Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

16 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

 Time to take a Trump break.

From your lips to God's ears, man, but alas the US Constitution says we got four more years of this, barring death, resignation, or impeachment (and then we get Pence, who is a tool as well, just a different kind)

Huge women's marches and rallies all across the world today .... at least 150K in Seattle ... hopefully that energy will rejuvenate the opposition down here.

9 minutes ago, johnzo said:

From your lips to God's ears, man, but alas the US Constitution says we got four more years of this, barring death, resignation, or impeachment (and then we get Pence, who is a tool as well, just a different kind)

Huge women's marches and rallies all across the world today .... at least 150K in Seattle ... hopefully that energy will rejuvenate the opposition down here.

I hear what you are saying, but it seems a bit early times right now.  If in 3 years people are protesting this hard, then it will be a one-term for Trump.  We shall see.

Edited January 22, 20179 yr by kelownabomberfan

KBF, you're right in one way ... this is all fresh and new and we'll see if this energy level is sustainable. People get distracted and complacent, especially lefties. Follow-through is not a strong suit here (and I say this as someone who's pretty left-wing.)  And even if there's a lot of enthusiasm, sometimes that isn't enough. This country re-elected Bush in 2004 despite very vigorous opposition by the left.  First election I ever volunteered for.  Lucky, life as a Bomber fan has conditioned me to heartbreak. 

In another way, you're wrong -- the US elects the entire Congress and a third of the Senate every two years.  Next federal election is next year in 2018. Plus there are regular state and local elections, which in a lot of ways are even more important than the federal elections. There is a ****-ton of democracy down here!  What I'm saying is, it won't take three whole years to see if that energy can be harvested to useful political purpose.

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

a lot of people couldn't get in due to the protesters.  At least that's what some are saying.  You can't believe anything anymore so who knows, and even better, who cares.  The fact that people are even debating the number of people who attended an Inauguration just shows there is way too much attention being given this stuff right now.  Time to take a Trump break.

According to an AP story, a law enforcement official told them that officials were "not aware of any issues with flow rate in and around the National Mall". And no one would be debating anything if Trump would put his ego aside for one minute. 

There were other indications to the small crowd:

Quote

THE FACTS: Trump is wrong. Photos of the National Mall from his inauguration make clear that the crowd did not extend to the Washington Monument. Large swaths of empty space are visible on the Mall.
Thin crowds and partially empty bleachers also dotted the inaugural parade route. Hotels across the District of Columbia reported vacancies, a rarity for an event as large as a presidential inauguration.
And ridership on the Washington's Metro system didn't match that of recent inaugurations.
As of 11 a.m. that day, there were 193,000 trips taken, according to the transit service's Twitter account. At the same hour eight years ago, there had been 513,000 trips. Four years later, there were 317,000 for Obama's second inauguration. There were 197,000 at 11 a.m. in 2005 for President George W. Bush's second inauguration.

Both quotes from: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/fact-check-trump-overstates-crowd-size-at-inaugural-1.3251734

Trump claimed the Metro's ridership was almost twice that number.

And now the small crowd at the inauguration can be compared to the huge crowd for the Women's March on Washington:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/womens-march-donald-trump-inauguration-sizes/index.html?sr=twCNN012117womens-march-donald-trump-inauguration-sizes0205PMStoryGal

This is my last post about the numbers but I don't think it's time to stop discussing Trump. His inauguration speech is worth discussing given the tone of it and his "America First" rhetoric. 

Edited January 22, 20179 yr by Jacquie

36 minutes ago, johnzo said:

 

In another way, you're wrong -- the US elects the entire Congress and a third of the Senate every two years.  Next federal election is next year in 2018. Plus there are regular state and local elections, which in a lot of ways are even more important than the federal elections. There is a ****-ton of democracy down here!  What I'm saying is, it won't take three whole years to see if that energy can be harvested to useful political purpose.

Johnzo - the DNC has a long way to go, that's for sure, and if they do start to turn things around in 2 years it will be a reversal of slide they have been on since 2009.

I found this stat somewhere out there on the internet.  As we all know you can't trust anything anymore, I don't know if this is true or not:

Quote

Under President Obama, Democrats have lost over 900 state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats.

If true, then it is panic time in the DNC right now.  I had a lot of people telling me before the election that the RNC was going to lose the White House, and both of the other houses as well.  That didn't happen.  So lots of work to do.

That doesn't sound like a fake number. The Democrats have been eating it lately.

A lot of their problems in the House are due to gerrymandering ... Republican state governments have arranged congressional districts along ridiculous partisan lines. But if the Democrats weren't getting trounced at the state level, the GOP wouldn't have that opportunity, so yeah, you're right. Lots of work to do.

15 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I found this stat somewhere out there on the internet.  As we all know you can't trust anything anymore, I don't know if this is true or not:

If true, then it is panic time in the DNC right now.  I had a lot of people telling me before the election that the RNC was going to lose the White House, and both of the other houses as well.  That didn't happen.  So lots of work to do.

Here's an interesting blog entry from a Washington Post opinion writer regarding that:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/11/04/how-badly-has-the-obama-era-damaged-the-democratic-party/?utm_term=.f3deb00afc09

If we were having this conversation in 2008 we'd be talking about how the Bush years destroyed the Republican party -- it's a very similar dynamic to 2016.  American politics, for the past couple of decades or so, have been extremely cyclical.

