Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;1163558]Why wouldn't it have an impact??



I can't fathom why anybody would suggest otherwise. There are diehards that would brave any weather, and then there are some that just don't care enough.



I fully acknowledged that Obama drew more votes and was far more inspiring. But really, dismissing weather as a factor at all isn't intellectually honest, we all know seats to ANY event are empty more often on rainy days. Football, baseball, outdoor concerts, everything.[/QUOTE]



1 million turned out last time vs 250k this time and you really want me to believe it was the weather? Weak.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=MTK;1163564]1 million turned out last time vs 250k this time and you really want me to believe it was the weather? Weak.[/QUOTE]



I would respond more in depth to how weak this excuse is but it is a little over cast.

Re: What would it take?
 

So now Trump is saying the pics of the sparse inauguration crowd was a lie? This is what's important? For fucks sake. Seriously does this guy have a micro penis or something? His insecurity is off the charts.

[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/trump-white-house-briefing-inauguration-crowd-size.html[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1163580]So now Trump is saying the pics of the sparse inauguration crowd was a lie? This is what's important? For fucks sake. Seriously does this guy have a micro penis or something? His insecurity is off the charts.

[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/trump-white-house-briefing-inauguration-crowd-size.html[/url][/quote]

I think it's obvious trump didn't have as big as crowd as Obama, but who would seriously think he would? Only an idiot would believe trump would draw more...first Obama was the first black president. Hello, that effing historic, it's gonna draw folks. Second, numerous major population centers in proximity to D.C. Which largely vote democrat.

Now, you won't here the media state these facts because they are doing whatever they can to make the reception to a trump presidency seem unenthusiastic. They want folks to believe people aren't excited.

Trump should totally lay down the facts for the press and move on. He shouldn't have put the press secretary out there like that...but I think it may send a signal saying, if your gonna purposely not tell the whole story or simply spin it, then expect to be confronted.

We haven't seen a president like this before

Re: What would it take?
 

The more the press crows over the attendance the more the anti media message resonates.

Trump understands that, I think, and actually pokes the press in the direction he wants them to go. More they take that bait the more his team can push other things through. There's only so much media outrage most people will listen to.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

I'm concerned that right out of the gate we've got blatant lies coming out of the WH.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=MTK;1163591]I'm concerned that right out of the gate we've got blatant lies coming out of the WH.[/QUOTE]
We've had that for 16 years.

Edit: truthfully its been alot longer than that. Who could forget the classic it depends on what the definition of is is. Or I am not a crook. Or this administration is proud to be scandal free.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1163592]We've had that for 16 years.

Edit: truthfully its been alot longer than that. Who could forget the classic it depends on what the definition of is is. Or I am not a crook. Or this administration is proud to be scandal free.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]



Cred there are lies and there are LIES. To send your press secretary out there and order him to blatantly lie to the World is effed up. The entire world is aware of the fact that it was not the biggest crowd ever. On top of that what the fuck is it even a topic for? He is sooooo upset that Obama had more "fans" that he is just going to lie like a child when they know they are wrong???
It is a mental issue. He is sick.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1163592]We've had that for 16 years.

Edit: truthfully its been alot longer than that. Who could forget the classic it depends on what the definition of is is. Or I am not a crook. Or this administration is proud to be scandal free.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/quote]

So nothing to see here? Just move along it's business as usual? I'm sorry but this is just bizarre and embarrassing it's only day 1.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1163598]So nothing to see here? Just move along it's business as usual? I'm sorry but this is just bizarre and embarrassing it's only day 1.[/quote]


I guess I am more upset about Trumps visit to the CIA,as one artical said instead of acknowledging the list in the wall behind him of staffers who have died in the service of the CIA he want s to talk inauguration numbers,what the fuck???:mad:

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Giantone;1163599]I guess I am more upset about Trumps visit to the CIA,as one artical said instead of acknowledging the list in the wall behind him of staffers who have died in the service of the CIA he want s to talk inauguration numbers,what the fuck???:mad:[/quote]

You mean when you're at a memorial it's not appropriate to talk about crowd size, the dishonest media, or how smart you are? I thought it was a perfect venue for a narcissistic diatribe myself.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1163564]1 million turned out last time vs 250k this time and you really want me to believe it was the weather? Weak.[/quote]

You're not reading my entire post. I don't plan on repeating myself.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;1163602]You're not reading my entire post. I don't plan on repeating myself.[/QUOTE]


The weather wasn't a significant factor. Sorry.

