Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

POTUS 2017 - ? [the post inauguration thread]


  • Please log in to reply
375 replies to this topic

#1 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,354 posts

Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:01 PM

I figure we have worn out the PEOTUS thread so time to start a brand new shiny fake-tan thread.

Lots of people have complained that those against Trump shouldn't complain until he has actually done something as President.

I have to wonder if they have been paying attention, when you look at his cabinet picks, his very apparent personal short-comings. I don't think I have actually seen anything in support of his behaviour or most of his cabinet picks, though I am sure someone has tried somewhere.


It is strange and amazing how liberals are being smeared with being divisive when they resist and push back back against division/bullying/prejudice/hate. I saw memes about Meryl Streep's speech, and people actually tearing her and/or her speech down, or they focus on some related aspect ("liberal hollywood") without actually addressing the substance. Because they can't. Unless they are big wrestling/mix-martial arts fan, and granted, I will concede I didn't agree with one part of her speech, and that was it ;)

Kellyanne Conway's exclamation in reaction to that speech and Trump's mocking of a disabled reporter, that we should look into his heart and not at what comes out of his mouth, is disturbing. She is basically saying you can't trust what Trump says to be what he really means. And we have to assume and trust what he really means is good (because certainly she wouldn't imply he has a bad heart). It also implies that people shouldn't trust their own ears and brains and process/analyze what Trump says, nor should we trust other people's summation, because we should just trust blindly in our 'great leader'. Her exclamation is just another helping of a shovel-full of dirt on top of casket of facts and objectivity. He should be the communicator in chief so people don't have to guess or make assumptions.


As much as I loved Meryl Streep's speech, and maybe it did something to move some people, I consider stories like that in the news to be a distraction to me. I don't watch awards shows, it came up on Facebook. When I am actually looking for American political news the amount of filtering/skipping I have to do to ignore relatively trivial stories is YUGE. I think it has been that way a while, but the difference is I don't feel I have the luxury of time for trivial stories anymore due to the amount of deeply concerning stories.

Just reading about some of the changes on the whitehouse.gov website has got me disquieted, and very much appear to confirm previous concerns:

https://www.washingt...m=.49242278fdf3

Edited by sierraleone, 20 January 2017 - 08:02 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#2 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:16 PM

He is a disgusting ignorant traitorous pig. I shall never recognize him as my president. May his removal from office happen soon.

ETA: dishonest pathological liar. I forgot to add that since it is so obvious and thoroughly ingrained in his persona that it is self evident.

Edited by yadda yadda, 20 January 2017 - 08:20 PM.


#3 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,354 posts

Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:19 PM

OMG, *laughs*, there is one page on the Whitehouse.gov website that was not changed today. The petition page. One petition already has 41,000+ signatures, and it was only created today.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov

I really hopes this gets the number of votes that it would have needed under Obama for the white house to respond (100,000 in a month). I know that policy doesn't shackle this administration to doing the same thing, but it would still be great. Got to get our amusements where one can.

Edited by sierraleone, 21 January 2017 - 11:15 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#4 243Skunk

243Skunk

    A real stinker

  • Islander
  • 351 posts

Posted 20 January 2017 - 09:56 PM

View Postyadda yadda, on 20 January 2017 - 08:16 PM, said:

He is a disgusting ignorant traitorous pig. I shall never recognize him as my president. May his removal from office happen soon.

ETA: dishonest pathological liar. I forgot to add that since it is so obvious and thoroughly ingrained in his persona that it is self evident.

In fairness, a lot of conservatives said that about Obama, and got lambasted for it.

For eight years, the football got spiked in our faces, getting told to "get over it." Political decisions we absolutely hated, and caused us to foam in the mouth. Right up to the end (Bradley Manning).  I am not religious. But I do believe in karma. For every ying, there is a yang. As such, Trump is the natural reaction to having eight years of Obama's policies in action.

I didn't vote for him. I think his policies will crash and burn, at least the ones that he doesn't roll back to pointlessness. But its gonna be needed to show everyone that middle of the road isnt a bad thing, and that pissing off the other side so much that they stop listening doesn't work.

