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

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1163945]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.[/quote]

I agree with your first part. One way to control salacious media is to give them useless news and let them tear away at it while the real work moves forward.

It's like throwing raw meat laced with cyanide in a lion's den. Why cyanide? Because, at least I believe, the more the liberal media tears at these meaningless fights, the more they show themselves to be biased, and cause people who are not in the diehard anti Trump group to look at the media with disgusted eyes.

I would go another step and say that the slow roll of the promised executive orders adds another layer to the spin control. Basically, by having a salacious (juicy) point like illegal voters, and a major promise signing or two, like steps to repeal ACA and freeze regulations, most major media outlets aren't given time to get their spin straight, and leaves a disjointed telling of "just the news" as opposed to a unified and biased(imo) version of it.

When you add in the meetings with leaders, and the backside regulation and departmental memo's - it really is like a tidal wave clearing out the [U]political/bureaucratic[/U] swamp. I am referring to the swamp as Trump voters defined it, not the [I]banking/corporate[/I] version that Trump opponents tried to redefine it as.

Donald Trump has been invited to speak before both houses of Congress on Feb 28th. If he continues this pace of actions for the next 30+ days, the media may have to do day long refresher shows just to try and cover it all.

Like him, hate him, whatever - it is clear that up front he certainly is working hard at doing what his agenda and platform was. Very much reminds me of Newt Gingrich's contract for America leadership, in the style of pushing his agenda forward each day, and not stopping for the politically inspired tantrums.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=dmek25;1163968]mooby quit trying to delegitimize his presidency by asking for fact. im sure all of those " alternative facts" says he has[/quote]

ok. Since "alternative facts" is so fun to distract with I'm gonna start with a football analogy, give a literal liberal "alternative facts", then help antiTrump'ers with lunch :).

Catch/No Catch you decide the facts - of course it depends on the definition of a catch the NFL is using at the time.
[url]https://youtu.be/s7sLEWGOO6U[/url]

I will even lean on Bill Clinton's famous "it depends on what the definition of is is" quote - which as fun as it is to pick on that sentence, is legally correct.

The "fact" is, that facts are not all encompassing in most cases and specifically to Spicer's statement in question:

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

The truth of the statement lies in the whether Spicer's claim was that this the largest audience in person, and also around the globe, or whether - as he has said repeatedly - his claim was that this was the largest audience when in person and other sources are added together.
It clearly was not the largest audience in person, so a reasonable person's interpretation should be that he was not claiming that, but instead that he was pointing to the en masse numbers - hence why he included both as a way to aggregate them.

But in terms of throwing raw meat laced with cyanide, I am confident that Spicer made that statement [U]KNOWING[/U] the press would take the negative interpretation and he would be able to come back, and say see - this media is purposefully twisting our words. No it doesn't win diehard antiTrump'ers, but it feeds the fact that there is a media bias to anyone who wants to hear that. If he didn't want to throw raw meat, he would have phrased it more like "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — [when adding up the] in person and around the globe [viewers]."

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1163945][B]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.[/B] 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.[/quote]

well who would you blame for falling for this strategy? The stupidity of the opposition or the media...id say both.

But your def on to something...good post. Lotta leaders thrive on conflict.

Speaking of what no one is talking about...ever unless its mexico for some unknown fucking reason, a country that really moves no needle....foreign policy. How about one of Trump first thing was taking a call from the Taiwanese Pres and then having his Pres Sec said "they would protect South China Sea interest" 2 days ago. This is straight from Trump's book, you come in and let people know you are in charge and change will be coming immediately. Shows strength and says the status quo is over. Landing the first punch to wake up the opponent.

Re: What would it take?
 

I think he does like to put out bullshit as a distraction, but I also think he's genuinely not happy about losing the popular vote and was definitely embarrassed over the crowd size thing. The guy is all about perception and when things don't go his way watch out, its temper tantrum time.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1163372]So what is your answer for government?

You spew out a lot of idealistic bs [/quote]


So wanting a better earth/society is now "idealistic BS"? Interesting. I thought it was more along the lines of a sign of higher intelligence and a progressive humanity.

I'm all for a Democracy. I personally think the popular vote should win the election, but I've always thought that. Hard to fathom winning an election where you don't even get the most votes. My biggest qualm with our government is the corporate money intertwined with our politics. The lobbying, the campaign cash. All of it needs to be done away with. Until we get that straight, we are going to continue being a Oligarchy. Yeah, you might be fine with being ruled by rich elite, but I'm not.