Re: What would it take?
 

K. Ignorant, but ok.

Re: What would it take?
 

50 degrees and some light rain keep numbers down. Ok. The mildest inauguration since 1989 and weather was a factor. Right.

Re: What would it take?
 

Good lord Kelly Conway is fucking owning chuck Todd. Wow

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1163607]God lord Kelly Conway is fucking owning chuck Todd. Wow[/QUOTE]


When reality and facts don't matter and you can spin BS like she does, it's not hard to own a sad sack like CT. That said I'm not sure I saw much ownage on her part anyway, the fact that the first time we hear from the press secretary and he's berating the media over crowd size, and has the gall to claim it was the largest ever, is just fucking insane.

Re: What would it take?
 

Dan Rather's take on FB...

These are not normal times. These are extraordinary times. And extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

When you have a spokesperson for the president of the United States wrap up a lie in the Orwellian phrase "alternative facts”…

when you have a press secretary in his first appearance before the White House reporters threaten, bully, lie, and then walk out of the briefing room without the cajones to answer a single question…

when you have a President stand before the stars of the fallen CIA agents and boast about the size of his crowds (lies) and how great his authoritarian inaugural speech was….
these are not normal times.

The press has never seen anything like this before. The public has never seen anything like this before. And the political leaders of both parties have never seen anything like this before.

What can we do? We can all step up and say simply and without equivocation. "A lie, is a lie, is a lie!" And if someone won't say it, those of us who know that there is such a thing as the truth must do whatever is in our power to diminish the liar's malignant reach into our society.

There is one group of people who can do a lot - very quickly. And that is Republicans in Congress. Without their support, Donald Trump's presidency will falter. So here is what I think everyone in the press must do. If you are interviewing a Paul Ryan, a Mitch McConnell, or any other GOP elected official, the first question must be "what will you do to combat the lying from the White House?" If they dodge and weave, keep with the follow ups. And if they refuse to give a satisfactory answer, end the interview.

Facts and the truth are not partisan. They are the bedrock of our democracy. And you are either with them, with us, with our Constitution, our history, and the future of our nation, or you are against it. Everyone must answer that question.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1163625]Dan Rather's take on FB...

These are not normal times. These are extraordinary times. And extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

When you have a spokesperson for the president of the United States wrap up a lie in the Orwellian phrase "alternative facts”…

when you have a press secretary in his first appearance before the White House reporters threaten, bully, lie, and then walk out of the briefing room without the cajones to answer a single question…

when you have a President stand before the stars of the fallen CIA agents and boast about the size of his crowds (lies) and how great his authoritarian inaugural speech was….
these are not normal times.

The press has never seen anything like this before. The public has never seen anything like this before. And the political leaders of both parties have never seen anything like this before.

What can we do? We can all step up and say simply and without equivocation. "A lie, is a lie, is a lie!" And if someone won't say it, those of us who know that there is such a thing as the truth must do whatever is in our power to diminish the liar's malignant reach into our society.

There is one group of people who can do a lot - very quickly. And that is Republicans in Congress. Without their support, Donald Trump's presidency will falter. So here is what I think everyone in the press must do. If you are interviewing a Paul Ryan, a Mitch McConnell, or any other GOP elected official, the first question must be "what will you do to combat the lying from the White House?" If they dodge and weave, keep with the follow ups. And if they refuse to give a satisfactory answer, end the interview.