#5 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 20 January 2017 - 10:45 PM

View Post243Skunk, on 20 January 2017 - 09:56 PM, said:

View Postyadda yadda, on 20 January 2017 - 08:16 PM, said:

He is a disgusting ignorant traitorous pig. I shall never recognize him as my president. May his removal from office happen soon.

ETA: dishonest pathological liar. I forgot to add that since it is so obvious and thoroughly ingrained in his persona that it is self evident.

In fairness, a lot of conservatives said that about Obama, and got lambasted for it.

For eight years, the football got spiked in our faces, getting told to "get over it." And Political decisions we absolutely hated, and caused us to foam in the mouth. Right up to the end (Bradley Manning).  I am not religious. But I do believe in karma. For every ying, there is a yang. As such, Trump is the natural reaction to having eight years of Obama's policies in action.

I didn't vote for him. I think his policies will crash and burn, at least the ones that he doesn't roll back to pointlessness. But its gonna be needed to show everyone that middle of the road isnt a bad thing, and that pissing off the other side so much that they stop listening doesn't work.

Not really in fairness, Skunk. There is no rationally measurable objective equivalence. Obama was not disgusting, unless the requisite standard of judgment is racism. Unlike this pig Trump, he was and is not a braggadocious admitted sexual predator.  He was and is not ignorant. Rather, one of the most intelligent presidents we've had, while this new fool can't string three coherent words together by himself and doesn't have the discipline or brainpower to read anything longer than the weak-minded juvenile crap he tweets.

As for loyalty and faithfulness to country, any and all of the hare-brained right-wing smears put forth as character assassination, most glaring of which was Trump's birtherism bullspit have been proven to be garbage. This new fool, if not yet proven a willing stooge of the Russian intelligence apparatus run by Putin, is by default an unwitting stooge of that adversarial foreign government, inimical to our national interests. He is at minimum a stupid, fawning, naive puppet of foreign influence. At worst he is in league with our enemies. And he is not middle of the road, unless you consider it in the context of the head on crash disaster his distracted driving he has us all on course for.

As for not liking the football being spiked for eight years, I get you. And about the yin/yang karma. The regular cycle of vicissitudes of political party reign in this country bear that out. We suffered under Bush for eight years and I feel and remember your pain.

ETA: As for dishonesty and lying, I'm sure LoTS would point to Obama's "if you want to keep your doctor, you can" and saying he couldn't change a law and then issuing an executive order. And maybe how he was going to close Gitmo...though really he was blocked on that. Maybe there were even a few more falsehoods one could point out. I don't know of any politician who hasn't or doesn't fudge the truth or make false promises. But Trump's lying is as natural to him as breathing. It's freaking pathological. He lies virtually every time he speaks. And how can someone who lies reflexively run a country, assume the office of the most powerful individual on the planet? How can anyone normalize or begin to accept that, even dismissing his other myriad faults and transgressions?

Edited by yadda yadda, 21 January 2017 - 12:45 AM.


#6 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,768 posts

Posted 20 January 2017 - 11:18 PM

View Post243Skunk, on 20 January 2017 - 09:56 PM, said:

In fairness, a lot of conservatives said that about Obama, and got lambasted for it.

Let's be even more fair, far too many of the ones who made remarks about Obama, deserved being "lambasted". But of course, not all, and that wasn't fair.

And what yadda said.

View Post243Skunk, on 20 January 2017 - 09:56 PM, said:

For eight years, the football got spiked in our faces, getting told to "get over it." Political decisions we absolutely hated, and caused us to foam in the mouth. Right up to the end (Bradley Manning).  I am not religious. But I do believe in karma. For every ying, there is a yang. As such, Trump is the natural reaction to having eight years of Obama's policies in action.

That's "yin and yang". :)
As for hating political decisions, is one of them the ACA?

View Post243Skunk, on 20 January 2017 - 09:56 PM, said:

I didn't vote for him. I think his policies will crash and burn, at least the ones that he doesn't roll back to pointlessness. But its gonna be needed to show everyone that middle of the road isnt a bad thing, and that pissing off the other side so much that they stop listening doesn't work.