That said, it was Republican dominance in state governments in 2010 that allowed them to gerrymander the hell out of the House and cement their decade of dominance there.  If Democrats had more state game, the House would be in play. That's the important thing for the next four years -- make the Dems more competitive in the minors, make the federal House look more like the popular vote, and then start the sepinas.

As an example of gerrymandering: Pennsylvania has some seriously funky looking congressional districts.  Here's a map of how the southeast part of the state is carved up. Check out districts 7 and 16. Especially 7, it's the green area splotched at random through the southern half of the region.  In 2012, Dems won the popular vote 50-48 but only won 7/19 seats.  In 2016, the Dems had even bigger problems, they lost the popular congressional vote and got completely skunked, winning only 5/19.

So yeah, like KBF says, much work needs to be done on the Dem side.

 

 

Edited January 22, 20179 yr by johnzo

oil subsidies, IMF... they make it higher than one half trillion.

Trump makes George Bush junior seem like a genius.

4 hours ago, Mark F said:

oil subsidies, IMF... they make it higher than one half trillion.

Trump makes George Bush junior seem like a genius.

hmmm....well I worked at an oil company in Calgary and then audited many while working on my accounting degree, and I never saw any subsidies.  I did see a lot of money going to the government in form of royalties and income taxes.  Do you know what these subsidies are for?  Are they in the US only?

11 hours ago, Jacquie said:

Here's an interesting blog entry from a Washington Post opinion writer regarding that:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/11/04/how-badly-has-the-obama-era-damaged-the-democratic-party/?utm_term=.f3deb00afc09

interesting perspective, and definitely supports Johnzo's theory about the cyclical nature of US politics.  I think in Canada we follow similar cycles as well.  One thing seems pretty universal no matter where you go, after awhile, people want change.

It seems people want change after one day in office for Trump. His approval rating is one of the lowest ever for a new President & he's not making friends with any leaders internationally so he's going to have a rough ride with very few political friends & allies. The demonstrations in Washington & in the US yesterday. If anything, the demonstrations will increase & not subside. Yesterday, a reportedly very angry Trump marched out White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer to criticize & attack the media for reporting that the crowd for his inauguration was smaller than Obama's in 2009. If Trump thinks it's tough now just wait. It'll be interesting to see how Trump handles criticism. I suspect not very well.

Edited January 22, 20179 yr by SpeedFlex27

I always sort of hold out hope that Trump's ego will be better served in trying to be a good President for all. But then he just gets hung up on the silliest things and embarrassss himself. 

Sending his Press Secretary out to lie and attack media. Then his designated fixer Kellyann has to try and spin it. Which she's very very good at. 

But she basically admits that media reports that are negative to trump even when they are accurate will be met with lies from the other side to try and control the message. 

Embarrassing. When will Trump set up his own media?  In 7 years maybe the capital mysteriously burns down and he remains in power. Nah

51 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I always sort of hold out hope that Trump's ego will be better served in trying to be a good President for all. But then he just gets hung up on the silliest things and embarrassss himself. 

Sending his Press Secretary out to lie and attack media. Then his designated fixer Kellyann has to try and spin it. Which she's very very good at. 

But she basically admits that media reports that are negative to trump even when they are accurate will be met with lies from the other side to try and control the message. 

Embarrassing. When will Trump set up his own media?  In 7 years maybe the capital mysteriously burns down and he remains in power. Nah

She's given me an approach when I'm losing an argument or telling a fib.

'No I'm not wrong, we aren't lying, I'm presenting you with alternative facts'.

Ha ha.  He just can't let it go.  I do think that Rich's earlier post was spot on. I hope these people actually vote next time, if they didn't this time.

Fun times ahead in America 

10 minutes ago, bustamente said:

Fun times ahead in America 

no kidding.

Even on blogs and forums, people are going at it more than ever. Its getting very ugly already.

going to be some turbulence.

 

3 hours ago, Mark F said:

no kidding.

Even on blogs and forums, people are going at it more than ever. Its getting very ugly already.

going to be some turbulence.

 

 

I was watching The Dictator yesterday, and this speech really hit home...

 

What a way to undermine your Press Secretary on Day One.  He's now something akin to that Iraqi information minister who kept releasing statements saying how well the war was going for Iraq...

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I was watching The Dictator yesterday, and this speech really hit home...

 

Yikes never saw the movie but....

20 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

She's given me an approach when I'm losing an argument or telling a fib.

'No I'm not wrong, we aren't lying, I'm presenting you with alternative facts'.

From a serious point of view and not coming from any political stripe, this passive aggressive approach to packaging facts is very very troubling to me. Chuck Todd, in his words, was befuddled. This is exactly the intent of this approach. To befuddle the other.

I agree with others who have said the way to combat this is to immediately shut down the conversation and wish them a good day.

29 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

From a serious point of view and not coming from any political stripe, this passive aggressive approach to packaging facts is very very troubling to me. Chuck Todd, in his words, was befuddled. This is exactly the intent of this approach. To befuddle the other.

I agree with others who have said the way to combat this is to immediately shut down the conversation and wish them a good day.

Yes, without political bias, it is quite troubling how this administration is framing lies. There is lot of concerning discussion.