Facts and the truth are not partisan. They are the bedrock of our democracy. And you are either with them, with us, with our Constitution, our history, and the future of our nation, or you are against it. Everyone must answer that question.[/quote]


Perfect!

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1163625]Dan Rather's take on FB...

These are not normal times. These are extraordinary times. And extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

When you have a spokesperson for the president of the United States wrap up a lie in the Orwellian phrase "alternative facts”…

when you have a press secretary in his first appearance before the White House reporters threaten, bully, lie, and then walk out of the briefing room without the cajones to answer a single question…

when you have a President stand before the stars of the fallen CIA agents and boast about the size of his crowds (lies) and how great his authoritarian inaugural speech was….
these are not normal times.

The press has never seen anything like this before. The public has never seen anything like this before. And the political leaders of both parties have never seen anything like this before.

What can we do? We can all step up and say simply and without equivocation. "A lie, is a lie, is a lie!" And if someone won't say it, those of us who know that there is such a thing as the truth must do whatever is in our power to diminish the liar's malignant reach into our society.

There is one group of people who can do a lot - very quickly. And that is Republicans in Congress. Without their support, Donald Trump's presidency will falter. So here is what I think everyone in the press must do. If you are interviewing a Paul Ryan, a Mitch McConnell, or any other GOP elected official, the first question must be "what will you do to combat the lying from the White House?" If they dodge and weave, keep with the follow ups. And if they refuse to give a satisfactory answer, end the interview.

Facts and the truth are not partisan. They are the bedrock of our democracy. And you are either with them, with us, with our Constitution, our history, and the future of our nation, or you are against it. Everyone must answer that question.[/quote]

That's rich coming from a leading apologizing media member:[url=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6055248/ns/politics/t/cbs-news-admits-bush-documents-cant-be-verified/]CBS: Bush documents can’t be verified - politics | NBC News[/url]
CBS News anchor Dan Rather issued an apology Monday, with CBS News president Andrew Heyward. CBS News apologized Monday for a “mistake in judgment” in its story questioning President Bush’s National Guard service, claiming it was misled by the source of documents that several experts have dismissed as fakes.


Fake news. Sad!

Re: What would it take?
 

Yes, so we should just discount anything he says for the rest of his life now for a mistake he acknowledged and apologized for.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1163655]Yes, so we should just discount anything he says for the rest of his life now for a mistake he acknowledged and apologized for.[/quote]

Well to be honest he has always had an axe to grind with the GOP, so his remark isn't surprising.

In fact, dan rather would fit right in with today's media...he came from an era where the ethics of journalism were upheld on a daily basis. The expectation was to present the facts to the American people and let the people decide what's right. And you certainly could not interject personal political opinions in presenting the news. When dan rather did that just over 10 years, this was a major embarrassment for cbs...he caught a lot of flack because he created distrust. He was seen as a leader in journalism....he mostly regarded as a joke these days.

I'm for confronting the media becuase it's out of control. Time magazine which NBC also ran the story of trump removing the bust of mlk out of the Oval Office is another example. This story ran immediately and was shared millions of times. The reporter eventually apologized, but that shit doesn't matter, it's already spread. This type of irresponsible journalism feeds into racial sensitivity across the country...it's damning.

Re: What would it take?
 

Um yeah, I'm still more concerned about the "alternative facts" coming from the WH. The tone that's been set at the start of this administration is very alarming. Even worse than I thought it would be honestly.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1163692]Um yeah, I'm still more concerned about the "alternative facts" coming from the WH. The tone that's been set at the start of this administration is very alarming. Even worse than I thought it would be honestly.[/quote]

Agree. It's absolutely insane that they're debating facts that can be clearly observed in photos. It's embarrassing, frankly.