In the meantime, the loud, ignorant ones are the ones being heard, and right now, they are the ones running the US. They found their leader in a man that doesn't care about any of us. They are reveling in this new found control. So how much damage is this "presidency" going to do to us?

Both sides don't listen and don't care. And yes, both (all) parties are filled with people who don't care or listen.
I am so tired of one side who says no to the climate changing. It's not real and we can do whatever the h*ll we want. Which, when you look at the religious claims they make, means that they are destroying God's world. But, pick and choose, discard the rest.
And when I am slopping around in mud, in January, for the first time in my life, well, I see them as idiots.

Then the other side who goes overboard with political correctness. While being kind to all is what everyone should strive to be, going nuts over something that is said that is not aimed at a person, race, sex or sexual orientation, is nuts.
If I use the word "slant", I am talking about something that is actually slanted, but if someone heard me, they could make something completely different out of it.

And I could think of many more examples for both extremes, but I think we all (okay, most of us) know what they are.

I am a moderate, if both sides would cooperate, I see how both ideals could work in harmony. However, for them to actually do that, would mean that they would not be able to control their voters. How horrible would that be, to have a Republican voting for a Democrat? Or a Democrat voting for a Republican? The party leaders we have now, would freak! Loss of power! omg!!! idiots.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#7 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,467 posts

Posted 21 January 2017 - 05:41 AM

As I've said countless times before:

Noun: Liberal:

1) A person who favours a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

2) A person who favours an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

Adjective: Liberal:

1) showing or characterized by broad-mindedness

2) Having political or social views favouring reform and progress

3) Tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

4) Given or giving freely (eg: "a liberal backer of the arts")

As I've said many times before, this describes politicians on both sides of the aisle. There is nothing "Leftist" about being Liberal.

When Righties use the term "Liberal", it's a derogatory term on a par with calling someone a n*gger. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a person's political persuasion.

If you read the fine print, it says, "not bound by authoritarianism". What is authoritarianism?

Noun: Authoritarianism: A form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)

Authoritarianism is synonymous with Fascism.

Noun: Fascist: An adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views

In other words, a Liberal is by definition a non-Fascist.

The thing about the Right is that they're small "f" fascists playing this little game where they pretend they're not. What they really like to f*ck around with is the language, using euphemisms and coded language, which they try to sleaze into the laws of the country in order to subvert them.

They're bigots, not to put too fine a point on it: bigots who protest they're anything but.

What susses them out, each and every time, is that they doth protest too much.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#8 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,354 posts

Posted 21 January 2017 - 08:01 AM

Quick note to mods: I was on my phone, but got stuck in non-mobile mode, and couldn't scroll, and seemed to be accidentally selecting the "Report" button. No reporting of posts intended :)

I took a quick look at https://petitions.whitehouse.gov again this morning. The petition already has 108,000+ signatures on it :D
Trump said people don't want or care to see his tax returns. Well it appears at least 108,000 people, and counting, do.
I wonder if this is the fastest growing petition that has been on there?

Edited by sierraleone, 21 January 2017 - 08:02 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#9 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 21 January 2017 - 09:13 PM

So now this Buffoonish Laughingstock Of The United States is threatening that the press will pay a heavy price because they reported the pathetic turnout for his inauguration which contradicted his grandiose lies? This guy is nuts, pure and simple. Emphasis on the simple.

#10 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,732 posts

Posted 21 January 2017 - 09:37 PM

View Postyadda yadda, on 21 January 2017 - 09:13 PM, said:

So now this Buffoonish Laughingstock Of The United States is threatening that the press will pay a heavy price because they reported the pathetic turnout for his inauguration which contradicted his grandiose lies? This guy is nuts, pure and simple. Emphasis on the simple.

This is a classic "The Emperor has no clothes" situation.  It will be interesting so see who, what, where, and when people in power call him on it.  Let's hope it's long before the straight news media's credibility is destroyed wiht his lies and delusions.  

I don't think people on the street realize what things would be like without the free press.  That's the nightmare we're facing.  If we have accurate news being reported, and enough people believe it, then he will be impeached sooner than later.  Republicans will turn on him as soon as his approval ratings continue to sink.  But, without a free press, he will lie until the truth is a figment of our imaginations.  