[quote=CRedskinsRule;1163372]but reality is that history shows how all the governments progress. There is no utopian government that is going to suddenly appear but we do have a rich human history of what makes better, and worse, governments.[/quote]

I never said there was any Utopian government, only we should strive for perfection (regardless if obtainable or not). Yes, history does show that governments progress, which is exactly what this government will take to progress. Time.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1163993]I think he does like to put out bullshit as a distraction, but I also think he's genuinely not happy about losing the popular vote and was definitely embarrassed over the crowd size thing. The guy is all about perception and when things don't go his way watch out, its temper tantrum time.[/quote]


See I agree with you,he loves to be loved and I'll go a step further and say the Women'march got to him.He is tired of hearing how he snuck into the White house and he is not the President of the People.Saturday he learned exactly how much he is dislike and it bothers him.

Re: What would it take?
 

Trump's start has been a hot mess to start:

1) Have your Press Secretary lies about inauguration crowd and later double down on that same lie.
[url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-sean-spicer-trump-crowd-lies-perspec-0124-20170123-column.html]'Baghdad Sean' Spicer doubles down on crowd lies - Chicago Tribune[/url]

2) Told EPA not to tweet about climate change and restricted Federal agencies on social communication. Yet, this asshole can't stop tweeting about SNL and other bullshit not related to his job.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-agencies-ordered-to-restrict-their-communications/2017/01/24/9daa6aa4-e26f-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?utm_term=.993277deb9f5[/url]

3) Use your introductory speech at CIA to bitch about media/crowd numbers, and bring along staff to clap for you at CIA speech. "Please clap"
[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sources-say-theres-a-sense-of-unease-in-intel-community-after-trump-cia-visit/]Trump CIA Speech may have made worsened intel community relations - CBS News[/url]

4) Says that voter fraud kept him from winning the popular vote and will even start an investigation into such fraud.
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/trump-calls-for-major-investigation-into-voter-fraud/]Trump calls for 'major investigation' into voter fraud - CNNPolitics.com[/url]

5) Kellyanne Conway states the White House is using "alternative facts".
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/]Conway: Trump White House offered 'alternative facts' on crowd size - CNNPolitics.com[/url]

6) Tells EPA to remove climate change website page.
[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-epa-climatechange-idUSKBN15906G]Trump administration tells EPA to cut climate page from website: sources | Reuters[/url]

7) Threaten to send in the Feds to Chicago if they can't fix the "carnage".
[url=http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/the-stupidest-part-of-obamacare-goes-away.html]Trump gets rid of the stupidest part of Obamacare—Commentary[/url]

Have I missed anything stupid he's done? It's been so much in such a short amount of time.



I will give Trump props on one thing (regardless if I agree with these or not), is that he's keeping his word on what he was going to do.

1) Ban refugees from Muslim countries
[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-exclusive-idUSKBN1582XQ]Trump expected to order temporary ban on refugees | Reuters[/url]

2) Build a wall and boost deportations.
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/donald-trump-build-wall-immigration-executive-orders/index.html]Trump to order construction of border wall, boosting deportations - CNNPolitics.com[/url]

3) End the EPA or make it ineffective.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/23/trump-administration-tells-epa-to-freeze-all-grants-contracts/?utm_term=.b692e6f813b6[/url]


4) Repeal Obamacare. (his first step)
[url=http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/the-stupidest-part-of-obamacare-goes-away.html]Trump gets rid of the stupidest part of Obamacare—Commentary[/url]

5) Officially withdraw from TPP.
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-withdrawal-trumps-first-executive-action-monday-sources-say/]Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal withdrawal Trump's first executive action Monday - CNNPolitics.com[/url]





Good news though. Trump's approval rating is higher in Russia than it is here in the US.

[url=http://fortune.com/2017/01/25/donald-trump-russia-approval-ratings/]Donald Trump Has a High Approval Rating in Russia | Fortune.com[/url]

What would it take?
 

Feels like the next 4 years are going to go a lot like this, Trump says or tweets something stupid and the WH has to scramble to make excuses for him like with this "investigation" into voter fraud. He truly is a fucking moron if he thinks 3-5 million people voted illegally, that would be fraud on such a widespread scale it would be almost unimaginable.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1164014]Feels like the next 4 years are going to go a lot like this, Trump says or tweets something stupid and the WH has to scramble to make excuses for him like with this "investigation" into voter fraud. He truly is a fucking moron if he thinks 3-5 million people voted illegally, that would be fraud on such a widespread scale it would be almost unimaginable.[/quote]


Dan Rather is right, call the dumbass out on every stupid thing he does and says .It's the media's job and don't be bullied by Trump.

Re: What would it take?
 

There is so much crazy shit coming out of the WH right now. I swear I am in the middle of a quirky Judd Apatow/Seth Rogen movie at the very least an Onion article.