I voted for Clinton, but once Trump won I went with the attitude that I'd like to wait and see what he can do. This isn't a good start at all.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1163692]Um yeah, I'm still more concerned about the "alternative facts" coming from the WH. The tone that's been set at the start of this administration is very alarming. Even worse than I thought it would be honestly.[/quote]

so funny that those 2 words from that interview are making the rounds...it's a sound bite generation where the attention span is so low and people will not listen to the entire interview for context. Folks will take this and just make up whatever they want...whatever fits in the bubble.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1163711]so funny that those 2 words from that interview are making the rounds...it's a sound bite generation where the attention span is so low and people will not listen to the entire interview for context. Folks will take this and just make up whatever they want...whatever fits in the bubble.[/quote]

Why wouldn't you latch onto those words?? They are by definition an oxymoron. Facts are indisputable, read the dictionary definition. There is only one alternative to a fact: bullshit.

Re: What would it take?
 

Chico to maintain any credibility in these debates at all, you have to admit that phrase is ridiculous. If you don't, or if you try to gloss past it, then you risk never being taken seriously by anybody with a brain.

Re: What would it take?
 

I agree that facts are indisputable.
One fact is that there is no exact or physical count.
One fact is that due to clouds there is not the overhead view that counts are taken from.
One fact is that Trump's inauguration via Nielsen's ratings were the second highest and online/streaming viewership was an all time high.

These are alternative facts to the drumbeat the media ran with one photo and their standing narrative against Trumps presidency

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

Not really defending the 2 words but the coverage. Did u see the interview? chuck Todd got bitch slapped. But yet I'm forced to defend 2 words? Psss please...come on bro.

I've stated before, it was dumb to defend a crowd by trump and the administration...but we know what's going on, it was a clear smear campaign be the media to denigrate the incoming administration. why did the media run the side by side comparison to Obama's inaugural crowd?

Its interesting to see the confrontation with the media...I think a lot of folks will be saying it's about time. But I don't know if it necessarily smart, because we can see with just 2 words what can happen.

Re: What would it take?
 

:doh:

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1163730]:doh:[/quote]

Lol...don't worry, hopefully we can start talking about stuff that really matters as the first 100 days begins. If trump effs up with policy pushes i won't give him any slack. I just really the playing field was level when it comes to coverage, lotta bad info out there...

Re: What would it take?
 

Strange times.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1163519]Well gosh. I guess our next president should win dancing with stars. First?!? He's the commander in chief not a pop star. I know that's hard for obama fans to grasp since he had the roles reversed in his mind and actions.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/quote]

He's not supposed to be a pop star? I'm confused, his social media habits seem to imply he wants to be treated like a pop star.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1163723]I agree that facts are indisputable.
One fact is that there is no exact or physical count.
One fact is that due to clouds there is not the overhead view that counts are taken from.
One fact is that Trump's inauguration via Nielsen's ratings were the second highest and online/streaming viewership was an all time high.

These are alternative facts to the drumbeat the media ran with one photo and their standing narrative against Trumps presidency

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/quote]

1) I agree on fact one
2)Fact two is wrong .Back and I think it was a Beach Boy concert the formula the National Parks Dept use to do head counts on the Mall was reveled and I do agree there is no "actual" numbers count they can most certainly do very good estimations.Each section on the Mall can hold x amount of people and such.While it was over cast right around Oath time it lighten up a good amount.
3) Considering the improvement in tech knowledge of course more people were able to watch it in ways that didn't exist even eight years ago.All so does'nt mean people were watching.I kind of use the train wreck theory,people know what's coming but still want to see the car and the train collide.

Re: What would it take?
 

Dennis Kucinich (democratic Pres.primary Candidate 2004&2008) response to Trump's inaugural address

[url]https://m.facebook.com/denniskucinich/posts/10154527639948218[/url]

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1163724]Not really defending the 2 words but the coverage. Did u see the interview? chuck Todd got bitch slapped. But yet I'm forced to defend 2 words? Psss please...come on bro.

I've stated before, it was dumb to defend a crowd by trump and the administration...but we know what's going on, it was a clear smear campaign be the media to denigrate the incoming administration. why did the media run the side by side comparison to Obama's inaugural crowd?