We need a free press.  An active, and vigilant free press.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#11 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 21 January 2017 - 10:43 PM

The press needs to stop pussyfooting around about his lies, like they did during the campaign. That's what gave him momentum and along with the Russians and Putin and Comey helped him get his fluke electoral college win. Deep into September and October the NY Times was still afraid to call his lies lies. We've never had a candidate/president who lies like this guy. The press didn't know how to deal with it.

The real press was too timid to call him out for what he really was. And the cable news outlets were too interested in ratings this clown generated to cover him honestly until it was too late. The only outlets unafraid to call a liar a liar and this wannabe emperor naked of clothes were late night talk hosts and political comedy shows like The Daily Show, Samantha Bee, Bill Maher, and John Oliver. But a lot of the country doesn't watch those shows, or the timid national media. They watch Fox Propaganda and other even worse outlets and never hear the truth, only the non factual spin and ginned up hatred.

So it's incumbent on the free press now to tell the nation the truth, and stand up to this liar's bullying and babbling. The AP story I read that reported his threats to the press for accurately reporting the scantiness of his inauguration attendance truthfully characterized Trumplethinskin's claims of fantastic overflow crowds as "wrongly" stated. We need more of that. The free press needs to take off the kid gloves and do their jobs and adhere to journalistic integrity. They have a lot to make up for.

Edited by yadda yadda, 21 January 2017 - 10:44 PM.


#12 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,768 posts

Posted 21 January 2017 - 11:24 PM

Well, pictures don't lie: inauguration lies

Spicer said:

Quote

Photographs of the inaugural proceedings were intentionally framed in a way in one particular tweet to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall. This was the first time in our nation's history that floor coverings have been used to protect the grass on the mall. That had the effect of highlighting any areas where people were not standing, while in years past, the grass eliminated this visual. This was also the first time that fencing and magnetometers went as far back on the wall, preventing hundreds of thousands of people from being able to access the mall as they had in inaugurations past. Inaccurate numbers involving crowd size were also tweeted. No one had numbers, because the National Parks Service, which controls the National Mall, does not put any out. By the way, this applies to any attempt to count the number of protesters in the same fashion.

Notice the save? No one had numbers, which counts the Women's March. See below for a link that shows we don't need numbers.

And stolen images: more inauguration lies

Quote

This leaves the newly installed president in a unique bind as he adjusts his Twitter presence to reflect his new job. A sweet shot of the adoring masses euphorically cheering his inaugural address would make for a killer banner photo, but what do you do when those crowds don't exist? The answer, it turns out, is "use a photo from President Obama's inauguration instead."

Well, when you don't have your own, borrow.

And the numbers: Spicer delivered another whopper

Quote

Spicer went on to deliver another whopper when he claimed that more people used the city’s train system for Trump’s inaugural than Obama’s 2013 swearing-in.
Spicer said 420,000 people used the Metro on Friday compared to 317,000 for Obama’s inauguration four years ago.
The rail system in fact saw 570,000 trips Friday compared with 1.1 million at Obama's 2009 inauguration and 782,000 at his 2013 inauguration, according to the Washington Post.

So while they were trying to claim more, they actually claimed less. Brilliant!

From the same article, the Women's March had more people:

Quote

If the fact that Obama's inaugural beat his so badly got under his skin, I can't wait to see what he says about the fact that the Women's March dwarfed his inaugural too. But again, don't believe me. Believe this:

https://twitter.com/...942373927911424

The people he chooses reflects on him, so if he chose morons, what does that make Trump? For any who wonder, and I doubt there are many, it makes him a moron.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#13 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,354 posts

Posted 21 January 2017 - 11:53 PM

So now we are to start judging this man by his deeds as president, as if his first 69 years of life, 17 months on the campaign trail, and ~2.5 months in transition were not a prologue supposedly.

POTUS's deeds so far:

- Suspends recent Obama-era FHA mortgage insurance cuts. This means that borrowers, i.e. regular citizens and taxpayers, will pay more than they would have with this cut. Link.

