eye, and makes the conversation about the lie. It's pretty ugly.

This is quite nice. Gigapixel photo of the inauguration. You can zoom in for some nice little candids of people attending.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

Now that's interesting. From that angle the crowds do indeed look more continuous than those shots Trump's team are complaining about. Maybe the "empty" shots were taken when there were more people in those portaloos.

That is a cool picture !
Did look lots

I think crowd scientists ( they are a real thing) Estimated 600,000 for trump. ( A third less than obama)
The numbers Spicer used for the metro usage appear to be straight up lies/alternative facts

There's a shitload of people there, it's not like the VIPs turned up and nobody else. Dignified silence would have been better than the lies.

If you the click on the Michael o thumb nail wow just look at daggers being being sent over trumps way and one poor woman has taken to suffocation via a bag on the head. Or it's a member of mi5 doing a bit of auto self loving.

I'm amused by how many VIPs appear to be napping, even those on the main stage where they know there are cameras pointing.

I'm sure they are really "praying" or something 😆

Obama is praying I'm sure. if you believe in body language you could have a months work just on the first row

Besides, I remain unconvinced that the Trump administration's economic policies will not benefit ordinary Americans for certain - I adopt a more wait and see attitude.

Americans might, the rest of the world won't though, your myopia on this issue is staggering. Globalisation was a good way of evening the playing field a little for developing countries. It was an underhand way of transferring wealth from bloated, obese, overpaid former colonialists to people who used to be paid two dollars a day. American hegemony was being undermined by economic liberalisation, protectionism will just slow its death. Being pleased that Trump is in power because he is a buffoon and cuz "Iraq and Hillary lololololol" just evidences crass thinking.

Northwind - Member
seosamh77 - Member
Got to admit, the whole crowd size thing is indicative of modern day politics, why the hell is it even an issue and why are people still talking about it?

The numbers thing isn't an issue, the "declare war on the media and try to threaten them for not faithfully reporting your fictional version of the news, at the first post-inauguration press conference" thing is an issue. Unless you believe that this will only happen with trivial things like inauguration numbers but never with anything important.

I'm not sure the Trump guys really care that much about the numbers- it's possible they do but mostly it seemed to be the first opportunity to pick a fight.

Tbh I think I'm just having a hard time believing that trump isn't in cahoots with the media in all of this anyhow. Not particularly the rank and file, but at the boardroom level. Like his campaign, the media is getting set up as the straight man to his comedian. A conveniently useful tool for obscuring information.

I have no evidence to back this up, other than the fact that Americas richest goons just took over all power. Bernie Sanders even found it funny that Trump says he's giving power back to the people while billionare after billionaire sat right behind him with front row seats (bernies paraphrased words.)

Just can't shake the feeling we're all getting played for fools here by all sides at the boardroom levels. As I say, I don't particularly blame the rank and file media, I'd guess they are as clueless as us, but still, it's constant subertuge imo. All smells off to me, we're watching a game.

Trump is and always has been the establishment.

Cool pic.

You'd expect Obama to have had more people at 2009 inauguration, I went to Rockerfeller Plaza on election night in 2008 as it was such a historic win. Trump in 2016 would have just been for the bizarre and most probably I would have just watched on TV.

This made me laugh

[img] [/img]

@seso Americans respect people who have made money. What they hate are the politicians who want go get rich by allowing themselves to be bought. Tye US i not being run by Americas richest people. Trump etc are mostly not at the top end of wealthy US business people like Dell, Gates, Allen, Buffet, Zuckerberg etc, and the majority below that most of us have never heard of.

You'd expect Obama to have had more people at 2009 inauguration, I went to Rockerfeller Plaza on election night in 2008 as it was such a historic win. Trump in 2016 would have just been for the bizarre.

indeed, electing the first ever Black president a truly monumentous moment in a country with a complicated history of racial politics vs electing another fat, rich, white guy with bad hair.

It seems such a pointless fight to pick

Im not sure I buy the argument that Trump is using this as a dead cat-
more like hes immensely insecure and his ego has been swollen to a ridiculous extent by all this so he believes his own hype.
Plus he (Bannon) has got a wider plan to bash the media until its compliant and only reporting exactly what he wants

I think Trump is (quite rightly) unimpressed with the press coverage he got during the campaign. I do think he's going to sideline many traditional media outlets. If Zuckerberg does that he's part of the modern information and tech revolution. Twittr, Facebook and news websites, why not prioritise those.

It would appear that both sides are a bunch of lying, cheating, scheming asshats.

Journalists manipulating information, who'd of thought it? 🙄