Its interesting to see the confrontation with the media...I think a lot of folks will be saying it's about time. But I don't know if it necessarily smart, because we can see with just 2 words what can happen.[/quote]



I see you are taking "alternative facts" to heart.

Re: What would it take?
 

This is only tangentially related to Trump.

The 8 richest billionaires (maybe Gates reaches TRILLIONAIRE status) are:
Warren Buffett [I]Democrat, has supported republicans[/I]
Microsoft's Bill Gates, [I]staunch democrat[/I]
Inditex founder Amancio Ortega,
Mexico's Carlos Slim,
Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos, [I]staunch democrat[/I]
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg [I]independent anti-trump[/I]
Oracle's Larry Ellison [I]staunch democrat[/I]
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg [I]republican turned democrat[/I]

Why is it that the Mega rich, in fact the 6 US members of that group could probably solve healthcare or social security or medicare by themselves, are democrats when republicans so often are labeled as the party of the rich?

I am not disparaging these men, I know they all have a charitable side, but it amazes me that democrats have the rich in hollywood, the super rich, and the media elite as their supporters and yet the very poor somehow think these people are on their side.

Re: What would it take?
 

And probably a little more on point.

This is a Fortune article dated Jan 16th 2017, so before Trump is even in office.
[url=http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/world-richest-men-income-equality/]World's 8 Richest Men Are as Wealthy as Half the World's Population | Fortune.com[/url]

From the article:
[QUOTE]Just eight individuals, all men, own as much wealth as the poorest half of the world's population, Oxfam said on Monday
...
In 2010, by comparison, it took the combined assets of the 43 richest people to equal the wealth of the poorest 50%, according to the latest calculations.
{insert a video titled - these execs became billionaires after Donald Trump was elected}
[/QUOTE]
I know this is in the world, but still who was president and whose tax policies were in place for those 6 years?
[QUOTE]...
While many workers struggle with stagnating incomes, the wealth of the super-rich has increased by an average of 11% a year since 2009.
...[/QUOTE]
SO what does this magazine article conclude, given that currently we have tax rates more in line with the democratic party ideals rather than the lower tax ideals of the republican party. Well you guessed it, we can't leave it to the rich to spend their wealth, we must enforce it ourselves:
[QUOTE]Bill Gates, the world's richest man who is a regular at Davos, has seen his fortune rise by 50% or $25 billion since announcing plans to leave Microsoft (MSFT, +0.89%) in 2006, despite his efforts to give much of it away.
While Gates exemplifies how outsized wealth can be recycled to help the poor, Oxfam believes such "big philanthropy" does not address the fundamental problem.
"If billionaires choose to give their money away then that is a good thing. But inequality matters and you cannot have a system where billionaires are systematically paying lower rates of tax than their secretary or cleaner," Lawson said.[/QUOTE]

Because high tax rates mean less disparity right? Oh wait? maybe not...

It's a crazy article, and for the record I think it's crazy that 8 men can have the wealth of half the world, but I find it even more interesting that the 6 of those men that live in the US VEHEMENTLY opposed Donald Trump, and ACTIVELY supported Hillary Clinton.

Given that their wealth went up 11% a year under President Obama, I can certainly understand why they would want Hillary to take his place.

Re: What would it take?
 

I feel like the nonsense about crowd size and whatever his latest nonsensical bs is about is so we ignore the real issues, like eliminating the fee cut that the Dept of HUD announced, or letting the REINS act sail through Congress this time around. If he constantly puts out a cycle of bullshit, it will distract us from the issues that will need to be paying attention to. Maybe we won't even notice that he signed another order putting the Keystone and the Dakota Access pipelines back on track. Has he even produced paperwork showing that he got rid of his investments in those? Has he even produced any paperwork saying he's gotten rid of control of his businesses? I know his press secretary said he did but nobody has produced any paperwork showing it's actually done.

Re: What would it take?
 

mooby quit trying to delegitimize his presidency by asking for fact. im sure all of those " alternative facts" says he has