- Direct all federal agencies to do what they can, within their power, to relive governments, business, and people, from the burdens of the ACA. This could, at best, be considered largely symbolic at this point. However, it could eat away at the ACA in a way that over time could cause serious problems. Link.

- His Department of Justice has asked to have an extension on a Texas voter-ID court case that was to be argued next Tuesday. I assume that date would have been fought sooner if the staff lawyer arguing it was leaving the DoJ, so I assume that the new administration wants to change tack. Link. Sounds innocent enough on the surface. I had read/heard elsewhere that the lower courts basically says the law was obviously discriminatory (the appeals court ruled against the law, per the link), but a higher court partly sent it back to that lower court to determine if the Texas law was intended to be discriminatory. So, that presumably, was what the DoJ lawyer was going to try to argue in the affirmative.


POTUS's words so far: (because I still think words and language matter. They set the tone and influences culture)

- His inaugural address that seemed to be describing a dystopic America, that he can fix by being strong and making American isolationist. (note: only mention of corruption in politics as being the U.S. woes, not of corruption in corporations and their undue influence in the U.S.).

- Gave a speech after meeting with the CIA where he should be showing support for the CIA, but he briefly mentions that and spends most of his time indicating how much of a sore-winner he is again, and how self-obsessed he is, talking about his inauguration crowds being bigger than reported, among other Trumpian things in the rambling speech.
(I really wish they hadn't cut away from the Women's March coverage to this speech. It has confirmed I really don't every want to listen to another of his speeches again….).
ETA: I forgot this scary as all hell quote from that press conference: "Now I said it for economic reasons," Trump said. "But if you think about it, Mike, if we kept the oil, you probably wouldn't have ISIS because that's where they made their money in the first place, so we should have kept the oil [as spoils of war from the Iraq war]. But, OK, maybe we'll have another chance."
It's all bad, you don't steal another countries resources, but the bolded part, what the H E - DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS (H E L L).

- His White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer had a press conference continued with the gas-lighting of the media and the American people over the crowd sizes. He tore into the media, trying to discredit them over this, and didn't take any questions. Not a good sign. And the insecurity is breath-taking. I didn't see this speech so I don't know if there is anything else relevant to add which hasn't already been said.

Edited by sierraleone, 22 January 2017 - 12:38 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#14 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,354 posts

Posted 22 January 2017 - 12:26 AM

View Postyadda yadda, on 20 January 2017 - 08:16 PM, said:

May his removal from office happen soon.

The ? mark in the thread title is intended as a possible symbol of both hope and warning to heed. <2020, 2020, >2020, we will see.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#15 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,467 posts

Posted 22 January 2017 - 05:04 AM

It's not that members of the press didn't want to haul him out onto the carpet for his lies: it's that they were never given the opportunity.

You have to remember that reporters are subject and answerable to the rules as laid out by their employers. Their employers these days are gutless weasels whose only concern is the bottom line- ratings & money.

It's a tough time in the news business, regardless. Newspapers are struggling to stay in business, television and television news is on the way out, news magazines are in the same boat as newspapers in terms of shrinking revenue and readership.

This had caused a perfect storm in the overall industry, because the focus of the industry is on survival, not on content. They're playing it ultra-safe, trying to hold on to what little revenue, market share, and audience they have left.

Everyone is paying the price for this. There are only a very few actual news outlets. CNN is not a news station- not by any stretch of the imagination; nor is Fox Entertainment, nor any other pretender out there. All of them are cadging their feed off AP Wirefoto, Reuters, and a very few other sources.

Sure, there appear to be other news programmes and stations, but they're not news outlets. What they are is talk shows that related the news that appears on the AP Wirefoto and Reuters feed.

All those cameras that show up to events like the PODUNK Inauguration, that's just live coverage of an event. It has nothing whatever to do with news. An inauguration isn't news- it's an event. News is information that an inauguration will be taking place, but the inauguration itself is no more news than is a football game. An inauguration is a procedure. News is the reporting that such a procedure is/was taking place.

There hasn't been any meaningful political reporting for a very long time. Everyone is kidding themselves if they think they've been watching political coverage these past decades. Political reporters have zero access to the machinery of politics. The whole thing is nothing but patronage, backroom deals, and corruption.

Sure, the politicians put on a little floor-show for the television cameras in the form of the Congress and Senate, but this is just so they can give the appearance that they're actually doing something to earn their keep. The truth is that the whole lot of them are partisan weasels enacting agendas that have nothing whatever in common with public service.

This is why the best and the brightest don't/won't go into politics. They take one look, puke their guts out, and go elsewhere, showering themselves off with acid first in order to wash the stink off.

In my own brush with politics, I was so disgusted that I tore up my membership card and never voted again. At my first convention I learned all about "plumping", aka being told who you're supposed to vote for. The first thing every young politician learns is that the democratic process ends at the party level.

There's no freedom to think or act from inside a political party. It's suffocating. I would say "destructive".
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#16 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,457 posts

Posted 22 January 2017 - 11:05 AM

Regarding Sean Spicer's tongue lashing/Press Conference.

When I first saw it, my reactions to it were as follows: I was actually glad the Liberal mainstream media was getting the law laid down on them. We all KNOW the mainstream media is biased against Trump, and their one objective is to see him fail. Hence the Time's reporter reporting falsely that Trump removed the bust of King, and later having to retract his comments. And Spicer was right, the Press SHOULD be held to similar standards. No more handing democratic candidates debate questions ahead of time, no more submitting articles to the democratic candidate and asking if it is OK to print said article, no more asking the democrats what questions they should ask the republicans. All of which was just downright deplorable (pun intended)

Now, having said that, my second thought upon rewatching the Press conference was this: What if Obama's press secretary did this? The answer was completely different. So if I'm going to want to hold the Press to "fairer" standards, I should also be fair in how I view things the Trump administration is doing.

So, to be fair...While it's understandable that the Trump administration would want "fair" reporting...What, exactly, constitues fair reporting? Is it only reporting that reflects positively on Trump? Is the Trump administration going to revoke press credentials for reporters who post negatively about Trump? And perhaps most important...Who, exactly, decides what is "fair reporting"? unfortunately I don't have the answers to these questions.

Regarding Madonna's comments during the women's march, where she said she wanted to blow up the White House...I'm fairly certain she WILL be getting paid a visit by the Secret Service. Hell, she just might be facing a lengthy prison sentence for that threat.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#17 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,354 posts

Posted 22 January 2017 - 11:46 AM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 22 January 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

Regarding Sean Spicer's tongue lashing/Press Conference.

When I first saw it, my reactions to it were as follows: I was actually glad the Liberal mainstream media was getting the law laid down on them.

What law? Is there a law you are referring to? Are you suggesting there should be a law where there isn't one?
And: First amendment.
And if he is going to do this, berate the media, shouldn't it be over actual inaccuracies instead of lies they want to propagate and gas-light us with?

Quote

No more handing democratic candidates debate questions ahead of time, no more submitting articles to the democratic candidate and asking if it is OK to print said article, no more asking the democrats what questions they should ask the republicans. All of which was just downright deplorable (pun intended)

No comment. Only because this thread is about this POTUS.
Ok, as short and brief as I can, simply to explain my lack of care over this point: I am sick and tired of people bringing up the candidate that isn't in the White House. Our focus should be on the candidate that won and has all this institutional power now. If HRC were doing the same thing as this Press Secretary, today, in her current status, it may be news, but in the footnotes, no one cares, at least not most people that are focused on the future of this country. We have threads on why the Democrats lost, I just made a thread on Obama if you want to rant and rave about him. This thread is about the current POTUS. Of course, I can't stop you from posting about off-topic things, but in future I intend to ignore them in this thread.

Quote

So, to be fair...While it's understandable that the Trump administration would want "fair" reporting...What, exactly, constitues fair reporting? Is it only reporting that reflects positively on Trump? Is the Trump administration going to revoke press credentials for reporters who post negatively about Trump? And perhaps most important...Who, exactly, decides what is "fair reporting"? unfortunately I don't have the answers to these questions.

The administration could start with not trying to gas-light people over the evidence they have seen with their own eyes. I suspect that they will continue.

And get rid of the clapping and cheering section, whom I am certain is paid. I noticed them in the POTUS press conference at the CIA. I am sure that is why the administration wants to move the White House Press Conference room (of whatever it is called) to a larger space.

Edited by sierraleone, 22 January 2017 - 11:51 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#18 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 22 January 2017 - 11:48 AM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 22 January 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

Regarding Sean Spicer's tongue lashing/Press Conference.

When I first saw it, my reactions to it were as follows: I was actually glad the Liberal mainstream media was getting the law laid down on them. We all KNOW the mainstream media is biased against Trump, and their one objective is to see him fail. Hence the Time's reporter reporting falsely that Trump removed the bust of King, and later having to retract his comments. And Spicer was right, the Press SHOULD be held to similar standards. No more handing democratic candidates debate questions ahead of time, no more submitting articles to the democratic candidate and asking if it is OK to print said article, no more asking the democrats what questions they should ask the republicans. All of which was just downright deplorable (pun intended)

Now, having said that, my second thought upon rewatching the Press conference was this: What if Obama's press secretary did this? The answer was completely different. So if I'm going to want to hold the Press to "fairer" standards, I should also be fair in how I view things the Trump administration is doing.

So, to be fair...While it's understandable that the Trump administration would want "fair" reporting...What, exactly, constitues fair reporting? Is it only reporting that reflects positively on Trump? Is the Trump administration going to revoke press credentials for reporters who post negatively about Trump? And perhaps most important...Who, exactly, decides what is "fair reporting"? unfortunately I don't have the answers to these questions.

Regarding Madonna's comments during the women's march, where she said she wanted to blow up the White House...I'm fairly certain she WILL be getting paid a visit by the Secret Service. Hell, she just might be facing a lengthy prison sentence for that threat.

Oh I dunno, LoTS. You posted on here that if the electoral college screwed Trump you were going to get you some guns and burn this country down. Have you been visited by any LEO agencies? People can say quite a bit these days, apparently. Even your wonder savior, Trumplethinskin, advocated his followers exercise Second Amendment solutions on Hillary Clinton. Didn't really bring him any grief, just a few shout outs of praise from the crew at Fox and Friends and some extra votes from the crazy crowd.

#19 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 22 January 2017 - 12:14 PM

And so now we have officially entered the era of "alternative facts". We've been there of course for all of President Trumplethinskin's political existence, but now Kellyanne Conway announces it on the north lawn of the White House as official administration policy. Chuck Todd wants to know why the Liar-in-Chief sent out his press secretary to flat out lie about the inauguration crowd size and Conway took umbrage at the characterization of Sean Spicer's lies as falsehoods. She vouched for them instead as "alternative facts". This, not alleged intelligence agency leaks, is what resembles Nazi practices. Our government now has an official Ministry of Propaganda and Disinformation. Stay strong, free press. Hold up the lantern of truth to reveal and unmask these lying scumbags.

http://www.mediaite....ellyanne-conway

#20 Niko

Niko
  • Watchdog
  • 2,127 posts

Posted 22 January 2017 - 03:07 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 22 January 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

Regarding Sean Spicer's tongue lashing/Press Conference.

I find it really telling that in your discussion of this, you COMPLETELY ignore the fact that Spicer was flat-out *LYING* about the numbers of people at the inauguration.  If Trump is willing to have Spicer stand up there and say that garbage about "most people ever" over something so ridiculously petty as number of people at his inauguration, what else is he going to be willing to lie about?  (Oh, wait, we kinda already know that from the election... E V E R Y T H I N G.)

Does it not bother you in the least that the man responsible for giving the press accurate information to report is lying?!?   I would have granted them a pass if they only talked about pictures being deceptive, or taken at different times, or whatever-the-hell they wanted to whine about, but when they start putting up completely spurious numbers and making flat-out false boasts about "the most people watched ever" when there are easily-checked numbers that say that is a falsehood... why does that not bother you?
- Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me.    (Matthew 25:40)

- Do not let kindness and truth leave you; Bind them around your neck, Write them on the tablet of your heart.  (Proverbs 3:3)




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users